Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11022004 - C72 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP . Contra COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Costa DATE: November 2, 2004 County .7?. SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPT the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP). FISCAL IMPACT Note to the General Fund. if all necessary parties approve the CBPP, the County will be eligible to apply for bikeway grants from the State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) program, BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Earlier',this year the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)finalized and adopted the CBPP (see Exhibit A). In order to be eligible for state Bicycle Transpor,.ation Account (BTA) funds individual jurisdictions are required to adapt approved bicycle plans for their area. The recommended action fulfills this requirement. On a concurrent path, OCTA is obtaining the required Metropolitan Transportation Commission and California department of Transportation approvals for the plan. At this time the plan is being brought to the Board in the same form as approved by the CCTA Board in order to expedite processing enabling the County to apply for BTA funds in the current cycle. Applications for funds must be submitted to Caltrans by February 1, 2005. 'Previously, the Board of Supervisors authorized staff to incorporate the relevant portions of the CBPP into the County's General Plan. County staff will present those amendments to the General Plan in 2005. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION Failure to adopt this plan will prohibit the County from obtaining BTA funds during the currentcycle. �z h A � CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE l: f RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDA ION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ` OTHER S VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE `UNANIMOUS (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 Cunningham (925-335-1243) ; cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED J�tAA ' Steve Kowalewski, PWD JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF Brad Beck, CCTA (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BYJ . � E � , DEPUTY G:tTrensportation\Cu ening ham\bi kept an\ccc_bpp_adoptionlgreenie—bo\ccc_bpp_adoption.doe i r!M THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on December 17, 2003 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN Commissioners PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Julie Pierce, Chair Andrew Gaber,CCEAC Amy Worth,Vice Chair Nancy Baer, Community Wellness and Preven- Janet Abelson tion Program Charlie Abrams John Cunningham, Contra Costa County Maria Alegria Joe Yee, Contra Costa County (Alternate) Donald R Freitas Michael Boyce,East Bay Bicycle Coalition - John Gioia Steve Fiala,East Bay Regional Parks District Federal Glover Bart Carr, SWAT Citizen Brad Nix Tai Williams, Town of Danville, SWAT Staff Nancy Tatarka Andy Dillard, Town of Danville, SWAT Staff Kris Valstad Leah Greenblat, City of Lafayette SWAT Staff Staff (Alternate) - David Favello, TRANSPAC Citizen Robert K. McCleary, Executive Director Michael Vecchio, City of Walnut Creek, TRANS- Martin Engelmann,Deputy Director for Planning PAC Staff Brad Beck, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner john Hall, City of Walnut Creek, TRANSPAC Staff Jane Pennington,Administrative Assistant (Alternate) Dann Meyers, TRANSPLAN Citizen ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN Jeff Rogers, City of Antioch, TRANSPLAN Staff Paul Reinders, City of Pittsburg, TRANSPLAN Michael Jones, Principal Staff(Alternate) Mia Birk,Principal Jerry Rasmussen, WCCTAC Citizen Becky Choi, Senior Planner Lisa Hammon, WCCTAC Staff Brett Hondorp, Senior Planner Summer Brenner, WCCTAC Staff(Alternate) DOWLING AND ASSOCIATES Linda Young, WCCTAC Staff(Alternate) Gail Payne, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner ti ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WALKING AND BICYCLING ARE IMPORTANT development of a countywide bicycle plan. In transportation alternatives because they can help Spring 2001, the Authority began work on the improve the quality of our neighborhoods and Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian business districts, extend the range and useful- Plan (CBPP) to carry out the Authority's goals ness of public transit, help reduce motor vehicle and visions and to support biking and walking in trips, and promote the health of the community. Contra Costa. The 2000 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide This first CBPP is intended to outline bicycle Comprehensive aansportation Plan, adopted and pedestrian needs for Contra Costa; refine the by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Authority's goals and strategies as they apply to (OCTA) in July of 2000, recognized the impor- bicycling and walking; encourage local efforts to tance of bicycling and walking in Goal 36--ex- improve the environment for bicycling and walk- pand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives ing in the communities of Contra Costa; and spur to the single-occupant automobile—and in the greater interest in and support for bicycling and implementation chapter, which called for the walking generally. Coals and Policies To support the long-term vision of the 2000 Up- date and serve as the foundation for improving the safety and attractiveness of bicycling and ... walking in Contra Costa, the CBPP establishes five goals: 1. Expand, improve, and maintain facilities for p bicycling and walking 2. Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ( ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 _: . CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 3. Encourage more people to bicycle and walk 4. Support local efforts to encourage walking Y 'S and bicycling 5. Plan for the needs of bicyclists and pedestri- ans For each goal, the CBPP outlines policies and R k actions to achieve these goals.The Authority will use the goals, policies, and actions, as well as the other material in the CBPP, in its efforts to sup- port bicycling and walking in Contra Costa.Local ..* . jurisdictions are encouraged to embrace these goals, too. � �' - These goals, policies, and actions focus on achieving many of the objectives established in recent State, federal and local plans and poli- cies. The Regional Bicycle Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, for example,emphasizes the importance of bicycling 4 F and its rale in the well-being of the region. The Association of Bay Area Government's regional Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Foot- and bicycling. Much of Contra Costa was built print Project and the Shaping Our Future effort in over the past 50 years, often without sidewalks Contra Costa both focus on creating communities or room for bicycles. These existing development that are, among other things, more walkable and patterns can make it difficult to retrofit existing bicycle-friendly. Policies adopted by the U.S. De- streets and roads. partment of Transportation and Caltrans confirm Second, commuting statistics provide insight vital role that walking and bicycling play in our into who bicycles and walks to work now and transportation system and recommend positive who may do so in the future.The 2000 Census re- actions to incorporate those modes of travel into ported that 2,085 Contra Costa residents bicycle all transportation planning. to work, or about one-half of one percent of all commute trips.About three times as many people Background walk to work, about 1.5 percent of all commute trips. People who walk or bicycle to transit or ` Three important factors help shape the bicycling carpools, however, are not included in this esti- and walking environment in Contra Costa. First, mates,somewhat undervaluing the importance of the county's topography and land use patterns these two modes in the daily commute. Walking present both obstacles and opportunities for and bicycling are more important for other trips, walking and bicycling. The Mt. Diablo Range especially for doing errands, going to school, and and East Bav Hills are significant obstacles to making recreational trips. When those trips are bicyclists wanting to journey east to west through added in, the share of walking goes up to around Contra Costa. Many parts of Contra Costa, how- nine percent of all trips and bicycling to about 1.5 ever, are relatively level with a fairly benign percent.About 21,400 people are estimated to bi- environment which could encourage walking cycle every day, After implementing the projects iv ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY presented in this plan, this figure could increase resulted in 17 priority corridors across the county to over three times that amount. (not listed in order of priority): Third, safety, or the lack of it, can dissuade a Richmond BART Connector Bikeway(Rich people from walking and bicycling.Generally,pe- mond and San Pablo) destrians and bicyclists have greater probability 1 0 San Pablo Avenue Bikeway: South (Rich- of being in an accident than people in cars. Data mond and El Cerrito) can identify where pedestrians and bicyclists are involved in collisions in Contra Costa, but 0 Central 1-80 Bikeway (Contra Costa County, additional analysis is needed to understand the Pinole and Richmond) factors that contribute to them. a Crockett-Martinez Connector Bikeway (Con- tra Costa County and Martinez) 0 Contra Costa-Main Street Bikeway(Pleasant Bikeway Network Hill and Walnut Creek) Bicycling as a means of transportation has been a Central Pleasant Hill Bikeway(Pleasant Hill) ,growing in popularity as many communities w Contra Costa County Canal Trail Gap (Contra work to create more balanced transportation Costa County,Concord, and East Bay Region- systems and make streets more bicycle-friendly. al Parks District) A key reason for creating the cBpp is to define Concord-Clayton Bikeway(Concord and a functional network of countywide bikeways Clayton) which will help local jurisdictions integrate their 0 Concord-Pleasant Hill Bikeway (Concord and bikeway systems to the countywide and neigh- Pleasant Hill) boring networks. 0 Brentwood-Oakley Bikeway(Oakley and A bicycle-friendly environment requires more Brentwood) than just bike lanes. A mix of bikeways—shared 0 O'Hara-Minnesota Bikeway (Oakley and use paths, bike lanes, and bike routes—as well Brentwood) as parking, signage, and changing facilities a Pittsburg Loop Bikeway(Pittsburg) eliminates some of the inconvenience that could Buchanan Road Bikeway(Pittsburg and An- discourage some from bicycling more. Bike racks tioch) on buses, bike lanes as part of new subdivision 0 State Route 24 Bikeway (Orinda, Lafayette developments, and some important regional and Walnut Creek,Caltrans, and Contra Cos- trails are good signs that conditions are improv- to County) ing for bicyclists. Bicycling between and within 0 Lamorinda Linkages (Lafayette,Moraga and cities ,however, continues to be a challenge, safe Orinda) bicycle parking is in great demand, and shower 0 Rural Road Improvement Project (Contra Cos- and changing facilities for bicycle commuters are to County,Caltrans, and local jurisdictions) limited. 0 Completing Regional Trails (East Bay Re- The recommended countywide bikeway gional Parks District,Association of Bay Area network consists of over 600 miles of on- and Governments, and local agencies) off-street facilities. Of these on- and off-street bikeways, about 357 miles, or almost 60 percent, remains unbuilt.The projects needed to complete Pedestrian Network the network were ranked according to destina- tions they served, feasibility, degree of connec- At some point in each day, most of us are pedes- tivity, safety, and input from the public, and this trians, Whether strolling through a park, using a ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 V _ _ CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN wheelchair from BART to work, skateboarding to Links to Transit school, or walking to the post office, we all want functional pedestrian facilities.A number of ele- Improving links to transit can snake bicycling and ments are needed to achieve walkable places. In walking a larger part of daily life, enhance transit, addition to continuous sidewalk systems, safe and enrich communities.Transit can increase the roadway crossings, curb ramps, lighting, and at- range of travel for pedestrians and bicyclists by tractive streetscapes all enhance walking condi- overcoming barriers and hilly terrain, addressing tions. Traffic calming techniques can be applied personal security concerns, and enabling travel to lessen the negative effects of automobiles in at nighttime and during poor weather. Providing neighborhoods and provide better conditions for convenient transit services for bicyclists and pe- walking. destrians can attract new riders,expand weekend Developing a continuous pedestrian network ridership with recreational bicyclists, and lessen throughout Contra Costa will take a tremendous demand for automobile parking spaces.Making it =_ and concerted effort, but even small improve- easier to walk or bicycle to transit benefits com- ments that the local jurisdictions implement can munities by reducing air pollution, energy con- make a big difference. Local agencies are encour- sumption, and traffic congestion with relatively aged to consider pedestrian needs in all transpor- low cost investments. tation and land use planning activities and when Bicycle-to-transit and pedestrian-to-transit developing related policies. The cBpp also identi- users have various needs that can influence rid- fies two priority pedestrian programs: ership. Secure bike parking,connections to trails, and directional signage are just a few helpful 1. Designating and developing pedestrian dis- facilities. An analysis of the transit operators in tricts, and the county and existing station and transit center 2. Improving mobility for people of all abilities amenities showed many improvements over the consistent with the Americans with Disabili- past few years, particularly the provision of racks ties Act (ADA) improvements. on buses and increased bike parking. However, improvements at bus stops, access to transit cen- ters, and inadequate bike parking at some transit centers all need to be addressed. Transit agencies and local jurisdictions are encouraged to work to- gether to identify barriers and achieve solutions. Safety and Support " 1 Education, marketing, and law enforcement pro- grams help make the general public aware of bicy- cling and pedestrian issues. Targeted campaigns are beneficial to reach out to specific segments of the population such as children for rules-of-the- road courses, transportation planners and engi- neers for bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly design strategies, commuters for encouragement and incentive campaigns, and the general traveling public for safety awareness campaigns. A ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 __ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table E-1 Implementing Actions Authority Actions ■ Review Authority-sponsored projects to ensure that ■ Maintain and update the CBPP bicycle and pedestrian access is maintained or im- ■ Review Authority Programs to ensure that they do proved as these projects are developed not unintentionally discourage the development of ■ identify funding needs for bicycle and pedestrian local policies supporting bicycling and walking improvements in Contra Costa ■ Monitor bicycle and pedestrian usage and safety as Local Actions part of the Authority's on-going monitoring efforts ■ Identify projects, assess their feasibility, design, and ■ Provide a forum for developing countywide ap- seek funding proaches to improving bicycle and pedestrian mobil- ■ Review and revise local plans and policies to incor- ity and safety porate policies that promote development patterns Work with MTC and other regional agencies to en- that improve the safety and convenience of walking sure bicycle and pedestrian needs in Contra Costa and bicycling safer and more attractive are addressed ■ Develop local bicycle and pedestrian plans ■ Provide information to local agencies about ways to ■ Modify local ordinances, development standards and improve the environment for bicyclists and pedestri- gu'sdelines ans Supporting bicyclists and pedestrians can be for resolving countywide issues and building a achieved in many ways and several programs are consensus on countywide approaches. Local ju- recommended to help local agencies in this role. risdictions and agencies, however, will have the First, signing and stenciling increases motor- major responsibility for implementing the Plan. ist awareness of bicyclists and pedestrians and One of the key tasks for the Authority is to sup- provides direction and information. Second, pro- port the efforts of local jurisdictions. The CBPP viding ample bicycle parking, both lockers and identifies various possible local actions including racks,is a necessary amenity for bicyclists.Third, more local planning efforts, revised policies, and safe routes to schools programs can be used to cooperation among agencies, in addition to the educate children on safe bicycling and walking support of the Authority, to ensure successful practices, and to improve infrastructure in such implementation. Table E-I lists both Authority a way that children are more likely to bicycle or and local agency actions needed to carry out the walk to school. Finally, improving existing sub- CBPP. standard pathways and maintaining the bicycle To understand the financial scope of the CBPP, and pedestrian infrastructure in place will invite planning-level cost estimates were generated. more use from these investments. This estimate included the entire bicycle network and supporting facilities,pedestrian projects,and other recommended programs.The totals are list- It`nil�lt7@l1t�#lOC1 ed in Table II, below. Achieving the goals and carrying out the policies Funding over $230 million in projects over of this CBPP will require concerted efforts from the next 20 years will be a real challenge. The many groups, agencies, and individuals. The plan estimates that somewhere between$101 and Authority; as it has in taking the lead in develop- $198 million in federal, State, and local funding ing the CBPP, will need to continue as a forum sources might be available for funding bicycle, e, ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 vii CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN r pedestrian, and supporting transportation prof- Table E-11 Summary of Estimated ects and programs. While a deficit of between Project Costs to Implement CBPP � $33 and $130 million would remain, between 44 percent and 86 percent of the projects and ��d�Ter programs identified in the Plan might be funded. Remaining Bikeway System $19,761,000 Only some of this funding, however, is specih- Pestnr trs ` 18,186 ,` cally set aside for bicycle and pedestrian facilities � . -_� . .. and programs. For other sources of funding, bi- On-going Support $1,000,000 cycle and pedestrian facilities must compete with a variety of other transportation purposes. Both dotal( 20°lo contingency) $ 31,12,000 the Authority and.local agencies have to balance the demands for bike lanes, sidewalks and cross- walks, and safe routes to school with demands to on ADA requirements and recommendations.Ap- ' maintain our streets and roads, enhance transit pendia C is a description of the bicycle demand service, increase commute alternatives, manage model which calculates a more accurate estimate congestion and others equally compelling needs. of the number of daily bicyclists and a predicted number of bicyclists as a result of improvements. Appendix D is a summary of various funding Appendices sources, contacts, eligible applicants, and eli- Several appendices are attached that contain Bible projects. Appendix E contains both the us supportive information for parts of this CBPP. DOT policy statement and the Caltrans Deputy Appendix A includes planning and design rec- Directive (DD-44) for integrating bicycling and ommendations for bicycle facilities, including walking into the transportation infrastructure. on- and off-street bikeways, parking, intersec- Appendix F lists projects that are being pursued tion design, and signing. Appendix B pertains by local jurisdictions and agencies in addition to to pedestrian facilities with particular emphasis those projects listed within the flan. V VIII ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, 2003 Cu" NTENTS Executive Summary iii Background 15 Goals and Policies iii Physical Attributes 16 Background iv Patterns of Development 16 Bikeway.Network v Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel 17 Pedestrian Network v Current Commuting Statistics 17 Links to Transit vi Future Commuting Potential 20 Safety and Support vi Collision Analysis 2€I Implementation vii Pedestrian Collisions 21 Appendices viii Bicycle Collisions 22 Bicyclist Needs 23 Introduction 1 Purpose of the flan 1 Bikeway Network 23 Identifying Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs 2 Existing Bicycle Facilities 24 Identifying a Countywide System 2 Signage 25 Setting Priorities 3 Parking 26 Expanding Funding Eligibility 3 Showers and Changing Facilities 27 Local Momentum 3 Proposed Bicycle Network 28 Outreach Efforts 4 Creating a Countywide Bikeway System 28 Updating the CBPP 5 System Description 29 Bikeway List 41 Goals and Policies 7 End of Trip Facilities 41 Goals and Policies 7 Priority Corridors 45 Relationship to Other Plans and Policies 11 Local Plans 12 Pedestrian Network 75 Regional Plans 12 Pedestrian Needs 75 Federal and State Policies 14 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 76 Existing Pedestrian Facilities 76 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ! ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Recommended Improvements 77 Intersection Considerations A-5 , Improve Sidewalks 77 Bike box A-5 Improve Pedestrian Crossings 78 Trail/Roadway intersections A-5 Provide Sidewalk Buffers 79 Other signage A-7 Ensure Connectivity 79 Pavement Markings A-9 Improve The Streetscape 80 Bike Stencil Route A-9 Apply Traffic Calming 82 Blue Bike Lanes A-9 Identify and Improve Pedestrian Districts 82 Parking A--9 Attended Bicycle Parking Facilities A-10 Links to Transit 89 Maintenance A-10 Transit Rider Needs 89 Liability A-11 Safe Routes To and From Transit 90 Model Bicycle Ordinance A-12 Station.and Stop Amenities 90 Resources A-27 Pedestrian and Bicycle-friendly Transit Design And Engineering Standards A-27 Vehicles 90 General Planning Resources A-27 Current State of Transit Links 91 Policies A-27 Bike Parking and Storage 92 Trail Planning A-27 Recommended Improvements 93 Innovative Designs and Ideas A-28 Bicycle-Related Programs A-28 Safety and Support 97 Organizations A-28 Existing Programs 97 Accessibility Guidelines B-1 Educational Programs 97 Promotion 98 Pedestrian Manning and Design B-1 Law Enforcement 99 Sidewalks B-2 Projects 99 Grade&Cross Slope B-3 Maintenance 109 Surface Material B-3 :.._ Improvements 109 Intersections B---5 Ramps B-5 Implementation 115 Crosswalks B-8 Implementation Tasks 115 Signals B-10 Local Actions 116 Other Intersection Improvements B--11 Regional and State Actions 118 Streetscape B-11 Plan Cost Estimates 118 Pedestrian Signs B-14 Funding 121 Maintenance B-14 Federal 124 Resources B-15 State 124 Design and Engineering and Guidelines B-15 Local Funding 125 General Planning Resources B-16 Policies B-16 Bikeway Planning and Design A-1 Innovative Treatments B-16 Bikeway Classification Descriptions A-1 Traffic Calming B-16 Class I Bikeway A-1 Programs B-16 Class II Bikeway A-3 Organizations B--16 Class III Bikeway A-4 Bike Boulevards A-4 X ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 r; TABLE OF CONTENTS � Bicycle Demand Forecasting Model C-1 Undercounting C-1 Improving Fernand Estimates C-2 Bikeway Investments and Usage C-2 FundingSources D--1 U.S. DOT Policy Statement and Caltrans' Deputy Directive 64 E-w1 r Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: a Recommended Approach E-2 Introduction E-2 The Challenge:Balancing Competing Interests E-4 Policy'Statement E-8 Policy Approach E-7 Actions E--8 Conclusion E-9 E Deputy Directive Number:DD-84 E-10 Local Projects F-1 See the accompanying CD for the atlas of existing and planned bikeways Local Adoption of Plan G-1 Review of Local Bicycle Plans G--2 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 X1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN • Identify a countywide system of bikeways and trian facilities for the next 25 years within Contra pedestrian districts and needed projects and Costa. programs to encourage bicycling and walking The current Measure C set aside about half ■ Establish criteria for allocating countywide a percent of expected sales tax revenues to fund funding and set priorities for bicycle and pe- regional trail and bicycle facilities. The recently destrian improvements using those criteria renewed Measure B in Alameda County allocated Provide local agencies that adopt the CBPP over five percent of expected revenues for bicycle with eligibility for various funding programs, and pedestrian projects and programs, which including the State Bicycle Transportation Ac- could total$100 million over 20 years or about$5 count(BTA) million annually. Measure B, approved by Santa ■ Act as a resource and coordinating document Clara County voters in 1996, will allocate $12 for local actions million towards projects identified in the county- wide bicycle plan. The Authority is currently considering three alternative Expenditure Plans IDENTIFYING BICYCLE AND PEDES- that allocate between zero and five percent for TRIAN NEEDS bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (The estimate of To encourage walking or bicycling, people need potential funding in the Implementation chapter safe, direct and clearly demarcated sidewalks, assumes this range.) trails, and bicycle facilities, as well as support programs and urban design and a mix of land uses that brings people and their destinations IDENTIFYING A COUNTYWIDE SYSTEM closer together. The CBPP outlines a broad range A key purpose of the CBPP is to identify a func- of actions to meet this goal, from the completion tional countywide network of important bike- of specific bikeway segments to increased safety ways. This network would help tie together the education. The chapters on bikeways, pedestrian communities and regions of Contra Costa, with needs, safety and security, and transit access list functional connections to pedestrian districts, important projects or programs that support those schools, shopping areas, job centers), transit areas of concerns; the implementation chapter hubs, and other destinations. Completion of fa- gives a rough estimate of the costs of carrying out cilities on the countywide bikeway network and those projects and programs. The estimated cost, improvement of pedestrian access to and within however,far outstrips our current funding ability, pedestrian districts and transit centers would go especially given other competing mobility needs. a long way toward making bicycling and walking One potential new source of funding for bicy- more attractive to more people. cle and pedestrian projects is the renewal of Mea- This countywide network,however,will need sure C.The original measure,approved by Contra to be supported by an expanded system of local Costa voters in 1988, established a half-cent sales connections to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian tax to fund transportation improvements and movement. A link between regional bikeways growth management programs. The Authority and transit stations, for example-such as, the is charged with implementing Measure C and is connection between the Iron Horse Trail and the currently developing an Expenditure Plan for the Walnut Creek BART station---would significantly extension of Measure C, which it hopes to put on enhance mobility for both bicyclists and transit the November 2004 ballot.The CBPP can help the users, whether they use the designated county- Authority put together the proposed Expenditure wide system or not. Plan by estimating the costs of bicycle and pedes- 2 ADOPTED DECEMBER 23, 2003 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION While the plan identifies preliminary loca- Transportation Plan that meets the requirements tions for unconstructed parts of the countywide set forth in Section 891.2 of the California Streets bikeway network,much work is needed to define and Highways Code. These requirements, and their final alignments. Local agencies will need where in the plan they are addressed, are listed to work with each other and with local citizens on the following page. and businesses to define alignments that both In addition to helping local jurisdictions estab- are feasible and meet the needs of bicyclists and fish eligibility for BTA funds, the CBPP will help pedestrians and local communities. The ultimate identify needs and set priorities for other funds. alignments of these "missing links", especially Currently, the Authority has set aside funds from given the difficulties of developing them,may fol- the State Transportation Improvement Program low other streets,roads and trails than are shown for bicycle and pedestrian projects and the CBPP on the Countywide Bikeway Network. will define the criteria for allocating that funding. Identification of projects in the CBPP can help jurisdictions within Contra Costa obtain funding SETTING PRIORITIES from other sources as well.These include Califor- A basic purpose for any plan is to formulate pri- nia's Safe Routes to Schools program(which was orities to ensure that the plan's goals and policies recently extended to 2005) to provide money for are achieved most effectively, especially when construction projects that enhance bicycle and considering how best to allocate limited fund- pedestrian safety in the vicinity of schools, and ing. The Authority hopes to use the priorities for Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) bicycle and pedestrian projects established in the regional discretionary funds that may be applied CBPP when considering allocations of funding towards bicycle and pedestrian projects. under its control. jurisdictions should consider amending these priorities as part of local adoption of the CBPP to EXPANDING FUNDING ELIGIBILITY respond to their local needs and circumstances. By creating a plan that establishes project pri- LOCAL MOMENTUM orities, the Authority can help local agencies im- prove their chances to compete for various fund- ing programs. By showing that a project meets The Contra Costa Transportation Authority is the criteria established in the CBPP, or is on or responsible for distributing transportation funds supports the Countywide Bikeway Network, a and serving as the Congestion Management project's sponsor may improve the chances that Agency (CMA) for Contra Costa County, One of that project will receive funding, the goals of this CBPP is to take input from the One of the key reasons for preparing the CBPP public, local jurisdictions, transit agencies, and is to provide local jurisdictions with eligibility for other interested groups, and to provide resources funding through the Bicycle Transportation Ac- and tools for local agencies to adopt more bicycle- Count (BTA),. (Caltrans has allocated about $7.2 and pedestrian-friendly policies and practices. million statewide each year through this pro- The recommended policies, implementation gram.) This funding program, which is adminis- strategies, design standards, and other items il- tered by Caltrans, supports projects that improve lustrated in this Plan can make this task easier for the safety and mobility of bicycle commuters. decision makers. For a city or county to be eligible for BTA funds, the jurisdiction must have an adopted Bicycle ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 3 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Caltrans Section 891.2 Requirement Addressed on pages: # ` Num& r of existin ;and future=bicycle crsrximuters '�9-23. Land use and settlement patterns 18-21 Existing and proposed 1SFkvvays 25- 6 Existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities 28-30,48-76, 106-107 existing andropised.conrictions`to othei transportation modes 48-49,;91-98 Facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment 30,48 8icvtle safety and education Program . 9 116 Extent of citizen and community involvement 4-5 f rs€rdination.and consistentvvith other local or regional trensporta- titin,air quality,:or.energy.conservation plans i Projects proposed in the plan and their priority for implementation 30-76, 101--116 .Past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs 121--129 Outreach Efforts County (San Pablo). A set of introductory public For the CBPP to be successful, policy makers, meetings was held in August 2001 to discuss advocacy groups, agency staff members, and the the background, goals, and purpose of the Flan. public must support its recommendations.Level- Following the initial meetings, an Issues and oping the CBPP involved the assistance of local Options Report was prepared, the first product jurisdictions, the Regional Transportation Plan- in the development of the CBPP. The Issues and ping Committees (RTPCs), Contra Costa County's Options Report described and analyzed existing Community Development Department, the East and planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Bay Regional Park District, and other groups. the County, support facilities and programs, and The Authority's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory existing plans, policies, and standards.Following Committee (BPAC) of city and citizen representa- completion of the Issues and Options Report, a tives met regularly to discuss the development of second series of public meetings were held in the plan. January 2002 to discuss the findings.The final set Preparation of the CBPP has included three of workshops was held in January 2003 to pres- sets of public meetings to obtain input from resi- ent the draft CBPP to attendees and to hear their dents,with meeting locations in East County(An- comments. The final CBPP reflects the comments tioch), Central County (Pleasant Hill), and West 4 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 - CHAP'T'ER 1 INTRODUCTION � heard at all of these workshops as well as other outreach efforts. For example, survey questionnaires were prepared and distributed throughout Contra Costa to obtain input on bicycling and pedestrian preferences and needs. Surveys were distributed - through bike shops, health clubs, libraries, Bike to Work Day stations, and local bicycle advocacy and recreational groups.A total of 232 bicycle and 71 pedestrian survey responses were received. Finally,the Authority posted updates,meeting notices, survey forms, and documents on its Web site (www.ccta.net) to keep the public informed on the CBPP's progress and ways to offer input. Updating the CBPP To provide continuing eligibility for BTA funds, as well as to reflect changing conditions within Contra Costa, the Authority intends to update the CBPP regularly, consistent with the Caltrans requirements for these funds. The plan calls for the Authority to work with local jurisdictions and agencies and with local bicyclists and pedestri- ans to review the CBPP periodically and to refine it to reflect changing needs, the completion of projects, the identification of new projects, and other changes in funding,costs,supporting facili- ties and the like. We hope that Contra Costans continue to take an interest in the CBPP and help the Authority improve the environment for bicycling and walk- ing in the county. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN , 6 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 l; CHAPTER 2 GOALS AND POLICIES Strive to preserve and enhance the gual- policies established in this chapter will expand ity of life and promote a healthy, strong on those strategies, delineating more detailed ap- econony to benefit the people and areas preaches to making walking and bicycling safer, of Contra Costa, sustained by 1)a bal- more convenient and more attractive for more anced, safe and efficient transportation people in Contra Costa. network, 2) cooperative planning; and 3) growth management. The transportation network should integrate highways, local Goals and Policies streets and roads, public transit, and pe- To support the lung-term vision of the 2000 Up- destrian and bicycle facilities to meet the date and serve as the foundation for improving diverse needs of Contra Costa. the safety and attractiveness of bicycling and walking in Contra Costa, the Countywide Bicycle This Vision, as established in the 2000 Update and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) establishes five goals. to the Contra Costa Countvtwide Comprehensive For each goal, policies and action strategies out- 'T'ransportation Plan, embodies the Authority's line steps that can be used to achieve these goals, fundamental aims for travel and movement in The Authority will use the goals, polices and ac- Contra Costa. In the goals and specific strate- tions, as well as the other material in the CBPP, gies outlined in the 2000 Update, the Authority in its efforts to support bicycling and walking in recognizes that promoting biking and walking as Contra Costa. The CBPP will also serve as a re- viable modes of transportation will,be essential source for local agencies. The Authority eneour- in making this Vision a reality, Goal #3 in the ages local agencies to adopt the goals, policies 2000 Update is to "expand safe, convenient and and actions in the CBPP, with any additions and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant au- other modifications agencies feel are necessary to tornobile" and the 2000 Update outlines several reflect their situation. strategies to carry out that goal. The goals and CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ANIS PEDESTRIAN PLAN I ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, 2003 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FLAN -' GOAL 1 Policy 1.3 Determine funding needs for expand- ing and improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities, Expand, improve and. Maintain Facilities and support local efforts to find, apply for, and re- for Bicycling and Walking ceive funding to meet those needs. While a number of important bicycle and pe- destrian facilities exist in Contra Costa, many Policy 1.4 Use the Countywide Bicycle and Pe- that are currently in place have significant gaps destrian Plan to guide how best to allocate fund- and major barriers--such as waterways and ing under the control of the Authority for regional highways--that further inhibit movement. Bike or countywide bicycle and pedestrian projects and lanes and sidewalks alone do not provide a good programs, while allowing jurisdictions flexibility in bicycle and pedestrian network. Other improve- funding local projects. ments—such as signs, maps, curb ramps, and traffic signals—complement the basic infrastruc- Policy 1.5 Encourage routine maintenance of tune and improve its functioning and usefulness. bikeway and walkway network facilities, as funding The following policies are recommendations for and priorities allow, including regular sweeping of providing a truly comprehensive and functional bikeways and shared use pathways. Programs to network. The following policies will guide the support these maintenance efforts could include: r development of a connected countywide bicycle network, provide missing links in the pedestrian * Sidewalk repair programs, which could include system, and encourage bicycle and pedestrian incentives to property owners to improve adjoin- provisions in development. ing sidewalks beyond any required maintenance Policy 1.1 Describe a system of bicycle facilities On-line forms for the general public to report and key attractors of bicycle and pedestrian traffic, problems including: * "Adopt a Trail" programs that involve volunteers * Existing and future bicycle facilities of county- for trail clean-up and other minor maintenance - wide importance (the Countywide Bicycle Net- work) * Enforce sweeping requirement of towing com- panies after automobile accidents to clean the • Other, more local bicycle facilities that intercon- roadway of glass and other debris that might nett with and support the Countywide Bicycle damage bicycle tires Network Policy 1.6 Include the costs of major maintenance * Programmatic needs for improving pedestrian needs of bicycle and pedestrian facilities when cal- and bicycle access to and within transit stations culating the maintenance needs of streets and road- and centers, schools, job centers, and other ac- ways generally. tivity centers and facilities Policy 1.2 Identify gaps in the Countywide Bicycle Network, and needed improvements to and within pedestrian districts and key activity centers, and de- fine priorities for eliminating these gaps and making needed improvements. g ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 2 GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL 2 tance such as those programs included with the Improve Safety for Bicyclists and National Bicycle Safety Network Pedestrians Concern for one's safety deters many people from GOAL 3 walking and bicycling, and with good cause. For Encourage More People to Bicycle and example, of the 3,753 people killed in traffic ac- Walk cidents in California in the year 2000, almost 18 percent were pedestrians, far above their share In addition to providing safe, direct facilities, of trips. Motorists need to recognize the rights of agencies can help encourage more people to bicyclists and pedestrians, and pedestrians and make walking and bicycling an everyday activ- bicyclists'need to understand and obey the rules; ity through information, training, and even per- generally,greater consideration of and respect for suasion. Maps can help people find safe, direct other users of the street and trail system will con- routes, for example, and training on hove to ride tribute to safer conditions. safely can give people more confidence. These In addition to improving and expanding facili- policies address techniques that could encourage ties for bicycling and walking, implementations of more people to walk or bicycle beyond their cur- the following policies will help gauge safety and rent levels. offer methods to improve everyone's safety. Policy 3.1 Work with local and regional agencies Policy 2.1 Monitor and evaluate information on to develop useful and cost-effective programs to collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians and encourage more people to walk and bicycle. These provide this information to local agencies to assist in programs could include: remedying existing problem locations. Providing maps,trip planning services, and other Policy 2.2 Work with Contra Costa County on a "wayfinding" methods countywide collision data analysis program that will generate collision rates useful for planning purpos- * Supporting programs, such as "safe routes to es. school" maps and "bike trains" or "walking school buses" for elementary students, that Policy 2.3 Support the development and imple- would encourage more students to walk or bi- mentation of effective programs to educate drivers, cycle to school bicyclists, and pedestrians as to their rights and re- sponsibilities, and adult and youth pedestrian and Continuing the encouragement of bicycling and mm bicycle education and safety programs, including: walking as part of transportation demand man- agement and commute alternatives programs Enforcement of pedestrian- and bicycle-related laws by local police departments i Providing information on the rights and respon- sibilities of all users of the transportation system * Teaching of bicycle and pedestrian safety to school children and drivers Policy 3.2 Encourage traffic calming, intersection improvements, or other similar actions that improve ■ Informing interested agencies and organizations safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. about available educational materials and assis- ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, 2003 9 ger CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN; GOAD., 4 Sponsoring or supporting efforts to identify, de- ,.i, Support Focal Efforts to Encourage fine and implement multi-jurisdictional projects i � Walking and Bicycling and programs Ft_,v An ideal transportation system would include Policy 4.3 Work with a committee of local agency safe and clearly marked sidewalks, bike facilities staff and bicyclists and pedestrians to develop, up- and trails that connect neighborhoods, shopping, date and help implement the Countywide Bicycle work and school. These facilities would provide and Pedestrian Flan. The CBPP will be updated at mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists both with- least as often as necessary to maintain eligibility for in each cite or town and throughout the county. BTA funding. As part of the periodic update of the Building such a system will require the concerted CBPP, the committee will: efforts of local governments to work with citizens and businesses within their jurisdiction and to Review, assess, and recommend, where neves- - work together with adjoining jurisdiction to coor- sary, refinements to the goals, policies, and ac- dinate the development of bicycling and walking tions in Contra Costa. The Authority will work to sup- port and coordinate these local efforts. Review and reevaluate the Countywide Bicycle =. Network, identified pedestrian districts, and Policy 4.1 Work with local agencies to develop a priorities for completing and improving the net- coordinated countywide approach to signage. This work and districts system could include: ■ Update information on projects, routes, and • Directional and destination signs along bikeways other actions and shared use trails • Identify new or remaining issues that could be i ■ Location maps in downtown areas and other resolved through countywide efforts major pedestrian districts . Policy 4.4 Support local efforts to refine their de- ■ A route identification system and common set of velopment standards to require the construction of signs for the Countywide Bicycle Network bicycle and pedestrian facilities, where warranted, as a condition of approval of new development or Polity 4.2 Provide a forum for local jurisdictions major redevelopment projects. This support could and agencies to discuss and help resolve bicycle include providing information useful to local agen- and pedestrian issues of mutual concern and to cies in planning, designing, and implementing im- develop countywide or subregional approaches that provements to the bicycle and pedestrian network, could help overcome obstacles standing in the way including, but not limited to. of achieving the goals of this plan. This work could include: • Available funding programs • Organizing countywide training workshops for ■ Model zoning and subdivision ordinance lan- local engineers and planners to learn about re- guage cent recommendations, methods to expand the bikeway and pedestrian system, and funding op- Guidelines and standards for bicycle and pedes- portunities trian facilities 10 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 2 GOALS ANIS POLICIES ■ Monitoring of bicycle- and pedestrian-related when planning, designing, and developing trans- collision levels portation improvements. Such accommodation could include: GOAL 5 Reviewing capital improvement projects to make Plan for the Needs of Bicyclists and sure that needs of non-motorized travelers Pedestrians (including pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with disabilities) are considered in program- As noted in the FxwA's Policy Statement on In- ming, planning, maintenance, construction, tegrating Bicycling and Walking into Transporta- operations, and project development activities tion Infrastructure, "ongoing investment in the and products Nation's transportation infrastructure is still more likely to overlook rather than integrate bicyclists Incorporating sidewalks, bike paths, bike lanes, and pedestrians." When the needs of bicyclists crosswalks, pedestrian cut-throughs, or other and pedestrians are overlooked, improvements bicycle and pedestrian improvements into new designed to benefit automobiles, trucks or transit projects - may worsen travel for bicyclists and pedestrians. Considering, and making accommodations for, Providing safe and convenient alternatives when bicycle and pedestrian mobility and safety in bicycle or pedestrian facilities are removed the planning and designing of new or improved transportation facilities can help benefit all Accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians as modes of travel. well as for vehicles during construction of trans- The goal is that all new construction and re- portation improvements and other development construction projects incorporate bicycle and pe- projects destrian ways. That, however, is not always pos- sible.Roadways where bicyclists and pedestrians Policy 5.2 Support the incorporation of bicycle are prohibited, for example, need not include and pedestrian facilities into other capital improve- sidewalks or bike lanes. On the other hand, their ment projects, where appropriate, to expand bi- design or construction should not cut off exist- cycle-pedestrian facilities, harmonize the needs of ing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities. all travel modes, and achieve economies of scale Where demand for bicycling or walking is law, or where the cost to provide them is excessive, agencies may need to find alternative ways of ac- Relationship to Other Plans and commodating their needs. Finally, most agencies Policies in Contra Costa must deal with existing roadways with limited right-cif-way and established land The CBPP will build upon local plans and poli- uses adjoining them. "Retrofitting" sidewalks, cies, including local General Plans and specific bike lanes and other such facilities while accom- bicycle or pedestrian plans and Federal, State, modating vehicular movement can be a major and regional plans, policies, and programs. The challenge,involving significant compromises. countywide effort also coordinates with regional efforts such as the EBRD is Master Plan and MTC's Policy 5.1 Accommodate, and encourage other Regional Bicycle Plan. Other bikeway plans such agencies to accommodate, the needs for mobility, as the East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan accessibility, and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians were developed to qualify the local jurisdictions ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 1� CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN for Caltrans' Bicycle Transportation Account REGIONAL PLANS _. (BTA) funds. The general plans of most jurisdic- tions also address bicycling and walking issues in MTC Regional Bicycle Plan (2001) their circulation elements. By supporting walkable communities and the The Metropolitan Transportation Commission greater use of bicycling and transit--two of the (MTC) sponsored the first bicycle plan for the key "smart growth" objectives----the CBPP would entire nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. The also support two "smart growth" projects cur- regional bicycle network and lists of priority proj- rently under development. "Shaping Our Future" ects were derived through adopted county plans. is a planning effort of Contra Costa County and Because Contra Costa was the only county not to the 19 jurisdictions that will help to manage have an adopted plan, a placeholder was added future growth through efficient land use, pre- until the County plan was adopted.This plan will serving neighborhoods, reducing traffic conges- be updated every three years in relation to the Re- tion, improving transit, preserving open spaces, gional Transportation Plan. and redeveloping depressed business districts. The "Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Footprint Project" is a planning effort of the As- sociation of Bay Area Governments, Metropoli- plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standardtan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Air (2001) (duality Management District, Bay Conservation Although the San Francisco Bay Area has made and Development Commission, Regional Water noteworthy progress towards reducing emis- Quality Control Board,and the Bay Area Alliance sions, the area failed to meet the BPA criteria for for Sustainable Development. The goals of this one-hour ozone standards in 1999 and 2000.This Project will address smart growth policies and 2001 plan amends the 1999 plan by revising ele- incentives for the Bay Area. ments that BPA disapproves and adding control measures to increase the chances of meeting the one-hour ozone standard in the future. Once the LOCAL PLANS plan is approved, it will become part of the Cali- All jurisdictions within Contra Costa have adopt- forma State Implementation Plan. ed policies that support bicycling and walking in This update includes five additional transpor- their communities. Most of these goals and poli- tation control measures (TCMs). Among these is cies are part of jurisdiction's transportation or cir- TCM B, the Bicycle/Pedestrian Program, which culation element in their General Plans, although is the funding of high priority projects listed bicycle and pedestrian provisions are also promi- in countywide bicycle plans. This TCM will be -' neat in Urban Design, Downtown, and Land Use implemented after MTC allocates $15 million in General Plan elements. These elements of the TDA Article 3 funding. local General Plans often establish policies that support bicycling and walking, identify a bike- way network and needed pedestrian facilities, East Bay Regional Park District Master pian and call for the development of more detailed (1997) bicycle or pedestrian circulation.plans. Costa County does not have a countywide park Some jurisdictions in Contra Costa also have and trails agency, so EBRPD functions in that separate bicycle, pedestrian, or trail plans (see rale. The District has an adopted 1997 Master Table 1 for a list of separately adopted plans). Plan with existing and proposed regional parks 12 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 2 GOALS AND POLICIES i Table 1 Bicycle, Pedestrian, &Trail Plans in Contra Costa These plans are in addition to the General Plan elements already adopted by local jurisdictions. Jurisdiction Separately Adopted Bicycle or Pedestrian Plans Bicycle Pedestrian 1 ntlach : East Contra Costa un1 Bikeway Plan 0001) Brentwood East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan (2001) Brentwood Bicycle Transportation Plan(1995) #aytc r . Clayton Tr6i(s Plan 0994) l Concord Concord Trails Master Plan(2003) # County Corttra.Costa Cnunty.Trail Review Study(2:007) *. ontra Costa County Trail Deign; xideli es 200 1)} c Danville Townwide Trails Master Plan* * � EBRPD East Bay Ro atlAl Parr District Master Plan(199' El Cerrito Contra Costa County Trail Review Study(2001) sk Latayett pity of Lfayetti#aster tlUaika}+Plan(7 993) eneralikeinrayP#sn(1985) Oakley East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan(2001) � Oakley Trails Master Plan(1993) Pittsburg East Contra Costa Cauntr. ikeway Plan(2001) �k Note: "NA"means that a bicycle or pedestrian plan has not been developed in these jurisdictions during the 1990s, 2000, or 2001. Local general plans,however, usually include policies on bicycles, Pedestrians, or both. *Currently being updated as part of the new Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. and trails.. The trails are designed to connect or routes. The Bay Trail designated a "spine" for parrs and communities and use publicly awned a continuous through-route around the Bay and rights-of-way in cooperation with other agencies "spurs" for shorter routes to Bay resources. The in order to develop a system of trail networks goals of the Plan include providing connections which serve bath non-motorized transportation to existing park and recreation facilities, creating and recreation opportunities. links to existing and proposed transportation fa- cilities, and preserving the ecological integrity of the Bays and their wetlands.The bicycle network The Bay'frail flan (1989) in this plan will ensure connectivity to the Bay The Bay 'frail Plan proposes the development 'frail. of a paved regional hiking and bicycling trail around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Approximately one-half of the 400- Area Ridge Trail {198;:} toile trail has been constructed, either hiking The Bay Area Ridge Trail is a 400-mile multi- and bicycling paths or as on-street bicycle lanes use trail, mostly unpaved, connecting parks and ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 13 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN open spaces along the ridgelines surrounding the "The Department fully considers the needs San Francisco Bay. Over 215 miles of the trail of non-motorized travelers (including have been completed. Six trails in Contra Costa pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with �.. are planned to complete the Ridge Trail in the disabilities) in all programming, plan- county: Mission Peak to Vargas Plateau, Vargas ning, maintenance, construction, opera- Plateau to Garin/Dry Greek Pioneer, Garin/Dry tions and project development activities Creek Pioneer to Chabot, Kennedy Grove to So- and products. This includes incorporation brante Ridge, Sobrante Ridge to Carquinez Strait, of the best available standards in all the and Briones to Martinez Shoreline. Department's practices. The Department adopts the best practice concepts in the US DOT Policy Statement on Integrating FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure." US DOT's Accommodating Bicycle and Pedes- Irian Travel It is not clear what the effect of these policy 'Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: directives will be on the planning, design, and A Recommended Approach" is a policy state- funding of new transportation facilities. Al- ment that was adopted by the U.S. Department though the USDOT policy encourages agencies of Transportation(USDOT)in response to TEA-21. and organizations to adopt this position, it does USDOT encourages public agencies, professional not state the possible repercussions if it is not organizations, advocacy groups, and any other embraced. Similarly, it is not certain how the groups involved in transportation issues to adopt Caltrans policy directive would apply to local this policy to further promote bicycling and jurisdictions or to streets that are not classified walking as viable components of the trar3spor- as"highways."Nonetheless,these policies reflect tation system. The four directives issued in this the growing concern that public agencies have policy statement address measures to improve shown to accommodate the needs of pedestrians bicycle and pedestrian access, convenience, and and bicyclists in the design and operation of the safety in transportation projects. transportation system. The policy can be found The policy statement notes that, "the chal- in its entirety in Appendix E. lenge for transportation planners, highway en- gineers and bicycle and pedestrian user groups, therefore,is to balance their competing interest in Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 211 (ACR a limited amount of right-of-way,and to develop a 211) transportation infrastructure that provides access California's cities and counties have even more - for all, a real choice of modes, and safety in equal reason to pay attention to the two aforementioned measure for each anode of travel." The policy can policies. ACR 211 (Nation) "Integrating walking be found in its entirety in Appendix E. and biking into transportation infrastructure„ became effective in August 2002, and encourages all cities and counties to implement the policies Caltrans bb-64 of DD-64 and the USDOT design guidance docu- Caltrans recently adopted a policy directive— ment when building local transportation infra- Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64)—related to non-mo- structure. torized travel that reads: 14 ADOPTED DECEMBER 37, 2003 CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND THIS CHAPTER EXAMINES THREE IMPORTANT may do so in the future. Third, collision data for factors that help shape the walking and bicycling pedestrians and bicyclists illustrates patterns of environment in Contra Costa.First,patterns of to- collisions in Contra Costa and what factors conn pography and land use illustrate why some areas tribute to them. The earlier Issues and Options are more favorable for walking and bicycling,and Report(January 2002), which is the basis for this show the difficulties of retrofitting older facilities. chapter, provides more in-depth background in- Second, commuting statistics provide insight formation., into who bikes and walks to work now and who CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN k'r Mount Diablo, which looks over the valley from R the south. East from the Diablo Valley over Willow Pass and the Diablo Range lies East Contra Costa, ly- ing at the edge of the San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta and the Central Valley. As with the East Bay areas,this area is relatively level with steeply sloped hills separating it from the remainder of the County. East County, which still contains substantial areas of Farmlands, is one of the fast- est-growing areas in the Bay Area and contains the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, Brentwood and Downtown Martinez the recently incorporated Oakley as well as unin- corporated communities of Bay Point, Discovery Physical Attributes Bay,Byron, Bethel Island, and I nightsen. South from the Diablo Valley is the San. Ra- SETTING a- SE'TT1NG mon Valley and the Town of Danville and City of San Ramon, which are part of the Tri-Valley area Contra Costa's diverse landscape both accom- with Dublin,Livermore,and Pleasanton in Alam- modates and presents obstacles to biking and eda County. walking.The East Bay Hills and Mt.Diablo Range divide the county into five generally recognized geographic areas, making interregional bicycle PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT travel challenging. West of the East Bay Hills land use and development trends greatly influ- is West County, which contains the cities of El ence how often people bicycle or walk. In dense, Cerrito, Richmond, sari Pablo, Pinole and Her- mixed-use developments, for instance, where cules, and the unincorporated communities of El uses are varied and closer together, people may Sobrante, 'Kensington, North Richmond, Rodeo find driving unnecessary, while in more typical and Crockett. The southern half of West County suburban subdivisions, they will need to use an contains the northernmost extension of the East automobile to reach most destinations. Bay plain that runs south to the Santa Clara Val- Despite its perception as a suburban area, ley. The northern half encompasses the hills that Contra Costa has a relatively-wide range of devel- border the Carquinez Strait. Contained within opment patterns, as shown on the following land the eastern foothills of the East Bay Hills are the use map. The older parts of communities like Laorinda communities of Lafayette, Moraga, Point Richmond, Antioch, Martinez, and Pitts- and Orinda. burg reflect their origin as factory ports in the 191b The Diablo Valley lies between the East Bay and early 201b centuries. Their design reflects the Hills and the Mt. Diablo Range. Formerly one of pedestrian orientation and smaller scale common the Bay'Area's major agricultural areas,this level during that period. Short blocks and frequent plain now contains the largest existing concen- intersections give pedestrians and bicyclists nu- tration of jobs and housing in Centra Costa and merous route choices and more direct routes to the cities of Concord,Clayton,Martinez,Pleasant destinations and sidewalks are universal. Hill, and. Walnut Creek. The area is named for The coming of the electric trolley and rail- roads in the late 1890s allowed the first wave of 16 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND ry "suburbanization," where people commute from of retrofitting existing streets and roads with bi- priarrrilyresidential neighborhoods to jobs in cycle or pedestrian facilities. Right-of-wap is a predominantly commercial areas in the same or scarce commodity in developed urban areas and another city.Suburbanization during the first half right-of-way is often needed when adding bicycle of the 20d' century led to an increasing segrega- lanes,new sidewalks, or other facilities. In some tion of land uses, especially of jobs from housing, cases, a street has light enough traffic to remove and a shift towards the streetcar and, later, the a travel lane or wide enough lanes to add bicycle private automobile as the primary modes of trav- lanes without removing lanes. Some neighbor- el. These two shifts led to a decrease in walking hoods may be opposed to sidewalks for various as a mode'of travel. The design of neighborhoods, reasons, such as extra maintenance they impose however,still most often included sidewalks(the or the wish to maintain a more"rural"ambiance. key pedestrian facility), a walkable scale, and More frequently, however, hard decisions are neighborhood shopping. Many areas of El Cer- necessary to accommodate pedestrians and bicy- rito, San Pablo, and Richmond were developed clists on existing streets. during this period. Between 1940 and 1950, the population of Contra Costa tripled in size, and tripled once Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel again between 1950 and 1990. This tremendous The focus of the CBPP is on encouraging bicycling growth, combined with a confluence of changes and walking as transportation, whether for com- in development and land use,brought a new kind muting, shopping, or other purposes. Changes in of suburbanization to Contra Costa. Automobile land use and development, and the increasing ownership shot up and new lending practices distance between destinations that have resulted and tax laws spurred the development of new from those changes, have made walking and neighborhoods, composed primarily of single- bicycling less practical for a growing number of family homes. The new development standards people. Bicycle trips are generally shorter than that guided the design of these new residential automobile trips, typically less than two miles, neighborhoods assumed that residents would while the average walking distance is about a half depend more and more on the private automo- mile. This statistic suggests that focusing first on bile.In addition,the increased size and scale and facilities that serve these shorter trips might have changing design of new retail and commercial ar- the greatest "payoffs" in increasing walking and eas also assumed primary access by automobile. bicycling. And access to transit can help extend In response, increasingly more developments, the commute range of bicyclists and pedestrians, both residential and commercial, were built and respond to those changes in land use pat- without sidewalks.In addition,residential streets terns. (Transit systems, however, also face an were designed to decrease cut-through traffic us- increasingly dispersed live-work pattern that is ing a curvilinear design and cul-de-sacs and few difficult to serve.) entryways into the subdivision via arterial or collector streets making bicycle and pedestrian movement more difficult and time-consuming,ENT " STATISTICS Arterial streets were primarily designed to move The transportation mode splits shown in Table 2 rising volumes of motor vehicles with little ac- reveal that the automobile is the primary mode commodation for bicyclists and pedestrians. of transportation.in Contra Costa. The 2000 U.S. While all of these patterns present specific Census found that almost 70 percent of commut- difficulties, they share one thing. the challenge ers drive an automobile to work. in Contra Costa ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 17 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Table 2 County-Level Home-to-Work Taps County-Level Horne-to-Work Trips : 2000 Census Commute Profile 2000' Low Income 5urve 2 Drive Alone 701% 65.0% 24:15% Carpooled 13,5% 16.3% 13.0% Transit .4°Ia 15.5/0 38.0% Walk 1.5% 1.5% 11.5% Bicycle fl.5°la D 5�'a 1.7°Jo Other 5.3% 1.4% 11.2% Total : , fi4t2ala VOW, 'The Bay Area's rideshare agency, RIDES, sponsors the annual Commute Profile survey,which focuses on adults over the age of 18 years old who are full-time employees outside the home, The CaIWORKs survey was given to participants in the Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD}career opportunities program titled CaIWORKs,which is geared towards finding work for welfare recipients. (although this share is smaller than it was in pre- Table 3 National Transportation vious censuses). Carpool riders made up almost Mode Splits for Urban Trips' 14 percent of commuters and transit riders total Annual Income another nine percent. Non-motorized transporta- tion comprised the smallest percentage of com- $15,444 or Less $84,444 or More muters, with walking accounting for 1.5 percent Drive Car 351% 42.9% and 0.5 percent bicycling. This data, however, Carpool Rider 44,7% 48.1% does not count the occasional bicycle commuter Transit 6.801° 1.2% or people who bicycle or walk to transit or car- Walk 12.8% 5.0% pools regularly. The Hay Area's rideshare agency, Bicycle 1,6% 0.50 RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, found that simi- Other 3.0% 2.3% lar percentages of commuters walk or bicycle to Total 1 04,4af0 :140.40/0 work. A CalWORKs survey, which focused on 1 The Nationwide Personal Transportation survey(1995) _ focuses on urban triers less than 75 miles long. It low-income county residents, showed that they excludes military personnel living on base, college were more apt to bicycle (1.7 percent) and walk students living on campus dormitories, prisoners, and (11.5 percent) from home to work compared to residents of group quarters. the average commuter.'fable 2 compares the find- ings of these three surveys. $15,000 or less have higher rates of bicycling(1.6 A 1995 transportation survey called the Na- percent) and walking (12.8 percent) compared to tionwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) households with annual incomes of $80,000 or suggests that a person's income is strongly cor- more (0.5 percent and. 5.0 percent, respectively). related with how she or he travels to work (see This reflects several facts: lower income house- Table 3). Households with annual incomes of holds own fewer automobiles,they are thus more �$ ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND .. b �� ei Una 0 } Em's C N e � I ta E ��C cc c� n 8 /�jI rr E 4n jV 1 c 4 f ' MIx �. . T3 fl. CL ^ 1 uj ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 19 t CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FLAN Table 4 Estimated Current Approximately one percent of transit com- Countyvvide Bicycle Demand, 2000 maters also use bicycles, and ■ 2.74 utilitarian bicycle trips are made for ev- Estimated ery one work or school trip. _. Population Group Totals Bicycle Commuters 2,085 As shown in Table 4, an estimated 21,429 School Children Commuting by Bike 5,665 trips are taken in Contra Costa daily on bicycle, saving over 76,386 vehicle miles daily. It is im- College Students Commuting by Bike 3,099 portant to note that this is simply an order-of- t Bike-Transit Users' 204 magnitude estimate, based on available data. A Utilitarian Trips 9,376 detailed description of this table can be found in Total Estimated Daily Bicycle Ridership 21,429 Appendix C. Reduced Vehicle Trips 28,620 Reduced Vehicle Miles 76,386 FUTURE COMMUTING POTENTIAL 'Frog Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators, The consultants also estimated future bicycle MTC, 1998. demand assuming completion of the countywide Source:ALTA Planning + Design bicycle system outlined in the CBPP. The projec- tions are derived from studies conducted around '. dependent on transit, walking and bicycling, and the nation on increased bicycle ridership and the often have a younger average population than National Bicycling and Walking Study, which higher income households. found a correlation between the number of bi- Lower-income households tend to have cycle commuters and bikeways per capita. Table shorter average trip lengths (about seven miles 5 on the following page estimates the number of per day) compared to higher-income households non-recreational bicyclists that corresponds to (around 11 miles per day). Lower-income house- this correlation if the entire bicycle system were holds also make fewer trips (3.4 trips per day per to be completed. The resulting reduction in auto- person) compared to higher-income households mobile trips is also estimated. (4.6 trips per day per person). This indicates a high potential demand for bicycle and walking improvements in lower income areas. Collision Analysis A more county-specific estimate of daily non- recreational bike trips has been achieved with a Data on collisions involving pedestrians and bicycle demand model. It uses available studies bicyclists can help decision makers identify spe- from around the country to help define other cibc areas where policies, planning, and other daily bicyclists, in addition to U.S. Census sta- interventions can be focused. The collision data tistics on bicycle commuters. According to these used in the following analysis comes from the studies, other daily bicyclists include: California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Five percent of school aged children (ages Traffic Records System (SwtTRs), a database of collisions as reported to and collected by local 6--14) bicycle to school, police departments and other law enforcement • Five percent of college students bicycle to agencies. Since this database consists of reports campus, taken by officers in the field, these incidents are only a portion of all collisions involving pedestri- 20 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND Table 5 Projected Countywide Bicycle Demand Current Estimated FutureChange Totai'DaiVSicyde,Comrnutersx 11,;849 33,026; 21.1 77 Total Daily Bicycle Trips3 42,858 119,449 76,591 Reduced VehideTrip 28;620 79,76x7! 51 147 Reduced Vehicle Miles 76,385 212,898 136,512 * 1 Assuming completion of the countywide bicycle system and supporting facilities. 2 Includes both commuters to work and commuters to school and college. 3 Includes bike-to-transit and utilitarian trips. ans and bicyclists.Minor collisions especially are for bicycles and pedestrian travel, making the likely to go unreported since the parties involved data difficult to interpret. The information that are unlikely to go through the time-consuming is available suggests that walking and bicycling process of reporting incidents to a police officer. are more dangerous than. driving. In 2001, for The collisions reported in swtTRS are thus more example, 14 of the 57 fatalities in Contra Costa, likely to be serious. about 25 percent of the total, were pedestrians, while MTG estimates that pedestrians made only around nine percent of all daily trips. Similarly, PEDESTRIAN CGLLtStANS Surface Transportation Policy Project,in their lat- Nearly three thousand pedestrian collisions were est assessment, ranks Contra Costa as the fourth reported in Contra Costa between 1990 and 2000. dangerous county for pedestrians in California. Table 6 shows the actions pedestrians were taking Although these estimates should be taken with a at the time of the reported collision with an auto- mobile. In the majority of all reported pedestrian collisions, the pedestrian was in the roadway Table 6 Pedestrian Action at Time of (93.3 percent), either crossing in an intersec- Collision: 1990-2000 tion crosswalk, crossing the street outside of a Frequency Percent crosswalk, or they were in the road or the road's shoulder. Crossing not in crosswalk 1,041 34.7 Most of the intersections with a high num- Crossing in crosswalk at inter- 1,039 34.6 ber of pedestrian collisions are near significant section pedestrian generators-shopping centers, office In road,including shoulder 616 20.5 buildings, BART stations, and schools—as well Not in road 195 SS as along major arterial streets. In addition, many of the clusters of collisions are found in locations Crossing in crosswalk not at, 104 3.5 intersection such as intersections where people come into di- Not stated 4 0.1 rect conflicts with motor vehicles. While automobile collision data is typically Apptoaching/leaving school 4 0.1 defined as a rate of collisions against a base set of bus data(such as millions of vehicles miles traveled), Total 3,003 100 comparable comparative data is not available Source:California Highway Patrol,SW1TRS, 1990-2000. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 '1 J CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN grain of salt,they do suggest that a great need for pedestrian safety improvements exists. BICYCLE COLLISIONS During the years between 1990 and 2000, 3,291 collisions' involved bicyclists. And in the year 2000, about five percent of those injured in traf- fic accidents were bicyclists, about double the percentage of trips made on bicycle.A large pro- portion of bicycle collisions occurred on major roadways. .Many potential bicycle commuters cite traffic as their main objection to riding on - urban streets. Many concerns about bicycling`s level of danger, however, are based on the misconception that most bicycle crashes involve an automobile. In fact, a majority of bicycle crashes do not in- volve a motor vehicle; rather, studies of hospital data have shown that the vast majority of bicycle injuries involve falls or collisions with stationary objects,other cyclists,or pedestrians.This paints to the need to educate bicyclists as well asmo- torists, enforce existing laws, and encourage safe bicycling techniques. 22 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK Throughout the United States,more communities detour around these gaps and obstacles can make have become interested in encouraging bicycling bicycling much less attractive. as part of a more balanced, multi-modal trans- Often the roads that provide bicyclists the portation system, one that refashions our streets most direct routes are also the most unpleasant and roads to accommodate all means of travel. and perilous, even for experienced bicyclists. This chapter briefly summarizes the needs of Adding bicycle lanes to existing streets,or includ- bicyclists, the current state of bicycling facilities ing them in new streets, is usually the preferred throughout Contra Costa, and the recommended way of improving roadways for bicycle use, icy- countywide bikeway network. The chapter ends cle lanes provide a clearly demarcated space that with a description of the top priority bikeway seg- is understandable for both bicyclists and drivers. ments for Contra Costa, The Safety and Support Unfortunately, some bike lanes become de facto chapter discusses additional important issues such as bike parking, education, and outreach, while Appendix A provides bicycle facility plan- . ning and design standards and recommenda- tions. Bicyclist Needs Providing a safe, well-connected system of bi- cycle facilities can significantly increase levels of bicycling.More important than actual mileage, however, is how well connected those facilities are. Gaps in the system of bikeways; obstacles such as freeways, railroad tracks, rivers, canals, A bike lane along Pacheco Boulevard in Martinez also and narrow bridges; and the consequent need to provides traffic calming elements CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 1 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN automobile parking spaces, so signage and park- commute longer distances to work, changing and ing restrictions may be necessary to maintain the shower facilities are much appreciated. integrity of bike lanes. Bicycle lanes, however, are not always pos- sible, especially in established districts. One al- Existing Bicycle Facilities ternative to marked bicycle lanes is sign the road- wary as a bicycle route and to stencil a picture of S 1 �' I MCE W ISYS a bike on a wide outside lane in conjunction with Local jurisdictions have established a significant bicycle rote signs, thereby legitimizing its use number of bicycle lanes and routes in Contra by bicycles. Where narrow lanes prevent conn- Costa, and have included many others in their fortable lane sharing, posting "Share the Road" adapted plans. There are now approximately 246 signs may help encourage motorists to make miles of off-street bikeways and 230 miles of on- room for bicyclists who use the road.Rather than street bikeways on the ground and another 470 designating narrow streets with high traffic vol- miles of bikeways proposed in various bikeway, umes as a'bike route, an alternate parallel route trail,and general plans. along quieter roadways may be the best solution. Bicycles are allowed on all paved public Traffic signal timing should consider the needs roadways in Contra Costa except those freeways — of bicyclists along those roadways with bike where Caltrans explicitly prohibits bicycles. Bi- lanes and routes. Improving existing trail facili- cyclists are allowed on freeways when no other ties by widening the pavement, better separating route is available, as is the case of State Route 4 bicyclists and pedestrians, and between Part Chicago Highway improving signage and intersec- and Willow Pass road and State tion controls also may encour- Route 24 between Fish Ranch age and accommodate greater Road and the Orinda exit. Some use of trails for transportation. highway bridges do not allow Aside from the actual on- bicycle access, resulting in street and off-street bikeways, ` gaps between Contra Costa and other facilities can assist bi- �' ` adjacent counties. Currently, cyclists along their routes and bicycles are not allowed on the at their destinations. First, sig- Richmond-San Rafael Bridge; nage helps to direct bicyclists bicyclists must use Golden Gate to suitable bikeways and can Transit's Route 40 or 42 to make point out important destina- this connection. Bicyclists are tions along the way. Signs also currently allowed on the An- - alert motorists of the possible BIKE°LAN tioch Bridge and the recently presence of bicyclists. Second, completed Carquinez Bridge. a secure and safe place to park. FAQ IK Bicycles will be allowed on the the bicycle once at a destination oft, Benicia-Martinez J-680} Bridge is always desirable. For lengthy when the new span is complet- stays, bike lockers are the best ed in late 2004. choice while bike racks are Some "regional" bikeways sufficient where a visit may be have been signed as designated shorter, such as shopping cen- A sign denoting the I-80 Bikeway to Hercu- bikeway corridors. The State ters. Third, for bicyclists who les along San Pablo Boulevard Route 4 Bikeway, for example, 24 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 ..: CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK is an east'-west corridor between Pacheco, North Concord,Bay Point,Pittsburg, and Antioch.. It be- gins at the intersection of.Pacheco Boulevard and Blum Road in Pacheco, follows Blum Road, Im- hoff Drive, Arnold Industrial .Drive, State Route � 4 between Port Chicago and Willow Pass Road, and along the Delta de Anza Trail following SR 4 to Bay Point, Pittsburg and beyond. A spur fol- lows Port Chicago Highway to the North Concord BART station. The 1-80 Bikeway Corridor is a north-south route through Contra Costa connect- ing Solano County and Alameda County.It begins The Ohlone Greenway in El Cerrito at the El Cerrito del Norte BART station,along the Ohlone Trail to Key Boulevard, Clinton Avenue, the Carquinez.Bridge. Most of the State Route 24 Amador Street, San Pablo Dam Road, Appian Bikeway, a corridor linking Alameda County to Way,back to San Pablo Avenue,and eventually to Walnut Creek, is in place in Lafayette and Walnut Creek. 77. ? Contra Costa may be best known for the ex- � q tensive system of"regional" off-street trails. Over 130 miles of paved shared use pathways include the following major trails: Cta�s 1, Typ ailed y e a fess Bay Trail (28 miles, not including spur trails) I"bikevrra wadesecle;tragi)"oo a p Contra Costa Canal Trail (14 miles) y p" Delta de Anza Regional Trail (15 miles) way.c, Piet Y septed"f ararom rearb Y: street or bl" h V` `fie C to to pro Iron Horse Trail{23 miles) V1 de" rir#�tesnot ailhi streets anti Lafayette-Moraga Trail (8 miles) P Marsh Creek Trail (6 miles) reads;tr�cluno recat�ors gar heli-speed biryeie ■ Ohlone Greenway(3 miles) • Wildcat Creek Trail (2 miles) ClsI, Oft en referred , s "tile fare,"a With the exception of the Ohlone Greenway, Cls #i b uu ,pr�v des striped rri t tied which follows the BART right-of-way in El Cer- lane:ftr arrear bicicieiel c� strrito, the trails listed above are under the jurisdic- hig +ay fineslel�raeaeparate"rzg'{ts , tion of the East Bay Regional Park District, of war forbi files Mrd �reliic�es Gp. ro n tore.l SIGNAGE l s 11y ref6ited to as ire rorrrtes,t' Awell-planned, attractive, and effective system Class=ill l,riCeu+zeys ale`fal�ties shared wtth:rrrti- of network signing can greatly enhance bikeway tar.a�e#�cles;b�at>uvildl provi key tfrr u h"s'rc9 facilities. First, by making motorists aware of the nage ,.,iesigr�,;argil c�rrrrectii n tt3 tFter`fay#liti ," presence and rights of bicyclists, signs can im- adventa es tcs cyclic# ocst eV61[able on-other prove safety and reconcile the needs of bicyclists 'sire s o atlw ys," and motorists. Second, by identifying bikeways and destinations, signs can help bicyclists take ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003. 25 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FLAN better advantage of existing facilities and thus parking. Some specify the number of parking encourage more people to bicycle. spaces while others simply require "adequate" Local jurisdictions generally use MUTCD or amounts (see Table 7 for examples of parking re- Caltrans approved signage to designate on-street quirements in various Contra Costa cities). bikeways such as bike routes or bike lanes. The One of the greatest demands for parking is at East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) has its transit stops.Table 9 on page 97 lists the number own standard signs for its regional and internal of bike parking spaces at the BART and Amtrak trails. EBRPD also posts trail signs that include stations.BART recently increased its stock of bike information on trail type and trail restrictions/ racks and lockers, greatly improving the parking rules, situation at its stations. The Antioch .Amtrak In local surveys, respondents have recom- depot is the only train station without bicycle mended directional signage as a significant help parking. Bike parking can be found at some park and encouragement for bicycling in Contra Costa and ride lots, including the new Hercules transit Similar to the freeway signs for motor vehicles, center, which has both racks and lockers. Bike directional signs would let bicyclists know which racks at other bus stops were not found, although route to talcs to reach various destinations, there- bicycles were sometimes seen locked to other im- by increasing their sense of comfort and security. mobile objects such as trees and signs. While some directional signage can be found Some downtown districts, especially those around Centra Costa, it is limited primarily to with lively downtown centers,have bicycle park- EBRPD facilities and is not coordinated through- ing scattered around the area,including Martinez, out the county.A system such as San F�ancisco's Walnut Creek, Brentwood, Lafayette, and Pleas- existing signs or the planned countywide system ant Hill. Major shopping malls and many strip in Alameda County could be adapted to meet the centers also provide bicycle parking, although specific needs of Contra Costa. older strip centers lack adequate parking. Schools often provide bicycle racks for schoolchildren, many in PARKING caged areas safe from vandalism. just as parking for motor vehicles Colleges tend to provide short- is designed to accommodate trips term parking rather than lockers. made by cars, adequate, well- A survey of large employers in designed bicycle parking can the county found that although accommodate and encourage some bicycle parking was pro- more trips by bicycle. Whether vided,they were usually racks and long-tern parking at transit sta- not lockers for long-term parking. tions and work sites or short-term 8. A few bike racks were located in parking at shopping centers and parking garages to shield bicycles similar sites,support and encour from the elements and two em- age bicycling. Because bicyclesm players said that bike racks were left unattended are more exposed located near the security guard. to weather and theft, bicyclistsk. Some employees felt it was safer have a significant need for secure to store their bicycles in their cu- and protected parking. « '* bicles. Many cities have developed ����= -, . � � � _.`'` R. � ' Public' parks often lack bike ordinances that require bicycle An EBRPD stop sign racks. Neighborhood parks are 26 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK Table 7 Examples of Bicycle Parking Requirements in Contra Costa City Ordinance AEttlCh' equd J house r �1 a�rn � fc�r eue � gaff-qtr �/ f� � p tve�de�p u . omrnel t �1 vvljesljustrta# 3 spatfore4F- retairhe.prkr€ pa e €t t 3 b e Par lu si frrr every 50 c', -,Ve es s 3 c +f" ° k v fad facixartt paltJ4 e�6bTShrza h l cs it Brentwood T U 'e"space c r Q sff tf t v le p paces Brentwood All parking lots developed within commercial districts and any public or semipublic facilities must have bike parking, Parking lots must have at least 4 parking spaces with total spaces equivalent to 5%of the total vehicle parking spaces in the lot. !of tte lie>{iarre axle nate bicycle pat ang ars; ew oris ere€ `deve# prx eats rrd= e Ai T;stotJow­Ekourag z e uate'Esi ycle.par in tra. o�nrnpr al raas r Pinole Require adequate bike parking facilities at transportation centers, public parks and buildings, recreation- al facilities, commercial centers and large multi-family residential projects. l leasa t 1-ltl# lcycie part irig s re tred in All public and semtptcblr use eri sorr€rnercra#`ase C# lficattort r�%imf, ber f pa in §paces fc r;y,'p tc andrr€lptri 11e uses will se cif€epi by tfie:use pdrxtart mc r r cerci l use ea 7 leve{raprri rtt td pr ide at; ,2� cine# e:spa rlr s he: L'a eri# +f 2 �rs lChe r 'rre rraerttorttrsrntalessarlc#ri sac San Ramon Require developers to provide bicycle parking, racks, storage,and other support facilities as part of any development. Walnut geek lrke,parkirfg is required for al#Gorrrrierdal arxdommvrn "Fcrlity 1Jelasifrcattqns-andstlst be im ; Isroviled at the t€rne=c�f tevr.carfisru +on or; alrt. l#eraticin,:B€iCe..ptkirtq spices ire 3.{7.laerceC oft he requirerr�errt ft�r aotciobr#a.earl rag spaces,:br 1:par>cin spa whie#�ever�s<<jreter popular bicycling destinations for families to en- Providing supervised bicycle parking at joy the playground or picnicking, but designated special events may encourage more people to parking is commonly missing. bicycle, which can decrease traffic congestion The Contra Costa Commute Alternative around sites. The East Bay Bicycle Coalition, for Network (CCCAN) has helped to significantly in- example, provides valet bicycle parking during crease the amount of bicycle parking throughout events at the Concord Pavillion. Contra Costa, Its Countywide Bicycle Locker and Rack Project, partially funded by the Transporta- tion Fund for Clean Air(TFCA)from the Bay Area SHOWERS AND CHANGING FACILITIES Air Quality Management District, has helped to A final need for some potential commuting bicy- purchase 165 bike racks, 149 bike lockers, and clists are showers, lockers, and changing rooms one bike cage. at trip destinations. For those bicyclists needing to dress more formally, travel longer distances, or ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 27 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FLAN r � V4 z rt"x t Bicycle lockers and racks at the Bay Point/Pittsburg BART station major regional connections, using a combination of paths, lanes, and routes. While the county- -.. wide network is expected to serve an important function, it is not necessarily more important or a higher priority than the local or secondary sys- tems created by local jurisdictions. Many post and loop bike racks are found in downtown The proposed countywide bicycle network Martinez is intended to be a planning tool that allows Contra Costa and its cities to focus and prioritize bicycle during wet or hot weather, the ability to implementation efforts where they will provide shower and change clothing can be as critical as the greatest community benefit. It is important bicycle storage. to remember that the countywide bicycle system. A survey of 23 major employers in the Contra and the priority corridors serve only as guidelines Costa found that over half (15) of the locations (as opposed to requirements) to local agencies had shower and changing facilities for their em- responsible for implementation. Local agencies ployees. Shouters and changing facilities were will always maintain control over which projects usually provided in large office parks, large office they choose to implement and when they choose buildings, and buildings with fitness centers. to pursue funding. The system and projects will change over time as a result of changing patterns, Proposed Bicycle Network constraints, and opportunities. The proposed countywide bicycle network con- sists of a comprehensive system of utilitarian. CREATING � COUNTYWIDE B!K EIIi1f AY SYSTEM bikeways -both on-street and off-street—con- necting residential neighborhoods in Contra A bikeway"system"is a network of bicycle routes Costa with work, schools, parks, transit Dubs, that, for a variety of reasons including safety and community centers, downtowns, and other des- convenience, provide a superior level of service tinations. The network focuses on a primary sys- for bicyclists. It is important to state that,by law, tem of corridors connecting all cities,towns, and bicyclists are allowed on all streets and roads(ex- 28 r' DOP.TED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 - BIKEWAY NETWORK 'i? In addition, the consultant team and the Advisory Committee developed criteria for des- J � ' " i atin , EA kt gn g a count ywide system,which are listed in 3 , s adjoining sidebar. The Contra Costa bikeway system focuses on connecting existing segments of bikeways, i �st� atoy fla trns ased parr V�� addressing routes already being used by bicy- clists, icy- c fists, and focusing on specific opportunities and : ads carttt� speds, 40JUs) constraints. The development pattern and geog- ` raphy of the county dictated the system to a large eoeeaJ �ef aid€firt�tess° route: extent, with connections between the four sub- U_ ub- x regions cases, to a few potential esr lurrrf dt� sr+eseJtdtls� egio s limi#ed in most jos erxt#JrvrrttteOs' rz routes due to the steep topography. Wherever possible, staff identified alternative } ` hraae routes to accommodate a full range of bicyclist 'Integration to the r t tna{: sten abilities. For example, while experienced bicy- clists might prefer to use a roadway such as San :Pr�n tsf rasorxale altrrat,vs b�cy Pablo Avenue since it is direct, less experienced is cif_irar�ou . Jttll l bicyclists might prefer to use alternate pathways 3. Jltsin`ar�d- and collector streets to avoid the traffic and con- gestion. sept those freeways where Caltrans specifically SYSTEM DESCRIPTION prohibits bicycles) regardless of whether they are The maps on the following pages illustrate the part of the bikeway system. countywide bikeway system. The recommended One of the major objectives of the County- system includes over 600 miles of proposed and wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) is to existing bikeways. Of this total, 103 miles are build on local bikeways already built or planned existing off-street bikeways, 103 miles are pro- by communities. Thus, local plans provide the posed off-street bikeways, 144 miles are existing framework for much of the countywide network. on-street bikeways, and 254 miles are proposed Other important criteria are input from the local on-street facilities. These numbers will change as bicycling community and local staff familiar with local agencies further define the alignment of pro- the best routes and existing constraints and op- posed on- and off-street facilities, and complete portunities. Over the course of the one-year plan- these gaps in the system. ning effort in 2001--2002, input was received in The proposed countywide bikeway system nine public workshops at which residents were projects in Contra Costa are composed of key uni- asked to identify routes they regularly rode plus Eying features, as described below. corridors they saw as either opportunities or con- straints. Staff held additional meetings, conduct- ed field research and surveys of the public and The Bay Trail local agencies, and the responses helped identify The Bay Trail is a major regional bicycle and the types and locations of improvements to best pedestrian feature in Contra Costa composed of meet citizens' needs, spine, spur, and connector routes utilizing both ADOPTEE} DECEMBER 17, 2003 29 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN on-street and off-street facilities. When com- 3. San Pablo Dam Road plated, the Bay Trail will connect communities 4. Orinda-Oakland Connections. and enhance access to the Bay through nearly 100 miles of on-street bikeways and multi-use A major goal will be to create at least one con- trails, In some areas, the Bay Trail will open up nection that will appeal to a wide variety of user access to the Bay that was not previously avail- groups. able and provide one of the most scenic and at- tractive pathways in the Bay Area. The Bay Trail in Richmond from. Point Isabel Regional Shore- line Pablo through Marina Bay to Miller/Knox Regional San Pablo Avenue represents the only major Shoreline,the San Pablo Peninsula Bay Trail from north-south connector linking all of the west- I-580 through Point Molate to Point San Pablo, ern urbanized areas (El Cerrito, Richmond, San and the Bay Trail along the shoreline of San Pablo Pablo, El Sobrante, Pinole, Hercules, Rodeo, and Bay from -Wildcat Creek Regional Trail through. Crockett), most of the major activity centers, and Point Pinole Regional Shoreline and east through regional connections to Solano County (via the Pinole, Hercules, Crockett, and Martinez will of- Carquinez Bridge) and into Alameda County at fer some of the best vistas in the region, and will Albany. No other roadway in western Contra attract hundreds, if not thousands, of users on Costa offers the same level of connectivity and a daily basis. The Bay "frail may increase local access as San Pablo Avenue. At the same time, property values by enhancing access to the Bay, San Pablo Avenue in some locations has all of the and a major transportation impact by improving features of an arterial roadway that is not appeal- access to transit.For example,the Shoreline Trail ing to many bicyclists and pedestrians. The cBPP in Pinole and Hercules will connect with a future proposes major bicycle and pedestrian improve- Capitol Corridor Amtrak: station, providing ac- ments for its entire length with focus areas in cess for residents and employees alike. commercial centers in each community. Vilest-Central County Connections Central County-San Ramon Valley Corridor Steep topography, narrow roads, tunnels, and While the Iran Horse Trail provides an excellent other obstacles to bicyclists currently separate off-road trail through this corridor, connecting West and. Central County areas. One of the key eventually the new Benicia-Martinez Bridge with goals of the CBPP is to enhance access between Alameda County, many nearby activity centers Central County areas and West County-Alameda and multi-modal connections need to be made County. While there are several options avail- on-road. In addition, the very popularity of the able to bicyclists (including using BART during Iron Horse Trail encourages some bicycle com- non-pear hours, or AC Transit/WestCAT/County muters to use parallel streets instead of the trail. Connection buses with bike racks),most on-road This corridor is also home to some of the most options are not attractive to any but the most pedestrian-friendly downtowns in the Contra intrepid bicyclist, This Plan proposes enhance- Costa, including Danville and Walnut Creek. ments—bike paths, lanes, improved shoulders or On-road bicycle projects in this corridor should ether connections—to four major corridors: be considered for San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Contra Costa Boulevard,Main Street, and Willow 1. Franklin Canyon/Highway 4 Pass Road. 2. Alhambra Valley Load 30 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 �,be • �_• ��_7 ik .;�, t ����� }— �DC7�" ` �" �. �. '. �t; ^� �v' 1 ,� \.• a a "� � J � I gyp � ---�--- O r+ t j PT ham.. � J� •' � - V� t I tt r i F r OF rL ,, l v E l � d yt (\ ;I ! `1 � t,w = . t l�1�� � n • r, AA AA '} ( F Il �i (L•} ++�'' 7r 1 vy G k j • ccs PAIR - _ �1 � Cir JU r .y.r Y �y�y EL J �1 ��3•"�; (�lt\� fi It �'� �' � � Pte. W O~. �_.. 3 _ �7 o 0 r apt F4 F'tr-r k � W p � W U C.7 W c,' N O C7 N cry O U F-� O U rr� m E z f: s; b!j r 17 t4; kl j �. y yf? •\ W�o I tM � t � 1 v y , {' 9' ✓ %'' � {vii � '`^ t. f j }�h• r d t } t „ ti�ry z v r � + I l s 1.4 �1 a � CC! �► q � w� go 00 - H � rn rn � ;� l .. :i--� _�::�. �__ � ._.._ I� �___._.� � __ �._.�_., .._ . __ _.._ .._ � E�__., � � _ _. � ____ M 0 N �+ �7 w tZ.., rA W C.7 `--+ W CYr' W E"+ C7'J W W E. Q � W rJ Ll � � /�'-� W e-�� U CJ W W Q k �., H C U O U H 3 � O C.7 i M 3 i i 1 2 i i i i i e i 3. Y YB u i o a+ o lI w rbc t a I y s.9 — — — — — — — — - — — � g / � pg is t � -Vol P11 111 au C, La 4 m.� 4, I p r� 41 �F 177 r pp , 7�or� � F. r pp Z, ' }sN u J I T #� ell- ` z a vI u v m .. i i-4 i a d t ot k71 o- r lfL:,i J b � A � � ♦a� � '� 1' r j��, � �1 �"3 n`: as � it .. ��m __ _ _. .� .,. -- µµ ��. i __� ... � i .,� .._..., �_.. .__U +_..._4.. � �,,._._.._.� �._i .., � M GJ N "'v rr �,�t �' „y � h-M Gzl '(� �—" Q "�" �11 r1�i V f� V 1�-i q H c� t� H C� tJ N C1 CJ t� F: C G: is L: F. �: ``� t t: t: / ,.��--�./ �• � ... r +�+ �•ted l � 1111 j r 5: t . r l to'" WIN �tl 11 Aw < f +G n Y I i h 1G z( 1 z + 1 v , , �` " , I �P4H 01 II + N, II iv r v y o "C o x `' ��' � tun y � o E A m b b CV N rti W a H a Cts w 0 w a a. ¢ Q �C w W U U W Q H C� U H O U �C G� E-+ U co ro a i? E i' c? r. c? t: i 't? CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK Central-East County and Lamorinda-Alameda Creek, Mokelumne, and Union Pacific trails, rap- County Corridors idly growing East County will develop around a trail network. Largely led by the EBRPD, these The geography of the Contra Costa limits the and other trail connections in East and Central number of major east-west bikeway corridors. County are considered high local and regional At the same time, much travel in the county priorities. is east-west oriented, roughly paralleling State The Contra Costa Canal Trail follows the Con- Highways 4, 242 and 24. These corridors include tra Costa Canal for 13.8 miles in the cities of Mar- roadways such as Mt. Diablo Boulevard and El tinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and Concord. Nido Ranch Road in Lamorinda; Pleasant Hill This paved trail connects to several other trails Road, Monument Boulevard, Treat Boulevard, such as the California State Riding and Hiking Ygnacio Valley Road, Geary Road, and 'Turtle Trail, Briones-to-Mt. Diablo Trail, and Iron Horse Creek Road in Central Countyl; and Kirker Pass Trail, and eventually to the future Delta De Anza Road, Pittsburg-Antioch Highway, and Oakley Trail to Martinez. Future trails along the Contra Road in East County. Costa Canal are planned in East County. Parallel to St. Mary's Road is the Lafayette- Moraga Regional?rail. This 7.65-mile linear park Regional Trails was one of the first rails-to-trails conversions in The Iron Horse 71,ail, developed and operated the state and continues to be popular with hik- by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), ers, bicyclists, and equestrians. The trail makes is one of the premier bike paths in the United important connections to St. Mary's College, States; few communities have access to such downtown Moraga, and the Briones-to-Las Tram- a well-integrated, well-maintained bike path pas trail. system, that truly serves both recreational and Eastern Contra Costa County is fortunate to transportation functions.A major focus of efforts have the Marsh Creek Regional Trail. This 6.5- in the Southwest and Central County areas is the mile paved multi-use trail follows Marsh Creek completion of the Iron Hose Trail, along with the from Creekside Park in Brentwood to the Delta. completion of connections to several other major The trail is planned to extend to Morgan Territory bike paths including: (1) the Lafayette/Moraga Regional Preserve and Round Valley Regional Park Trail, (2) Contra Costa Canal Trail system, (3) the that will form a 14-mile trail when completed. southern extension into the Shadow Cliffs area Seventy miles of the 3001-mile Mokelumne (in coordination with Alameda County), (4) the Coast to Crest Trail are planned in Contra Costa. Walnut Creek Channel Extension to Martinez and The trail will reach from the crest of the Sierra the Benicia Bridge, (5) the Pleasant Hill BART Nevada Mountains to the San Francisco Bay,gen- gap closure, (6) Iron Horse Trail Extensions to erally following the Mokelumne Aqueduct. The Mt. Diablo and Martinez, and (7) Delta De Anza trail is on the California State Trails Plan and was Trail connections. These and other on-road im- recently designated as a Community Millennium provements to enhance access and connectivity Trail under the National Millennium Trails initia- of this important trail system are considered a tive. high priority. The Delta De Ansa Trail is quickly becoming a regional trail on the same scale as the Iron Horse County-to-County Connections Trail, to which it is proposed to connect in Con- To encourage longer distance commute trips, cord. Together with existing and proposed Marsh many barriers and obstacles must be overcome: ADOP'T'ED DECEMBER 17, 2003 39 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN - i i IN r . j The Bay Trail in Richmond not only gaps in the system of trails,bicycle lanes San Francisco Currently,bicyclists traveling and bicycle routes, but also the hills, valleys and from Contra Costa take BART or AC Transit.In the water bodies that are within and adjoin Contra future, if the Bay Bridge has been retrofitted with Costa. Some of the most difficult obstacles are a bike path, it may be possible to bicycle directly found at the edge of Contra Costa.Connections to into San Francisco from Contra Costa (The new adjacent counties could be provided in a variety East Span is slated to get bicycle and pedestrian of ways, as described below: access.) In the recent past, bicyclists could take Alameda County There are a total of nine the Richmond Ferry into San Francisco, but this proposed bikeway connections to Alameda Coun- service has been terminated. ty,from the Bay Trail and San Pablo Avenue corri- San Joaquin County No direct connection is r-. dor in Albany to Crow Canyon Road in the south proposed by San Joaquin County in their bikeway and Vasco Road on the East. Perhaps the most master plan to Contra Costa. The one connecting important connection between the two counties roadway, Highway 4, is currently constrained by is between Orinda and Oakland, which may be a lack of shoulders and narrow bridges. Various resolved by a combination of improvements to EBRPD trails including the Mokelumne Coast to BART service, a new fourth bore, and other road- Crest Trail, are proposed to extend into San Joa- way system enhancements. quin County in the future. Marin County Access is currently provided Solano County The two connections to So- via Golden Gate Transit bus service from the land County, the Carquinez Bridge and Benicia Richmond and El Cerrito del Norte BART Sta- Bridge, are being re-constructed with new bike tions. While there have been discussions about paths, thereby greatly improving the bicycle con- opening up the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to nectivity of the two counties. bicycle use, this has not been approved as of Sacramento County The Antioch Bridge to 2002. With the commute volumes increasing Sherman Island in southwest Sacramento County between Contra Costa and Marin Counties, ad- currently has shoulders marked for bicycle use. ditional bicycle capacity on these buses will be Access is provided from Wilbur Avenue and the required at a minimum. Neroly Road corridor to the bridge. 40 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK k 9 . Castro Ranch Road is a popular route between Alhambra Valley Road and San Pablo Dam Road BIKEWAY LIST well-connected network of facilities needed to Table 8 lists the recommended but unbuilt seg- encourage more bicycling. This broader network ments of the proposed countywide bikeway will provide access to the countywide network network. These bikeway segments represent or transit and other key destinations could gain the gaps in the proposed countywide network higher priority than those on this list when fund- whose completion would join together existing ing is allocated. (Appendix F contains more de- bikeways and trails in a comprehensive system tailed descriptions of the unbuilt segments listed of facilities. The segments listed and shown as in Table 8 as well as examples of bikeway projects proposed on the recommended bikeway network being actively pursued by local jurisdictions and illustrate the recommended connection not nec- agencies.) essarily the recommended alignment. While the A column for Comprehensive Transportation proposed bikeway connection may be shown on Project List (CTPL) numbers has been included in a particular roadway,the final alignment may end Table 8.The CTPL is maintained by the Authority up using different streets and paths. Local juris- and includes projects and programs designed to diction and agencies will need to work closely carry out the strategies of the 2000 Update to the with adjoining jurisdictions, and affected citizens Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Trans- and businesses, to determine the most effective portation Plan. The list was generated from the and appropriate design and alignment for the Action Plans, the 1999 Contra Costa CPM. MTC's connection. Many of these connections, espe- Blueprint for the 21si Century, and local staff in- cially where traffic volumes are high and right-of- put. way limited,must overcome significant obstacles before they can or should be built. These are not the only bikeway facilities,how- END OF TRIP FACILITIES ever, needed to achieve the goals and policies of A number of important parking projects have the CBPP. Local agencies are pursuing many oth- been planned, primarily serving transit. BART er on- and off-street bikeways to address specific has planned bicycle parking pavilions at the local safety and access concerns and to create the Richmond,Walnut Creek, and Pleasant Hill BART ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 41 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 1_ Table 8 unbuilt Segments on the Countywide Bikeway Network Name Jurisdiction(s) Class Length(mi.) CTPL# Sarl; abl+a Airdscekeww '<falcYth Coirty 11, 111 :9 k'2,1 San Pablo Avenue Bikeway: Central Richmond, County II/1€1 2.0 120 Sari,P b#o tau fBiiC'Pray-,56 h Ei Carr#to Ridhrra,nd', II j 111 Brickyard Cove Trail Richmond 1 1.8 249b BART, recfit 1Jt8ua .." R�ehrrr�d San Pablo #� 11l 4 i7 Central Avenue Bikeway Richmond II/III 1.0 Mac1�6 eld arx ktSil e ay }cl3 and 3ll 111 2 9 Richmond San Rafael Bridge Caltrans 1/11/111 1.9 I��eEtrrir�nd.BeI'I"re y 7, '1 Richmond Greenway Richmond 1 3.1 403 UVIldeat.Creek.Tra�l R-hmr�n lr San Pablo,"EBRPD I '3 Market/Church/EI Portal Bikeway San Pablo, Richmond, County II/111 3.0 Cantrell 817`Bikwa)+ Pircile,San Pablo"; Ricl�rrtsnd,,Ccaunt II/111 �}5 8019 i Hilltop Mall Access Route Richmond II/111 2.0 Pinole Ea:W est Bikeway Pinole Alhambra-Reliez Bikeway County, Martinez II/111 12.1 Hlghw*, 'Corrid sr Bikeway 'Hercules,County 11/ill �k':8 25I;�5 9 Crockett/Marinez Connector Bikeway County, Martinez 11/III 9.5 568 Carquinez Strausit ilCe�vay Cc�i*nty, 3lartinez, EBFiPf7 VII/Ill - Martinez Bay Trail Martinez, EBRPD I 0.7 San Pabt07t)a :R6A4 8ikeway, County It 1111- 3,9 -206 Richmond Parkway Bike Lanes County, Richmond II 6.0 404 Shoreline Trap 'N"ortf 7C rafira:" County, Hercules„ Pinole,"EBRPD I" 2.6 Shoreline Trail- South County, Richmond, EBRPD 1 3.5 West County 1YVastewater.District"Bay Aid m'0 d;EBRPD T.0,. Trail Pt. San Pablo Bay Trail Richmond, EBRPD f 4.8 WestCbntra Costa Sanitary Landfill Bay County, .Richmond, EBRPD I 2A Trail Pacheco Bikeway County, Martinez 11/111 2.4 589 Contra Costa Wain Street Bikeway Pl6asant•Hill;Walnut Creek 1l/fff 5.5 42 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK Table 8 Unbuilt Segments on the Countywide Bikeway Network I !Name Jurisdiction(s) Class Length(mi.) CTPL## Central Pleasant Hill Bikeway Pleasant Hill 11/111 1.6 224 Pleasant Hil1: Al T Corneotcr ilCewayI C Urst)+,Plea,sar�t l all;; tt3a rtttt Creed:, 11: #l1 .e 3w3. Contra Costa Canal Concord, County, EBRPD I/11/111 3.6 Taylc?r?Brke r y Crsat?ty PleasantNlll l#.Ill! -2,.5 602;" Reliez Valley Road Bikeway Lafayette, County Ill 3.0 Sotarip. rentticey; Cdnortl Willow Pass Road Bikeway Concord 11/111 2.8 Crd Clton c�nc8� ay Clyt +n�Cr7ccsrd 1111i# .1 Concord-Pleasant Hill Bikeway Concord, Pleasant Hill I1/111 4.8 468, 607 Kirl<erPass f(a Bek . Cpn ord;County 11111€ Market-Meadow Bikeway Concord 11/111 1.2 1r ri:1-}orseTr. 11 Mal an ,.{ins# Bene-I Cot�hty� 1"art�rrez' itPp 1 7.; 139,1211 9 '. cfafig ) We ._ . . . Iron Horse Trail - Pleasant Hill BART Pleasant Hill, EBRPD, County 1 0.7 295 Gaps Iron�loasr ka `t# Cetneord Ga"A Concort3;1BRPD 1 0s2 Concord Bikeway Concord II/III 5.4 PortClicaja ""BA1tT.Trt1'„ t2oz card" t"; . 2 Marsh Creek-Camino Diablo Bikeway County Ill 12.5 gnae o Valley Bfkewi y C-6n6rrd,Wa€nbt:Crei k. 11.1 IN 3 6 Benicia Bridge Bikeway Martinez, County II 1.2 Delta tfe Anza Trail WAIxaut Creek char 4 C�snecard,County, EBRPD" I 4<B 564,13£5 net td ay Pgin Antioch Hwy 4 Corridor Bikeway Antioch Ill 2.3 DeerVa##ey8;)Ceway A £ioch;Cpunt " . '11 65 Balfour Bikeway Brentwood, County 11 2.4 East 8rentwocid Bikeway BrentwoorJ 11 05' Brentwood-Oakley Bikevvay Brentwood, Oakley 11 5.5 East County"Hwy 4 8#kew6y .en'twoo6, ourrty l l I t1l 7 3 O'Hara/Minnesota Bikeway Brentwood, Oakley 11 4.0 Hillcrest Extension Bikeway Antioch It_l111 "1,1 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 43 f CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Table 8 Unbuilt Segments on the Countywide Bikeway Network Name Jurisdiction(s) Class Length(mi.) CTPL# Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail Antioch, Brentwood, County, EBRPD 1 11.1 Dettr�ratra sttacai Pthi Cnty I 7.ti2 Delta de Anaa Trail: Antioch to Oakley Antioch, Oakley, EBRPD I 0.5 Pit`1:sxrag Ta`iJrakl�te 13aeway Pzttslttrg . }!111 54° Antioch Trunkline Bikeway Antioch, County (1/III 4.4 5ri ,ersa3all Basad BrCev�a Arrtic� h 41' i11 2`3 53 ,: 4r9 W. Leland Extension Pittsburg 11 3.6 PattksrgLtosl3akeiay #�attsbuag 011, C?:1 Buchanan Road Bikeway Pittsburg, Antioch II 2.6 O11 tJ�ki TrunCliae'Bikew Anloh;County,Qalcley 1l1 3.2 Union Pacific Rail Trail Brentwood, County, Antioch, Oakley, 1 19.5 EBRPD Big Brea �gioi4 'tali Oa ley'EORPk R Marsh Creek Trail Brentwood, County, EBRPD 1 4.5 Byroneth €1iatad B}Cewa bounty: 111.111 3:()2 Laurel Bikeway Antioch, Oakley 11 3.4 L Street.B'tk� y Antioch . . ' `.11 OB Evora Bikeway County 1i/111 2.3 iJoAnza laf c>nal fa°ail-}dock Slough- Count3r,`'I:BRF 1. 8. . Bethany Reservoir ` Vasco Bikeway County it/111 8.6 Camino iassa}ara=Bikewa County ll 5.8 Crow Canyon Bikeway County, San Ramon II/III 1.8 C3ougtZerty VIley Bike +ays County` /li SR 24 Bikeway County, Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut VII/III 6.7 553 Creek, Caltrans Lamorind Llt kage '; Lafayette,< %1 r. ga,-lJrindaLaf vette Ill -8:9 Stone Valley Road Bikeway County, Danville 11/111 3.3 551 TiceMal}ey ftad Path Coun#y Rudgear-Lavender Bikeway Walnut Creek 111 2.8 554 Carlson Avonue-.l ikevvay Richmond, EI Cerritos TOTAL 357.0 44 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK stations. Covered bike parking is also proposed at be a consideration for local bikeways on funding the El Cerrito del Norte BART station and three to applications.) five new lockers will be installed at the Richmond Public Input Projects that were identified as Parkway Transit Center. Bike parking is also rec- priorities by the public received higher scores.The ommended at the Antioch Amtrak station. top 16 bikeway corridors are listed in Table 9 Although no specific locations are identified and described on the following pages. They are - for changing and shower facilities, local agencies listed by general subarea, and are not in priority are encouraged to modify current ordinances to order. Another project, Rural Road Improvement require these accommodations in appropriate Project, has also been included to encourage new development. those agencies with jurisdiction over rural-type i ! roadways to consider bicycle-friendly concepts, including pullouts,shoulders, and signing,to im- Pric►rity Corridors prove bicycle safety along these routes. Finally, The previous maps illustrated the proposed re- a project focusing on completing major regional gional bikeway network,with nearly 350 miles of trails is added to emphasize its importance to not on-and off-street bikeways not yet on the ground. only the county but the region, as well. While all of them would benefit bicyclists, seg- It is also important to note that all of the pri- ments need to be ranked to determine where ority corridors are "gap closures", that is, they best to focus efforts. (Identifying priorities in an would fill a missing link on the Countywide adopted bikeway plan is a specific requirement Bicycle.Network. Although these priorities focus for BTA funding.) Priority bikeways selected for on these gaps in the countywide system, local this CBPP were based on the planning criteria jurisdictions should also consider other projects, described below.The Authority will use the same whether on the countywide system or not, that basic criteria to review applications for funding would improve the environment for bicyclists. for bicycle projects. When allocating funding for bicycle projects, Destinations Served The actual number of the CBPP recommends that the Authority or lo- schools, employment centers, parks, commercial cal jurisdictions consider improvements to ex- centers, and transit centers served within a rea- fisting facilities on that system and other safety sonable distance of the project. Larger facilities, improvements and local connections as well as such as regional parks,were given two points, gap closures on the countywide system. Using User Groups Bikeways that would attract the preceding criteria, these other improvements a broader array of user groups, including school could score as high as, or higher than, gap clo- children, families, less experienced bicyclists, sures on the countywide system. and pedestrians, received higher scores. All proposed bikeways on the recommended Feasibility Projects that have preliminary countywide network will need to go through a design completed or appear to have relatively few feasibility process locally. Based on this analysis, feasibility constraints received higher scores. the ultimate alignment may be altered as well as Safety Projects that addressed safety con- local priorities. cerns, especially on busy streets, received higher scores. Connectivity Projects that provide new connectivity or close major gaps and do not du- plicate other nearby facilities, received higher scores. (Connectivity to the regional system will ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, 2003 45 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Table 9 Top Bikeway Improvements F 'M Project Jurisdiction(s) Ic#rnc�r 6,HART or,, 'Oct .: , Rzkrrir�nd San P,aa San Pablo Avenue Bikeway: South Richmond, EI Cerrito Cerstralbikeway ntra costa Qjupty Pant#e, Rf l rr}on Crockett-Martinez Connector Bikeway Contra Costa County, Martinez Contra Costa�Jb ath recut Bi i ways leasar i t#I Vital rout Cre F Central Pleasant Hill Bikeway Pleasant Hill Corxtra Cv to carr{-fir��l�apai' Ct�r�tra,�psta�nunty Concord, East bay� ic�nail Concord-Clayton Bikeway Concord, Clayton Concord-'€ea ant �i�i ay C sncorc;Pleasant}itll Brentwood-Oakley Bikeway Brentwood, Oakley O',Haca #iron vta Bikeway.` =l3rent�w 6d,,04k#ey — Pittsburg Loop Bikeway Pittsburg Budhanan itdad Bil w, y P€ tsburg,Antiooh State Route 24 Bikeway Contra Costa County, Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Caltrans Lamorfinda ''ages Lafayette,:Moraga,Cir#nda Rural Road Improvement Project Contra Costa County, All Cities, Caltrans Cora #etin jtegiona€:Trai€ '' ast:Bay Reglc�na€'-Panics3istrict,Associat'scn of.Bay Are •Covernments,,taa#;- Aencies` 46 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK 8.. ... .r., gar. +�."ac...i., -.3:w� �y,"'a',..W:.f:X3.4..}.,. ,n BnR,r:.'a.^: .p+'3aaxxkti %v5e ..�, ;ays.,ri�N :a, :..tS,k"..7"�d. ."!8�3�ais�,9aS.'s5.^ Y3h"3$CP &9 ."�+e".`«@. BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR Richmond BART Connector Bikeway Agency(ies).....City of Richmond, City of San Pablo ILI ; Type..............._Class It and III ' wi: z Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Local Adoption This north-south bikeway in Richmond serves as a spine for the =, local and regional bikeway system in the area. One potential . . alignment could follow Marina Way South from the Bay Trail near Lucretia M. Edwards Shoreline Park and the Richmond '' Marina to the Richmond BART/Amtrak Station. This bikeway - segment provides access to numerous local schools and parks. �>1 Marina Way South is a proposed "spine" route of the Bay Trail from Wright Avenue south to the existing Bay Trail path along the west side of the Richmond Marina Bay. At the BART station, the bikeway could divert to McDonald and on to 2(}t' and 2151 Streets into the City of San Pablo, linking into Wildcat Creek Trail (a Bay Trail segment). The final align- j ment for this project needs to be determined through more de- tailed analysis. OMIT �T 5. d t F } 3. l �e. �f� YID • 4 'Sh f, ,a Marina Way South underpass at the Santa Fe Railroad tracks , ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 47 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN .�, a%i'.v.nC�..#fi.ztai..6B.Sr' '."nM1r�'&r�"`143f ^�5'.zi&. „ro..:< a€.�',id' ...,a." ;!•,,. simn ,.,7„ ,:5;s. „,,. `R,xY" ..aE. ". ,,a.a',..,aSk;k .k'.•e: ..z"D, .Aa. a. mC BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR .' San Pablo Avenue Bikeway: South Agency(ies).....City of Richmond, City of EI Cerrito Type.................Class li and 111 Miles................3.8 Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Local Adoption San Pablo Avenue is the only roadway that connects all cities in West County. This southern segment starts at the Richmond/ __ San Pablo boundary, where a bike route ends in San Pablo, and travels south to Alameda County.The route would detour to the proposed Cerrito Creek trail project near the county line.A con- nection to Alameda County will be decided in that feasibility analysis. ' A feasibility study is recommended for this F.. project. Due to the volume of traffic along San { •, Pablo and on-street parking, encouraging bicy- I clists to ride on San Pablo Avenue may not be desired by the local cities and bicycling com- munity. A parallel alternative may become the ! `� '� t i' f favored route. Carlson Boulevard would be one kr ,iQ�c, possible option, especially for bicyclists ap- proaching the corridor from the west. This corridor passes through major com- 1 , ' mercial areas and, once it links to the existing , bikeway in San Pablo, bicyclists would have ac- cess to downtown San Pablo and hilltop Mall.It ' A passes by the El Cerrito del Norte and El Cerrito ; Plaza BART stations and is a part of three AC iWith Transit bus routes. Vtrth improvements, this �. corridor would be an especially attractive route � � --•- � � � ��� �� ,; for bicyclists. Although the Ohlone Greenway ij a � t cs found within the BART right-of-way, parallels 1 a - this portion of San .Pablo, an on-street bikeway *,'` alternative would be beneficial for experienced bicyclists that prefer riding on streets in West. ; County, m , - „3p 4 48 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK .,.r,,�'? ,.,.«. &1s,+•§!2f':k`€cF: %$�E�d �+�a�w:U'vz.,�3 Fk,f, ., ... F '..�..>_+,.�.'�.A ....,�$''�..,+w'.:y„w.33».S3.f§::'�,@9,..k tn„ �3m °..:a�`s. '' .`t'8"s�i�,`&�"a'.."`de.� o+'S�i1i's N�q fi BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR. Central I-80 Bikeway a= r 1.r" Agency{ies}.....County, Cities of Pinole and Rich- mond Type...............-Class II/Ill Next Steps...,..benign The I-80 Bikeway was developed as a com- muter orn.muter bicycle route from the El Cerrito del Norte BART station north to the Carquinez Bridge.Most of the route is already a signed , 3 t � bike route. Two sections in the central part ► r _ V of the bikeway are slated for improve ments: #ia r The Appian Way bike lanes would exi t } j tend from San Pablo Avenue in Pinole (a rZ x proposed on "spine" route of the Bay r •,s.. � ' A' Trail) to San. Pablo Darn Road. This is cur- 7 rently a class III facility.The medical center in Pinole and shopping centers at the inter- section of I-80 and Appian Way singles out this street as an important route for both commuter bicyclists and those making utilitarian bicycle trips. The San Pablo Darn Road bike route , would join Appian Way to San Pablo city <0 limits. This portion of San Pablo Dam Road ' has no bicycle facilities. San Pablo Dam Road is not only used by commuter bicy- clists icy clists in the area, but is also popular with recreational bicyclists on the weekends. ' x h ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 49 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN WNf"1A BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR <'. Crockett I Martinez Connector Bikeway Agenzy(ies).....County, City of Martinez " Type.................Class III s Miles_..............10 Next Steps...,..Local Adoption This recommended corridor is an on-street connection between Crockett and the Carquinez Bridge to Martinez. The bikeway starts on Pomona Street at San Pablo Avenue and the Carquinez Bridge through the heart of Crockett. It then follows Crockett F Boulevard and Cummings Skyway- both streets with relatively Crockett Boulevard is good shoulders--southerly until passing under State Route 4 and joining with Franklin Canyon Road. A proposed bikeway along SR 4 from Hercules would link to this bikeway at the Franklin Canyon / Cummings Skyway intersection. The route continues along Franklin Canyon, which roughly parallels SR 4 ' to Alhambra Avenue in Martinez. Both a Park and Ride lot and the trailhead to an Open Space preserve can be found at this intersection, Franklin Canvon Road is a proposed "spine" route of the Bay Trail linking to the existing bike lanes on Alhambra Avenue, which is also a spine route. i Cr 17 r, rt `Cnr M1z,Sir 4313 Xr - rrtr�irs-�"� ;iha ..laraa `, . »ktin Cr �1d t 7, "so ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK ..� •:x, s.,e.;�s„sins r�.a „.,,._.�<u�.,. *�.�e�Sr�'a,�vi�,�r��r�„�.,,r�;�'s��,r�.,�a�r �;�a.�.,.a. '�x�,,.,��:.€ �, � .'z 1 �„�„ � Ne € r BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR ek Contra Costa-Main Street BikewayN"M. a Agency(ies).....Cities of Pleasant Will and Walnut Creek Type.................Class 11/111 aia� fix. Miles................5.5 s , A Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Local Adoption The primary north-south bikeway in Central Contra Costa is the Iron Horse Trail. Citizen surveys revealed that there was a need for an on-street north-south bikeway. This proposed r bikeway begins at the Pleasant Hill/County boundary where ` ' Contra Costa Boulevard becomes Pacheco Boulevard to the north and bike lanes are in place. Contra Costa Boulevard , l u Z Parallels I-680, passing by most shopping areas in Pleasant Hill,near Diablo Valley College,to Downtown Pleasant Hill. " r 4 i Contra Costa Boulevard turns into N. Main Street at the � r Walnut Creek cit limit where the roadway has bike lanes y Y � 1 for a short distance. N. Main Street travels south towards E 1 Downtown Walnut Creek and the bikeway then follows N. tufa car tY ' California Boulevard,an existing bike lane.When N.Califor- ., i. nia crosses Mount Diablo Boulevard, the roadway changes �a to S. California Boulevard where a bike route is proposed to 1 ` r'� r t ._�: La Newell Avenue. a s .F. Contra Costa Boulevard, N. Main Street, and N. Califor- nia Boulevard would compose the most logical north-south corridor, although high traffic volumes currently deter all but the most experienced bicyclists from utilizing this route. A feasibility study should be conducted to determine L 81 San LO:R whether Class II or III facilities are appropriate or whether i 7 ` parallel streets would better serve this corridor. ” i ? �r01 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 51 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN f" BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR Central Pleasant Hill Bikeway Agency(ies).....City of Pleasant Hifi h ` Type............__Class fl/III Miles.... ......1.6 Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Local Adoption This bikeway provides an east-west route through the heart of Pleasant Hill. It completes two gaps along Pleasant Hill Road, one between Devon Avenue and Taylor Road and the other be- tween Strand Avenue and Gregory Lane. Bike lanes have been installed north of Devon Avenue and between Taylor Road and , Strand Avenue, and lanes are proposed between Devon Avenue and Taylor Road. The remaining Central Pleasant Hill. Bikeway travels along Gregory Lane, a proposed Class III route,easterly to --- Contra Costa Boulevard. Although this is a relatively short project, it provides access to the Contra Costa Canal Trail, Downtown Pleasant Hill, and comes within a short distance of four schools. This route would provide linkages to the proposed county bike- way network on Contra Costa Boulevard and ;� k Y + k Monument Boulevard. It also complements ex- fisting on-street bike lanes on Alhambra Avenue r Y , t into Martinez and on Grayson Road (which is7 16 Gregory Lane west of Pleasant Hill Road). x f ' 3 JIL rd Rd-itn r d'c / a Pleasant Hill Road Gregory Lane at the Contra Costa Canal Trail 52 ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK I k' BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR Contra Costa Canal Trail Gap Agency(ies).....County, Concord, East Bay Regional Parks District Type.................Class 1 Miles................3.6 Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Local Adoption - Few roadways connect Central and East Coun- , n <. ty and continuing increases in traffic on them s. have created conflicts for bicyclists. None of T these roadways provide a safe, relatively flat route for bicyclists. Many citizens suggested developing a bikeway along Willow Pass Road in Concord to the Delta-de Anza Trail. While most of this route has sufficient shoulder, the Shoulders narrow significantly on the bridge on,Willow _= narrow bridge over the railroad tracks and Pass Road in the Concord Naval Weapons Station hills challenge even experienced bicyclists., The Contra Costa Canal, however, could provide an off-street alternative to Willow Pass Road that is both flat Y and usable by all types of bicyclists. This route would be- gin at the existing Contra Costa Canal Trail near Willow Pass Community Park in Concord, and would follow the � a canal to connect to the existing Delta de Anza Trail at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and State Route 4.If this segment of the Canal Trail is feasible, the Contra Costa ' County aafl Design Resource Handbook (March 2001) should be consulted. It provides guidance on safe, cost- li effective trail design, and includes an extensive review of the existing Canal Trail. �' This portion of the canal lies within the U.S. Naval 1" Weapons Station.In the event that this base is reactivated, public access to the trail would be prohibited.Although a r canal trail would be a flat, safe, and scenic link between Concord and the Delta-de Anza Trail,other roadways may � need to be considered to provide this improved link be- tween East and Central County. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 53 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR Concord-Clayton Bikeway Agency(ies).....Cities of Concord and Clayton g Type............,....Class I1 and III k= Miles................6.0 Next Steps......Local Adoption While Clayton Road is the most direct route between Downtown Concord and Downtown Clayton, it is an extremely busy road- way with little room for bicycle facilities. The Concord-Clayton 6; Bikeway could provide a better alternative. This proposed bikeway would run along Cowell Road, be- tween Galindo and Treat Boulevard, which has been recently resurfaced. Most of this road has shoulders with ample space for bicyclists.Cowell Road provides access to the Concord Com- munity Park,Markham Nature Area,and the Contra Costa Canal Trail. The bikeway would then link to Turtle Creek Road along the existing bikeway on Treat Boulevard, and then east along Turtle Creek Road,Ayers Road,Academy Road, and Alberta Way to Ygnacio Valley Road. This portion would connect to Newhall Community Park and Clayton Valley High School. South of Yg- natio Valley Road, the bikeway would run along Pine Hollow Road to Mitchell Canyon Road to link to the existing bike lanes on Clayton Road to downtown Clayton. Pine Hollow passes by F � ! 131 54 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK :. •, �Ae .. ft'mP1%2d ..a1rS#;R3ri.5"S.'rT: '.�'taf8�?aYffi�Hd,3�3F#'^.'tiC�;.T1s..�C�(f3. 1kA'd eSaR&.YRnR�M3SskF3E';niliT'��...3@nYeA+u'sei�2vU`^.AA� �3a- .,, ..,::.•. .. ,i, rr. .. ...a?b�. ,.' :.;.,,r. n, ( S' T r'� I ill i i` uk Turtle Creek Road has ample right-of-way for a safe bikeway i California State University of Hayward, a middle school, and two elementary schools. Intersection improvements would mare the route better suit- ed to both bicyclists and pedestrians. The intersections of Treat Boulevard and Turtle Creek Road and Ygnacio Valley Boulevard with Pine Hollow Road/Alberta Way,for example, could be retro- fitted to improve bicycle and pedestrians access. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 55 R; CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN �SY. ;. ,.:is,i, "'-{3.t'.: `.'z;; ,. '•' ;:'�:',�,a:�ap;Y56da�4F;;��c.n�Ldh"F�z4;e�• r^c:Fa3e":ac::,«xi4 s..,:\,�.�'>7:>SF��.;�,�::o`zk"�>a�3uw' °'..�r,..°'; .c,..r;:8i::v..>n�, >d,: .,. ... BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR Concord-Pleasant Hill Connector Bikeway Agency(ies).....Cities of Concord and Pleasant Hill f Type. Class 11/111 E. - .' Miles................4.8 Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Local Adoption w This corridor illustrates both the need for and the difficulties of developing bikeways b in already developed suburban areas. The triangle formed by downtown Concord, ' � y' downtown Pleasant. Hill and Diablo Valley College are densely developed with jobs, retail centers, and neighborhoods, including xr the higher-density and lower-income neigh- i+ r borhoods around Monument Boulevard. The area is also split by Interstate 680 and SR 242,which are difficult barriers for bicyclists u to overcome. The obvious choices for bike- The varying width of Monument Boulevard(shown near way connections—Concord Avenue,Galindo Victory Lane) present challenges to bicyclists Streets, and Monument Boulevard—al- though shown on the Countywide Bike- FA V.-'.' 3^ i way Network, may not be feasible. Traffic volumes and speeds are high and right-of- -- way is limited. Alternative off-street align- ments, as suggested in the Concord TrollsJM *. �.. Master Plan, will need to be investigated. The analysis of collisions done for this �•- (f plan found Monument Boulevard to have a very high number of incidents, especially " F l r, '�,"� at the intersections with Oak Grove Road, p Iron Horse Trail, and Detroit Avenue. This number may be high because so many bi- cyclists use Monument Boulevard for its direct access to Downtown Concord and .r Downtown Pleasant Mill. kk � 56 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR Brentwood-Oakley Bikeway Agency(ies).....Cities of Oakley and Brentwood Type.................Class t! Miles........... 5.5 ( f Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Local AdoptionTJ This bikeway along a portion of '. State Route 4 is a primary north- , �. south route in East County con- netting Oakley and Brentwood -� downtowns, Marsh Creek Re- =4�•-; µ N m. gional Trail, and the Delta de t,.'T r A Anza Trail. It is also designated as a trunkline bikeway in the tE East Contra Costa Bikeway ter Rd Plan. This bikeway begins on Main Street / SR 4 at the intersection i of Empire Avenue, goes through downtown Oakley, and heads south towards Brentwood. This I .__._..... Lone. re project ends at Sycamore Av- enue where Brentwood Boule- l I vard bike lanes begin.Shoulders I iT d are sporadic along this corridor and the pavement is largely in k poor condition, especially along 1 , ; the edges of the roadway. i ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 57 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR O'Hara-Minnesota Bikeway Agency(ies).....Cities of Oakley and Brentwood Type.................Class II Miles................4.0 Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Local Adoption The O'Hara Avenue and Minnesota Avenue corridor provides access to several schools, including Freedom High School, and parks in both Oakley and Brentwood while providing a parallel alternative to busy State Route 4. O'Hara Avenue begins at Main Street / SR 4 in Oakley and passes the Contra Costa Canal Trail and O'Hara Park on its way to Brentwood. The bikeway would lead to the proposed Mokelumne Crest to Coast Trail and on to Minnesota Avenue. (For location, see map from Brentwood-Oakley Bikeway on the preceding page.) As these areas of Oakley and Brentwood become developed, bicycle and pedestrian connections within this corridor must transpire. i 4 i fav bE 9 Z 7 e The shoulders along Main Street and Brentwood Boulevard are not especially favorable for bicyclists or O'Hara Avenue passes by bath new pedestrians subdivisions and agricultural land ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK rH' r` BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR Pittsburg Loop Bikeway r Agency(ies)...-City of Pittsburg r' F Type.................Class Ilrlll Miles................&2 Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis This proposed bikeway forms a north-south I' loop through central Pittsburg. Downtown, �r City Park, the Civic Center, Buchanan Park, '' several schools, and the proposed BART sta- tion are served by this route. j The bikeway follows Black Diamond , 9 Street, the Linear Park, and Railroad Avenue Harbor Street provides access the(delta de Anza Trail, to a newly constructed trail that diverts the shopping, and schools. bikeway to Crestview Drive. The route joins an existing bike route where Crestview meets the proposed Contra Costa Canal and continues to Buchanan Road. From Bu- chanan, the loop journeys back towards downtown aria Harbor Street to E. 3rd Street. By the end of 2002,the City of Pittsburg will complete the design phase of a portion of this , r,: bikeway. This will include Class II/III bikeways y. T on Harbor Street between Buchanan Road and illow Pass Rd r 5r School Street and bike lanes on Buchanan Road between.Railroad Avenue and Heights Avenue. Park sirle nr frur 6 r J Pr ', f U � i }` J 1 . \ K ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 59 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN F BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR _, Buchanan Road Bikeway rr 1 Agency(ies).....Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch Type.................Class 11 3.' Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Local Adoption Buchanan Road is an important east-west route between Pitts- - burg and Antioch south of State Route 4 and passes through the main residential area of Pittsburg.Much of the route in Pittsburg has bike lanes already while one section is nearing the comple- tion of the design phase. This project recommends completing the bikeway gap from Ventura Drive in Pittsburg to the end of Buchanan Road in Antioch. Once Buchanan is completed, Pittsburg residents will have a continuous, safe bikeway for access to County East Mall, the Delta de Anza Trail, and connect to the bike lanes on Contra Loma Boulevard. s: f i J�w Nh Eastbound Buchanan Road at Ventura Drive in Pittsburg =c 77q. t f r � " k 4 1 J \ I ?` t f 60 ADOPTED 13EC,EMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK ` is BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR J � State Route 24 Bikeway Agency(ies).....Cities of Orinda and Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Caltrans, County L Type.................Class l/li/Ill w Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Local Adoption .� The State Route 24 Bikeway connects Oakland and Walnut r Creek via a combination of paths, bike lanes, and designated bike routes with connections to both the Orinda and Lafayette BART stations. This project involves three segments, the most ` n challenging aspect of the bikeway in terms of topography and traffic and access through.downtown Lafayette. Fish Ranch Road One proposed section of this corridor is between Alameda County and Orinda. Bicyclists are now allowed to utilize the shoulder of SR 24 between the Orinda exit and.Fish Ranch Road. Traffic volumes and speeds do not make for a pleasant ride, so the feasibility of a shared use pathway along SR 24 should be studied. Not only would it help commuters reach Oakland and cb Ad ` El . . Lt= La ayett i b i eresr Vfewv ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 61 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN � ..r=� �; 'sisd4�a'�a.;Ya'�'pcs tRxSS�.aYt�.=,ax..�. �d�,ws� �rra� .���e4�+,��x•ut .? .r�=,s3 ,,:,;�^ t� i�., z � ,., ..,.. ,r;:a�,,.:. ,,. ,. s a;;.. � �,; Berkeley, it could encourage people to bike and walk to the Shakespeare Festival at Bruhns Amphitheater. Bicyclists are directed to use Fish Ranch Road to enter Alam- eda County at Claremont Avenue and the University of Califor- nia-Berkeley campus. This route is fairly steep and a less than ideal route for average bicyclists. There has been some discus- a sion about possibility of a fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel. Any feasibility studies should consider bicycle access in the tunnel as well. The second proposed segment of the SR 24 corridor is through downtown Lafayette. Traveling east, Mount Diablo Boulevard has bike lanes Dolores Drive. Bicycle facilities are absent through the heart of downtown Lafayette with bike lanes resuming at 151 Street. Limited right-of-way, heavy traffic, and numerous driveways make the section of roadway between Do- lores Drive and 1st Street uninviting to a majority of bicyclists although the City of Lafayette has recently made some improve- ments to this segment. A more attractive route for bicyclists is taking Mountain View Drive to Brook Street to Moraga Road and back up to Mt. Diablo Boulevard. In the long-term, a trail following the EIBMUD aqueduct between SR 24 and Mt. Diablo Boulevard is under consideration. Providing both off-street and on-street bikeways through Lafayette would greatly enhance bi- cycling in Lamorinda. sk �Ad­­, ✓ r in LAFAw w 6 a.slra}'t`'t t t I�itservai r t ' 62 ADOPTED DECEMBER 117, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK V .. + 5#� xr$, Y kE rkid�ii 7�:C 'S52%7.�. .°MAWK `NM�x.u.r. I kr. i P' { I F z� 3: Newell Avenue passes through busy downtown Walnut Creek and quiet residential neighborhoods s The third segment of this project involves completing con- nections into downtown Walnut Creek. The bike lanes along Olympic Boulevard are an important link to the Lafayette-Mor- aga Regional Trail. However, they terminate at Newell Avenue and resume east of I-680. Completing this gap with bike lanes would benefit the many bicyclists traveling between downtown Walnut Greek and the Lafayette-Moraga Trail. A Class III bike route is proposed along Newell Avenue, a mostly residential street that connects the bike lanes on Olympic Boulevard to the Iron Horse Trail near South Broadway. This also links with the proposed Central County Bikeway along California Boulevard/ Main Street/Contra Costa Boulevard. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 63 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR Lafayette-Moraga Trail & Walnut Cheek Bikeway - g Agency(ies).....Cities of Walnut Creek and Lafayette, County Type.................Class HAI i Miles................?.0 Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Local Adoption There are no continuous bikeways between the downtowns of Walnut Creek and Lafayette, Portions of the Mt. Diablo Boule- vard-Camino Diablo corridor and Olympic Boulevard are cur- rently Class II and Class III bikeways,but have crucial gaps.The Lafayette-Moraga Trail provides access to downtown Lafayette and is served by bike lanes on both Pleasant Hill Road and Olympic Boulevard. Newell Avenue provides an alternative route to downtown Walnut Creek from the Lafayette-Moraga Trail. A Class III bike route is proposed along this residential street that joins the bike lanes on Olympic Boulevard (between the Lafayette-Moraga Trail and Newell Avenue) to the Iron Horse Trail near South Broadway. This also links to the proposed Central County ', Bikeway along California Boulevard-Main Street-Contra Costa Boulevard, 4' i 1y C Gro t x 3 + i ' T v 64 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17. 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK --`.. .A;�,.ft �:rz�aaa ��saaa�aer,�,�;��ram sF r:.��^c"...��. .,.,rta� ¢ Fa;��a�,ae�a ter,:�i�sa ,aeras .�u.....; ::.r. s�..�.� ..,.� _ ,,..: as. .. �;..'•sem .�..• BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR lamorinda Linkages Agency(ies).....Lafayette, Moraga Type.................Class ll/lli Miles................3.9(unbuilt portions) iF Next Steps.....,Feasibility Analysis, Design., Local Adoption The Lamorinda area, comprised of the communities of Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda, can be a challenging place to bicycle due to the hilly terrain and narrow, windy roads. Two of the most traveled roadways in Lamorinda are Moraga Way and Moraga k Road. Moraga Way links the Orinda BART station to downtown Moraga, while Moraga Road joins the downtowns of Lafayette k and Moraga. Moraga Road also has bike lanes from the intersection with Moraga Way to the Lafayette boundary. Within Lafayette, the street is windy while climbing up and down hills and has little to no shoulder area for bicyclists.A Class III bike route is recom- mended between School Street and Old Jonas Hill Road to alert motorists of bicyclists. 4-. �1 5' Narrow shoulders with steep drop-offs are perilous to the bicyclists riding along Moraga Road ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 65 =s; CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Moraga Way is a Class II facility along the entire corridor but sidewalks are scarce,forcing pedestrians to share bike lanes with the bicyclists. Improvements should be made within the f' corridor to provide better walking conditions. One alternative to both of these busy roadways is a bike route along the Acalanes Road-Glorietta Boulevard corridor through primarily residential areas.Acalanes Road would connect to ex- _ isting bike routes on El Nido Rand Road and Mt.Diablo Boulevard. Glorietta Boulevard proceeds to Moraga Way,which has existing bike lanes. Rheem Boulevard would be added to this project to connect the route ,�,, on Glorietta Boulevard to the ex- isting bike route on .... r F x R h e e m ,, 3 ,." LA - Boulevard in Moragaw •:�� �' , ' that leads to Moraga it6' Road. ' 5e11V0ir ` �, ♦, y e j ! f � 66 ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK ;�' '"ifs .<.,�i...'e5._e,'£.ex�6 �y 4�4a YuwA�:.> 34",�'.5«S�i35�51e"a 9!R'£'d`vn D'.'Y"�b;?£_F/.er+ss,1,'���;.afiF,S`.;5'§dn9,'P ro,n,,x::�',k.3'k .,v e.:'8.4•...x.5.+:s'Xm�:iti6�ntZil.'Y£i9u. .,��.`:Y. .,...vr�s.,.'4.h'�K.,',.csn'SR lam' 3 kli f BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR t Rural Road Improvements Agency(ies).....County, local jurisdictions, Caltrans A "rural road" is considered any unimproved roadway with no (or limited) curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. While such roadways are often located in more rural areas,many may be found within i the incorporated boundaries of Contra Costa cities. Rural road- ways in undeveloped areas are often popular routes for recre- ational bicyclists, such as Pinehurst Road in the Canyon area. x' The improvements outlined in this project are designed to address the various problems on rural roads identified during public outreach on the CBPP.Agencies could use a combination r' of any of the following mechanisms (see Figures 9 and 10 on fol- lowing pages for illustrations): 1. Advisory and warning signs, including, where appropriate, "Watch for Bicyclist"signs R Z. Shoulder widening or new shoulders 3. Travel lane re-striping where sufficient width is available 3�. � 4. New or improved turnouts 5. Enhanced roadway surface maintenance Striping of lane edges and bike lanes, although not common in rural areas, may be desirable in many parts of the county. Contra Costa is somewhat unusual in that major urban areas are separated undeveloped and rural hills, and many of the connec- tions between these areas are two-lane roads built to rural road standards.These roads,because they connect these urban areas, often carry higher traffic volumes and,because they run through hills, often have limited sight distance at curves. The County is currently planning to create a number of Class II facilities planned in these rural areas. _ Good examples of roadways on the countywide network that 'i would benefit from some of these treatments are Alhambra Val- ley Road, Marsh Creek Road, Vasco Road, portions of San Pablo Avenue, Byron Highway, Reliez Valley Road, San Pablo Dam Road,Tassajara and Kirker Pass Road. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 67 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN w i n install turnouts y where feasible � Lower speed limits t + increase enforcement p x i 7 ♦ �^ S' r�pn Install uphill . Install "Share the climbing Eases Q Road" and other K bicycle signs clwo V I �LL3 L✓ ~ Consider narrowingkk lanes to 11 feet H Add 3-4 foot shoulders V, where feasible i1N9 'c" Figure 9: Suggested Rural Road Treatments T 68 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK T;I Add roadway width where feasible . a € � Guardrail 3'- 3'- Ji €'I E �. 4 i 4i € j: Move utility poles; - add shouldersI ;u ' Install drainage 3'— 3'— and shoulders i , 't Figure 10: Suggested Rural Road Treatments ti/fl9 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 69 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN s ter+ MR ....:Isf, w..->kat.✓.fr' v,,..,.. '.:.:i,.,,. 4. S&. 4�iYs.LR zGsP+s.•,xc; ri. k*?,.d.Y, C..,.di.,z ilkCk3'.v;.'"£d?'4_:k, BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT CORRIDOR k Completing Regional Trails Agency(ies).....East Bay Regional Parks District, Association of Bay Area Governments, Local agencies Type.................Class 1 Miles................88.3 miles(on CBPP countywide system) Next Steps......Feasibility Analysis, Design, Local Adoption Contra Costa is fortunate to have an extensive system of regional l' trails already popular with residents. However, there are still r: critical gaps in all of these trails that prevent them from becom- ing truly world-class facilities. The East Bay Regional Parks Dis- trict Master Plan and the Bay Trail Plan promote the concept of 3" several regional trails and serve as the guiding documents for a this project. The trails that are most significant to the region i include the Iron Horse Trail, Delta de Anna Trail, Bay Trail, P Mokelumne Aqueduct Regional Trail, Marsh Creek Trail, and Big Break Trail. Bay Trail The Bay Trail is a planned 400-mile hiking and bicycling cor- ridor of spine and spur segments around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Just over half of the proposed 4 on-and off-street bikeways have been constructed. Fronting on both San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, Contra Costa has more ' shoreline than any other county in the Bay Area. This shoreline is a precious scenic and recreational asset for the entire county, as well as the rest of the San Francisco Bay Region, making completion of the San Fran- 1, cisco Bay Trail critically important to connect ` V shoreline parks and to connect people with the shoreline. The Shoreline Trail in Rodeo, Hercules, and Richmond, especially connecting Point Wilson in Pinole to Goodrick Avenue on the Richmond Parkway via Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, is a priority in the CBPP as it con- nects to growing areas of West County and to the future Amtrak station in Hercules. Other proposed location for the Shoreline Trail in Hercules 1 70 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK k f. trail projects planned in Contra Costa include the Carquinez Bay Trail between Crockett and Martinez; Wildcat Creek Trail, Richmond Parkway from Gertrude Avenue to Garrard Blvd.; San Pablo Avenue in the north; and Cutting Blvd.from Garrard Blvd. to the BNSF railroad right-of-way. Bay Trail access to San Pablo Peninsula is also needed from Tewksbury Avenue in Richmond i across the 1-580 corridor, on to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and through Point Molate and Point San Pablo to the Point San Pablo,Yacht Harbor as part of the planned regional shoreline park. Iron Horse Regional Trail The Iron Horse Regional 7)vil follows the abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way that spans 33 miles from Livermore in Alameda County to Suisun Bay along the north side of Contra Costa County. 'Twenty-three miles are already completed, with connections to both the Contra Costa Canal Trail and The Delta De Anza Trail.Gaps in the current system are found in Concord, r in Pleasant Hill, and near the Pleasant Hill BART Station. An important extension of the trail is planned.from Marsh Drive in Concord to the new bikeway on the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. a' Delta de Anza Trail z The Delta de Anza 71ail is a major regional trail in the central and eastern sections of the x counter. The trail generally follows EBMUD's utility corridor and the Contra Costa Water x District's canal corridor. Fifteen miles of the planned 25 miles can be found through Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Oakley A gap from Hillcrest Avenue in Antioch to Neroly , Road in Oakley is a priority for EBRPD. The western terminus of the trail is currently at Willow Pass Road but an important link.from The Delta-de Anza Trail at Bailey Read near the Pitts- that point to the Iron Horse Trail is planned. burg-Bay Point BART station ADOPTED DECEMBER i/, 2003 71 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN pq .•£ ..�m BT• .c emS�s" .n,h.Y uv,:.,-,Rnh* ,..\:Y B,�..%M:.`?"3..«: ..,c a„#e,'_ i,&Wv ,L;;6.8.,,v?i rMl.e,«. 5va�:«u1s33 .e 3tt.A^31s..3.>. T.iSu .. A„i ?."5,..k. .f.'La..3 ...a..iX'i;. .CT.eWk¢:.1: r' F- «. t Mokelumne Aqueduct Regional Trail The Mokelumne Aqueduct Regional 7Mil is a portion of the Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail, a planned 300-mile trail lead- ing from the San Francisco Bay to the Sierra Nevada Mountains i; just south of Lake Tahoe.It will pass through Martinez,Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Brentwood in Contra Costa. Nearly 5.5 miles of the trail has been built in Antioch, although some of it R needs improvements. A crucial component along this trail will f ,' be access over the State Highway 4 Bypass to connect the Brent- wood and Antioch sections. - r a> t a Union Pacific Rail Trail The Union Pacific Rail Tmil,in conjunction with a proposed trail : along Neroly Road and Bridgehead Road, could provide a 17.6- mile off-street pathway from the Antioch Bridge in the north to the Alameda county line in the south. The trail would link to the Delta de Anza Trail at the Oakley-Antioch boundary, Marsh - Creek Trail, Mokelumne Crest to Coast Trail, and the Delta-de Anza Rock Slough to Bethany Reservoir Trail south of Byron. The trail would also cross other on-street bikeways in the pro- posed countywide bicycle network, including Wilbur Avenue, Oakley Road, Laurel Road, Minnesota and O'Hare Avenues, Brentwood Boulevard, and Balfour Road. Current feasibility studies indicate that the union Pacific right-of-way may be used for a HART extension to Brentwood and Byron and possibly Tracy. If such plans are adopted, the right-of-way should utilize rail-with-trail designs not only to encourage multi-modal transportation in East County,but to im- prove access to proposed stations in Oakley and Brentwood. l ' r Marsh Creek Regional Trail The Marsh Creek Regional Trail consists of 6.5 miles of paved, multi-use trail extending from the Delta to Creekside Park in Brentwood. Future segments of the trail will extend south of Brentwood along Marsh Creek to the Marsh Creek Reservoir and follow Camino Diablo Road to the entrance to Round Valley Regional Preserve,When completed, the trail will become a pre- 72 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 4 BIKEWAY NETWORK a �j r .�. C_ 6 Eq , -- The Marsh Creek Trail mier 14-mile north-south corridor through Eastern Contra Costa. it As with the Mokelumne Trail,it will he crucial to provide access over the State Highway 4 Bypass to connect the Brentwood and g Antioch sections. Big Break Regional Frail Big Break.Regional Trail is a planned six-mile paved, multi-use trail along the Delta shoreline. A 1.62 mile portion has been completed between the Marsh Creek Trail to Jordan Lane in Oakley. �i ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 73 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 74 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 5 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK WE ARE ALL PEDESTRIANS AT SOME TIME, whether strolling through a park, using a wheel- chair from BART to work,skateboarding to school, or walking to the post office. This chapter intro- duces the elements and actions that are needed to create a safe, well-designed system of pedestrian facilities. Recommended countywide pedestrian ' M� projects are described at the conclusion of this u ` chapter. Pedestrian Needs A well-designed and well-maintained system of pedestrian facilities—one that includes well- marked crosswalks, sidewalks and pathways of adequate width, and frequent connections--can encourage more people to walk. Sidewalks and ? jlt ` ' pathways, the most basic elements, need to form � M a connected network. They need to be wide The location of this pole and the narrow sidewalk inhibits enough to comfortably accommodate the expect- mobility for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs. ed pedestrian volume. Surfaces should be kept as level as possible. Intersections should have well- locations to improve visibility of nighttime cross- designed curb ramps on all corners. Crosswalks ings. Finally, the connected network must pro- should be well marked and visible. Traffic signal vide access to destinations that attract pedestrian phasing should allow adequate time for pedestri- travel, such as schools and parks, neighborhood ans to cross. Streetlights may be needed in some CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN I ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 All CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PIAN shopping,transit stops,libraries,post offices,and dollies or carts, and small children on bicycles. other public facilities. Wide sidewalks invite people to stroll side-by- side and enable wheelchairs, bicycles, strollers, and scooters to pass one another. Smooth sur- AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT faces reduce the risk of elderly pedestrians and OF 1990 small children tripping.Therefore,whenever one Persons with disabilities are particularly aware of is analyzing, planning, or designing pedestrian design features that contribute to improved walk- facilities, accommodating persons with disabili- ing or rolling conditions. The Americans with ties must be of utmost concern. Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 made the country realize the particular needs of physically and mentally impaired individuals. This civil rights Existing Pedestrian FiC1I1@S act prohibits public entities from designing new The state of pedestrian facilities in Contra Costa facilities or altering existing facilities that are not is extremely variable. Some places have good accessible to people with disabilities. As a result facilities and some places do not. Many older— of ADA, curb ramps are a basic component of all and, encouragingly,some newer—neighborhoods sidewalk construction. and downtowns have extensive, well-connected Sidewalk construction, curb ramp design, and well-maintained sidewalks, paths,and cross- and other accessibility standards have been de- walks. Many commercial projects and residential veloped on a federal level in two documents, the subdivisions developed over the last 50 years, Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) however, were built without sidewalks. These and the Americans with Disabilities Act Acces- developments were designed for motor vehicle sibility Guidelines (ADAAG). States are given access and sidewalks were seen as unnecessary. the option to adhere to one of these, but may Other areas were developed without sidewalks in also adopt more stringent standards than the an attempt to preserve a "country living" quality Federal minimum guidelines. Caltrans conforms at a time when Contra Costa was less populated. to the policies of UFAs and Title 24 of the Cali- National standards often suggested doing with- forma Code of Regulations. Title 24, developed out them to reduce the cost of development. In by the Division of the State Architect, has some some places, sidewalks were developed only on stricter accessibility requirements than UPAS. In 2001, the Federal Highway Administration released Designing Sidewalks and Rails for Access, Part 11, Rest Practices Design Guide to provide the most up-to-date guidance on the design and construction of accessible pe- destrian facilities. Designing pedestrian facilities to accommodate persons with dis- abilities improves the walking ex- perience for all users. Curb ramps are helpful to parents pushing strollers, delivery persons pulling A Concord neighborhood without sidewalks. 76 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 5 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK , i one side of the street or in a non-continuous, dis- jointed fashion. In many neighborhoods, especially neighbor- hoods that were not developed as part of more formal sub , g divisions sidewalks are missing alto- gether.These more incrementally developed areas ' are often served by narrow roadways with neither shoulders nor sidewalks. Adding sidewalks after the fact is difficult: adequate right-of-way is of- ten unavailable or difficult to develop. Residents have often "adopted" undeveloped right-of-way and have incorporated it into their front yards. Many residents feel that sidewalks would not be in keeping with the area's "semi-rural" character. Parking on sidewalks is another problem in some areas, especially where the roadway is bordered W , by a"rolled curb,"which allows motorists to easi- ly drive their vehicles onto the sidewalks.Parking along shoulders is also problematic when there is no alternative location for pedestrians to walk. Older retail areas,especially older downtowns a such as Martinez, often have well-developed pe- Some sidewalks along Ygnacio Valley Road in Walnut Creek are directly adjacent to the busy roadway and destrian systems with wide sidewalks, clearly shared with bicyclists. marked crosswalks, and slower vehicle speeds. Many areas, such as downtown Brentwood, have incorporated pedestrian-friendly features such as sidewalks from adjoining travel lanes by a plant- "bulb-outs," which reduce the distance pedestri- ing strip. While some areas, such as the intersec- t ans must cross at an intersection, and improved tion of Treat with Oak Grove and Bancroft, are intersection lighting. However, commercial areas served by sidewalks along the streets themselves built after World War II often have narrow or but are not always connected to adjoining land discontinuous sidewalks or none at all. Many of uses with other sidewalks or paths. these areas were developed along wide arterial streets to accommodate automobile access. The width of these streets requires considerable time Recommended Improvements for pedestrians to cross, especially younger and The following actions can help create the safe, older citizens. In some cases, sidewalks are built direct, and well-connected system of facilities directly adjacent to the traveled way with no sep- needed to encourage more Contra Costans to aration between pedestrians and adjoining high walk. More detailed design guidelines and rec- speed traffic, as found along Willow Pass Road in ommendations can be found in Appendix B. Concord and San Pablo Avenue. Most major arterial streets within Contra Costa have sidewalks. While some streets have IMPROVE SIDEWALKS sidewalks built directly adjacent to travel lanes, The sidewalk is the most obvious element of the most notably Treat Boulevard, others separate pedestrian network. The sidewalk must have a ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, 2003 77 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ANIS PEDESTRIAN PIAN clear path wide enough to accommodate the wid- community centers, and parks, 10 to 12 feet is est wheelchair, baby carriage or similar device as preferable. well as the expected volume of pedestrian traffic. This "clear zone" must be free of street furniture, signposts, sandwich boards, and any other ob- IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS structions. In most residential neighborhoods in Safe and clearly marked street crossings are criti- Contra Costa, a five-foot sidewalk would provide cal parts of a pedestrian network. The most chal- enough space for two people to walk side by side. lenging aspect of pedestrian travel are crossings, Sidewalks along arterial or major streets should where nearly all pedestrian-motorist collisions have wider sidewalks, especially if the sidewalk occur. abuts the curb, to provide increased distance be- One method to reduce pedestrian-motorist tween pedestrians and vehicles. Where adjoining conflicts is to shorten the crossing distance. Pe- businesses or other destinations would attract destrian refuge islands,curb extensions,reducing more pedestrians, the sidewalks should be about curb return radii,and eliminating a travel lane are seven feet wide to accommodate wheelchairs popular measures used to reduce the width of the traveling side-by-side, or two people walking to- intersection.A good example can be found along gether while passing a third. Where even higher Contra Costa Boulevard in downtown Pleasant pedestrian use is expected, such as in down- Hill where pedestrian islands are also equipped towns, on shared-use paths, or around schools, with pedestrian push buttons if one cannot cross the entire roadway during one cycle. Another way to increase pedestrian safety is by using devices to warn motorists of the pres- ence of pedestrians, such as signs, signals, and lights. Removing sight obstructions, such as parked cars, trees, and signs, also improves vis- ibility. �. Traffic signal timing is an important aspect of pedestrian crossing safety. Some pedestrians, especially people with mobility impairments and • the elderly, need additional crossing time.Longer crossing times should be considered in areas ex- pected to serve slower pedestrians, such as near retirement homes. Agencies must balance the need for adequate pedestrian crossing times with traffic flow. When crossing times are too long, motorists can experience extra delay at the inter- section.When traffic cycles are too long,pedestri- ans can grow impatient and cross during gaps in traffic. Pedestrian actuated signals are an option �z{ to respond to pedestrian crossing demand. c Some conditions may require more extreme „ x ; treatments. For instance, pedestrians are re This sign in Hercules reminds drivers to yield to pedestri- stricted from crossing some intersections due to ans in the crosswalk. the complexity of the turning movements or poor 78 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 5 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK F' 7 ,f By separating Iron Horse Trail users and traffic along Ygnacio Valley Road,this bicycle and pedestrian bridge reduces con- flicts and improves travel for bicyclists and pedestrians and for drivers, visibility. A special bicycle-pedestrian overcross- for all users, or as space for other corridor ameni- ing or undercrossing may be constructed to over- ties such as poles and signs. Puffers should he come such restrictions or to cross a large barrier, two to four feet along residential streets and four such as an interstate highway or major arterial to six feet along arterial or major streets. roadway.However,these treatments are generally reserved for unusual situations as they are very ENSURE CONNECTIVITY expensive. On long blocks in pedestrian districts or at Modern developments, whether commercial and schools, a mid-block crossing may be justified. industrial projects or residential subdivisions, These crossings must be well designed and high- have often created connectivity challenges for ly visible to avoid conflicts. pedestrians. They are commonly separated from neighboring land uses by barriers like walls, and are typically planned with limited access points. PROVIDE SIDEWALK BUFFERS For instance, people must often walk hundreds of The level of comfort a pedestrian experiences feet out of their way to a collector street to reach while walking on a sidewalk can be enhanced the entrance of a neighboring subdivision. By with a planting strip or a buffer zone.Extra space including short, direct pedestrian connections between the sidewalk and the curb protects pe- between adjoining land uses, jurisdictions can destrians from being hit by opening car doors or make walking (and bicycling) more attractive. splashed by water accumulated at the side of the These connections between adjacent land uses roadway.It also increases the sense of safety while along access easements provide "short-cuts" not walking beside heavy or fast traffic. This buffer available to motorists. space can be used for streetscape improvements, further enhancing the attractiveness of a corridor ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 79 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FLAN IMPROVE THE STREETSCAPE In some areas, a higher level of attention to the details of the pedestrian environment is justified by expected high pedestrian use and to encourage pedestrian activity. Streets where the elements are scaled to human size rather than vehicle size are attractive to pedestrians. Streetscape improvements such as public art,benches, drink- ing fountains, trash receptacles, special transit � r shelters, and pedestrian-scaled lighting fixtures �� are examples of amenities that help balance the pedestrian-motorist environment. -- W � Alternative Sidewalk Materials To meet ADA requirements, a walkway must be , firm, stable, and slip-resistant. Portland cement concrete is the most widely used sidewalk mate- rial for its versatility and durability. When prop- erly maintained, it can last one hundred years. Asphalt is an alternative to concrete that is usual- This new subdivision in Brentwood provides a walkway i less expensive,but wires more maintenance between adjacent developments, offering a short cut for y ex p requires children walking to Garin School. and lasts only about 40 years. Brick, aggregate, and cobblestone are other materials that are used, often for their decorative In commercial areas, local businesses can help properties. These are more costly and may not by keeping front windows lit, which not only be as smooth or slip resistant. However, they are provides lighting to passersby but also encour- quite visually appealing and are a good choice for ages after-hours window shopping.Walnut Creek sidewalk borders or buffer zones. has a lamppost adoption program that grew out Unpaved trails can still meet ADA require- of the Downtown Enhancement and Street Light- ments with materials like decomposed granite, ing Project. Individual contributions help to fund packed soil, and other natural surfaces with the replacement cobra-style streetlights with`old proper base material preparation. Soil stabilizers town"decorative pedestrian lighting.However,in can also be applied to bind soil or aggregates into residential areas,the brightness and style must be a hardened, durable surface, tailored to the neighborhood experience. Lighting off-street pathways can create some controversy. While some people may feel more Illumination secure on a lit pathway at night, opponents Good lighting can help improve pedestrian safety, are concerned that this could create attractive especially at intersections.Lighting pedestrian fa- places for undesirable activity, invades privacy, cilities also increases the comfort and perception and causes light intrusion on neighboring prop- of personal security, thereby influencing route erty.jurisdictions and other agencies will need to choice and their decision whether or not to walk. $0 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 5 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK The concrete sidewalks in downtown Clayton are stamped and colored to resem- ble an Old VVest boardwalk. J �'. 4 ',, 2� .' � H•w1 3�,.PJe.Y kax R' work with adjoining businesses and residents to decide whether and how to add lighting. Landscaping and Street Trees x> m Landscaping and street trees enhance the walk- ing experience and provide shade. However, veg- etation must be carefully selected to minimize future maintenance and safety issues. Upward branching trees and low growing shrubs are ideal selections to provide shade without blocking vis- ibility. Care must be given to selecting trees with root structures that will not damage sidewalks. Also, trees and shrubs must be trimmed to avoid creating hazards for the visually impaired and to provide adequate sight distance. Adjoining Design Pedestrian facilities can attract greater use where they are adjoined by buildings and spaces that provide pleasing and interesting views. In down- town areas, vibrant, changing window displays instead of blank walls and covered windows or Pedestrian-scaled lighting is provided along this pathway leading to the Antioch Amtrak Station:. ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, 2003 81 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN parking lots creates a more engaging, and thus similar purpose while boosting driver aware- more attractive, environment. Sidewalks that ness of pedestrians. E are bordered by a "streetwall" of welcoming Raised crosswalks, like speeds humps, are storefronts can persuade people to walk from raised devices (often using brick or other place to place,creating both more pedestrian and "special" paving to distinguish it from the economic activity. Limiting the amount of park- street) designed to slow automobiles and to ing along sidewalks or providing buffers between emphasize pedestrian movement. The cross- parking and sidewalks can also help define the walks are usually at the same level as the pedestrian sphere. adjoining sidewalks and are most often, but not exclusively, used for mid-block crossings in commercial or higher-density residential APPLY TRAFFIC CALMING areas. Over the past several years, "traffic calming" has Narrower streets affect motorist behavior in grown in popularity as a technique to improve a psychological manner. If the driving space both bicycle and pedestrian movement, especial- is perceived as narrow,motorists will react by lv in residential areas.Traffic calming devices are driving more carefully.Narrowing the street— installed to slow motorists, increase awareness of or making it appear so to motorists—can be bicyclists and pedestrians around them, reduce achieved in a number of ways, including cut-through traffic, and reduce the frequency of street trees, striping (bike lanes), contrasting higher speed collisions. pavement or texture on the roadway edges, Common traffic calming devices include: and on-street parking. ■ Traffic circles force motorists approaching an intersection from all directions to slow down. Many cities around the country have cre- This allows more opportunity for pedestrians aced neighborhood traffic plans. These involve to cross the street. residents and city staff working together to find Curb bulb-outs, ehockers, and neckdowns solutions to cut-through traffic, speeding ve- ■ reduce the width of the street,thus decreasing hides, and neighborhood safety problems.Traffic Calming devices typically are used to accomplish the crossing distance for pedestrians and slow motor vehicular traffic. these goals. ■ Diagonal diverters prohibit through traffic by forcing motorists to turn at intersections. IDENTIFY AND IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN The diverter is typically designed to allow DISTRICTS bicycle and pedestrian through movement. A partial diverter Can limit traffic access in one Pedestrian districts are areas of mixed or dense land use and intense or potentially intense pedes- direction but allow through traffic in the op- trian activity.Generally,these areas: posite direction. Partial diverters also narrow the crossing distance for pedestrians. Street 1. Contain a dense mix of residential and com- closures are a form of a traffic diverter that mercial uses and discourage more auto-ori- should only be utilized in extreme cases. tinted uses, ■ Speed humps are raised asphalt devices that 2. Have convenient and frequent transit connec- force automobiles to slow down. Well-de- tions, signed humps work well for bicyclists. Raised 3. Be right-sized (that is, not too small and not intersections and raised crosswalks serve a too large), 82 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 5 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK 4. Have visually interesting and pedestrian- scaled buildings, 5. Include a safe and well-connected set of pe- destrian facilities, and IF 5. Have parking lots that are separated from pe- � t �� 'rt destrians. ar The CBPP recommends that jurisdictions in Contra Costa identify pedestrian districts where the number of people walking is already signifi- cant or where increasing the number of pedes- trians would support local goals for the district. .Local jurisdictions can, and often do, designate pedestrian districts in their General Plans or in d Specific Pians, although the purpose for such a � ,� �� °� x designation can often be more than just establish- i ing a pedestrian district, For example, downtown area plans often focus on improving pedestrianM �.rp movement through pedestrian-friendly develop- meat as part of a larger effort to make the area more vital and economically vibrant. As part of this designation, jurisdictions New development in downtown Walnut Creek has would establish policies and guidelines for these included wide sidewalks, interesting paving, benches and districts to create a well-functioning pedestrian clearly rr,arked crosswalks to encourage walking. system and supporting land uses. These local design standards and guidelines emphasize the office parks, and even strip retail centers could all mobility needs of pedestrians at least as needs be developed as pedestrian districts. Pedestrian for the movement of vehicles.Local general plans Improvement Projects would provide the basic policy direction and the Pedestrian trips average less than one-half designation of each district, while specific plans mile.Highly localized improvements such as curb or redevelopment plans can outline detailed ramps or sidewalk linkages to transit are more improvements to the pedestrian environment as important than a regional pedestrian network. well as improvements that support the health and Therefore,recommended pedestrian projects and viability of the businesses and neighborhoods programs consist of improvement packages that within the district. Changes to local zoning and can be implemented in specific areas or on spe- subdivision standards could be made to provide cific corridors by local agencies. In some cases, alternative development standards within pedes- projects listed as bikeway improvements, such as trian districts. Finally,jurisdictions can use these bike paths or shared use trails, serve pedestrian plans and policies, as well as surveys of streets needs as well.Two basic pedestrian enhancement within their control, to identify improvements types are presented in this plan: Americans with and include them within capital improvement Disabilities Act (ADA) Improvements and Pedes- programs,Downtowns,neighborhood retail hubs, trian Districts. Appendix F also includes pedes- transit-oriented developments, college campuses trian-related projects that local jurisdictions and and surrounding areas, mixed-use developments, agencies are actively pursuing. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 83 WE CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 4 Pedestrian Districts E3. Agency(ies).....Local jurisdictions Next Steps......Modify General Plan Transportation Elements, Master Plans, Streetscape Plans, Adoption Local communities wishing to enhance the pe- destrian environment in local commercial areas, N; employment areas, and downtowns may estab- lish a "pedestrian district." Designating these ' districts would allow for more innovative treat- ments of the public right-of-way, focus improve- t mems in targeted areas, and promote walking as the primary mode of transportation. `' t Identifying pedestrian districts can occur dur- ing the General Plan process, perhaps as part of the Circulation Element, and identified on land use maps. Other possible methods to enhance or +, create pedestrian districts include: 1U ■ Subdivision requirements for new devel- opments may call for mixed uses, narrower streets,shorter blocks,and additional empha- sis on the pedestrian environment. ■ Overlay districts place requirements and regulations in addition to the base zoning requirements in specific areas to achieve goals. Pedestrian overlay districts could be downtown Pleasant Hill applied to downtowns, areas surrounding college campuses, and transit centers to require additional pedestrian amenities and encourage pedestrian activity. € Specific Plans provide an overall and detailed plan for land z uses and development within a more circumscribed part of a community. The specific plan lays out design guidelines and improvements within the public right-of-way, including pedestrian improvements and can be the basis for assessment districts used to finance these improvements. ■ Design guidelines can be created to ensure new public and {= private development meets certain design standards and pro- vide necessary pedestrian amenities. 84 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 5 PEDESTRIAN NETWORKM. ■ Assessment districts require property owners to pay a fee to L cover special improvements such as landscaping, ornamen- tal lighting, or sweeping. To delineate a pedestrian district, jurisdictions should locate areas that meet, or could meet, most of the following character- istics: Lend Use is the most critical aspect of a successful pedes- trian district.The area should be zoned to encourage a dense F mix of residential and commercial uses and discourage more auto-oriented uses such as fast food restaurants with drive- up windows and auto dealerships or repair shops.This strat- egy makes it more convenient to walk to many destinations for work, leisure, or running daily errands within a relatively small area. A mix of uses can also instigate round-the-clock activity. ■ Convenient and frequent Transit Connections provide at- tractive alternatives to driving and broaden the realm one can travel without a vehicle. Similarly, a pedestrian district should welcome bicycles by providing ample bicycle parking " and bikeways throughout the district to encourage non-mo- t' torized movement. ■ The District must be large enough to promote a relatively substantial amount of development and land use mix but not so large that people may feel compelled to drive to reach destinations within the district. The Portland Pedestrian Plan recommends an area no less than 600 feet and no more than one mile in anv direction. t' The visual interest of Building Facades is important for pe- destrians. Every effort should go into avoiding blank walls, plated glass, vacant lots, etc. and encouraging window dis- il. g plays, sidewalk cafes, art work, and interesting architectural design elements that help create a sense of place and wel- coming environment. All Roadways within the district should contain well-de- signed, convenient and connected facilities so that pedestri- ans feel welcomed. Wide, unobstructed sidewalks should be built on both sides of each street, and curb extensions, street trees, lighting, and improved crosswalks should be provided. Traffic calming devices, lower speed limits, narrowed travel ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 85 21,E CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN „...u:, '.: s 3.'Sa`33t33Y�,;kti...%#�A4:.�iC.'.s `.d�iWi&'?�tJ2 +3i�a'&�r�H�sM° '#. "YS��AH�:L`74;.8T�f23:i#ki,�:SS:'Y,� .s¢a.::::'..b' x....z n,. "&�L..:: .,, .,s. �:O�iR .y,•e,",•,.. lanes, traffic signals timed to walking speeds, and similar improvements lessen the conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles.The Authority is considering changes to the lev- el-of-service standards in its Growth Management Program to avoid penalizing jurisdictions that emphasize pedestrian movement within these districts. ■ parking Lots should not dominate views from,the sidewalk. Surface parking should be screened from the right-of-way by walls or fences and landscaping. However, for security reasons, the screening should be at a height (3 to 4 feet) that permits visibility from the sidewalk. When possible, parking garages should have commercial uses on the ground level for continuity of the district. Parking should be allowed on the street to provide more protection for pedestrians from traffic and to serve as a form of traffic calming. Direct pedestrian connections should be provided to parking lots and walking - F' routes should be well-lit when passing between buildings and.along pathways within parking lots, t€ rr R". r Downtown Pleasant Hill includes wide sidewalks, wide sidewalks and "bul- bouts"to help reduce crossing distances for pedestrians 86 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 5 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK K �ftt.e e�x,_ bk�AE6Nk£.,#,r, .'� ao.R.YU'fG:�b'e'�'Lk7:R:fi�ffiFF.* ",,.V„ tk •.'�, �'tmnZ"&'�irt. .x,�^'...b�#Y,... Cft4�.:� ,m.,,. mg;;.,.,,e�W:S9taa�a'r..,au.-.,e,.,,+ .'.. ME's,. 4n;u �F y,. PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS J Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Improvements Agency(ies).....Local public works, planning, and recreation departments, East Bay Regional Parks District, transit agencies Next Steps......Design standards,assessment/transition pians Title lI of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the U.S. Access Board have developed guidelines for constructing new and altered "accessible” infrastructure for persons of all abilities. Local agencies that plan and construct pedestrian fa- cilities should be kept informed of the latest recommendations. Several projects and programs can address accessibil- ity needs. First, agencies are advised to analyze current design standards and policies to ensure they meet or exceed current recommended standards. Sidewalk width, ramp construction ' (including coloration, tactile warning, and placement), cross- walk markings, pavement materials, driveway approaches, pe- r destrian signals (including audible signals), and signal timing i, are among the most basic elements that directly affect pedestrian x and wheelchair mobility. Second, local agencies should prepare assessments of the pedestrian facilities in their jurisdiction and develop a plan to correct deficient facilities. Locations to receive priority for im- provements include institutions that serve people with disabili- ties, hospitals, senior centers, nursing homes and assisted living cantors, downtowns,civic centers,public buildings,parks, com- munity facilities, and transit routes and stations. Some cities have developed programs that serve individual requests. For instance, if a child in a wheelchair cannot easily travel to school,gaps in the sidewalk system are closed and curb ramps installed.This demands a great deal of commitment by lo- cal jurisdictions but is invaluable to the public. Cities may iden- tify a lump sum amount in their capital improvement program (CIP)to address these special requests, ADOPTED DECEMBER 37, 2003 87 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 88 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 6 LINKS TO TRANSIT IMPROVING LINKS TO TRANSIT CAN MAKE how design and facilities influence ridership. A bicycling and walking a larger part of daily life, summary of the various transit operators in the enhance transit,and enrich communities. Transit county and existing station and transit center use can increase the range of travel for pedestri- amenities show the current state of transit in ans and bicyclists by overcoming barriers such Contra Costa. Finally, recommended improve- as the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, personal se- ments to the transit system are presented that curity concerns, nighttime travel, poor weather, can potentially encourage people to consider and hilly terrain. Providing convenient transit integrating walking, bicycling, and transit trips services for bicyclists and pedestrians can attract more often. new riders, expand weekend ridership with rec- reational bicyclists, and lessen demand for auto- mobile parking spaces. Combining walking and Tt' rt51 ��� '� Needs bicycling with transit trips benefits communities Several factors can contribute to one's unwilling- by reducing taxpayer costs,air pollution,demand ness or inability to utilize transit. The potential for park-and-ride land, energy consumption, and conflicts between the buses, cars, bicyclists, and traffic congestion with relatively low cost in- pedestrians that converge on transit stations can vestments. According to the 2000 Census, nine make them difficult places to walk or bicycle. percent of employed Contra Costa residents took Once at the station,bicyclists may become further some form of public transportation to work, and discouraged if bicycle parking is inadequate and nearly all of them either walk, roll, or bike to and bicycle access on buses and trains is restricted or from transit stops. prohibited.Pedestrians,especially those with dis- This chapter addresses the ways bicyclists abilities, may find deficiencies in the pedestrian and pedestrians view and utilize public transpor- network that limit their ability to use transit. To tation. The varying needs of bicycle/transit and reach transit and increase usage, bicyclists and pedestrian/transit users are highlighted to show pedestrians have three primary needs: CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 1 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ■ A dense system of well-designed routes to and Clearly defined spaces for bicyclists and pe- from transit destrians using pavement with color, striping, • Station and stop amenities texture, or other methods to help identify • Pedestrian and bicycle-friendly transit ve- spaces that are exclusively for bicycle and hicles pedestrian use such as bike lanes, crosswalks, and raised intersections; and designs that separate pedestrians from automobiles with SAFE ROUTES TO AND FROM TRANSIT features such as planter boxes, street trees, furnishings, or other design techniques Access to and from transit stops and stations can be challenging. Bikeways end before reaching the station, sidewalks may not lead directly to a PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE-FRIENDLY stop,and street crossings may be inconvenient or TRANSIT VEHICLES challenging. A dense network of walkways and bikeways around transit stations,with provisions The ability to transport bicycles on buses and made for the physically disabled, is necessary. trains is perhaps the key ingredient to encourage This includes signage to direct people to stations, bicyclists to extend travel distances. Both BART curb ramps for wheelchair access, and bus pads and Amtrak allow bicycles aboard cars, although for stops at unpaved locations. To provide these BART restricts this during peak commute peri- facilities, transit agencies must work together ods.Fortunately,most buses serving Contra Costa with the local jurisdictions. have front-loading bike racks. However, with storage for only two bicycles, racks often fill and force other bicyclists to wait for the next bus with STATION AND STOP AMENITIES no guarantee that is will have space, either. Some Various design elements and amenities at transit transit operators will allow bicycles on board, stations or stops can improve connections to tran- usually during off-peak times. Bicycle parking at sit and encourage transit ridership: stations and bus stops is an important solution to • Bicycle parking, both racks and lockers, as the on-transit capacity constraint. well as attended parking • Well-lit and signed stations and stops • All-weather paved waiting areas and/or shel- ters E ■ Pedestrian crossings at safe locations • Trash receptacles to help keep the space clean ho • Benches for long waiting periods and for the elderly people eo disabilities and le with disc b t es r �6 ill ■ Space free of obstacles so pedestrians and bi- cyclists can easily locate the stop, bus drivers can quickly detect waiting passengers, and waiting passengers have an increased sense of security Many Cruses in Contra Costa are equipped with bike racks which extend the range of bicyclists 90 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 5 LINKS TO TRANSIT In addition, buses and transit providers can help riders by providing clear destinational sig- �S nage both on the buses and at stops. Real-time �3 travel information has been implemented suc- cessfully in other parts of the country to help '` inform riders of the arrival and destination of buses. These systems, however, will require significant financial investments—at stops, on buses, and at centers of operation—that must compete for funding with day-to-day operations u and maintenance needs. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires all public transit operators to provide a special service to persons whose dis- abilities prevent them from using regular public transit along fixed routes. The ADA established criteria to determine which passengers are eli- gible for door-to-door paratransit service. Many other people with disabilities are able to ride fixed-route buses provided wheelchair lifts are available. "Kneeling,,, the feature that allows the steps to be lowered several inches, and low-floor Long-term parking for 20 bicycles is provided at the neve p transit center in Martinez. buses help people with limited range of motion embark and disembark from the vehicle. Richmond, Martinez, and Antioch stations while the Coast Starlight provides service from Los An- geles north to Seattle with stops at the Richmond and Martinez stations. OPERATORS County Connection (Central Contra Costa Seven transit agencies operate in Contra Costa. Transit Authority or CCCTA) operates 35 routes A brief description of their service areas is de- in the cities of Clayton, Concord, Danville, La- scribed below. fayette, Martinez, Moraga, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, AC Transit provides bus service to the western San Ramon, and Walnut Creek as well as the Contra Costa County cities of San Pablo, Rich- unincorporated areas in Central County. Also, an mond, and El Cerrito and to the unincorporated express bus operates between the Walnut Creek areas of El Sobrante and Kensington, in addition BART station and the Hillcrest Park and Ride in to Alameda County. Antioch during commute hours. Capital Corridor service provides intercity Golden Gate Transit, although it primarily and commuter rail service from San Jose to Sac- serves Sonoma, Marin, and San Francisco coun- ramento with stops in Contra Costa at the Rich- ties, does provide service between the San Rafael mond and Martinez stations. Transit Center and the El Cerrito del Norte BART Amtrak operates two rail lines through Contra station via Route 40 and to the Richmond HART/ Costa. The San Joaquin service is provided be- Amtrak station via Route 42. tween Oakland and Bakersfield with stops at the ADOPTED DECEMBER 27. 2003 91 CONTRA. COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN TABU 10 Bicycle Parking at Rail Stations and Transit Centers* TRANSIT AGENCY BIKE RACKS BIKE LOCKERS TOTAL Orinda BART Statiora> 26 28. 54 Lafayette BART Station 84 30 114 Walnut Creek BART Station 91 56 147 Pleasant Hill BART Station 308 90 398 ...................................... ......... Concord BART Station 126 40 166 N. Concord/Martinez BART Station 60 16 76 Pittsburoq Point BART Station 24 19 43 EI Cerrito Plaza BART Station 124 29 153 El Cerrito del Norte BART Stiction 154 27 181 Richmond BART&Amtrak Station 21 2 23 Richmond Transit Center 0 0 0 Martinez Amtrak Station 0 20 20 Antioch Amtrak Station 0 0 0 San Ramon Transit Center 25 12 37 Hercules Transit Center 2 6 8 TOTAL 1045 375 1420 * As of Summer 2002, Tri delta Transit(Eastern Contra Costa Transit of the county may lead to expanded BART service Authority or ECCTA)provides local service in An- to the east. tioch, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Pittsburg, Oak- ley, Shore Acres, and Bay Point with express bus service to Martinez and the Pittsburoay Point BIKE PARKING AND STORAGE BART station. A luxury express bus operates be- Safe bicycle parking is a concern to many bicy- tween Antioch and Livermore during the creek. cle-to-transit commuters.Table 10 shows the bike WestCAT (Western Contra Costa Transporta- parking capacity at Contra Costa rail stations and tion Authority) provides bus service to and from major transfer centers. Some bicyclists may need the EI Cerrito del Norte BART station in the cities to bring their bikes with them to finish their trip of Pinole and Hercules and the neighboring eom- from the stop or station. Table 11 shows bicycle munities of Western Contra Costa. An express capacity and restrictions for the seven transit route serves Martinez. operators. BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) has ten rail stations in Contra Costa extending to Richmond in the west and as far east as Pittsburg/Bay Point. Rapid population growth in the eastern portion 92 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 5 LINKS TO TRANSIT TABLE 11 Transit On-Board Bicycle Policy Summary AGENCY BIKE CAPACITY COMMENTS AC Transit 2-.on ra k No racks on Route G, routes using small ,vans,and Transbay Express Amtrak 2 per car CouMty Connection 2 on rack 2 bikes allowed inside if no wheelchair passengers Golden Gate Transit(Route 40) 2 on rack, 2 inside Tri Seita Transit �2 aM rack Backs fot daytime use only, bikes on-board at night Western Contra Costa Transportation Au- 2 on rack thority(WestCAT) Bay Area ipid Transit(BABY) 12 per car Bikes prohibited during certain beak cornrnute times;folded bikes always welcome Whenever feasible, bicycle and pe- destrian "short cuts" to and from adja- cent areas should be provided.Trail and o-, sidewalk connections leading directly to a station makes the journey to transit easier and thus more attractive. Adequate bicycle parking is a com- mon concern for bicycle commuters. Satisfying the demand for bike lockers is recommended, especially for BART f. < µ• users. Because bicycles are not allowed during commute hours, some bicycle commuters rent two lockers, one locker at the station nearest home, another at Bicycle parking at the Pittsburg-Bay Point BART station the destination station holding another bicycle to finish the journey to work. Recommended Improvements Local jurisdictions should consider developing transit access projects (see follow- Enhancing the link between bicycling and walk- ing description). Funding may be available in ing with transit is sometimes a gray area between the future through MTC and could be supported the local jurisdiction and transit agencies. Many in the Measure C reauthorization. Additional access improvements are the responsibility of transit related projects being proposed by local the local jurisdiction. When cities update their jurisdictions and transit agencies are listed in General Plans or develop bicycle and pedestrian Appendix F. plans, a sincere effort should be placed on transit Meanwhile, transit agencies can take the access. initiative to improve certain conditions for bicy- ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN clists and pedestrians.For instance, in May 2000, , the BART Board adopted an`Access Management and Improvement Policy„ to address access is- sues at existing stations. The policy addresses — expanding parking options (including bicycle parking), meeting ADA compliance, and working i with local jurisdictions to plan and implement AL access improvements. Access plans designed to improve accessibility for all transportation modes at stations are currently under development for the Richmond,El Cerrito Del Norte,Pleasant Hill, and Bay Point/Pittsburg stations. Other transit agencies should follow suit. For example, small improvements at bus stops can make a difference,whether it be a bus pad or bike racks at locations where bicycles are often locked to other fixed objects. Even regular maintenance of transit centers and bus stops can make tran- sit users more comfortable while awaiting their ride. � 5r. �g M �4?r5�• f'. Sims along trails and streets can help pedestrians and bicyclists find safe and direct routes to transit service 94 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 5 LINKS TO TRANSIT �, ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Transit Access Projects §. tk Agency(ies).....Local agencies, community groups, transit agencies Next Step........Access studies Transit agencies rely heavily on pedestrians and bicyclists as their core ridership base.For that reason,transit agencies have an interest in working with local jurisdictions to ensure that transit t stops and stations are accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians. For example,a conventional bikeway network will involve mini- mal access to transit stops from a limited number of directions. In reality, bicyclists and pedestrians converge at stops from all possible directions, demanding a dense network of access. Similar to Safe Routes to Schools programs, local jurisdic- 1 tions would devise plans for a dense network of bikeways, sidewalks, and trails leading directly to transit stations, transfer points, and bus stops. This planning process would involve cooperation with the transit agencies, especially to build on ac- cess studies, neighborhoods and interest groups with particular consideration towards the elderly and people with disabilities. Improvements that may result from access studies include: ;. i • Curb ramps and sidewalk gap closure ■ Bikeway signage from all roadways and trails <' ■ Bus pads for wheelchair lift deployment P • Intersection and signal modifications ■ Direct access from nearby trails and neighborhoods ■ Compliance with BART station access plans (Richmond, Pleasant Hill, EI Cerrito del Norte, and Bay Point/Pittsburg station studies currently under development) Convenient and safe circulation to and through station area and to parking locations i! it ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 95 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 96 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 7 SAFETY AND SUPPORT EDUCATION, PROMOTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS programs help make the general public aware of bicycling and pedestrian issues. Targeted The school districts and police and city staff have campaigns are beneficial to reach out to specific a long history of trying to improve safety condi- segments of the population such as children for tions for bicyclists and pedestrians. Although rules-of-the-road courses,transportation planners some police departments and school districts and engineers for bicycle-and pedestrian-friendly offer courses to children on basic bicycle and design strategies, commuters for encouragement pedestrian etiquette and safety, especially on the and incentive campaigns, and the general travel- importance of helmet use by bicyclists, safety ing public for safety awareness campaigns. Law training in Contra Costa is sporadic and lacks enforcement programs help ensure that all road a consistent curriculum. The various curricula users are abiding by the. rules, Safety education are usually derived from established programs classes for violators could target all road violators developed by groups such as the California State not only bicyclists and pedestrians. Automobile Association, the NHTSA or the Cali- fornia Department of Health Services.The Contra Costa Office of the Sheriff does host police safety Existing Programs Costa and bike rodeos in some locations to edu- Promotion, education, and law enforcement are cate children on safe cycling skills. The East Bay essential to achieve the goal of encouraging more Regional Park District sponsors Bicycle Bell Give- bicycling and walking. This section presents Away programs, which involve trail education some programs that local agencies, community and the distribution of educational pamphlets, organizations, and even individuals can initiate The Injury Prevention section of the Contra Costa to improve the safety and recognition of bicycling County Health Department has published "Safe and walking in their area. Cycling in Contra Costa," a booklet explaining equipment, traffic rules, off-street bicycling, and provides a list of resources in the county. CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN I ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Bicycle and pedestrian education for adults School Days on a monthly or even weekly basis is less common. The League of American Bicy- to promote healthy commutes to school. { clists and the Effective Cycling Program do of- For adults, Bike-to-Work Day in May gives - fer cycling education programs for adults, and people the opportunity to give biking a try. the Delta Pedalers Bicycle Club in East County RIDES for Bay Area Commuters promotes this promotes bicycle safety and education through event throughout the Bay Area with give-ayays training,beginner, and family rides. Contra Costa and prizes to encourage participation. Employ- County's Community Wellness &prevention Pro- ers may encourage employees to try bicycling gram funded a bicycle education pamphlet titled or walking to work by sponsoring bike fairs and Safe Cycling in Contra Caster that outlines basic races, providing lockers and shower facilities, bicycle rules. providing convenient and safe bicycle parking Some programs exist that help teach safe bi- cycling as well as help people get into the habit of bicycling. Bicyclists interested in bicycle com- muting can contact RIDES for Bay Area Commut- ers, which provides potential bicycle commuters with a listing of experienced bicyclists that they ` may contact for advice. In Pleasant Hill,the Con- tra Costa Centre offered a Bicycle Access Program DE LA in 200 to encourage more bicycle commuting to $ �" '� the Pleasant Hill BART station and Shadelands BI ICLETA Office Park. Instructors were recruited from y RIDES to conduct bicycle commuting safety and LA LEY maintenance workshops, and a Bicycle Buddy Program and guaranteed ride home program were established for added incentive. PROMOTION Promoting biking and walking requires easily ac- cessible information and activities that encourage .a novices to give it a try. For example, people who are interested in biking more may not be familiar with the best routes to take.Maps that provide in- formation on bikeways and supporting facilities may be all that is needed to convince this person to bike. Agencies may wish to support the East Bay Bicycle Coalition's efforts to develop accurate bike maps for the county. Walk-to-School Day in October is one way schools can encourage children and their parents Pr> tado� ` that walking,and biking can be a fun form of exer- la Polda de C orcad cise and transportation. Some schools around the The Concord Police Department has produced bicycle country have established Walk/Bike/Scooter-to- safety brochures in English and Spanish. 98 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 7 • SAFETY AND SUPPORT for employees and customers,and offering incen- the vehicle code, and the absence of after-hours tives to employees who commute by bicycle or bike lights are common enforcement issues. walking by allowing for more flexible arrival and The East Bay Regional Park District's Regional departure times. Local agencies may offer incen- Park Police and volunteer trail patrol enforce tives to employers to institute these improve- rules on the trails, most commonly illegal night ments through air quality credits, lowered park- bicycle riding and riding bicycles in prohibited ing requirements, reduced traffic mitigation fees, areas. The EBRPD's volunteer trail patrols also or other means. "Walk to Lunch Days" could be a provide informal trail etiquette information to joint promotional activity with the local Chamber trail users and act as liaisons between the user of Commerce to encourage walking. and the police. To encourage increased bicycling and walking, Motorist education on the rights of bicyclists interest groups are well positioned to capitalize and pedestrians is virtually non-existent and is on the growing interest in on-road and off-road often limited to reading the drivers' manual at bicycle and walking races and criterions. Events the DMV. Some motorists mistakenly believe, for would need to be sponsored by local businesses, example,that bicyclists do not have a right to ride and involve some promotion, insurance, and in travel lanes and that they should be riding on development of adequate circuits for all levels of sidewalks. Many motorists apparently do not un- riders. It is not unusual for these events to draw derstand the concept of "sharing the road" with up to 1,000 riders and walkers,which could bring bicyclists, or why a bicyclist may need to ride in some additional expenditures into the area. a travel lane if there is no shoulder or it is full of Contra Costa communities can assist in devel- gravel, glass, or potholes. oping these events by acting as a co-sponsor, and Law enforcement programs help ensure that expediting and possibly underwriting some of all road users are abiding by the rules. Safety the expense of, for example, police time. Efforts education classes for violators called traffic di- should also encourage these events to have races version programs could target all road violators, and tours that appeal to the less experienced cy- not only bicyclists and pedestrians. The Walnut clist. For example, in exchange for local govern- Creek Police Department has developed a Bicycle meats underwriting part of the costs of a race, the Safety Course to decrease bicycle related inci- event promoters could hold a bicycle repair and dents in the City. If a motorist or bicyclist has maintenance workshop for kids, short fun races been stopped for a bicycle-related infraction and for kids, and/or a tour of the route lead by experi- has previously been issued a warning citation, enced cyclists who could show less experienced the bicyclist has the option of either going to traf- riders how to safely negotiate streets. fic court or attending the two-hour safety course. The cities of Pleasant Hill and Martinez plan to adopt this program as well, and other cities may LAW ENFORCEMENT want to consider comparable programs. Walnut Creek PD is also developing a similar course for Providing a safe environment for walking and pedestrians. biking requires law enforcement. Throughout Contra Costa, the traffic divisions of local police departments enforce the rules of the road. The Projects lack of helmet use by bicycle riders under the age This chapter has focused on ways to improve of 18,riding against traffic and other violations of bicycling and walking through educational and ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 99 ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN promotional programs. Projects in the bikeway, r. pedestrian, and transit chapters focused on spe- cific bikeways and general pedestrian facilities. y However, the entire non-motorized system also depends upon other amenities to make it work. Six additional projects are recommended for lo- , cal agencies to provide safer bicycling and walk- r ing conditions. .Bicycle parking and signage programs are �« recommended to encourage more bicycling and improve upon the functionality of the bikeway £ network. Other recommended projects apply to bath pedestrians and bicyclists to improve access to particular sites. A safe routes to school pro- gram is described to both improve walking and bicycling conditions to elementary and middle `` ' schools and to promote these modes. Two maintenance programs are presented that can maintain the integrity of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. One program specifically Signs can help bicyclists find the safetest and most direct addresses the need to rehabilitate pathways and route to transit and other destinations improve the amenities along the path. The other program recommends (1) a specific maintenance fund set aside for improvements such as side- walk repair, bike lane and crosswalk restriping, and street sweeping that are safety provisions and (2) moneys set aside to improve upon existing fa- cilities, such as installing loop detectors along bikeways. Finally, options for a number of educational programs are offered to encourage more wide- spread design, awareness, and knowledge of safe walking and bicycling. These actions must be undertaken by a variety of groups for effective results. 100 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 7 SAFETY AND SUPPORT SAFETY_ AND SUPPORT PROJECTS Signing And Stenciling Agency(ies)....Local jurisdiction staff, recreation agencies, Caltrans Next Steps.....Sign Plan, approvals, installation This project addresses one of the most com- In rural areas, fewer signs are often s mon concerns expressed in surveys and needed or desirable: Signs should be lo- workshops: the lack of directional signage for toted in advance of very constrained sec- �' bicyclists and pedestrians, and signs warn- tions where motorists and bicyclists will ing and advising motorists of bicycles and be sharing the roadway, typically with no �, shoulders and limited visibility. g, the roadway. pedestrians on and crossing Signing and stenciling are good examples of 4. Share the Road signs:Recently approved ` countywide projects that can be implemented by Caltrans, the Share the Road sign is by a single agency or by multiple agencies, a simple but effective sign that should ), This type of project lends itself to multi-juris- be used judiciously to maintain visual dictional cooperation, since sign and stencil impact on motorists. It should be placed 1 consistency throughout the county is benefi- where there is a known regular flow of tial to the users--and cost effective for local bicycles that are farted to share narrow agencies. travel lanes with motor vehicles, and es- t. The project would consist of the following peciaily where there is limited visibility M specific elements,all of which are(or will be) and higher traffic volumes and/or speeds. approved by Caltrans: 5. Bikeway Stencils: While bike lanes in- elude pavement stencil markings, a new 1. Bikeway Logo Signs: posted along the stencil type being tested in San Francisco countywide corridors, this sign would to mark bike routes may be more effective help direct inter-city bicycle travel using , on motorists and may help avoid visual a customised logo for the County. These pollution of too many signs. This stencil signs can provide a numbered or named has an arrow with a bicycle symbol in route designation as well. it, and helps to educate motorists that Z. Bike Route and Bike Lane Signs: where bicycles are using this route and will be existing or new bikeway conform with sharing travel lanes. specific Caltrans standards, these signs will help advise motorists to expect bicy- The criteria for the placement and number cies and provide assurance to cyclists that r of signs and stencils is at least partially cov- they can expect a consistent type of bike- way (see next page for illustrations). This ered by four sources: the Caltrans Highway type of sign is typically used in developed Design Manual, the Caltrans Traffic Manual, AASHTO's Guide for the Development of Bi. areas, and may be as close as every 500 cycle Facilities, and the Manual of Uniform feet. , Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Note that in ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 101 PRI CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN & � f R81 G93 t x �. BIKE LANE 24ff 3f ff ff " " f x18 or 12x8 24 x18 or 12'x8" R81 A G93A BEGINt; • Standard 12"x5" 24"x16" 12"x4" '€ R81 B G93B Standard 12'°x5" 24"x16" 12"x4" W79 W79 3 G93C <' a cIr i { BIKE PARKING ARE t Standard 12"x18" �. W80 W79A Standard 24°x8" 30"X24', 36"x3'1"or 48'°x36" C. Figure 11 Standard Bikeway Signs(Source: Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices) 102 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 7 SAFETY AND SUPPORT California, all bikeway improvements must conform to Caltrans standards, and that other standards provide detailed informa- tion on the physical requirements for both signs and stencils. The exact placement and location of"Share the Road"and"Eike Route" signs, while officially approved by Caltrans, are not pro- vided. Sound planning and engineering practice would indicate the following criteria: 1. On the approved bikeway system for each community only 2. At major intersections or changes in directions 3. Leaving villages or neighborhoods and enter- ing a long stretch of narrow roadway 4. Preceding constrained areas,especially where Y there is(1) a narrow roadway, (2)very limited line of sight, and/or(3) a documented pattern of bicycle collisions. r The number of signs should be limited to locations where the need is greatest, in order to avoid visual pollution and diminishment of the impact of the signs. Signs may be requested by .. '; local neighborhoods and individuals, but the` actual provision of signs would require review and approval by County engineering staff to de- termine whether signing is appropriate. " a 14 1 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 103 _. €fin CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN gas: SAFETY AND SUPPORT PROJECTS Bicycle Peaking r: Agency(ies)....Local jurisdiction staff Next Steps.....Field studies, Master plan Bicycle parking is more common than ever, but there is room for improvement. Five recommen- dations are presented to build upon the parking inventory. Individual or groups of local agencies r`Y �` p in Contra Costa could seek funding to purchase ' and implement bicycle parking in their commu- nities. The bicycle parking could be strictly on 1 public property, or also available to private enti- ties on an at-cost basis. Sample comprehensive bicycle parking requirements for zoning ordi- nances is located in Appendix A. _........... Recommendation #1: Include bike parking as part of the development of new community facili- ties, such as libraries, parks, schools, village centers, and transit stations. All bicycle parking should be in a secure, F well lighted or highly visible, covered area, if possible. Bicycle parking on sidewalks in com- mercial areas should be provided according toWIN U-shaped and post and loop bike racks are preferred specific design criteria, reviewed by merchants because they support the bicycle at two places and the public, and installed as demand war- rants. Generally, "U"type racks bolted or embed- ded into the sidewalk are preferred on downtown sidewalks, to be located intermittently and/or at specific bicycle destinations (such as bike shops). The concept of electronic lockers (e-lockers) has received interest from the bicycling community. One key fob could offer a bicyclist secure bicycle storage wherever e-lockers are found. y Ideal locations for e-lockers would be places where long-term parking is needed, such as major transit centers, park and ride lots, and public parking garages. The forthcoming Bicycle Ga- rage at the El Cerrito Plaza BART station will use a precursor of t this technology. ' 104 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 7 SAFETY AND SUPPORT g; rI„ Recommendation #2: Require all new commercial development l or redevelopment to provide approved bicycle racks. The number of bicycle spaces should be determined by each local jurisdiction. See €i Table 7 for examples and Table A-2 for guidelines. is Again, bicycle racks should be located in secure, covered and highly visible areas, be anchored to the ground, and allow bicycles to lock both frame and wheels. Bike lockers will gener- ally not be located in unsupervised public areas. Recommendation #3: Retrofit existing non-residential uses with „. bike parking.This retrofitting could be implemented through a com- bination of methods including: Require existing non-residential uses as part of the building permit process to provide bicycle parking consistent with local requirements., ti. = Subsidize the cost of bicycle parking through small advertise- ments on the racks themselves and/or through grants from pub- lic or private sources. j. Note: There may need to be zoning ordinance changes to achieve Recommendations #2 and #3. V t Recommendation#4: Develop a new program to provide closed- in secure bicycle corrals at ail major special events and schools, to encourage residents and visitors to bicycle rather than attempt to drive, subject to funding availability. A corral is a fenced-in area at a major destination, such as a school or an event, that is secured either through lock or by an attendant, where bicycles can be securely parked. These simple =' enclosed facilities are locked from the beginning to the end of school or during the event, and address the theft and vandalism concerns of bicycle riders. Recommendation #5: Build attended bike parking or other sup- port facilities at key transit centers in Contra Costa, encouraging people to "bike to transit." Improving the ability to combine bicycling with transit can r increase usage of both modes. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 105 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PIAN t x.: F SAFETY AND SUPPORT PROJECTS Safe Routes To Schools Projects Agency(ies)....Local agencies, school districts, community groups School commute improvements were a major focus of public comments, partially out of concerns about current safety and �T impacts of school-related traffic, and partially because of new State funding opportunities. School commute projects are usually developed in a tradi- tional planning process that includes (a) school administrators and teachers, (b) local PTAs and other groups, (c) neighborhood groups and the public, (d) police departments, and ( ) local public agencies staff such as planning, engineering, and public V works departments. The planning process can be accomplished by these groups using the step-by-step process outlined in the adjoining sidebar, or by enlisting professional services.A profes- sional School Commute Safety Study typically costs between $5,000 and$40,000, depending on the size of the community. There are 141 elementary schools and 88 middle schools in Contra Costa,a total of 170 schools that could benefit from a safe ` routes to school study. The amount and cost of improvements r will vary immensely depending upon current conditions, extent of improvements, and available financial support. n y is is is s°t t 106 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 ................................................. CHAPTER 7 SAFETY AND SUPPORT '. )C fid ` SLID ael orrl'G-bmva tee- `arce 6m tl� xt �' s a l t here: present tr es frt ntscboal." school access pa is vh la ncoura e c ni to cross ma � � cxry at ct1 fess: eecies local n% hanrhd, part dsrrable locacrs dire mare gapse leachers other simuaz oup� aid r the al n air b urg ro es' snhnitelf, here.;are rxe�or meal crssnigs � hlectes and rscsnahle sch d- h the rrarra socl ccrnmut rputes? Iw "k"I th an crce't a r ompIish its ritar ;ii cyder is o is r t these iritersec= " . : gc tzns? ctintols<are rn. lace7 �letxxre' eircfeed basic school they`are sse3> s the s <tiaring ax ter €tis Be ata bas4`tl `a ode at' e -en --yow students? ire; parant and'stnderit trput, ""• survey of" . there crrtsstng:guert3 part d 44db t comm patterns, 9, Axe these ani=ltacat�dns where stardents c r rty:<s# :a orcement input,. afire crossYng mi for or,' we is at - ar�d c I obse ratieris of act�i ommuti g, ,:block ar unprotected lt�cgt ns, r e, rl6 .. patterrx�s.. .stop sigxis der:,sI aalsj Because cl rldrun Ace them, any ex stii g efforts to guide are,somb, e -hard to see d have cls sthuants whir wish to wall dor bioycle-to u3ty,�ra augix g uehidle sp red,these lad y sch6ol� Toes the school-provide a rnap. f tions pan.be;the focus'of irpprovemertts recti mnended.routes? , 1.w e students 16=4' to.cross;meters cubes 5. Does,the schod>l:wish.tii encourage rri+�re that have very Adie turziing,6d.4-where . studentts to walk.or.bicycle .to school? vhcles°cavi accelerate.arid"merge while YVhue t re e is e p c pti an cf safety:trein,g t �rriing? These ;are i ridblem,ati bece�use' acrnce ., stati .suggest=thatsralhag drivers arefocuserl;totheirleftat> ergiixg'.' Arid bi ycl r g.axe',just as safe a ftlri g. tr�c rather than' rossw S. Yet marry.pareu s.insist on driving their 11.Dd"petl strian -crossings °clan the most children"even a fe�v;Modes ti schcic�l, thus l eavily-travelel streets have presperly de� . contrrbut rag td ;the traffic ec xxgestion. signed crosswaL—k `I'he crosswalks should :.. Study- h.e" Jarlsing lot,and drop off..areas ;be locatedso that students=carr wait:saf b of the sch ool.Is-there.a,pattern where stn= o� 'the sidewalk,,pricer tc�..Seeang if they; ' dents are.walk rtg tsetween,cars hr,through. can..cross:Is there.a eglmte v si 3:. y and;` patking kits ar drap.rff areas'tc reach';the l ghtingl given. the .-Speed-cif trafhc?;.tire echo ol? I a'tliare managemerit efforts to there adequate warn-ng signs ori advance: get parents to follow any specific dreip off "" cf the t rOssz .a11� prat scz�l? 1"�. hat, & the 85th pexceiitile .speeds=eJf' 7. Are`there adeclnate walkways;anti time traffic izh the rnaior:schr cl cbmi uie cor:- Ways ori the streets t€irect4y serving'tlteridors Are' they. si ificantl�'-;ebbve :c►r` sclxzitil? Are there Class t facilities that below the postad speed,.limits?When was ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 107 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN the t speed spzvey conducted � t e Ixzxasdzctir, obs hest ocnrzect . t$e level o rcho 'ezz r exit, and, des to ava fable d� st zrces and f ar�z t r� et the leg ra bfl&s ocl Tar with>the t to �'feller procedures regrt zs possible to IrtFer speed li�tn2ts xiecess to cibtamnchZx :. The,protect:' , near sciolsnex lonatans� zf be onscs X11 meed art officza7 authtariatzon xzecessary to ak physical chaxlges,much and co ation that qaj e as , trammel lanes .or using O zer publz ly o rtYz ad, b staff eve renewed tat c de�zcesa sl0 truest �t an, appr_-,,,,the�ro��nt, sub may:,"alp be�efexableeceptlitly tzre zr�affcts Have berz �dntzfied: y more corLgstzsz 4=mac bane street, tHzs ln binds the project sponsor Dari seed and;haxe .sly er speeds; thsn have free ndla s w rich mai Teri xe a 1fJ n or flO1th_speed tra£ cu a four Ione ;greater rriatchzhgezont - street . 17.Prbgrain that'Ino` e exn sited zn 3 ,S h I"C rtz cute Project§inv6Iv .nilrner. : :' dude,:a "t a l g school Bus PrB a ,s, Dues .d eh swi ll, increrr erzt�l`ol�axzge to �nYlziclz �zolves,parents�ri�tnrn�walk sidevvel s gnd roadways; such.a adjust, ing"(c r.binyclirtg wa groups of ch ldreri! xr3eriisigna i ranew, zgn�n ; car �to schr�cl litg.In other"cases znovstive°lifted: ': 1 nrrzculi prr�grams znzpiertzented iii crosswalk trredtments or eveu,grade sep4FA the schools caw,teecli chzldrez°t the basics rari ney:"b warzented orkixa with"the rediz g°pedestr�lii and bicycle safety TasIC°Porce" i ll "help a.school det�rtr�zn� the roads the befit U11kDf r provements s ita l fear each corridor,.and compatible xvitlz local" tragic ccsnclitions. 4,A more,deviled evaluation meth6dology, which rates=improvements and corridors according to,objective"driteria has Eisen devdloped and is.avEdIdble or use bylocal Schools, Idowever, It may, requ re the ser- vices of specialists who understand traffic safely ennd-engineering: � .One the ixzaproyements have been idea- tifled, � preliminary desigxz or'plan:must beconpleted which describes the_prdject' ' " and:its cost.. or,example, a:cixrsswalk"iarz- pmv,emerit would need:to be designed so flza.t it can'be reviewed and apprc�veil by„ the:appropriate "agency. Again a profes sional maybe engaiged far this effort. 16:With aplan.and cost estimate,,th,e proiect still needs:a sponsor. 'Typically tbis would 108 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 7 SAFETY AND SUPPORT SAFETY AND SUPPORT PROJECTS Pathway Rehabilitation Agency(ies)....Local jurisdiction staff, East Bay Regional Park District Many people commented during public cons, trail user signal activation, full sig- workshops and on surveys about the need nalization etc. 2. Widening a narrow section to a minimum to improve Contra Costa's existing multi- i use pathways. Some of the comments were of 10 feet, as recommended by AAsxOT, :. related to the need for better trail surface to provide additional capacity, subject to ; maintenance, while other comments were environmental, visual, and community related to the need for additional amenities review. Pathways at widths of 12-14 feet s' or better trail management between various may be more appropriate to accommodate v user groups. This project would consist of a higher use, a range of users (bicycles, pe- variety of improvements listed below, with destrians, joggers, skaters, strollers), and each pathway and section requiring different maintenance vehicles. x; improvements. 3. Providing consistent pathway manage- ment signing advising users about maxi- mum speed limits (20 mph), overtaking '. MAINTENANCE protocol,slower traffic staying to the right, �< 1. Repaving as needed to provide a consis- leash requirements and dog etiquette, and tent smooth surface. Many Class I facili- any applicable enforcement codes. „^ ties average 25 years and need major reha- 4. Pathway enhancements such as benches, bilitation and repaving. trash receptacles, historic markers, gate- 2. Providing centerline striping where path- ways, and/or landscaping as appropriate way volumes are high. to make the pathway a more functional 3. Providing a more compacted and consis- and enjoyable transportation facility. tent unpaved surface on one or both sides 5. Exploration of innovative techniques of the pathway for runners and walkers. such as colored pavement demarking user i 4. Maintaining the integrity of all bicycle groups, possibly through a demonstration and pedestrian amenities. project. Colored bikeways have proven effective in Portland, Oregon, especially where the paths cross busy roadways. IMPROVEMENT'S 6. Raising the pathway elevation to reduce EI 1. Evaluation of roadway crossings and im- or eliminate the impacts of flooding or provements as needed such as additional tidal action. advisory and warning signs, longer signal 7. Improving existing bridges as needed. times, striping treatments, flashing bea- (` j' ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 109 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN fes. SAFETY AND SUPPORT PROJECTS Bicycle and pedestrian Facilities k Maintenance & Development Agency(ies)....Local jurisdiction staff �. A common concern expressed by agency staff responsible for building and maintaining in- frastructure is the lack of consistent and ade- quate funds for maintenance. Capital funding for the projectsidentified in this Plan may be a available through Federal and State sources, but maintenance funds are not included.This implementation project would seek to estab- j� is lash a regular source of maintenance funds for roadways and multi-use pathways. Rec- ommended minimum maintenance activities and practices to be funded under this project Trails map and mileage sign in Clayton. are presented below. Many of Contra Costa's paths need main- sociated with routine roadway maintenance, tenance attention, such as repairing deterio- special attention to bikeway and walkway rating asphalt and clearing plant overgrowth. safety and usability is important and can Bike lanes need regular sweeping to clear mean additional costs are incurred. k debris. The total annual maintenance cost On-going Class I bike path maintenance „' of the bike path system is estimated to be includes cleaning and crack sealing the sur- $4.5 million per year when it is fully imple- face, restriping and restenciling, repairs to mented. The annual cost to maintain Class I crossings, cleaning drainage systems, trash bike paths is estimated to be$18,000 per mile removal, and landscaping. Underbrush and each year (East Bay Regional Park District weed abatement should be performed once in 2000 estimate). This amount covers labor, early spring and again in mid-summer. Major supplies, and amortized equipment costs for maintenance involves repaving and pathway weekly trash removal; monthly sweeping, rehabilitation. weed abatement, and mowing; and bi-annual , crack sealing and repair patrols. The cost for Recommendation #7: Develop a countywide major maintenance, which includes asphalt funding source for bicycle and pedestrian main- resurfacing, is estimated to be about$150,000 tenance program per mile. Other maintenance costs include This would be similar to a Joint Powers bike lane line and crosswalk restriping, re- Agreement. The funding could be used to de- placing stencils, sweeping debris, and tuning velop a bicycle and pedestrian maintenance signals for bicycle and pedestrian sensitivity. request system, similar to those in Seattle, Although these latter aspects are generally as- Portland, and other cities. 110 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 7 SAFETY AND SUPPORT detectors may be the use of push buttons that are convenient for bicyclists to use or micro- ' wave or video detection. Recommendation #3: Consider bicycles and pedestrians in performing maintenance and repair work: d wju� ■ Provide suitable construction warning signs and install detour signs before work begins. e Faded bike Where necessary and feasible, provide de- lane mark- s� �` 3 ings and tour routes around areas undergoing con- buckled struction. Such routes may need to be on r � E sidewalks are i street (for trails) and determined with local H k examples of � � � � maintenancejurisdictions.. problems < _ associated ■ Adopt specific construction zone perfor- l . with existing mance standards including signing, access, : facilities. smoothness, and detours. d Recommendation #2: Install bicycle traffic E detection technology at signalized intersections, especially along designated bikeways, that is responsive to bicycles, or set signal timing at in- l'. tersections along designated bikeways to ensure j adequate crossing times for bicyclists. New signal detectors that can detect bi- cycles and yet not be influenced by motor vehicles on the roadway should be installed F where appropriate. Signal detectors and stencils identifying where bicyclists should place their bicycles to trigger signals should be review-ed and approved by the appropriate jurisdictional staff prior to implementation. Specific implementation criteria may in- clude: sensitivity, impact of overlay projects, cost, and need.Possible alternatives to signal ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 111 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ANIS PEDESTRIAN PLAN 3R�AYP ,,..: Y�4°�2. .... Pkd'. . f`i�41+£k9P�k..F�3ENi 4�•i?,.$YA:Vs* @!Y:'" .. °!"'.�. A`83,.. 8 7. .. SAFETY AND SUPPORT PROJECTS Bicycle And Pedestrian Education Programs Agency(lies)....Local jurisdiction staff, police departments, advocacy groups << 01 l Education is vital to teach cooperation be- improvements, the most recent educational tween motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians tools available in the country (including the and to build the confidence needed to en- use of low-cost safety videos), and directives courage people to bicycle and walk more to parents on the proper school drop-off : often. Six types of educational programs are procedure for their children. Educational outlined below that local agencies, jurisdic- pamphlets for children should be made more tions, or community organizations can adopt readable, including developing pamphlets in j as education projects. other languages, especially Spanish. Incen- tive programs to reward good behavior could be developed. Educational programs teaching i 1: Expand Current Education Programs on-bike and on-street pedestrian training, as Educating children is vital to teach them well as careful scooter and skateboard use, ' Q= safe bicycling and walking habits now and could be expanded to more grades and for influence their likelihood of becoming future more hours per year. Education curriculum bicycle and walking commuters. Existing could, at a minimum, cover the following school educational programs should be ex- lessons: panded in a cooperative effort between the t County and the Contra Costa school districts, On-bike training or bicycle "rodeos" and supported by a secure, regular funding and in urban settings ? source. A Joint County/School District Safety Use and importance of bicycle helmets Committee could be formed consisting of ap- Homer to adjust and maintain a bicycle W Night riding and walking(clothes, lights) pointed parents,teachers, student representa- Rules of the road tives, administrators, police, active bicyclists, health department or injury prevention staff, Riding on sidewalks How to negotiate intersections and city staff whose task it is to identify prab- leets and solutions, ensure implementation, Riding and walking defensively and submit recommendations to the School Use of hand signals Board or the County Board of Supervisors. A standard safety handbook format could be developed incorporating the best elements ` of those currently in use, and made available ' 2: Develop New Educational Program Ma- to each school in digital format so they may terials and Curriculum be customized as needed. Schools could de- Education materials should be expanded velop a circulation map of the campus and to promote the benefits of bicycling and immediate environs to include in the hand- walking, the need for education and safety books, clearly showing the preferred circula- 112 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 7 SAFETY AND SUPPORT tion and parking patterns and explaining in r Enforcing existing traffic laws for both text the reason behind the recommendations. motorists and pedestrians and bicyclists; . This circulation map could also be a perma- ■ Working to improve the DMV manual's nent feature in all school newsletters. Bicycle treatment of bicyclists and pedestrians; . helmet subsidy-programs are available in Sending an official letter to the Depart- California, and should be used to provide ment of Motor Vehicles recommending low-cost approved helmets for all cycling the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian I - school children. laws in the drivers license exam; and Installing signs that read"Share the Road" with a bicycle symbol at least every 1,000 3: Develop an Adult Education Program _ feet along all routes of the proposed pri- Establish an adult bicycle education pro- mary system where bike lanes are not fea- gram through bicycling organizations such sible, travel lanes are under 14 feet wide, Z_ as the Delta Pedalers or the East Bay Bicycle and average daily traffic volumes exceed 14 Coalition, in cooperation with the barks and 10,000. Recreation Department and/or other County departments. This program. should (a) teach adults how to ride defensively, (b) teach 5: Educate City Staff adults how to ride on a variety of streets, (c) encourage adults to feel more confident to As Contra Costa's agencies work to imple- ride to work or for utilitarian and recreational ment this Plan and their own plans,they may Ir trips, and (d) review bicycle laws. Work with find that staff are often unfamiliar with stare- local bicycling groups who could provide dard pedestrian and bikeway standards and the training expertise, and possibly lead or- recommended guidelines. As part of the Re- ganized bicycle-training sessions, tours, and gional Bicycle flan, MTC proposes to sponsor rides. An outreach program to non-English an ongoing series of training sessions about speaking residents should be developed to useful topics and support participation in ex- teach proper riding skills. isting training courses offered by the Associa- tion of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, the University of California at Berkeley, and 4: Educate Motorists others. Educate motorists about the rights and MTc and the Regional Bicycle Working e characteristics of bicyclists and pedestrians Group(RBWG)will gather and share technical through a variety of means including: resources, such as information about trans- Making bicycle and pedestrian safety a portation systems like video detection, au- part of traffic school curriculum; tomatic lane reconfigurations, and advanced Producing a brochure on bicycle and pe- traffic information systems. The RBWG will disseminate information to local agencies to destrian safety and laws for public distri- _ keep everyone in formed on bicycle issues in bhtion; the Bay Area. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 113 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 6: Mapping t Maps are essential education tools that need R to be accessible and up-to-date. Several or- I, ganizations and agencies have developed ' wonderful maps that need financial support to make them more widely available and kept current. For example, East Bay Bicycle Coalition(EEBC) has developed bicycle trans- ` portation maps that show recommended bike routes for different skill levels, elevation,ma- i jor destinations, and warnings that bicyclists unfamiliar with the area can use to travel with confidence. Cities and organizations could work with EBBC to update these maps and distribute them. Cities could develop and periodically update similar maps of their jurisdiction to encourage local bicycling and hiking. Map kiosks in downtown areas help t pedestrians access points of interest without v, wandering unnecessarily. t; is x. 4s 3: e f ff 114 ADOPTED DECEMBER 97, 2003 CHAPTER 8 IMPLEMENTATION The preceding chapters have outlined the back- Implementation Tasks ground on bicycling and walking conditions in Contra Costa, the goals and policies that will AUTHORITY ACTIONS guide efforts to encourage more walking and bi- cycling, and needs and suggested improvements To achieve the goals and policies of the CBPP as to encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel. well as the vision contained in the 2000 Update Many groups, agencies and individuals will to the Countywide Comprehensive Transporta- need to work together to achieve these goals tion Plan, the Authority will need to take a num- and policies. The following chapter outlines the ber of steps. These will include: key implementation steps needed to bring the Maintain and update the CBPP. The Author- Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP)to ity should review the CBPP periodically, and up- fruition and the responsibilities for taking those date it as required by Caltrans, to ensure that the steps. The Authority, local jurisdictions, and Plan reflects current conditions and newly de- East Bay Regional Parks District will carry most veloped countywide approaches and programs, of the responsibility for planning, constructing, helps local jurisdictions maintain BTA grant and maintaining the elements of this plan. Cal- eligibility, and responds to changes in bicycle trans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commis- and other transportation plans of regional and Sion (NITC), Bay Area Air Quality Management adjoining counties. As with the development of District (BAAQMD), and transit agencies all offer this document, the Authority would work with a functions that complement the CBPP.The chapter committee of local staff and citizens familiar with ends with cost estimates and funding sources for bicycling and pedestrian issues in Contra Costa the bikeway network and programs. to update the CBPP CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 . .................................... f"I" CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Review Authority Programs to ensure that ity staff should work with the Regional Bicycle 17, they do not unintentionally discourage the Working Group and Pedestrian Safety Committee creation of pedestrian districts, the adoption of to influence and support these efforts. pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly development Provide information to focal agencies about standards, or the development of pedestrian and ways to improve the environment for bicyclists bicycle facilities. The Authority is now consider- and pedestrians. This information might include ing changes to its Growth Management Program available funding programs, new research on and Expenditure Plan as part of the Measure C planning, designing and developing new bicycle renewal effort. Changes being considered in- and pedestrian facilities, changes in State and clude alternative level-of-service standards, or federal standards, and examples of how other exemptions from those standards, for pedestrian areas have addressed and resolved bicycle and districts, and the development of model pedes- pedestrian issues. trian-, bicycle- and transit friendly development Review Authority-sponsored projects to — standards ensure that bicycle and pedestrian access is Monitor bicycle and pedestrian usage maintained or improved as these projects are and safety as part of the Authority's on-going developed. monitoring efforts. To minimize the cost of this identify funding needs for bicycle and monitoring, the Authority should incorporate in- pedestrian improvements in Contra Costa, as formation from other monitoring efforts, includ- well as ways to meet those needs while providing ing local programs and MTC's bicycle monitoring for mobility and safety improvements for other efforts, to the extent possible. modes. Provide a forum for developing countywide approaches to improving bicycle and pedestrian mobility and safety. This forum should involve LOCAL ACTIONS local staff responsible for planning, implement- The CBPP encourages and supports local ac- ing and maintaining bicycle and pedestrian tions—from the planning and design of facilities facilities and actual users of the system or their to their funding and development--that would representatives. The Authority could use this fo- help create and maintain a system of safe, direct, rum to discuss countywide issues, including. and attractive bicycle and pedestrian facilities. To achieve this, the Authority encourages local ■ Developing a coordinated countywide ap- agencies to consider taking a number of actions, proach to signage • Identifying, defining and coordinating multi- including: Identify and design projects, assess their jurisdictional projects and programs feasibility, and seek funding. Local jurisdic- • Disseminating information on improving pe- dtions and agencies are the "front line" in the estrian and bicycle accessibility and safety development of the projects needed to bring the This forum could take place as a subcommit- CBPP to fruition. Each specific project to fill gaps tee of the Authority's Technical Coordinating in the bikeway network or to improve pedestrian Committee (TCC) or as a separate committee crosswalks will require detailed design and en- making recommendations to the TCC and the gineering, environmental review, consultation Authority itself. with adjoining landowners, and the difficult Work with MTC and other regional agencies process of finding funding for the project. MTC's to ensure bicycle and pedestrian needs in Contra Transportation for Livable Communities program Costa are addressed. To achieve this, Author- 116 uthor- '! 96 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER. 8 - IMPLEMENTATION and ABAG's Bay Trail Grants are two sources for Connect the jurisdiction's system to adjacent ` feasibility studies but more are needed. systems, Review and revise local plans to incor- Fill gaps and remove barriers for people who porate policies that promote development walk or bicycle, patterns that improve the safety and conve- ■ Provide ample facilities within high activity nience of walking and bicycling. A great deal centers, especially commercial centers, and of work has been done, and is continuing, on clear connections to transit centers, schools ways to make our cities and towns friendlier to and mixed-use hubs, bicyclists and pedestrians.To apply this research, ■ Serve both transportation and recreational each jurisdiction will need to review the specific needs, and conditions it confronts---from the existing built ■ Support education of both automobile drivers environment and community goals to available and pedestrians and bicyclists of their rights __- financing and other transportation demands—to and responsibilities. determine what combination of approaches and specific standards should be used, jurisdictions These plans could include: could consider: ■ Specific plans for pedestrian districts to pro- ■ Increasing densities and mixing land uses to vide guidelines for high-quality design and reduce the distance to destinations and thus give pedestrian movement equal or greater encourage more walking and bicycling priority compared to other travel modes in the ■ Reducing the scale of buildings and roadways, design and planning. where feasible, to bring more destinations Trail and bikeway plans that outline a detailed within walking and bicycling distance and to bikeway system within the jurisdiction, sup- create safer, slower and quieter roadways. porting programs and actions to carry them ■ Maintaining or increasing linkages in the out, transportation system to provide bicyclists Capital improvement programs for developing and pedestrians safe and direct access by fill- and enhancing pedestrian and bicycle facili- ing gaps in sidewalks or bikeways, requiring ties within the jurisdiction. shorter blocks or pedestrian paths, and other Modify local ordinances, development similar actions. standards and guidelines, including zoning and ■ Emphasizing walking and bicycling within subdivision ordinances, to require that new de- residential and shopping districts through lo- cal standards and traffic calming. velopments, major redevelopment projects, and Identifying pedestrian districts in which the new or expanded transportation projects ncorpo- ■ rate bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Important jurisdiction establishes design standards and changes could include: guidelines for both the transportation system and land use and development that improve ■ Providing secure, adequate and convenient conditions for pedestrians, bicycle parking as part of new development or Develop local bicycle and pedestrian plans major redevelopment projects that: ■ Requiring sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities within neighborhoods, commercial • Meet Caltrans requirements to make projects districts and other areas to provide safe and eligible for State and regional funding, adequate space for people to walk, ■ Improve safety, ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 117 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ■ Incorporating space within roadway star- projects and programs that support the regional dards for bicyclists and pedestrians. bicycle network. The Authority and other Con- t ■ Identifying traffic calming measures that work gestion Management Agencies (CMAs) will be within local neighborhoods and districts. given the responsibility to select the qualifying ■ Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities projects and programs starting in fall 2003. into transportation improvements in both The Bay Area Air Quality Management Dis- their planning and design where appropriate trict (BAAQMD) is a regional agency established and feasible. to monitor air pollution and develop strategies to improve air quality. It can promote bicycling and walking by continuing to include these anodes in ii G!O Id A A N E� S TAT ACT 1 O N 5 future air quality plans and providing funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Regional and State agencies are indirectly provid- Transit agencies can implement improve- ing assistance in implementing this Plan through ments for pedestrians and bicyclists at, and in regional planning documents, policies, and fund- the immediate vicinity of, transit stations, transit ing sources. stops, and park-and-ride lots. These improve- Caltrans' Bicycle Facilities Unit provides ments facilitate bicycle and pedestrian access to policy, funding, planning, and design standards. transit facilities and may include sidewalks,shel- Caltrans District 4 (the Bay Area) has a bicycle tern,benches, and bike parking, as well as ameni- coordinator to work with local agencies. Caltrans ties such as restrooms and drinking fountains.All is responsible for approving and planning and Contra Costa transit agencies have demonstrated implementing bicycle and pedestrian facilities a commitment to accommodate bicycle travel by and improvements along State-owned facilities including bike racks on their buses. BART ad- in conjunction with local agencies. Caltrans can opted an Access Management and Improvement support this Plan by enforcing Deputy Directive Policy Framework in 2000 that has since led to 64, a policy directive developed to ensure the the development of Bicycle Access and Parking needs of bicycles and pedestrians are accounted Plans for 14 BART stations. for in all Caltrans sponsored projects. The EBRBD has a tremendous impact on walk- MTC is charged with planning the nine-county ing and bicycling in Contra Costa.Regional trails, Bay Area's regional transportation system and al- such as the Iron Horse, Marsh Creek, Delta de locating over$1 billion in funding annually. One Anna, and parts of the Bay Trail, are all under the of the major responsibilities of MTC is preparing jurisdiction of EBRPD, which is responsible for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), updated all aspects of the trails, from long-range planning every three years, to guide transportation devel- and property acquisition to construction and con- opment for the next 25 years. All projects that tinuous maintenance. receive federal funding must be identified in this document. The 2001 RTP included the first regional bicycle plan component. As a result of � ' � ��st Estimates the 2001 RTP, MTC developed a policy that those Cost estimates have been developed for the regional discretionary funds allocated through countywide bicycle and pedestrian facilities the federal Surface Transportation Program/Con- and programs. Tables 12 and 13 list the unit gestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement costs used to estimate the cost of all bicycle and Program, which could amount to $85 million pedestrian improvements recommended in this over the next 25 years,would be used for bicycle plan (Table 14). Since individual projects can 1 1 g ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 . ............................................. CHAPTER 8 IMPLEMENTATION vary widely, the estimates presented are for plan- Table 13 shows the planning level cost esti- 77 Hing purposes only. The total cost over 20 years mates for the entire recommended countywide is estimated at approximately $276.3 million. Of bicycle and pedestrian system and programs. the total.project cost over 20 years, it is projected The estimates are divided into four categories. that local agencies will be responsible for about The Short- and Mid-Term Bikeway Projects are 13 percent of the costs.It is important to note that those identified as priorities in the bikeway chap- while many of the projects can be funded with ter. The second section includes the remaining federal, State, and regional transportation, safety, proposed on- and off-street bikeway projects to and/or air quality grants, ethers are recreational complete the bikeway network. The next section - in nature and must be funded by local or private provides approximate costs of pedestrian, transit, sources. and safety projects described in those chapters. Table 12 Bikeway Unit Cost Estimates Per Mile Improvement Unit Cost Unit Cost per Mile Shared":Use Pathway: Ciearing and Grubbing $3 Linear foot $130,000 Earth/Excavation $10—$50 Cubic yard $10,000 - $88,000 Asphalt Concrete Pavement $2.75 Square foot $174,000 Signing $3 Linear foot $15,840 Striping $2 Linear foot $10,560 Lighting $1,000 Each $26,400 Fencing $15 Linear foot $79,200 TOTAL Each mile $524,000 Bike Lane ( Bike Lane Stripe(both sides) $2 Linear foot $10,560 Pavement Markings $50 20/mile $1,000 Traffic Signing $3 Linear foot $15,840 Traffic Control $0.50 Linear foot $2,640 TOTAL Each mile $30,040 Bike<Route Traffic Signing $3 Linear foot $15,840 Traffic Control $0.50 Linear foot $2,640 TOTAL Each mile $18,480 Miscellaneous Items Intersection Loop Detectors $",000 Each $1.000 Bridge(12'x 100') $175 Square foot $210,000 Shoulder Widening $25 Linear foot $132,000 Feasibility&Design Study each $50,000 -$100,000 Parking: bike racks $500 $500 Parking: lockers $1000 $1000 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 119 �f CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Table 13 Pedestrian Unit Cast Estimates Improvement Type Unit Cost' Sidewalks Concrete SE $11 Asphalt SF $6 BrickSF $22 Curb Ramps Each $800- $1,500 crosswalks Striped Each Ladder Each $3,000 Patterned Concrete Each $30,000 Traffic Calming Chokers Pair $5,000- $20,000 Crossing Island Each $4,000- $30,000 Curb Extension Each $2,000- $20,000 Curb Radius Reduction Corner $2,000- $20,000 Raised Crosswalks Each $2,000- $15,000 Speed Humps Each $1,000 Traffic Circle Each $6,000- $12,000 Signals Pedestrian Signals Each $20,000-W'000 Modify Pedestrian Signal Timing Minimal Traffic Signal Enhancements Each $5,000 Signing Advisory, directional Each $50- $200 Landscaping Trees, plants, irrigation Block $20,000? Street Furniture includes benches,trash receptacles, bike Block $32,2001 racks, light fixtures Studies Neighborhood,Traffic/Parking Study Each $5,000-$25,0002 Specific Plan Each $20,0(?0-$80,000, Corridor.In provernent Plan Each $20,000-$150,0003 ADA Transition Pian Each $40,000- $200;0003 Projects Type Unit Average Cost Safe Routes to School Study Each $7,500 Physical Inputs—including sidewalks, cross- Each School $55,000 walks, bike racks, etc. Program Inputs—includes school safety train- Each School $5,000 ing courses TOTAL Each $67,500 Pedestrian Districts Planning and Design Block $5,400 Street Furniture Block $32,200 Landscaping Block $20,000 120 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 .......................... CHAPTER 8 IMPLEMENTATION Table 13 Pedestrian Unit Cast Estimates improvement Type Unit Cost1 Curb Ramps 8/blk $8,000 Crosswalks 4/bl k $12,000 Curb extensions 8/blk $84,000 Special Signage 4/blk $2,400 Pedestrian Signal 1/blk $30,000 TOTAL Block $119;000 TOTAL District '$.3,781;000 1 Unless otherwise noted, costs are based upon those presented in Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide a Providing Safety and Mobility, FHWA, March 2002. 2 Will vary greatly depending upon requirements outlined in plan and design documents and available funding. Based upon a projected average cost per block. 3 Range of costs for recent projects in the Bay Area. Costs will vary with size of project and degree of desired detail. 4 A survey of existing areas that would be similar to the pedestrian district definition was compared to that city's popula- tion.This revealed approximately one block of a pedestrian district to every 1,670 residents;this would equate to 587 blocks for the entire county, For cost estimating purposes,approximately 30 pedestrian districts would be established; 19 blocks in each. Finally, on-going maintenance and support pro- due to dependence on competitive funding sourc- gram expenditures are included because these es, timing of roadway and development projects, programs are instrumental in coordinating this and the overall economy. plan, building momentum for local projects, and providing information to the general public. The candidate projects listed in the previous Funding chapters are recommended to be implemented There are a variety of potential funding sources over the next ten years,or as funding is available. from local, state, regional, and federal fund- It also presents a best case scenario for Contra ing programs that can be used to construct the Costa and cities, providing a network of bicycle proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements. and pedestrian facilities and programs within the Most federal, state, and regional programs are short-term. Some of the more expensive projects competitive, and involve the completion of ex- may take longer to implement.Also,local projects tensive applications with clear documentation of may be needed to address specific local issues the project need, costs, and benefits. Local fund- and take precedence over the identified projects ing for bicycle and pedestrian projects typically in this CBPP. These projects are not included in comes from Transportation Development Act this cost estimate. (TDA) funding, which is prorated to each county It is important to note that many of the fund- based on return of gasoline taxes. Funding for ing sources are highly competitive, and therefore many of the programs would need to be funded impossible to determine exactly which projects either with TDA; general fund (staff time); and will be funded by which funding sources. Tim- regional, state, and federal sources. ing of projects is also difficult to pinpoint exactly, Contra Costa has historically invested ap- ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 121 . . ................................... CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Table 14 Bikeway & Pedestrian System Cast Estimates Segment Type Units/Miles Cost PRIORITY.BIKEWAY PROJECTS(Short/Mid-Ternlr('Years 1-10)) BART Connector Bikeway-includes loop detectors Class 14 J Ill 4.0 $96,000 __ , San Pablo Avenue Bikeway: South—includes feasibility study, Class Ill 3.8 $342,000 intersection improvements ...__... . way. 1111._. _ Central 1-80 Bike —includes intersection improvements Class 11/Il! 4.4 $121,000 .. .. ...11,11... _ 1111 .. _.. Crockett/Martinez Connector Class Ill 9.5 $176,000 Contra Costa-Main St Bikeway—includes feasibility study, inter- Class 11/111 5.5 $168,000 en section improvements 1111. Central Pleasant Hill Bikeway Class 11/111 1 5 $32 ,000 ..... .. _ Contra Costa Canal—includes feasibility and design study, un- Class I 3.6 $2,801,000 derpass improvement at SR 4 Concord-C€ayton Bikewa1.y Class 111 6.0 $362,000 Concord-Pleasant Hill Bikeway Class 11/111 4.8 $126,000 Brentwood-CakleyBikeway_includes shoulder widening Class 11 5.5 $891,000 O'Hara/Minnesota bikeway—includes shoulder widening Class 11 4.0 $648,000 _. 1111 1111. Pittsburg Loop Bikeway Class 11/III 4.4 $115,000 _. . Buchanan Road Bikeway--includes widening roadway Class It. 2.6 $144,000 _ . 1111. ... 1111..__... State Route 24 Bikeway—includes"tunnel feasibility study(but Class 1/11/Ill 6.7 $3,858,000 NOT construction of a tunnel) 11.1.1... _ Lamorinda Linkages(1.7 miles.not built) Class 111 3.9 $72,000 Rural Road Improvement Project-signage,gsome roadway sh Varies - � .• . -._. _.0 p 1y oul- Varies 75.3 $7,530,000 ders Regional Trail Completion(includes some bridges) Class 1 76.5 $45,877,000 Priority Bikeway Projects Total 222.1 $63,359,000 PROJECTS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE COUNTYWIDE BIKEWAY SYSTEM New Off-Street Trails—includes Richmond Greenway($8 million) Class 1 15.8 $16,279,000 _ . . New On-Street Bikeways Class 11/Il!_ - 115.9 $3,482,000 Remaining Bikeway System Total 134.9 $19,761,000 PEDESTRIAN,TRANSIT, SAFETY&''SUPPORT PROJECTS Pedestrian Districts—generalized cost estimates of improve- Studies and general 20 districts $75,620,000 ments to the pedestrian circulation system within pedestrian improvements districts including preparation of studies ADA Improvements' _ Agencies 20 $4,000.000 .._ ,.. _.. Transit Accessi Studies 20 $200,000 Safe Routes to School Project Studies, improve- 179 schools $12,083,000 ments,training County Signing/Stenciling Programa Signs/stencils 595 mi. $934,000 Bicycle Parking Project Bike racks 350_ $725,000 Bike lockers 100 BART pavilions 3 Pathway Rehabilitation" Infrastructure 300/100 mi. $4,800,000 Bicycle&Pedestrian Maintenances $9,500,000 122 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 8 IMPLEMENTATIONK Table 14 Bikeway & Pedestrian System Cost Estimates Segment Type Units/Miles Cost Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Programs 20 $620,000 Safety Grants 20 $10,000 Safety Materials 4 $5,000 Promotional Materials 20 $2,500 Bike./Pedestrian facility Training 20 $10,000 Community Adoption Program 20 $2,500 Employer Incentives 20 $2,500 Bike/Walk to Work bays 20 $.2,500 Pedestrian,Transit, Safety&Support Projects Total $108,482,000 ON-GOING SUPPORT Time Unit Dost Cost Expanded Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator Annually $50,000 $1,000,000 20 YEAR ESTIMATE OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL Estimate of improvements 20 years $192,602,000 20%contingency $38,520,000 TOTAL estimate plus 20%contingency 2003/2023 $231,122,000 TOTAL estimated annual cost Annually $11,556,000 1 Assumes$200,000 spent by each of the 19 cities and the County. 2 Assumes$10,000 per studyfor the 20 BART stations, Amtrak stations, and major transit centers. Actual cost of im- provements will vary widely. Some improvements could be made as part of the development of pedestrian districts. 3 Assumes 2 signs per mile($500)and 2 stencils per mile($285)for entire countywide system. 4 Assumes $18,000/mile for pathway improvements, $2,000/mile signage, $10,000/mile miscellaneous improvements (i.e. landscaping) 5 Based upon allotments in area countywide plans. proximately $4 million annually in bicycle and plications. It is important to note that the major- pedestrian facilities. This money is derived from ity of funding for bicycle projects is expected to a variety of sources: TEA-21 programs, Bicycle be derived from Federal sources. These funding Transportation Account (BTA), Office of Traffic sources are extremely competitive, and require a Safety Program, Community Development Block combination of sound applications,local support, Grants(CDBG),impact fees,sales tax revenue,etc. and lobbying on the regional and state level. Most of the sidewalk and bikeway investments Several funding sources are described in this have been in the form of simultaneous roadway section. Appendix D lists additional funding construction and improvement projects, while sources and contact information. additional bike parking has increased as a result of new development. Proposed improvements and programs to be FEDERAL developed over the next 20 years in Contra Costa have been analyzed to determine the annual fi- nancing requirements, and to allow the county Federal funding through the TEA-21 (Transporta- to budget its resources and target funding ap- tion Equity Act for the 21"Century) program will ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 123 ................................................. CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN provide much of the funding. TEA-21 currently STATE contains three major programs, STP (Surface Transportation Program), TEA (Transportation TDA Article Ill (SB 821) Enhancement Activities), and CMAQ (Conges- Transportation Development Act(TDA)Article III tion Mitigation and Air Quality improvement) funds are awarded annually to local jurisdictions along with other programs such as the National for bicycle and pedestrian projects in California. Recreational Trails Program, Section 402 (Safety) These funds originate from the state gasoline tax funds, Scenic Byways funds, and Federal Lands and are distributed through a competitive "call Highway funds, for projects" administered by the Authority on a TEA-21 funding is administered through the yearly basis to local jurisdictions. state (Caltrans or Resources Agency) and regional governments (Authority). Most, but not all, of the funding programs are transportation versus Bicycle Transportation Account _ recreational oriented, with an emphasis on (a) The State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) reducing auto trips and (b)providing an intermo- is an annual statewide discretionary program that dal connection. Funding criteria often includes is available through the Caltrans Bicycle Facili- completion and adoption of a bicycle/pedestrian ties Unit for funding bicycle projects. Available _.. master plan, quantification of the costs and ben- as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is efits of the system (such as saved vehicle trips on projects that benefit bicycling for commuting and reduced air pollution), proof of public in- purposes.Funding that is available on a statewide volvement and support, CEQA compliance, and basis amounts to$7.2 million annually beginning commitment of some local resources. In most FY 2001. cases, TEA-21 provides matching grants of 80 to 90 percent, but prefers to leverage other moneys Safe Routes to School {5B 1 Q} at a lower rate. All TEA-21 funds have been programmed. The Safe Routes to School program, recently The successor legislation, presently called TEA- extended to January 1, 2005, is a State program 3, will be a future source of funds. This new using federal transportation funds. This program legislation, scheduled for renewal in 2003, may is meant to improve school commute routes come with additional categories of funding and through construction of bicycle and pedestrian guidelines. safety and traffic calming projects. A local match of 11.5%is required for this competitive program, which will allocate $18 million annually. Since Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) it is a construction program, planning grants are MTC allocates nearly $4.5 million of Transpor- not available through this program. Programs or tation Enhancement funds and $18.5 million activities related to education, enforcement, or in CMAQ funds annually to its Transportation encouragement may be eligible for reimburse- for Livable Communities (TLC) program. This ment if they are related to the construction im- program funds projects that promote compact provement. developments that encourage transit and non- motorized transportation. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements may be eligible for this competi- tive program. TFCA funds are generated by a $4 surcharge on automobile registration in the nine counties 124 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 8 IMPLEMENTATION that make up the Bay Area Air Quality Manage- effective review process is in place so that new went District (BAAQMD). This collection funds roads meet the standards and guidelines pre- two programs that can finance projects such as sented in this Plan. bicycle facility improvement projects and smart growth development projects. One program is the Regional Fund, a regional competitive fund Impact Fees appropriated by the BAAQMD. In FY 2002103, Another potential local source of funding is approximately $10 million was available in the developer impact fees, typically tied to trip gen- Regional fkInd, with grants ranging from.$10,000 eration rates and traffic impacts produced by a to$1 million per project. proposed project. A developer may reduce the The second program, the Program Manager number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by Fund (40%Fund), results from the return of 40% paying for on- and off-site pedestrian and bike- of funds collected in each county to be appropri- way improvements, which will encourage resi- ated by its' CMA or Transportation Authority. As dents to walk and bicycle rather than drive. In- the Program Manager in Contra Costa, the Au- lieu parking fees may be used to help construct thority maintains four roles: new or improved bicycle parking. Establishing a Adopt allocation criteria for FCA funds clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the project's impacts is critical in avoiding a ■ Approve Contra Costa's expenditure plan for TFCA funds potential lawsuit. Review and approve TFCA project reports an- nually Special Taxing Districts ■ Approve allocation process and procedures Special taxing districts, such as redevelopment In April, the Authority must submit an "Ex- districts, can be good instruments to finance new penditure Flan" to BAAQMD indicating which infrastructure -- including shared use trails and projects are to be funded in the upcoming year. sidewalks -within specified areas. New facilities are funded by assessments placed on those that are directly benefited by the improvements rather LOCAL FUNDING than the general public. In a "tax increment fi- nancing(TIF)district,taxes are collected on prop- erty value increases above the base year assessed Local jurisdictions can fund bicycle and pedes- property value. This money can then be utilized trian projects using a variety of sources. A city's for capital improvements within the district.TIFs general funds are often earmarked for non-motor- are especially beneficial in downtown redevelop- ized transportation projects, especially sidewalk ment districts. and ADA improvements. Eighteen percent of These districts are established by a petition Measure C money is given to local jurisdictions from landowners to a local government. The dis- that comply with growth policies that can be tricts can operate independently from the local used for maintenance and improvements. government and some are established for single Future road widening and construction proj- purposes, such as roadway construction. ects are one means of providing bike lanes and sidewalks. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide these facilities where needed, appropriate, and feasible, it is important that an ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 125 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Other Other opportunities for implementation will appear over time, which may be used to imple- Local sales taxes, fees, and permits may be ment the system. implemented, requiring a local election. Parking Table 15 presents low and high estimates of meter revenues may be used according to local funding expected countywide over the next 20 ordinance.Volunteer programs may substantially years. Determining funding estimates is very reduce the cost of implementing some of the difficult as funding sources change, revenues proposed pathways. Use of groups such as the rise and fall over time, and increasing numbers California Conservation Corp (who offer low-cost of projects begin to compete for limited money. assistance) will be effective at reducing project While Table 15 includes the most significant costs. Local schools or community groups may sources of funding, it in no way includes all po- use the bikeway or pedestrian project as a project tential funding sources. for the year, possibly working with a local de- This table illustrates the need for the Author- signer or engineer.Work parties may be formed to ity and its partner jurisdictions and agencies to help clear the right of way where needed. A local support new funding for bicycle and pedestrian construction company may donate or discount facilities, and for supporting programs, to help services. A challenge grant program with local achieve the goals of this plan.While the extension businesses may be a good source of local funding, of Measure C could help reduce the deficit shown where corporations "adopt" a bikeway and help in Table 15, it must also help fund other serious construct and maintain the facility. transportation needs within Contra Costa. 126 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CHAPTER 8 IMPLEMENTATION Table 15 Estimated Funding Sources and Amounts E i Estimated Total Allotment (20 years) Funding Source Low High Transportation Fund for Clean Air' $9,153,000 $11,,187000 Bicycle Transportation Account' $2,421,000 $2,959,000 Transportation C3evelopment Act Article 3 Funds' $19,530,000 $23,870,000 Transportation Enhancement Activities' $3,330,000 $4,070,000 Transportation for Livable Communities'/Housing Incentive Program' $22,680,000 $27,720,000 State Transportation Improvement Programa $24,000,000 $32,000,000 New Measure C Funds $0 $80,000,000 Miscellaneous Funding Sources' $20,000,000 $40,000,000 TOTAL FUNDING ;$101,114,000 $197,806,000> Est.Total of Countywide Projects $231,122,000 $231,122,000 ESTIMATED DEFICIT $130,00$,000 $33,316,000' ' Source,Table 5.2,Regional Bicycle Plan, MTC, 2001; ±10%of estimate based on historical allocations. The 2001 RTP allocated $337.5 million to TLC/HIP for next 25 years. Contra Costa has historically received 14%of avail- able funding. Estimate reflects±10%of 14%of total regional allocation over 20 years. 3 Proposition 42, passed in March 2002, will substantially contribute to the STIP. Figures used for this table are from esti- mated county allocations in a study commissioned by the League of California Cities. " The high and low amounts of potential funding are taken from the high and low amounts(five and zero percent, re- spectively) in the three alternative Expenditure Plans being considered by the Authority as part of the development of the Measure C extension.The final Expenditure Plan,which the Authority hopes to take to the voters in November 2004 for their approval,will likely contain a final amount for bicycle and pedestrian facilities somewhere between those high and low amounts. s Estimate that may Include Safe Routes to School,private donations, impact fees, CDBG, Recreational Trails Program, etc. ADOPTED DECEMBER 37, 2003 127 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 128 ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, 2003 APPENDIX A - BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN This appendix provides the most basic bikeway width of a shared use path is dependent upon planning and design requirements and recom- anticipated usage: mendations. A list of additional resources and g feet(2.4 m) is the minimum width, most ap- contacts are provided at the end of this appen- plicable to unpaved and/or rural facilities dix. • 8 feet (2.4 m) may be used for short neighbor- hood connector paths (generally less than one Bikeway Classification Descrip- mile in length) due to low anticipated vol- tlAns umes of use According to Caltrans, the term "bikeway,, en- ' 10 feet (3.0 m) is the recommended minimum width for atwo-way bicycle path compasses all facilities that provide primarily for 12 feet (3.6 m) is the preferred minimum bicycle travel. Caltrans has defined three types M of bikeways in Chapter 1000 of the Highway width if more than 300 users per peak hour Design Manual. Descriptions and general design are anticipated, or if there is heavy mixed bi- guidelines are presented below.The sources used cycle and pedestrian use for these design recommendations was Caltrans' A minimum 2-foot (0,6 m) wide graded area Highway Design Manual and AASHTO's Guide for must be provided adjacent to the path to provide the Development of Bicycle Facilities, clearance from trees,poles,walls, guardrails, etc. A yellow centerline stripe is recommended to separate travel in opposite directions. CLASS 1 BIKEWAY Typically called a "bike path" or "shared use Additional design Recommendations path," a Class I bikeway provides bicycle travel 1. Shared use trails and unpaved facilities that on a paved right-of-way completely separated serve primarily a recreation rather than a from any street or highway. The recommended transportation function and will not be fund- ed with federal transportation dollars may not CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN E ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN CLASS I BIKE PATH Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross- flow minimized SHARED K USE PATH No MOTOR VEHICLES IT 042 �' _�.s far � r„� :�... , cw: o a RIZED BICYCLES CLASS II BIKE LANE Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway 65%8"solid white Stripe t BIKE t14Nf= ,-(•,-,.�,®.��, ,u, Parking Bike - Lane V WPM CLASS III BIKE ROUTE Provides for shared use with pedes- trian or motor vehicle traffic typi- cally over lower volume roadways Bike Route Sign I ME t z ro,uaoan Figure A-1 GENERAL BIKEWAY Bites CLASSIFICATIONS A-2 ADOPTED DEMMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN ` need to be designed to Caltrans standards. CLASS If BIKEWAY However, state and national guidelines have been created with user safety in mind and Often referred to as a"bike lane," a Class II bike- should be followed as appropriate. Wher- way provides a striped and stenciled lane for one- ever any trail facility intersects with a street, way travel on either side of a street or highway.To roadway, or railway, standard traffic controls provide bike lanes along corridors where insuffi- should always be used. tient space is currently available, extra room can 2. Class I bike path crossings of roadways re- be provided by removing a traffic lane,narrowing quire preliminary design review. Generally traffic lanes, or prohibiting parking. The width speaking,bike paths that cross roadways with of the bike lanes vary according to parking and average daily trips over 20,000 vehicles will street conditions: require signalization or grade separation. 3. Landscaping should generally be low water 5 feet (1.5 m) minimum when parking stalls consuming native vegetation and should have are marked the least amount of debris. 11 feet (3.3 in) minimum for a shared bike/ 4. Lighting should be provided where commut- parking lane where parking is permitted but ers will use the bike path in the evenings. not marked on streets without curbs; or 12 5. Barriers at pathway entrances should be feet (3.6 m) for a shared lane adjacent to a clearly marked with reflectors and be ADA curb face accessible (minimum five feet clearance). ' 4 feet (1.2 m) minimum if no gutter exists, 6. Bike path construction should take into ac- measured from edge of pavement count impacts of maintenance and emer- ` 5 feet (1.5 m) minimum with normal gutter, gency vehicles on shoulders and vertical and measured from curb face; or 3 feet (0.9 m) structural requirements. Paths should be con- measured from the gutter pan seam strutted with adequate sub grade compaction Additional Design Recommendations to minimize cracking and sinking. 1. Whenever possible, the Department of Public 7. All structures should be designed to accom- Works should recommend that wider bike modate appropriate loadings. The width lanes beyond the minimum standard be in- of structures should be the same as the ap- stalled, proaching trail width,plus minimum two-foot 2. Intersection and interchange treatment: Cal- wide Clear areas. trans provides recommended intersection 8. Where feasible, provide two-foot wide un- treatments in Chapter 1000 including bike paved shoulders for pedestrians/runners, ora separate tread way. lane "pockets" and signal loop detectors. The 9. Direct pedestrians to the right side of pathway Department of Public Works should develop with signing and/or stenciling. a protocol for the application of these recom- mendations, so that improvements can be 10.Provide adequate trailhead parking and other facilities such as restrooms and drinking funded and made as part of regular improve- meat projects. fountains at appropriate locations. 3• Signal loop detectors, which sense bicycles, should be considered for all arterial/arterial, arterial/collector,and collector/collector inter- sections. A stencil of a bicycle and the words ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 A_3 F CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN line,per MUTCD.An 8-inch line width may be used for added distinction. 9. Word and symbol pavement stencils should be used to identify bicycle lanes, as per Cal- - trans and MUTCD specifications. Installing bike lanes may require more at- tention to continuous maintenance issues. Bike lanes tend to collect debris as vehicles disperse gravel, trash, and glass fragments from traffic lanes to the edges of the roadway. Striping and stenciling will need periodic replacing. CLASS III BIKEWAY Generally referred to as a "bike route,,, a Class Ill bikeway provides routes through areas not served by Class I or lu facilities or to connect discontinu- ous segments of a bikeway. Class III facilities can be shared with either motorists on roadways or pedestrians on a side- walk (not advisable) and is identified only by This stencil shows bicyclists where to place their bicycle signing. There are no recommended minimum to activate a traffic signal with a bicycle loop detector widths for Class III facilities, but when encour- aging bicyclists to travel along selected routes, "Bicycle Loop" should identify the location of traffic speed and volume, parking, traffic control the detectors. devices, and surface quality should be acceptable 4. When loop detectors are installed, traffic for bicycle travel. A wide outside traffic lane (14 signalization should be set to accommodate feet) is preferable to enable cars to safely pass bi- bicycle speeds. cyclists without crossing the centerline. 5. Bicycle-sensitive loop detectors are preferred over a signalized button specifically designed for bicyclists. BIKE BOULEVARDS 6. Bike lane pockets (min. 4 feet wide) between One type of Class III facility that is gaining right turn lanes and through lanes should be interest is the bike boulevard. Palo Alto pio- provided wherever available width allows, neered the concept, which, in that city, is a street and right turn volumes exceed 150 motor directly parallel to a major commercial corridor vehicles/hour. designed to promote bicycle movement and dis- 7. Where bottlenecks preclude continuous bike courage through vehicle traffic. This is achieved lanes, they should be linked with Class III by installing various traffic calming devices and route treatments. providing situations that favor bicyclists, such 8. A bike lane should be delineated from motor as a bikeway through a street closure. In addi- vehicle travel lanes with a solid 6-inch white tion, wider curb lanes and frequent signing as a A-4 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN ` "Bicycle Boulevard"helps increase the motorists' awareness. 3E Intersection Considerations Intersections represent one of the primary collision points for bicyclists. Generally, the it larger the intersection, the more difficult it is for bicyclists to cross. On-coming vehicles from ; multiple directions and increased turning move- ments make it difficult for motorists to see non- motorized travelers, This bike lane protects bicyclists from automobiles turn- Most intersections do not provide a designat- ing right at the intersection of Leland Road in Pittsburg ed place for bicyclists. Bike lanes and pavement markings often end before intersections, causing BIKE BOX confusion for bicyclists. Loop and other detec- tors,such as video, often do not detect bicycles. A bike box is a relatively new innovation to im- Bicyclists wanting to make left turns can face prove turning movements for bicyclists without quite a challenge. Bicyclists must either choose requiring cyclists to merge into traffic to reach to behave like motorists by crossing travel lanes the turn lane or use crosswalks as a pedestrian. and seeking refuge in a left-turn lane, or they act The bike box is formed by pulling the stop line as pedestrians and dismount their bikes, push for vehicles back from the intersection, and add- the pedestrian walk button located on the side- ing a stop line for bicyclists immediately behind walk, and then cross the street in the crosswalk. the crosswalk. When a traffic signal is red, a bi- Bicyclists traveling straight also have difficulty cyclist can move into this"box" ahead of the cars maneuvering from the far right lane, across a to make himself more visible, or to move into a right turn lane, to a through lane of travel. Ft1r- more comfortable position to make a turn. Bike thermore, motorists often do not know which boxes have been used in Cambridge, MA;Eugene, bicyclist movement to expect, Figure A-2 is an OR; and European cities. example of an intersection that provides bike lanes at critical locations at intersections. Changing how intersections operate also can TRAIL / ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS help make them more "friendly" to bicyclists. Safety is a critical issue where trails cross road- Improved signal timings for bicyclists, bicycle- ways, which are often at mid-block locations activated loop detectors (Figure A-3), and camera where motorists are less likely to expect bicy- detection make it easier and safer for cyclists clists and pedestrians. The success of a trail can to cross intersections. The purpose of bicycle be largely determined by quality of trail/roadway loops is to give cyclists extra green time (e.g. five crossings. The Contra Costa County Trail Design seconds) before the light turns yellow to make it Resource Handbook provides numerous options through the light, Current and future loops that for signage, pavement markings, and traffic con- are sensitive enough to detect bicycles should trol treatments at on-street trail crossings. Local have pavement markings to instruct cyclists how engineers and trail designers should use this ref- to trip them. erence in conjunction with Chapter l000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual to design in- ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 A-5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Minimum 72'-80' z Parking Lane � tcfin� Parking LuneIf # ! 25'min. & Dike Lane Pavement Markings (gc-2,gC-3)(Caltrans Figs,1003.20,1004.3) Dike Lane Sign(0111-1)(custom) Signal Detector (with stenciled marker) 4'Bike Lane ( Enhanced Signal Detector Minimum 80'-88'mx Minimum 52-56 12'Lane —Right-Turn Only(R3-7) 200'f 6e., min. Enhanced Signal Detector ,r i Signal Detector(with stenciled marker) Lane 4'Bike lane s (for heavy Left Tum Bicycle ) 12'Lane{collector} Volumes,i.e.,over 501 hour) 14'Lane(Arterial) t — Yield to Bicycle(R4-4) w Parking Lane E 5'Bike Lane 8' Parking Lane 8' Minimum 36'-40' Right Of Way 10100-104 Figure A-2 Bike Lanes Intersection Design A-6 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN Figure A-3 Common Loop Detector Types Quadrupole Loop Diagonal Quadrupole Loop Standard Loop ■ Detects most strongly in center a Sensitive over whole area 5 Detects most strongly over wires r Sharp cut-off sensitivity ■ Sharp cut-off sensitivity r Gradual cut-off ■ Used in dike lanes ■ Used in shared lanes ■ Used for advanced detection _ From:Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, FHWA, 1993, page 70. All bikeway signing should conform to the signing identified in the Caltrans Traffic f�c r' anual and/or the .Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). These documents give specific information on the type and location of signing for the primary bike system. A list of bikeway signs from Caltrans and the MUTCD is shown in Table A-1. In general, the sizes of signs used on bicycle paths are smaller than those used on roadways. Table 9B-1 of the MUTCD lists minimum sign sizes for both path and roadway bicycle facilities. Bike box in Eugene, OR;(Photo:Evaluation of an Innovative If the sign applies to drivers and bicyclists, than Application of the Bike Box,FHWA, 2000.) the larger size used for conventional roads shall apply tersections that meet or exceed minimum recom- mended standards for Class I facilities.Signage OTHER SIGNAGE Implementing a well-planned and attractive Innovative signing is often developed to increase system of signing can greatly enhance bikeway bicycle awareness and improve visibility. Signs facilities by signaling their presence and loea- to be installed on public roadways in California tion to both motorists and existing and potential must be approved by Caltrans' California Traffic bicycle users. By leading people to city bikeways Control Devices Committee. New designs can be and the safe and efficient transportation they of- utilized on an experimental basis with Caltrans fer to local residents and visitors to the county, approval. effective signage can encourage more people to San Francisco was the first city in California bicycle. to use the approved customized bike route logo sign. Jurisdictions may choose a graphic of their ADOPTED DECEMBER 17. 2003 A-7 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Table A-1 Recommended Signing and Marking Caltrans MUTCD Item Location Color Designation Designation No Motor Vehicles Entrances to trail B on W R44A R5-3> Use Ped Signal/Yield to Peds At crosswalks;where side- B on W N/A R9-5, R9-6 walks are being used Bike Lane Ahead: Right Lane Bikes At beginning of bike lanes B on W N/A R3-1 6, R3-17 Only STOP,YIELD At trail intersections with Won R R1-2 R1-1, R1-2 roads Bicycle Crossing For motorists at trail crossings B on Y W79 W11-1 Bike Lane At the far side of all arterial B on W R81 D11-1 intersections Hazardous Condition Slippery or rough pavement B on Y W42 W8-10 Turns and Curves At turns and curves which B on Y W1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6, W1-1,W1-2, exceed 20-mph design speci- 14, 56, 57 W1-4, W1-5, fications W11-6 Trail Intersections At trail.intersections where B on Y> W7, 8, 9 W2-11 W2-2; no STOP or YIELD required, or W2-3,W2-4, sight lines limited W2-5 STOP Ahead Where STOP sign is obscured B, R on Y W17 W3-1 Signal Ahead Where signal is obscured B, R, G` W41 W3-3 Bikeway Narrows Where bikeway width narrows B on Y W15 W5-4 or is below 8' Downgrade Where sustained bikeway gra- 'B on Y W29 W7-5 client is above 5% Pedestrian Crossing Where pedestrian walkway B on Y W54 W11A-2 crosses trail Restricted Vertical Clearance Where vertical clearance is less B on Y W47 W11 A-2 than;8'6" Railroad Crossing Where trail crosses railway B on Y W47 W10-1 tracks at grade Directional Signs At intersections>where access W on G G7, G8 D1-1 b(r/I), D1 1 c to major destinations is avail- able Right Lane Must Turn Right; Begin Where bike lanes end before B on W R18 R3-7, 134-4 Right Turn Here;Yield to Bikes intersection TrailRegulations All trail entrances "B on W N/A N/A Multi-purpose Trail: Bikes Yield to All trail entrances N/A N/A NIA Pedestrians Bikes Reduce Speed&Call Out Be- Every 2,000 feet ;,B on W N/A N/A fore Passing Please Stay on Trail In environmentally-sensitive N/A N/A N/A areas Caution: Storm Damaged Trail Storm damaged locations B on Y N/A N/A Trail Closed: No Entry Until Made Where trail or access points N/A N/A N/A Accessible&Safe for Public Use closed due to hazardous con- ditions Speed Limit Signs Near trail entrances;where B on W N/A N/A speed limits should be re- duced from 20;mph Trail Curfew 1 OPM—5 AM Based on local ordinance R on W NIA N/A A-8 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN choice for the upper third portion of the sign and a numbering system,similar to the highway num- bering system, can be used in the lower third. The new "Share the Read" sign, adopted by the California Traffic Control Devices Committee in 1999,is designed to advise motorists that bicy- clists need to share narrow roadways with motor vehicles. This sign has been installed throughout : Marin County. Interest has been generated over the "Bikes Allowed Use of Full Lane" sign. These words, `p' taken directly from the California Vehicle Code (CVC 21202), remind motorists of the rights of bicyclists on the roadway, Cities may consider using this sign as an experiment as it has not yet `. - . ., been approved by the California Traffic Control Devices Committee. Pavement Markings The Manual on Uniform 7�trffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides guidance for lane delineation, Bike route stencil from Denver intersection treatments, and general application of pavement wording and symbols for on-road bicycle facilities and off-road paths. In addition BLUE BIKE LANE 5 to those presented in the MUTCD, the following experimental pavement markings may be consid- European countries have used colored pave- ered. ment—red, blue, yellow, and green—in bike lanes that tend to have a higher likelihood for vehicle conflicts. Examples of such locations are BIKE STENC!L ROUTE freeway on- and off-ramps and where a motorist San Francisco is testing a bicycle stencil for use may cross a bike lane to move into a right turn on Class III facilities where lanes are too narrow pocket. In the United States,the City of Portland for sharing. The stencil can serve a number of has experimented with blue bike lanes and sup- purposes, such as making motorists aware of bi- portive signing with favorable results. Studies cycles potentially in their lane,showing bicyclists after implementation showed more motorists the direction of travel, and, with proper place- slowing or stopping at the blue lanes and more went, reminding bicyclists to bike further from motorists using their turn signals near the blue parked cars to prevent "dooring" collisions. The lanes. City of Denver has effectively used this treatment for several years and the City of San Francisco has recently begun a study of its effectiveness. Parking As more bikeways are constructed and bicycle usage grows,the need for bike parking will climb. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 A-9 T CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN • The rack element (part of the rack that sup- ports the bike) should keep the bike upright by supporting the frame in two places with- out the bicycle frame touching the rack. The rack should allow one or both wheels to be secured. ■ Position racks so there is enough room be- tween adjacent parked bicycles. If it becomes too difficult for a bicyclist to easily lock their bicycle, they may park it elsewhere and the bicycle capacity is lowered. A row of inverted This blue bike lane in Portland, Oregon is used to warn "U"racks should be situated on 30-inch mini- motorists approaching the on-ramp that bicyclists have a m through lane um centers. ■ Empty racks should not pose a tripping haz- ard for visually impaired pedestrians.Position Long-term bicycle parking at transit stations and racks out of the walkway's clear zone, work sites, as well as short-term parking at shop- • When possible, racks should be in a lighted, ping centers and similar sites, both can support high visibility, covered area protected from bicycling. Bicyclists have a significant need the elements. Long-term parking should al- for secure long-term parking because bicycles ways be protected. parked for longer periods are more exposed to weather and theft, although adequate long-term The table below provides basic guidelines parking rarely meets demand, on the ideal locations for parking at several key When choosing bike racks,there are a number activity centers as well as an optimum number of of things to keep in mind., parking spaces. Table A-2 Recommended Guidelines for Bicycle Parking Locations and Quantities Land Use or Location Physical Location Bicycle Capacity City Park Adjacent to restrooms, picnic areas,fields, 8 bicycles per acre and other attractions City Schools Near office entrance with good visibility 8 bicycles per 40 students Public Facilities(city hall, libraries, Near main entrance with good visibility 8 bicycles per location community,enters) Commercial, retail and industrial Near main entrance with good visibility 1 bicycle per 15 employees or 8 bicycles developments over 10,000 gross per 10,000 gross square feet square feet Shopping Centers over 10,000 Near main entrance with good visibility 8 bicycles per.10,000-gross square feet gross square feet Commercial Districts Near main entrance with good visibility; 2 bicycles every 200 feet not to obstruct auto or pedestrian move- ment Transit Stations Near platform or security guard 1 bicycle per 30 parking spaces A-10 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN Ff ATTENDED BICYCLE PA B K 1 N G PA C I L I- repairs to crossings, cleaning drainage systems, TIES trash removal, and landscaping. Underbrush and weed abatement should be performed once in the Attended bike parking is analogous to a coat late spring and again in mid-summer. Major re- check—your bike is securely stored until you habilitation such as pavement resurfacing can be need it in a supervised location. An organization as much as $125,000 or more per mile (EBRPD). called The Bikestation@ Coalition is promoting In addition, these same maintenance treat- enhanced attended parking at transit stations. ments should be performed on Class II and Class The Bikestationt&concept is now in use in Palo III facilities.These facilities should be prioritized Alto and Berkeley in the Bay Area. Bikestationse to include an accelerated maintenance plan that offer secured valet bicycle parking near transit is already a part of on-going street maintenance. centers. What makes Bikestations® distinctive A maintenance schedule and checklist is pro- are the other amenities that may be offered at vided in Table A-3. the location--bicycle repair, cafes, showers and changing facilities, bicycle rentals, licensing, etc. Bikestations@ become a virtual one-stop-shop for Liability bicycle commuters. Attended bicycle parking can be offered at Liability is a major concern for all local govern- some special events. For example, the Marin ments. Liability for local agencies implementing County Bicycle Coalition sponsors valet park- and operating new bikeways and pedestrian fa- ing at many festivals in the county, the Sonoma cilities should be no different than the liability County Bicycle Coalition sponsors valley parking for new roads, parks, or schools. Local agencies at the downtown Santa Rosa Farmers Market, and should adhere to the following guidelines to secured bicycle parking is offered at Pac Bell Park minimize their liability. in San Francisco. 1. Use of Design Standards Maintenance The designers,builders, and inspectors of a facil- Most of the maintenance costs for bikeway facili- ity should adhere to widely accepted standards ties are associated with the proposed off-road bike governing the design and construction of the paths, as bike lanes and routes are assumed to be trail. A standard of conduct includes adherence maintained as part of routine roadway mainte- to published documents such as safety codes, nance. However, as bicycle lanes do require standards, or guidelines that are sponsored or occasional restriping and other maintenance, issued by government agencies or voluntary as- approximately $2,000 per mile annually can be sociations, even though such documents lack the expected based on experience in other cities. This force and effect of law. Provisions of state laws includes costs like sweeping, replacing signs and related to transportation facilities, if mandatory, markings, and street repair. Utility trenches are may provide the basis for a finding of negligence often dug within roadways today, especially for per se, fiber optic cables. Care must be given to patch Applicable California standards include the these trenches smoothly and without any seams Uniform Building Code, and Caltrans Design within bike lanes or along bike routes.Class I bike Manual for Class I and 11 Bikeways. Other avail- path maintenance costs are based on$18,000 per able design standards include AASHOT's Guide Mile (EBRPD estimate) which includes cleaning, for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; Florida ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 A_11 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN t !Madel Bicycle Ordinance The following text has been included as sample ordinance language for consideration of i adoption by jurisdictions in the San Francisco metropolitan area.Modifications should be made to reflect local conditions and issues. Included are regulations concerning bicycle parking(location, design, and quantity),commuter facilities, accessways, and paths. Meaning of Specific 'Words and Site Plan Review: Information Re- Terms quirements i E Accessway. Dedicated easement or right-of A Site Plan shall contain all the elements necessary way intended to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to demonstrate that requirements of this Code are — convenient linkages to streets, residential areas, being fulfilled and shall include but not be limited neighborhood activity centers, industrial or com- to the following: mercial centers, transit facilities, parks, schools, A. Parking Plan demonstrating compliance with open space, or trails and paths where no public the standards of this Code. street access exists. 1. Location, dimensions and number of typi- Bicycle Parking Space. A space for one cal, compact and disabled parking spaces; standard bicycle within a lighted and secure bicycle including aisles, landscaped areas, wheel rack, placed in a paved area. bumpers, directional signs and striping. Bicycle or Bike Lane.A portion of the road- 2. On-site vehicular and pedestrian circula way which has been designated by striping, sign- tion. ing and pavement markings for the preferential or 3 Access to streets, alleys and properties to be exclusive use of bicycles. served, including the location and dimen- Bikeway. Any road, street, path or way which sions of existing and proposed curb cuts. in some manner is specifically designated for bi- 4. Grading, drainage, surfacing and subgrad- cycle travel,regardless of whether such facilities are ing details. designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to 5. Exterior lighting: including the type, height be shared with other transportation modes. and area of illumination. Shared-Use Path. A bikeway physically 6. Location, type, and number of bicycle racks, separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an and total resulting bicycle parking spaces. open space or barrier and either within the high- way right-of-way or within a public, non-.road right-of-way. Shared use paths may also be used Site Plan Review: Parking Area Im- by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, p ro v e m e n t Standards and other non-motorized users. The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be pro- Sidewalk. The portion of a street or highway vided for specified uses as set forth in Articles X.1, right-of-way designated for preferential or exclu- and shall meet the standards set forth in Article X.2. i sive use by pedestrians. Bicycle parking provided in parking lots to meet these requirements shall be visible and accessible, and not impede on-site pedestrian circulation. A--1 2 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN XI BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS c. All required long-term bicycle parking spac- j (1) Purpose es shall be sheltered from precipitation by Bicycle parking is required in most base zones and means of a roof, canopy,building overhang for most uses to encourage the use of bicycles by or other method. Short-term bicycle parking providing safe and convenient places to park and is not required to be sheltered. store bicycles. The required number of spaces is d. Direct access from the 'bicycle parking to � lower for uses that do not tend to attract bicycle the public right-of-way .shall be provided riders and higher for these that do. For some uses, by means of access ramps, if necessary, and bicycle parking requirements have been increased pedestrian access from the bicycle parking because of the opportunities to encourage more area to the building entrance shall also be employee, student and customer-related bicycle provided. use. (3) Bicycle Parking Location and Security The main purpose of these design standards a. Bicycle parking shall consist of a securely- is to ensure that bicycle parking is conveniently fixed structure that supports° the bicycle located and provides sufficient security from theft frame in a stable position without damage 7 and damage. Long-term bicycle parking space to wheels, frame or other components and requirements are intended to accommodate em- that allow the frame and both wheels to be ployees, commuters,students, residents and others locked to the rack with the bicyclist's own who expect to leave their bicycles for more than locking device. Each required bicycle park- two hours. Short-term bicycle parking spaces ac- ing space shall be accessible without remov- commodate visitors, customers, messengers, and ing another bicycle. others expected to depart within approximately b. Bicycle parking shall be provided within a two hours. convenient distance of, and clearly visible (2) Bicycle Parking Standards from, the main entrance to the building as a. The minimum number of bicycle parking determined by the City, but it shall not be spaces for each principal use on the site is further than the closest automobile parking four spaces. Specific requirements for all space excluding disabled parking. Bicycle uses are contained in Article X.2: Additional parking racks, shelters or lockers must be bicycle parking spaces may be required at securely anchored to the ground or to a (common use areas). Fractional numbers of structure. spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole c. Bicycle parking shall be separated from mo- space. for vehicle parking by a barrier, curb or suf- b. Each bicycle parking space shall be at least 2 ficient distance to prevent damage to parked feet by 6 feet with an overhead clearance of bicycles by moving vehicles. 7 feet, and with a 5 feet access aisle beside d. Where bicycle parking facilities are not di- or between each row of bicycle parking, rectly visible and obvious from the public and between parked bicycles and a wall or rights)-of-way, sign(s) shall be provided structure. The dimensions of commonly to direct bicyclists to the parking. Directions used bicycle racks are illustrated in Figure to sheltered facilities inside a structure may X.2 (2)(b). Bicycles maybe tipped vertically be posted or distributed by the employer, as for storage but not hung above the floor. appropriate. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 A-73 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN e. Bicycle parking may be located inside a center, a transit facility,_a park, a school, building on a floor which has an outdoor open space, or a trail facility. entrance open for use and floor location b. Public street connections for cars, pedestri- - which does not require stairs to access the ans and bicycle circulation are preferable to space; exceptions may be made for parking accessways.Accessways should only be used on upper stories within multi-story residen to ensure connectivity to nearby activities in tial buildings. Bicycle parking shall be pro- areas where no other public street options vided on the ground floor of the structure are available, unless an elevator is easily accessible to an c. Off-street bicycle paths in excess of 400 feet approved bicycle storage area, in length are not considered accessways. f. Bicycle parking and bicycle racks shall be 2. Criteria: Accessways shall be provided in the located to avoid conflict with pedestrian following situations: - movement and access. Bicycle parking may a, Bicycle and pedestrian connections are be located on the public sidewalk or within required between discontinuous street the public right-of-way where this still rights-of-way, where a new street is not leaves a minimum of 5 feet between the feasible; through excessively long blocks; or parked bicycle and the storefront and does wherever the lack of street continuity creates not conflict with pedestrian accessibility, inconvenient or out of direction travel pat- terns for local pedestrian or bicycle trips. A b. Pedestrian and bicycle access shall be pro- DARDSBICYCLE PARKING NUMERICAL STAN- vided as follows for all development: f7R f7 S 1. To provide direct access to nearby The minimum number of required bicycle pedestrian/bicycle destination, transit parking spaces is presented in Table 31.220. In all streets or transit facilities to connect with cases, the minimum number of parking spaces is all existing or approved accessways that four except where otherwise indicated, abut the development site. 2. To provide direct connection of cul-de- sacs and dead end streets to the nearest X.3 BICYCLE COMMUTER FACILITIES available street or pedestrian/bicycle i Changing rooms and showers shall be provided destinations. j in all new construction or reconstruction of build- 3. To provide connections from local or ings with 25 or more employees and which require cul-de-sac streets to collector or arterial the provision of long-term bicycle parking per streets. X.2. 4. Spacing between full street or accessway connections shall be no more than 330 feet for residential and mixed-use devel- opment, and no more than 530 feet for 1. Pedestrian/Bicycle Accessways-Purpose commercial and industrial development. i a. Accessways are intended to link the follow- 3. Accessway Type and Purpose. When required, i ing uses: A residential area, neighborhood one of the following accessway types will be activity center, an industrial or commercial deemed appropriate by the Manager during development review: A-14 ADOP'T'ED DECEMBER 27, 2003 APPENDIX A • BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN I Required Bicycle Parking i J (Minimum 4 bicycle spaces required unless Type and%of Uses -0-is indicated.) Bicycle Parking " ., AW - 7 � al— e 4 '„e, `+: rz, a, �„xr, a r+' .`kt.,€s% .< ." 9kS�`� All Uses in this category -�0- NA A-0-0-01 , MORI 'ENK, w,' 1111 1 w, 'A'I I" I'm, I IV""ims" , All Uses in this category l per each 600 square feet of floor area. 100%short term VIN El All Uses in this category l per each 600 square feet of floor area. 25% longterm 75% short term Schools, Business or Specialized I per 5 full-time students 25% long terra Educational Training(excludes driving in- 75%short term _ struction} �_. ,__. __._.,_ __.-_ Schools,Driving(including use of motor l per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term vehicles) 75%short term Schools, Public or Private(Elementary Iper8 students._ 25% lo,._. ng term through High School) 75%short term Universities or Colleges i per 5 full-time students. 25% long term 75% short term Amusement Centers(Arcades,pool tables, I per each 400 square feet of floor area. 25% long term etc.) 75%short term ..... . ..... } ........ . ..__. .............. Arenas, Both indoors and outdoors € per 20 seats. 25% long term 75%short term Artist Galleries/Studios I per each 500 square feet of floor area. 25% longterm 75%short term _.... . ........... ... . , ...._.. ._. .. . ............ Athletic Facilities and Sports Clubs Playing Courts 10%of auto spaces (minimum of 4). 25% long term 75%short term Viewing Areas I per each 280 square feet of floor area. 25%long term 75%short term Locker Rooms,Saunas Whirlpools, I per each 750 square feet of floor area. 25%long term Weight Rooms, or Gymnasiums 75%short term I Lounge or Snack Bar Areas i per each 600 square feet of floor area 25% long term 75%short term Pro Shops or Sales Areas I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term f 75% short term Swimming Pools I per each 2,000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term 75%short term Athletic Field,Outdoor 4 per each playing field V 100%short term Ba€let, 1Dance,and Gymnastic Schools/ I per each 400 square feet of floor area. 25%long term Academies/Studios 75% short term ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 A-15 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Required Bicycle Parking : (Minimum 4 bicycle spaces required unless Type and%of Uses -0-is indicated.) Bicycle Parking Bowling Alleys I per each lane. .25%long term 75%short term -dubs-a'n-, Lodges of State or National I per 20 f:xed seats or 40 feet of bench 100%short term Organization length or every 200 square feet where no permanent seats or benches are maintained in main auditorium. Community and Neighborhood Centers I per 20 fixed seats or 40 feet of bench 25%long term length or every 200 square feet where no i permanent seats or benches are maintained 75%short term in main auditorium. ....., ....._.- .. ... ... ......... ._ ..:..... Equestrian Academy and Stables -0- NA ... ... ......... _ Equestrian Trails -0- NA .Golf CrSurse, Miniature Indoor_.-- ,,__I er"each 400, uare f� f-fl. a ' "�`— � lo'n" _w�,W,......__. p q eet of floor area. 25%long term . _. _.__n..w w.,. _. ..... �, W,r__. __ _�.__. . ._.�.. _.��.,.. .___.__ _..__.,_ �, ,.._751 short term Golf Course, Miniature Outdoor I per each 400 square, quare feet of floor area. 25%long term. 75%shartterm ` Golf Course,with or without country club 0- NA-111111 g Range per each 400 Golf Driving gI square feet of floor area. ..___...25%long term �..., q 75%short term i Libraries I per each 400 square feet of floor area. 25%longterm 75%short term Museum I per each 500 square feet of floor area. 25%long term 75%short term Parks and Playgrounds Per Park District category list Race Tracks,including drag strips and go- I per 20 seats. 25%long term cart tracks 751.%sh1.ort term Theaters,Live Entertainment I per 20 seats. 251 1.1on term 75l short term Theaters, Motion Picture I per 20 seats. 25%long term 75%short term Automated Te11er Machines (ATMs) -0 NA _. ....... _... .... ..... ..... ..... .... Banks,Savings and Loan Offices, Credit I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term Unions :,. Rs 75%short term 3 fi7 t�. -4 tai , �. ,,� '.� .. e.. .r d�.�af,� , eYs,hi:� eI.�.t :. � N�"�nr� w"' y x k x .,sa,� # n�.zti,ti Government Services, not specifically listed I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term in this or any other uses and permits table 75%short term IN Bed and Breakfast Facilities }� I per 10 guest bedrooms #� 100% long term .. _ g A-16 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN �:.. Required Bicycle Parking Type and%of (Minimum 4 bicycle spaces required unless Yp Uses -0-is indicated.) Bicycle Parking Homeless Shelters I per 20 beds. 75% long term 25%short term _.. _.._.... ...... . ........___ _. Hotels, Motels,Youth Hostdis and similar 1 per 10 guest bedrooms. 25%short term businesses providing overnight accommo- 75% long term dations g ........ .. .. ... Recreational Vehicle Parks, may include -0- NA tent sites fi,� �d ry sON „ . 8 Bdde3t'n Ma3 d.�iw'4k'�.i9 fib ktik", n''+F*s. .+ .., �� k a +� ,e I." " ".`1 t All manufacturing uses,excluding storage I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%short term uses 75%long term Storage -0_ NA t�..,A"1NE3�v�� .�a�. et,'..,,.t�e."� Blood Banks I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 100%short term Correctional Facilities,excluding µ I per 20 beds. m.... _., 25%short term „_.. Residential Treatment Centers 75% long term.,...... Hospitals, Clinics,or other Medical Health I per each 3,000 squarefeetof floor area. 25%short term Treatment facilities(including mental 75%ion term health) in excess of 10,000 square feet of g floor area _....._. m..,-___ ,. ___. ,-....._... .. ._. .... .. . ._..___-.. . . . . ._,....- Hospitals,Clinics or other Medical Health 1 per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25% short term Treatment Facilities(including mental 75% long term health) 101,000 square feet or less of floor g area .......... f Laboratories—Medical, Dental,X-Ray. I per each 3,00... - 0 square feet of floor area 25%long term 75%short term ... _..._ P q ... o . _ 1- . Meal Services,Non-Profit I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%longterm 75%short term Nursing Home. I per 15 beds 75%longterm 25%short term Plasma Centers_ .,.._,_ ._-.._. __._.,_._ ......... _.I per IS�beds. .�._ _ _.__. .__.. __..... ..._._._ ___. . __..._...,_ p 75%long term 25%short term Residential Treatment Center 1 per 1.5 beds. 75%. _..long te,g,ter __... rm f 25%short term Egg4a �P` �' ,w..�.�"§, 4" 1501 RS` Car Washes -0- NA - Parking Areas -a- NA w,..w _ .. _ _.. Parking Garages, a to two levels 10%of auto spaces 100% long term P Parking Garages,three or more levels 10%of auto spaces. 100% long term ._ _._ . Parts Stores I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 100%short term .... ._. _ _ ... .. _ . .. _. , Recreational Vehicles and Heavy Truck, I per each 4,000 square feet of floor area 100% short term Sales/Rental/Service _.... ..... . .. Repair, includes paint and body shops I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area. 100% short term ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 A-17 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Required Bicycle Parking (Minimum 4 bicycle spaces required unless Type and%of Uses -0-is indicated.) Bicycle Parking .._..... .. . Safes,excluding recreational vehicles and I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area 100%short term he trucks Service Stations, includes quick servicing I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area. 100%short term _.. per _.._.._ Tires,Sales/Service 1 r each 6,000 square feet of floor area. 100%short term onlynsit Park when shared parkingMajor Minor,ent _..._ . ._._.. _.ac ::..�.m, _�._.. . .. long .�..._...__ V Minimum I0 spaces, or 10%of auto spaces, 25% long term whichever is greater. - with other permitted use 75%short term Transit Park and Ride,Major or Minor whi hem 10 g aces, 10%of auto spaces, 725%long5%short tri..: ....... . ......... .... . .......... Transit Station, Major or Minor Minimum 10 spaces, 10%of auto spaces, 25%long term whichever is greater. 75%short term +o- � . :mss All CY711-7411"!ses 1 per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term 75%short term x 3£wr a ufr ,M rs �. k _`r^#aF "r.:. � .�;s":�,w�, ,a.t :\, All Personal Services Uses,except I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term Barber, Beauty, Nail,Tanning Shops and E 75°l short term Laundromats _...... _.. .. ..._._... _............... Barber, Beauty, Nail,Tanning Shops I per each 2,000 square feet of floor area 25% long term 751 short term Laundromats,Self-Service f per each 2,000 square feet of floor area ''28%,long term 75%short term Churches, Synagogues,and Temples,in- I per 20 fixed seats or 40 feet of bench 100%short term cluding associated residential structures for length or every 200 square feet where no ' religious personnel permanent seats or benches are maintained in main auditorium (sanctuary or place of worship) s, �� aIWNN � s �� �r E ' One-Family©welling -0- NA _.__. _e. ... ._.. _......... . ... ... ._ ._. . _...._ Secondary Dwelling(Either attached or -0- NA detached from primary one-family dwelling on same lot} . Rowhouse(One-Family on own lot at- -0- NA 1 tacked to adjacent residence on separate ! lot with garage or carport access to the rear of the lot) Duplex 0- NA __.... Triplex I per dwelling 100%long term Four-'Plexes per' dwe'liin g . 100%long term p _. .. a Multiple Family i per dwelling. 100/longterm ............ ... .......... . Manufactured Home Park -0- NA A-18 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN - r Required Bicycle Parking r (Minimum 4 bicycle spaces required unless Type and of -- Uses -0-is indicated.) : Bicycle Parking Controlled Income and:Rent Housing I .per dwelling. 100%long term where density is above that usually permit- ted in the zoning yet not to exceed 150% ....... ...... . ....... ..... Assisted Living&Day Care Assisted'L.iving(5 or fewer people living -0- NA in facility and 3 or fewer outside employ- ees on site at any one time) Assisted Living(6 or more people living I per 10 employees IW6 long term in facility) Day Care (3 - 12 people served) -0- NA Day Care(13 or more people served) I per 10 employees 100%longterm Rooms for Rent Boarding and Rooming House ` I per guest room. 100%Tong term Campus Living Organizations,including I for each 2 occupants for which sleeping 100%long term Fraternities and Sororities facilities are provided. Single Room Occupancy I per dwelling(4 single rooms are equal to 100%long term I dwelling). University and College Dormitories I for each 2 occupants for which sleeping 100%long term facilities are provided. VOwma k S" { Agricultural Machinery Rental/Sales/Service I per each 4,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term 75%short term _.:. .. ..................................... .. .. . ... . . .... _..... . .. ...... . .__...... _...__.. ....._._. Appliance Sales/Service I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area. 25%lung term 75%short term ...... . .,...... ..... .. ............ ._ . . .....�. ... g ..... ..._. Boats and Watercraft Safes/Service I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area. 2S% long term 75%short term Buildin. . . .. ........ ... ..... .. ....: .. Building Materials and Supplies I per each 6;000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term 75%short term ........ . ...... ... . ........... . ..... .. .. ... ........... . ­­_­.1..­­ .. ......_........ Convenience Stores 1 per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term 75%short term Equipment, Lt igh ,Rent-all 7Sales/Service l per e0 ach 4, 00 square feet of floor area. 25%long term — i 75%short term Equipment, Heavy,Rental/Sales/Service in- 1 per each 4,000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term eludes truck and tractor sales 75%short term _ ......... .. _ ._.. ...._.... . ... . ... Furniture and Home Furnishing Stores I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term 75%short term jGarden Supply/Nurseries I per each 6;000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term 75%short term Garden Supply/Nurseries, including feed I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term j and seed stores �_.: .__. _.w_. .. ... _ .:. .. . .. 75%short term ; General Merchandise(includes superma ..,..per each 3,000 square feetr- fp t o q ..._f floor area .25%long term�-� gets and department stores) 75%short term r ._.. .m. _...._ . ......_ .r..� _ .__.. _ . .. .....,._ ...,.... .. ._... _,...._ ! ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, 2003 A--19 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Required Bicycle Parking (Minimum 4 bicycle spaces required unless Type and%of i Uses -0-is indicated.) Bicycle Parking Hardware/Home Improvement Stores I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term short term Liquor Stores I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 2"5%1,ong term,rm 75%short term Manufactured Dwelling Sales/Service I per each j-,6600-square_ feet— of—flo o'—rarea. -'2-5—%I-o-n-g-term /Repair short term Medical Equipment and Supplies I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area, 25%long term short term Office Equipment and Supplies I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term 75%,short term ............ Plumbing Supplies and Services I per each 6,000 square feet of floor a"r"ea. long-t-e,'r m- 75%short term .................. Regional Distribution Center' I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area. 25%, long term ..............I..........1...............................- ............. 75%short term Retail Trade when secondary, directly I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%.,. I-o-nterm-g ..... related,and limited to products manufac- tured,repaired,or assembled on the level- 75%short term pment site ........... ........ Storage Facilities,Household/Consumer -0- NA Goods ................ .................................. ...... ............ Storage Facilities, Household/Consumer -0- NA Goods,enclosed ............. ...... Shopping centers with at least 2 or more I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term businesses and at least 50,000 square feet of gross floor area, 75%short term ................ ......--............... .............. .............. ............ ............. Specialty Stores (examples include-gik I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long-term" computer or video store) 75%short term .. ...... .1-1-1111-1..... -:11-11.1 I ................ ........... .... . Storage Facilities -0- NA .....................--............... ....... ........ ............ ............................ ...................-1.1-1- 1-1......-11.1111,1.11........... Warehouse Commercial Sales I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area 25%long term 75%short term All Uses in U NA Category,ex ept forBroadcasting Studios .................... Broadcasting Studios, Commercial and I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25%long term Public Education 75%short term R, NO 1 Building Main t of floor area. 100%short term Catering Services I per sash 3,000 square feet of floor 25%long term 75%short term Cemeteries,includes crematoria, co'lu,...m--"- ........... NA baric,and mausoleums A-20 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A BICYCLE PLANNING ANIS DESIGN Required Bicycle Parking {Minimum 4 bicycle spaces required unless Type and%of Uses -0-is indicated.} Bicycle Parking Civic,Social, f=raternal Organizations 1 per 20 fixed seats or 40 feet of bench 100%short term length or every 200 square feet where no permanent seats or benches are maintained in main auditorium Clubs and Lodges of State or National I per 20 fixed seats or 40 feet of bench 25% long term ; Organizations length or every 200 square feet where no 75%short term j g permanent seats or Frenches are maintained ! in main auditorium Collection Center,Collection of Used -0- NA Goods Garbage Dumps,sanitary landfills -0- NA Heliports and Helistops -0- NA Home Occupations _0- NA ... ...... Kennel -0_ NA Ho ..._, _... .._.r._ ._..... _.. ........_ ........ _-_r., _....__.v..�., _.,, ._. _u... . . ,._.._. _ ........ ..__... Model Home Sales Office -0- NA Mortuaries ^_ I per each 280 square feet in main audito- 100%short rium. term Photographers'Studios I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 100 short� term Picture Framing and Glazing I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 100%short term .._... .. —1--.----- .., Printing, Blueprinting, Duplicating i per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term 75%short term Publishing Services 1 per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 25% long terra 75% short term Temporary Activities -0- NA Train Stations I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 75%long term 25% short term Upholstery Shop I per each 3,000 square feet of floor area. 100°%short term _ ._.... Veterinarian Services I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area 100%short term Wildlife Care Center I per each 6,000 square feet of floor area 100%short term a 4 i I ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 A-21 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN a. Neighborhood Accessway: Provides neigh- cessways shall be maintained as part of the borhood connections through blocks, links public right-of-way, or by the underlying various uses, and promotes direct non-mo landowner if constructed as public ease- ; torized travel. ments over private land. ! b. Public/Private Integrated Accessway: Pro- b. Width vides dual purpose as part of a private, 1. The width of right-of-way or easements on-site circulation pattern; with a public shall be 10 to 12 feet. easement to link proximate streets, uses, and 2. The Manager may approve accessways activities. exceeding 200 feet in length, with ad- c. Park/Natural Area Accessway: Provides equate right-of way or easement width neighborhood access to park and natural to provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle areas. travel. 4. An exception may be made when the Manager 3. A minimum IS-foot width is required determines that construction of a separate ac- for accessways that also provide for pub- cessway is not feasible due to physical or lic utility corridors. If an accessway also jurisdictional constraints. Such evidence may provides secondary fire access, a mini- include, but is not limited to: mum 20-foot width is required. a. Other Federal, State, or Local requirements 4. Approved easement accessways for prevent construction of an accessway; public/private integrated use may be b. The nature of abutting existing development reduced to a minimum 8-foot width. makes construction of an accessway imprac- a. A clear-vision triangle, the same as for a tical; Residential Driveway, shall be provided at c. The accessway would cross an area affected the ends of all accessways. Accessways shall by a special purpose district overlay and the be straight enough to allow both ends of the accessway is incompatible with the purposes accessway to be seen from the adjacent pub- of the special purpose district; lic streets. On-street parking shall be prohib- d. The accessway would cross topography ited within I S feet of the intersection of an where slopes exceed 30%; or accessway and a public street to preserve safe e. The accessway would terminate at the urban sight distance. growth boundary and extension to another b. Accessways shall be lighted by pedestrian- public right-of-way isnot part of an adopted scale lighting with a maximum standard plan.. height of 12 feet along the accessway unless S. Street Entry: Except at the end of a cul-de-sac, existing on-site lighting or adjacent street entry points shall align where possible with safe lighting provides adequate accessway il- pedestrian crossing points along adjacent streets lumination as approved by the Manager. and with adjacent street intersections. Lighting shall not shine into adjacent resi- 6. Accessways are subject to the following Design dences. Standards: c. The construction of stairways shall be avoid- a. All rights-of-way for pedestrian and bicycle ed whenever possible.Where the path grade accessways shall be dedicated to the City for would exceed 12% slope, an accessway public use or may be approved as public will be constructed as stairs for pedestrians. access easements on private property. Ac- Based on local conditions, the Manager may i i A--22 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A • BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN approve alternatives to stairs, including the 2. Developments abutting existing or proposed use of switchbacks and alternative materials. pedestrian trails identified in the adopted Park If stairways are needed, they shall be at least and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan 5 feet wide with handrails on both sides. shall provide for the future extension of such d. Fencing & Screening: When required for pedestrian trails through the dedication of ease buffering, accessways shall be fenced and ments or right of way. The developer shall be screened along adjacent property lines. The responsible for trail surfacing, as approved by area between the pathway and fences shall the Parks and Recreation District or the City, as be planted with a combination of ground appropriate. Trails shall be constructed to allow cover or low growing shrubs that will reach for adequate drainage and erosion control, no more than 2 feet at maturity. 3. In dedicating an easement or right-of-way for e. Accessways shall be designed to prohibit public trails, the owner shall demonstrate corn- motorized traffic. pliance with the following criteria: £ Accessway surfaces shall be designed to a. Trail easements or rights of way shall be 25 drain stormwater run-off to the side or sides feet. This standard may be reduced if the of the accessway.Maximum cross slope shall Director finds this standard to be impracti- be 2%. cal due to physical constraints. In all cases g. Pavement width shall generally be 10 to the adopted easement or right of way must 12 feet. The Manager may approve an ac- accommodate trails built to the standards cessway of minimum 8-foot width based adopted by the City. on specific site constraints. Park/natural b. Trail easements or rights of way shall al- area accessways may be hard or soft surface, low for future construction of trails in ac- based on natural area constraints and antici- cordance with specifications as to width pated level of use. and surfacing as contained in the CalTrans h. Accessways shall be constructed in accor- Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. dance with the City's Public Works Standard c. Trail easements or rights-of-way shall be Drawings. located within a site in such a manner as to allow the trail to be'buffered (by means of fences,landscaping,berms, etc.) from exist- ing BIKEWAY TRAILS and proposed dwellings on the site and I 1. Developments abutting existing or proposed on adjacent properties, and to maintain the bikeways identified in the Transportation Plan maximum feasible privacy for residents. shall include provisions for the future exten- d. Trail easements or rights-of-way shall be siren of these facilities through the dedication of located within a site so that future trails con- easements or rights of way. The developer shall struction will avoid parking and driveway bear the cost of bikeway improvements except areas and other activity areas which might when other property owners are benefited, conflict with pedestrian movements. other equitable means of cost distribution may e. Site area included within a trail easement or be approved by the City. Minimum width for right-of-way shall be counted as a portion of striped on-street bike lanes shall be 5 feet.Inde- the landscaped and open space area required pendent shared-use paths shall have a minimum for the proposed development. width of 12 feet for two-way traffic. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 p_23 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN X.6 TENTATIVE PLAN DRAFTING RE- QUIREMENTS E QUIREMENTS E r_ 1. The location and widths of all existing and pro- posed sidewalk, including the location, size and type of plantings and street trees in any j required planter strip; accesssways; pedestrian trails; and shared-use paths. 2. The location, design, and number of required bicycle parking spaces. 3. The fallowing additional information shall be submitted with the Tentative Plan: - (additional required information to reflect jurisdiction's policies] X.7 TENTATIVE PLAN CRITERIA FOR AP- PROVAL E �. i The Director shall approve, approve with condi- tions or deny the request, based upon the follow- ing Criteria: 1. The zoning is consistent with the Plan diagram and/or applicable refinement plan diagrams. j 2. Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of this Code. j 3. Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development in accor- dance with the provisions of this Code. 4. The request as conditioned fully conforms with the requirements of this Code pertaining to:lot size and dimensions, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, safe and efficient motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrianmove- ment, and consideration of natural features. i A-24 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN =� Table A-3 bikeway Maintenance Check List and Schedule Item Frequency Sign replacement/repair 1 3 years' Pavement marking replacement 1 —3 years Tree, shrub&grass trimming/fertilizing 5 months-'1 year Pavement sealing/potholes 5— 15 years Clean drainage system 1 year Pavement sweeping Weekly—monthly/as needed Shoulder and grass mowing Weekly/as needed Trash disposal Weekly/as needed Lighting replacement/repair 1 year, Graffiti removal Weekly-monthly/as needed Maintain furniture 1 year Fountain/restroom cleaning/repair Weekly—monthly/as needed Pruning 1 -4 years Bridge/tunnel inspection 1 year Remove fallen trees As needed Weed control Monthly/as needed Maintain emergency telephones, CCTV 1 year Maintain irrigation lines 1 year Irrigate/water plants Weekly-monthly l as needed Department of Transportation's 7M11 Intersection 2.Traffic Signals and Warning Devices Design Guidelines, Island Press's Greenways: A Caltrans has adopted a Traffic Design Manual, Guide to Planning, Design, and Development, which defines the circumstances under which Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the traffic signals and warning devices are required, Rail-to-Trails Conservancy's pails for the 21st While California law limits the liability of pub- Century: A Planning, Design, and Management lic entities for failure to install regulatory traffic Manual for Multi- Ise Trails, signals, signage and markings, non-regulatory Note that Caltrans requirements and guide- warning signs must be installed where necessary lines are legally binding for all bikeways in to warn of dangerous condition, such as an in- California: deviations to these standards must tersection. All signals and warning devices must go through the design exception process. Careful be adequately maintained, so as not to invite reli- compliance with applicable laws, regulations, ance on a defective warning device. route selection criteria, and design standards should greatly reduce the risk of injury to bicy- clists using the bikeway, and also provide strong 3. Usage of Professionals evidence that the agency used reasonable care. A Facilities that have been reviewed and approved detailed Project Feasibility Report is specifically by unregistered or unlicensed professionals may designed to address existing standards. increase liability exposure. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 A_25 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 4. Adhere to Maintenance Standards or bicycle trail conditions are likely to cause a bi- Maintenance practices should be consistent cyclist to lose control of his bicycle. In addition, t along the entire facility and conform to recog- trail users should be made aware of upcoming nized maintenance practices. The responsible intersections with roadways, and if the trail is maintaining agency(ies) should have a written adjacent to an active railroad corridor, warned to procedure to follow to maintain all portions of use caution when crossing tracks. the facility; including pre-existing conditions — such as drain grates. 9. insurance Proper insurance coverage or budgeting for self- 5. Monitor Conditions insurance to cover potential liability will do The responsible agency(ies) should have an much to alleviate concerns. internal mechanism to monitor and respond to = actual operating conditions on the facility. This is typically done through the maintenance pro- 10. Be Careful With the Word "Safe" eedures, a record of field observations and pub- Do not make any verbal or written comments that lic comments, and an annual accident analysis. the facility is safe or safer than a non-designated Accidents should be reviewed to determine if route. For example, a Project Feasibility Report physical conditions on the bikeway were a con- should not make any blanket claims that the fa- tributing cause. cility is safe or safer than comparable routes. 6. Keep Written Records 11. Do Not Rush to Settle ' To track written records of all maintenance activi- Fear that juries will award a plaintiff large sums ties and procedures,responses to reports of safety for damages has made many attorneys eager to hazards, and correspondence with other jurisdic- settle cases before they come to court. Lawsuits tions, it may make sense to have one contact related to bikeways and walkways may be settled persons/department responsible for the entire fa- more quickly than other types of lawsuits due to cility, rather than risk confusion by incidents be- the misconception that walking or bicycling are ing reported to the wrong jurisdiction. Mileposts inherently unsafe activities, on the route may also help maintenance and en- Attorneys may feel that a local government has forcement personnel respond to problems. an extra responsibility on designated bikeways or walkways -y more than it does for motor vehicles on roadways, for example—to prevent incidents. 7. Correct Hazards In fact, there is no evidence that bicycling or Trail managers should correct all hazards known walking is inherently more or less safe than other by public officials in a timely fashion. transportation modes such as driving, flying, or other recreational activities such as swimming or playing soccer. The same public who should 8. Warn of Known Hazards be educated about proper bicycling and walking Trail users should be warned in advance of all behavior probably shares this misconception. hazards that cannot not be removed or corrected. The same exceptions for user responsibility and The MUTCD offers a variety of yellow Hazardous facility condition that apply to driving should ap- Conditions signs intended for use where roadway ply to bicycling or walking. Since bicyclists and A-26 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX A BICYCLE PLANNING AND DESIGN pedestrians are allowed, by law, on all roadways Bicycle Facilities Planning, 1995,Pinsof&Musser, n except were expressly prohibited, and roadway American Planning Association, Planning Ad- u conditions vary widely, a public agency incurs visory Service Report #459. Contact: Ameri- no additional liability by identifying the route can Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan on a map or a plan. The net effect or prematurely Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. settling a case is to incrementally reduce the F7orid'a Bicycle Facilities Planning and types of improvements that can be offered by Design Handbook, 1999, Florida De- local government. In other cases, settling cases partment of Transportation. prematurely may simply encourage legal actions http://wwwl 1.myflorida.com/safety/ped_bike/ by others. ped_bike_standards.htm#Florida%20Bike%20H andbook The Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding € ' ReSAUCt�S in California (2nd Edition), 2002, Gail Payne. Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit: Ken McGuire http://v,/ww.caIbike.org/pdfs/guide2.pdf (916-653-2750) and David Priebe (916) 653- 0036 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ bike/bicycle_prgm.htm POLICIES `Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach," A USDOT r DESIGN AND ENGINEERING STAN- Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and DARDS Walking into Transportation Infrastructure, Manual on Uniform 7iaffic Control Devices, "Part 2001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ 9 — Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities." bikeped/design.htm http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/millennium/ Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64) `Accom- 06.14.01/9ndi.pdf modating Non-Motorized Travel." http: Caltrans Highway Design Manual, "Chap- //www.calbike.org/pdfs/caltransdir.pdf ter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design." http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/ chp1000.pdf TRAIL PLANNING Caltrans Traffic Manual, Chapter 4—Signs http: Contra Costa County pail Design Re- //www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/ source Handbook, May 2001 pdf/TM_Ch4.pdf http://www.co.centra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/ transportation/trl_rvw/tdrh.pdf Trails for the 21-11 Century, 1993. Contact: Rails- to-Trails Conservancy, 1100 17' Street NA Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 101' Floor, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 331- 1999, Contact; American Association of 9696. State Highway and Transportation Officials Greenways.A Guide to Planning, Design, and De- (AASHTO), P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC, velopment, 1993. Contact: The Conservation 20090-6716. Fund, Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Avenue Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20009. Level, 1998, FHWA. http://www.bikefed.org/ 'Trail Intersection Design Guidelines, 1996. Con- bike_guide_online.htm tact: Florida Department of Transportation, ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 A-27 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 605 Suwannee Street, MS-82, Tallahassee, FL 23299-0450. INNOVATIVE DESIGNS AND IDEAS Portland's Blue Bike Lanes http://www.trans.ci.po rtiand.or.us/bicycles/bluebike.htm Bikestationg Coalition http://www.bikestation.org/ BICYCLE-RELATED PROGRAMS Bicycle Head Injury Prevention Program of the Epidemiology and Prevention for Injury Con- trol Branch of the California Department of Health Services http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/ epic/htm!/bhipp.htm National Bicycle Safety Network sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Preven- tion. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipr/bike/ ORGANIZATIONS Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, a program of the University of North Caro- lina Highway Safety Research Center in co- operation with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) http: //www.bicvdinginfo.org/ East Bay Bicycle Coalition http://www.ebbc.org/ California Bicycle Coalition http://www.calbike.org/ A-28 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX E PEDESTRIAN PLANNING AND DESIGN This appendix is a brief summary of pedestrian either ADAAG or Uniform Federal Accessibility facility design requirements and recommenda- Standards (UFAs) until final rulemaking for the tions. Much of the material presented here is proposed ADAAG is complete, after which point focused upon accommodating people with dis- state and local jurisdictions must use standards abilities, a large group of people that rely on that meet or exceed ADAAG. well-designed facilities for mobility. If facilities ADAAG does not address every situation. It are planned for these people in mind, it is con- is an evolving document that will be periodi- sequently improved for all users, especially the cally updated;the first major revision is currently elderly nearing completion.' Even if ADAAG does not cover a specific issue, entities are still required to provide accessibility under Title H. Many of Accessibility Guidelines the design recommendations in this appendix are The Architectural and Transportation Barriers based on ADAAG. Compliance Board (Access Board) is a Federal agency formed in 1973 to improve accessibility for people with disabilities. The Access Board's 'The Access Board had proposed to add special appli- primary duties are to develop and maintain cations sections to ADAAG in 1992, one of which was accessibility requirements, provide technical Public Rights-of-Way. After it was released in 1994, it assistance and training, and enforce accessibil- met widespread opposition and the final rule was not ity standards on facilities funded by the federal published.In 1999,the Access Board voted to reinitiate government. The ADA Accessibility Guidelines rulemaking on accessible pedestrian facilities in public (ADAAG) were developed by the Access Board rights of way. The Public Rights-of-Way Access Advi- and serve as the lawful design standards as cited sory Committee (PROWAAC) was established to de- in Title V of ADA. These standards are minimum velop these standards. Their ensuing report, Building requirements, and therefore, are not to be consid- a True Community,was presented to the Access Board ered best practices. ,jurisdictions can elect to use in January 2001.Access Board members have reviewed CONTRA COSTA COUNTWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN I ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 v CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Sidewalks ,.�� 7 A"e The functions of sidewalks and street rights-of- way influence how they should be designed. The . City of Portland developed a sidewalk corridor zone system to describe the functions of the side- walk(Figure B-1).With these four zones in mind, city staff can successfully design sidewalks that comfortably meet the needs of everyone that uses ,r it. �G _ The zone adjacent to the street, the CURB rrurb {u+n:s>t;w1s � nvu-t Wren a�� ZONE, serves many purposes: it prevents ve- ane Peds rado Banc hicles from driving on the sidewalk, assists street sweepers in picking up debris, and keeps streetEd�v.��ti: �arCidar E runoff water off the sidewalk. Curbs also provide guidance for pedestrians with visual impairments f=igure B-1: Sidewalk corridor zones in commercial areas. who use caries. Source:Portland Pedestrian design Guide, 1998. Adjacent to the curb is the FURNISHINGS ZONE, a buffer space that provides a location for objects that are important to a streetscape but ing for wheelchair lifts and eliminate potential should be keep out of the walkway. The types tripping hazards and muddy conditions when of amenities placed in this zone are street trees, embarking/disembarking from the bus. parking meters,poles,hydrants,landscaping, etc. The space reserved only for walking, the This buffer increases pedestrian comfort while through pedestrian zone, must be kept clear of walking beside traffic and protects pedestrians any obstructions. Sidewalk widths should vary from opening car doors and splashing water from according to the number of pedestrians antici- passing automobiles. The Pedestrian Facilities pated to use the sidewalk. Naturally, a sidewalk Users Guide recommends 2-4-foot (.06-1.2 m) along a residential street will be narrower than buffers along local and collector streets and 4-6- a sidewalk in a busy downtown. For two people foot (1.2-1.8 m) buffers along arterial or major to comfortably walk side-by-side, a five-foot side- streets, walk is sufficient, which is the recommended One disadvantage to buffers is that bus stops minimum width according to a number of pe- may not be fully accessible. Paved surfaces destrian facility resources. The current ADAAG should abut the curb at stops to provide a land- specifies an absolute minimum clear space of 36 inches (width of most wheelchairs), however, this report in detail and released a draft Guidelines for the draft update to the ADAAG is recommending Accessible Public Rights-of-Way on June 17, 2002, that a minimum of 48 inches (1220 mm). The Pedes- incorporates PROWAAC recommendations and high- trian Facilities Users Guide advises the following lights those amendments to the PROWAAC report. minimum unobstructed widths: The draft guidelines were open to public review and Local or collector streets: 5 ft (1.5 m) comment until October 28, 2002. The Access Board is Arterial or major streets: 6-8 ft (1.8-2.4 m) now addressing the key issues that were raised from Central business districts: 8-12 ft(2.4-3,7 m)(8- the public and will release a revised set of guielines for ft (2.4-m) minimum in commercial areas with public comment. B-2 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DESIGN AND PLANNING a planter strip, 12-ft(3.7-m)minimum in com- Cross-slopes mercial areas with no planter strip) Along parks, schools, and other major pedestrian A cross-slope is the slope perpendicular to the generators: 8-10 ft (2A-3.0 m) direction of travel. Cross-slopes should be no greater than 2 percent because cross-slopes The fourth zone, the FRONTAGE ZONE, lies greater than 2 percent can easily cause people in between the pedestrian zone and property line, wheelchairs to veer off the sidewalk and increas- whieh may be a building, fence, or wall. People es the potential to tip over. People using crutches tend to not walk too close to these types of struc- may be forced to turn sideways to keep their base tures, so this zone provides for some clear space. of support at a manageable angle. Such slopes It is also protects passersby from opening doors are also problematic for the visually impaired and objects protruding from buildings (window who may veer into the street unless some tactile sills, rain spouts, flags, etc.). If a wide frontage boundary cue is in place. zone is attainable, this space is perfect for side- Likewise, cross-slopes of sidewalks crossing walk cafes. driveways must not exceed the 2 percent stan- dard. Any sidewalk driveway crossing exceeding the ADAAG standard should be in the transition GRADE & CROSS SLOPE plan and ultimately replaced. Figure B-2 illus- Grade trates several acceptable driveway approaches and sidewalk crossings. Solutions that maintain a The grade, or steepness, of a sidewalk can pre- level travel path for the pedestrian are preferred. vent some people from using a particular walk- way. Sidewalks adjacent to an existing roadway may follow the running grade of the roadway SURFACE MATERIAL (with some exceptions). For grades less than 5 ADAAG requires that surface material for pe- percent, the pedestrian grade may be steeper destrian facilities be hard and stable (such as than the roadway adjacent to the path, while concrete and asphalt) and slip resistant. Such parallel facilities located outside the right-of-way surfaces should be designed so that water and ice with grades greater than 5 percent are considered do not collect on them. FHWA also recommends ramps and are subject to proposed ADAAG ramp that surfaces be as free of jointed surfaces and as guidelines. visually uniform as possible, although expansion Ramps and grades can be designed using a and contraction joints are permissible if they do combination of short grades and rest areas for not create a level change of more than Y4 inch, steep locations. Grades allowable under ADAAG While the use of pavers such as brick and may reach a maximum of 8.3 percent for a dis- cobblestone is a popular design treatment, these tance of no greater than 30 feet. At the end of materials can create more difficult travel condi- these grades, flat space for rest should be provid- tions for people with a variety of disabilities, ed, including occasional installation of benches. especially wheelchair users who experience In addition, provision of handrails and signs painful vibration while traveling over these un- indicating grade provide additional support and even surfaces. Creative alternatives include use information to users. of concrete paths with brick or stone trim or use of colored asphalt or concrete lightly stamped to resemble brick. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 13-3 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Apron Rolled Curb Gutter ✓ Setback Sidewalk Ramp ,.' Wide Sidewalk Figure 13-2: Illustrations of five sidewalk and driveway/alleyway connections that maintain minimum sidewalk widths and maximum allowable cross-slopes. Source: "Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part It," U.D. Department of Transpor- tation, September 2001, pp 5-4 and 5-5. Similarly, the pedestrian zone should be free gaps should not exceed 2.5 inches with a 3-inch of utility covers and grates. As with other sur- exception for freight lines (1/z inch is preferable faces, maintenance to preclude accumulation of but not always possible on rail lines that carry snow, water, and ice is very important. In any large loads). Detectable warnings (truncated case, grates must be installed at the same level as domes) should be installed at all locations where the sidewalk.Existing grates should be examined rail lines cross pedestrian facilities that are not to ensure that gaps in the grate facing do not ex- shared with vehicular ways. ceed '/z inch, as these can trap wheels and cane tips. While railroad crossings also involve sig- nificant gaps in the pedestrian surface, such S-4 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX E PEDESTRIAN DESIGN AND PLANNING '4•,/'�2°/ Figure 8-3: Perpendicular curb ramp. Source:Draft Guide- fines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way, 2002. Intersections Properly designed intersections are crucial for safe pedestrian travel. They are the locations for most vehicle-pedestrian collisions and pose Figure B-5:Transition ramp. Source:Building a True corn the greatest challenge for people with mobility munity, PRC7WAAC,2001. impairments. Ramps, crosswalks, and signals all require careful consideration to accommodate and for employees to use to their place of employ- persons of all abilities. ment. Facilities without curb ramps are consid- ered out of compliance with ADA and must have a program for their installation, and be included RAMPS in any transition plan required under the ADA. The implementing regulations under Title II of the ADA specifically require curb ramps for exist- ing facilities, as well as for all new construction. Ramp Types Priorities for curb ramp installation on existing Curb ramps are usually categorized by their facilities should include access to government fa- structural design and how they are positioned cilities, transportation, public accommodations, relative to the sidewalk or street. Among the types of common curb ramps in use are the fol- j::;>;rlowing designs: PERPENDICULAR CURB RAMPS, the most common ramp type, are those that are aligned so that the ramp is located perpendicular to the curb. This design is favored because it directs pedestrians to walk perpendicular to the traffic flow, which is especially beneficial for the blind. FLdNP/ ONbING�, ' AAM^ In addition, this design can be positioned within \ `w� the area of the crosswalks on small radius corners \\ `"`a • and are located at the expected crossing location iV`V==V= ANEWfHfY�,t�/ ` .�'+.`. 51fYcwnlK MEA `,, for all pedestrians. On large radius corners, how- ever, the perpendicular ramp is pushed away from the expected crossing point and away from a straight line of travel. Figure B-4: Shared ramp. Source:Building a True Commu- SHARED CURB RAMPS are single curb ramps nity, PROWAAC,2001. located at the apex of a corner at an intersection. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 B-5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Figure 8-7: Built-up curb ramp. Source:Accessible Rights- Figure B-6: Combined parallel and perpendicular curb of-way:A Design Guide ramps. Source:Accessible Rights-of=Way:A Design Guide On small radius corners such designs force the tam of the ramp and the requirement that users user into the center of the intersection without continue along the sidewalk to negotiate grades. a level landing outside the lanes of traffic. Such COMBINED PARALLEL AND PERPENDICULAR ramps are outside the usual line of travel; causing CURB RAMPS use the concept of the parallel difficulties for those with both visual and mobil- ramp to lower the elevation of the landing and ity impairments. then uses a perpendicular ramp to complete the These disadvantages are weighed against the remaining elevation gap between the landing and lower cost of installing only one ramp per corner the street. This design is particularly useful in and the reduced cost of making alterations to a situations where sidewalks are narrow and have smaller number of ramps.These ramps are some- either a steep grade or high curb to negotiate. times favored by those with visual impairments, Such ramps do not require turning or maneuver- as they retain a curb edge at the normal line of ing on the ramp surface, and provides a connec- travel across an intersection. tion to the street within the normal location of TRANSITION CURB RAMPS have two ramps the crosswalk. These designs allow for proper leading to a lower level landing in the center. alignment with the desired crossing direction, Such ramps have a direction of travel for the user have their level landing areas at the top and bot- that is both parallel to the vehicular traffic on the tom of the ramps, and provide adequate drainage adjacent street and parallel to the traffic on the to keep debris and water from accumulating on sidewalk. Main advantages of transition ramps the facility. is that they require minimal right-of-way, do not Disadvantages include the requirement for require turning for maneuvering on the ramp, more right-of-way than parallel curb ramps and and that they allow ramps to be extended to ac- require more extensive alterations in retrofit situ- commodate reduced grades.Other advantages in- ations. The design also forces users continuing elude having the connection to the street located in the direction of the sidewalk to negotiate the within the sidewalk and the provision of clear parallel ramps. delineation between the ramp and the street for BUILT-UP CURB RAMPS are ramps that project those with visual impairments. from the curb into the gutter and street. Usually Disadvantages of the design include the ten- oriented in the same direction as perpendicular dency to accumulate water and debris at the bot- ramps,they are not commonly installed in streets B-6 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DESIGN AND PLANNING but are often found in parking lots.While often it is not practical to place whole built-up ramps in 2.3S the street,partial ramps can occasionally be used 60 utilizing curb extensions. ' Built-up curb ramps have many maintenance, design, and pedestrian safety problems and ; .. should be used only when other applications0 0 0 -,� will not work. Users of these ramps tend to be more exposed to the roadway, and—as no clear 0 Q 0 0 boundary exists between the sidewalk and the street—requires that parking lane space be used 1 0 0 0 0 to provide a protective buffer around the instal- ,L _ lation. Without careful design, these ramps can — r- - intrude on space used by bicyclists, and can in any circumstance pose special .maintenance problems through the accumulation of dirt, wa Figure B-8:Views of truncated domes. source:Building a ter, and debris. True Community, PROWAAC, 2001. cause they are found in other environmental Curb Ramp Design Specifications features. Each of the types of curb ramps described above RAMP GRADE Proposed ADAAG regulations contain combinations of the following design permit a grade of 8.3 percent (1:12) on any features: portion of a curb ramp. Recommended prac- TRANSITION DETECTION (Truncated Domes) tice, however, is to specify a maximum of 7.1 ■ People with vision impairments sometimes percent to accommodate construction toler- have difficulty detecting the transition be- ances. Accordingly, a 7.1 percent grade will tween curb ramps and the street. The best require a longer ramp than does 8.3 percent.means to accommodate all types of users is RAMP CROSS-SLOPE People with mobility■ to place a 24-inch strip of raised truncated impairments often have a difficult time nego- domes across the entire width of the ramp ap- tiating a grade and cross-slope simultaneously. proximately sixx to eight inches from the bot- Since the grade of the ramp is usually signifi- tom of all curb ramps at the boundary between cant, the cross-slope should be minimized. In the ramp and the street.The domes should be any circumstance, the cross-slope should not aligned in a row (not diagonally) to facilitate exceed 2 percent (1:48). movement by wheelchairs. The domes are RAMP LENGTH As stated above, the greater now required by ADAAG as a recent suspen- the change in elevation, the longer the ramp sion of the requirement was removed as of will have to be in order to meet recommended July 26, 2001. grade specification.Ramp length can be calcu- Truncated domes constitute the STAN- lated using the following formula: DARD detectable warning because of their curb height unique design.Other surfaces such as grooves Ramp Length = ramp slope-sidewalk corridor and aggregate are not as easily detectable be- slope ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 B-7 .......... CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN In no case is it required that a ramp slope LOCATION AT INTERSECTIONS The optimal exceed 15 feet in length, installation involves a pair of perpendicular ■ RAMP WIDTH Generally, the minimum clear ramps placed at 9o-degree angles to one an- width of a curb ramp is 48 inches (1.22 m). other. A single diagonal ramp located at the In practice, the minimum width should be apex of a corner creates a variety of problems the same as the width of the pedestrian zone, because the user is directed to the center of which itself is never less than 36 inches given the intersection. If sidewalk width is limited, the mobility requirements of those using however, a single parallel curb ramp or a di- assistive devices such as wheelchairs and agonal ramp may be acceptable. crutches. ■ GUTTER SLOPE The drainage slope of the ! gutter is the slope parallel to the curb and CROSSWALKS roadway. This gutter slope represents a cross slope to the pedestrian,and should not exceed A pedestrian crossing is defined as any location 2 percent(1:48). where the pedestrian leaves the sidewalk and LANDING DIMENSION AND SLOPE All land- enters the roadway. Pedestrians are at risk when- ings of ramps should be a 60-inch circle or ever they cross the roadway. The degree of risk square, with a maximum of two percent cross depends upon the complexity of vehicular and slope in any direction. Such landings may pedestrian traffic patterns and the effectiveness serve multiple ramps or overlap with other of supplementary information provided about the landings. crossing location, duration, and direction. The bottom landing of a ramp must be At street intersections, turning vehicles and within a crosswalk and have a minimum of the speed at which they travel pose the greatest 48 x 48 inches of maneuvering space outside threat to pedestrians because the motorists atten- of the parallel direction of travel. This is not tion is focused primarily on other motorists.Com- possible to achieve on corners with tight curb pounding the threat is the occasional presence of radii using diagonal ramps. movement barriers----anything that restricts an ■ RETURNED CURBS AND FLARES The flares individual's ability to physically move along or adjacent to the curb ramp are not considered within the crosswalk or sidewalk. "Information part of the access route, but shall be included barriers" restrict an individual's ability to utilize in all ramps located where pedestrians may information contained within the sidewalk envi- walk. Return curbs may be used instead of ronment. flares on ramps located where pedestrians The maximum slope of the crosswalk (which would not normally travel (planting strips). is the road grade) shall be a maximum of two Flares shall have a slope of 1:10 measured at percent, while the running grade (road crown or the face of the curb. super elevation) shall be a maximum of five per- CURB RAMP SURFACES Gratings, access cent. Crosswalk markings are required at signal- covers, or other similar surfaces shall not be ized intersections,while the minimum crosswalk. located on curb ramps, landings, transition width is eight feet. ramps, or adjacent gutter pans. Smooth, stable Crosswalk crossing time calculations should and slip resistant surfaces should be used for be based upon a reasonable pedestrian walking curb ramps and landings as smooth surfaces speed of 4 feet/second,and should include a stan- make the detection of truncated domes easier. dard definition of the length of the crosswalk and one curb ramp. I -p$ ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DESIGN AND PLANNING Crosswalk Markings 4. Do not install crosswalks on multi-lane road- ways with high traffic without also including Crosswalk markings are used to define the pe- additional treatments such as traffic calming destrian path of travel across the roadway and and signing, to alert drivers to the crosswalk location. All 5. Consider flashing signals and lights and ad- marked crosswalks should be designed in con- vanced warning signs to increase the visibility formance with Manual of Uniform Traffic Control of the crosswalk. Devices (MUTCD). 6. Install traffic calming measures to reduce ve- Although the MUTCD provides for crosswalk hicle speeds. design options, research indicates that the con- 7. Increase crossing times so that people who tinental (ladder) design is the most visible to walk slowly will have sufficient time to cross drivers and to pedestrians with low vision and before the signal indication changes. cognitive impairments, The continental (lad- 8. Increase the crossing times so that people who der) design consists of white longitudinal lines delay the start of their crossing to confirm the perpendicular to the line of the crosswalk, 12 to WALK signal will have sufficient time to cross 24 inches wide and spaced 12 to 24 inches apart before the signal indication changes. The use of a crosswalk design that is consistent in 9. Install a center median to provide a refuge for all applications is strongly encouraged, otherwise pedestrians on multi-lane roads. the impact of less visible markings may be weak- 10.Restrict or limit right turns on red. ened by comparison. 11.Provide pedestrian lead time and an acces- To further assist the visually impaired, a strip sible pedestrian signal so pedestrians, includ- of truncated domes should be used on either side ing those with vision impairments, can assert of the crosswalk in. those instances where the themselves in the crosswalk before motorists pedestrian way crosses a vehicular way. These start making left or right turns. detectable warnings should not be used at un- 12.Provide signalized mid-block crossings where signalized crossings. The location of detectable blocks are long or where pedestrian traffic warnings at intersections with slip lanes is criti- typically crosses mid-block. cal. In such situations, an audible or tactile cue 13.Provide cues to people with visual disabilities must be provided to locate the pedestrian cross- of the opportunity to cross mid-block with a ing, while that crossing must be provided with a guidance strip. pedestrian-activated traffic signal. 14.Design corners with a smaller turning radii. 15.Provide generous sight distances and unob- Crosswalk Design Considerations structed sightlines between vehicles and pe- destrians. 1. Enhance crossings that combine highly visible 16.Ensure that mid-block crossings will be de- markings (ladder striping)with additional pe- destrian treatments, such. as medians, traffic vision impairments. calming, and shorter crossing distances, 17.Provide curb extensions to decrease pedestri- 2. Design crosswalks and. curb ramps so that all an crossing distances and increase pedestrian pedestrians can travel within the marked area visibility. through the entire crossing. 18.Consider raised crosswalks with detectable 3. Maintain crosswalk markings and consider warnings at both ends. additional treatments whenever a street is 19,Reduce traffic speed. resurfaced. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 8`9 _ CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN SIGNALS The Caltrans IYaffic Manual warrants a pedes- trian signal based primarily upon pedestrian volumes and gaps in the traffic stream.. The total crossing time includes the WALK interval, at least four seconds long, and the clearance phase based on a walking rate of 1.2 meters (4 feet) per Ot"J'U S H second. Signals in areas with a high concentra- tion of elderly and children may be best timed at BUTTON a slower rate. FOK More familiar pedestrian activated signals re- quire the user to push a button to activate a signal _ indicator and initiate a walk interval. The use of pushbutton systems may also lengthen a crossing interval to provide adequate crossing time. Pushbutton locations should be consistent with MUTCD practice, and be located within five feet of the crosswalk lines and within 10 feet of the curb (unless the curb ramp is more than ten feet long). Multiple pushbuttons at the same intersection should be separated by ten feet. Maximum mounting height of APs buttons is 42 inches and should be located as close as possible to the curb ramp without intruding on the clear space. Buttons should be at least 2 inches in di- ameter and have an actuation force of no more than 3.5 pounds—enough to be operable with a closed fist. Also important to consider is that the button should be operable from the level segment of the to the changing ATALK signal. Some models use sidewalk rather than the curb ramp, and that the one tone to indicate a north/south crossing phase face of the button panel run parallel to the diree- and another to indicate east/west--although tion of the marked crosswalk it serves. some confusion is reported even in areas with Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APs) provide standardized directional sound signals. Caltrans crossing information in formats that assist recommends using the"cuckoo" sound for north- persons with visual or cognitive impairments. south directions and a "peep-peep" for east-west These APS systems range from audible fixed time movement. signals (signal indicators with automated sig- Other systems have a quiet, slowly repeating nal phasing), pedestrian activated devices, and tone or ticking sound that remains constant dur- signals which transmit from the vicinity of the ing the WALK interval.A locator tone informs the signal to a personal receiver. pedestrian that they need to activate the signal The most common type of audible APs is the to request a WALK interval and the sound itself "cuckoo" or "chirp" signal that alerts pedestrians guides users to the location of the button. B-10 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DESIGN AND PLANNING A vibrotactile component most frequently OTHER INTERSECTION IMPROVE- installed on APS signals is a raised arrow indi- M E NT S eating the direction of travel governed by the pushbutton. The arrow begins to vibrate when Street crossings can be improved with more than the signal changes, allowing those with hearing marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Mea- disabilities to get the same information as would sures to shorten the crossing distance, enhance be received from the ticking sound during DON'T the visibility of pedestrians in the crosswalk,and WALK and Clearance intervals described above. other devices can contribute to more motorists One advantage of this technology is that no noise yielding to pedestrians and pedestrians feeling is emitted.. more secure while crossing.A summary of these Infrared or LED transmitters can transmit techniques in presented in Table B-1. speech messages to personal receivers carried by some persons with vision impediments, and usu- ally give standardized information about the sta- tus of the signal cycle—WALK or WAIT. Speech messages can also give information about the LIGHTING pedestrian's location, direction of travel, name of Good street lighting is one key to pedestrian and the street being crossed, or other priority areas, bicyclist safety.Both personal security and safety such as transit stops. Only people using the sys- with respect to traffic are improved when proper tem hear the transmitted messages. lighting is provided. Good lighting of pedestrian According to Section 9-04.8of the Caltrans facilities also increases the comfort and percep- Roffic Manual, audible pedestrian signals may tion of personal safety of pedestrians, and these be installed when the following minimum condi- factors can influence their choice of route or their tions have been met: decision whether or not to walk. i Proposed intersection crosswalk must be sig- Street lighting that provides these benefits for pedestrians has several key attributes. Appropri- nalized, ate lighting levels should be provided,particular- Audible devices should be retrofittable to the existing traffic signal hardware, ly at corners and intersections and at key Grassing Signalized intersection should be equipped locations such as transit stops. Generally, Indus- . a with pedestrian push buttons, try standards call for lighting levels for pedestrian Crosswalk must be suitable for the installs- facilities to be between 0.5 and 2.0 footcandles • using the lowest level that is appropriate to the tion of audible signals, in terms of surround- conditions. Ing land use and traffic patterns, At crosswalks or trail intersections with la- Must be a demonstrated need for the audible cal streets, the source of the illumination should signals in the farm of a request from an in- not be directly above the crosswalk,where it can dividual or group that would use the audible "wash out" a crossing pedestrian, but rather at signal, and least twenty-five feet before or after the crossing, • The requesting individual or group should agree to train the visually impaired users. or bath, in order to provide the greatest conspicu- ity of a crossing pedestrian to a motorist. Lighting should be provided on sidewalks,not just roadways. Glare and uplighting should be minimized. The light source should show colors well at night. The latter property is measured as ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 B-11 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Table B-1 TYPES OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS Improvement Purpose Where To Use Considerations SHORTEN CROSSING DISTANCE Pedestrian Ref- To minimize pedestrian expo- Appropriate where roadway At signalized locations with uge Island sure during crossing by short- crossing is greater than 15 m pedestrian actuation, provide ening crossing distance and (50 ft)or more than three lanes; push buttons at refuge.At increasing the number of gaps can be used anywhere to in- right-turn slip lanes, provide available for crossing. crease number of gaps. Can be pedestrian signalization or used at unsignalized or signal- crosswalk signage if unsignal- ized crosswalks, ized. Curb Extensions To minimize pedestrian expo- Appropriate for any crosswalk Curb extensions can be a sure during crossing by short- where there is a parking lane problem for bicycle travel and ening crossing distance and adjacent to the curb. Some- truck or bus turning move- giving pedestrians a better times used to accommodate ments unless there is a park- chance to see and be seen be- bus stops,with bus stopping in ing lane. fore committing to crossing. travel lane. Four Lane to To reduce the number of trav- Where a facility with four travel The conversion may permit Three Lane Con- el lanes to cross and provide lanes has significant left-turn ac- adding bicycle lanes or curb version space for pedestrian refuges, tivity,a three-lane configuration extensions if there are none at can perform as well or better. present. Reduced Curb To reduce crossing distance, Where pedestrian use is high Balance the needs of pedestri- Radii increase queuing area for pe- and truck and bus turning ans with the need to accom- destrians waiting to cross, and movements are low. Very short modate the types of vehicles slow vehicles as they travel radii (1.5 m or 5 ft)can be used that turn at the intersection. through the intersection. where a parking lane or bike lane provides an "effective turn- ing radius"that is larger than the curb return, or on one-way streets where there are no turn- ing movements possible. IMPROVE VISIBILITY Raised Crosswalk To eliminate grade changes In business districts, near schools Provide tactile warnings to from the pedestrian route and other areas with significant alert blind pedestrians when and give pedestrians greater pedestrian travel. they are leaving the sidewalk prominence as they cross the and entering the roadway. street. Flashing Beacons To alert motorists to the pres- Used to warn road users that Most successful when the or In-Roadway ence of pedestrians in a cross- they are approaching a condi- flashing corresponds closely Lights walk. tion on or adjacent to the road- to actual pedestrian use which way that might not be readily calls for best available pedes- apparent and might require the trian detection. road users to slow down and/or come to a stop. Use only at marked crosswalks with no traf- fic control devices. B--12 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DESIGN AND PLANNING 1,1&; Table B'-1 TYPES OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENT Improvement Purpose Where To Use Considerations Signal or Pedes- To allocate relative time at an MUTCD gives warrants for Recommended that the time trian Signal intersection to conflicting ve- installing signals based on rela- allocated to pedestrian cross- hicular and pedestrian move- tively high pedestrian volumes. ing be calculated using a de- ments. Consideration can be given to sign walking speed of 3.5 feet installing signals in locations per second. Recommended where a demonstrated need for that all pedestrian-actuated crossing cannot be safely ac- signals be accessible with au- commodated with other design dible and tactile information elements. provided. Illumination To ensure that pedestrians On collectors and arterial streets, Streetlight should not"wash" can be seen as they cross the with particular emphasis on the crosswalk but should be street. crosswalks. located at least 25 feet on either side to best illuminate or backlight a crossing pedes- trian.The spectrum of light ideally should render colors well(high-pressure sodium does not). Traffic Calming To slow the speed of traffic as Where to use varies with types Vertical and horizontal deflec- it approaches the crosswalk. of traffic calming measures. tion devices can slow emer- Some examples include mini- gency response vehicles and traffic circles, slow points,traffic cause pain to people with diverters, chicanes, etc. spinal injuries(as passengers in paratransit vehicles,for ex- ample). Parking Control To improve visibility in the vi- "No Parking" may be signed for State law prohibits park- _ cinity of a crosswalk. some distance back from the ing within intersections and intersection to improve visibility. crosswalks unless specifically signed. MISCELLANEOUS TREATMENTS Mid-block Cross- To provide a crossing opportu- Use where there is a demand When crosswalk markings are walk nity where there is no nearby for crossing and there is no used at mid-block, it is recom- intersection, nearby crossing. Consider using mended tha advance stop when protected intersections are bars be place 30 ft prior to spaced greater than 600 feet, crosswalk to reduce"multiple For streets above 12,000 ADT, threat", marked mid-block crosswalks should be augmented with other crossing treatments. Grade-separated To provide a crossing oppor- Use only where it is not feasible A high cost option. Recom- Crossing Struc- tunity in which the pedestrian to provide an at-grade pedes- mended that all grade-sepa- ture is completely separated from trian crosswalk(such as at an rated crossing structures be traffic, interstate highway, expressway, accessible with elevator ac- or very wide busy major arterial), cess, not just ramps. Excessive added travel distance will discourage pedestrians who want to take a more direct route. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 B-13 C 0 N T R A COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Table B-1 TYPES OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS f Improvement Purpose Where To Use Considerations No Pedestrian To avoid conflicts between Prohibiting crossing should be Prohibiting crossing can sig- Crossing pedestrians and traffic in considered only in very limited nificantly reduce pedestrian situations that are particularly circumstances, such as where it level of service and mobility. dangerous. would b dangerous for pedes- Careful consideration should trians to cross because visibility be given to pedestrian travel is obstructed, or where there patterns and other solutions are unique considerations at an to improve safety before this intersection. measure is implemented. the value of the Color Rendering Index (CRI} for Maintenance any given type of lamp. Typical CRI values range from 20 for high-pressure sodium lamps to 100 Changes in level are vertical elevation differences for incandescent lamps. Generally,for pedestrian between adjacent surfaces---curb ramps, land- safety, the CRI should be at least 50, and lamps ings,the street surface, and the gutter.Changes in in the blue range (such as metal halide) provide sidewalk level are common and are often caused better color rendition than lamps in the orange- by tree roots pushing up from beneath the pave- yellow range.' ment; heaving and settling, uneven transitions between streets, curbs, gutters and curb ramps; as well as through poor maintenance. PEDESTRIAN SICaNS Pedestrian zone changes in level must be com- Pedestrians require information that is specifi- pliant with proposed ADAAG Section 302 --no cally directed to their own needs because their more than 1/4 inch vertical rise or 1/2 inch beveled sightlines,viewpoints, and travel speeds are sub- rise is permitted,with the beveled slope no greater stantially different from that of motorists. Most than 1:2.Level changes greater than those permit- pedestrians use visual cues to obtain information ted by ADAAG cause several problems for pedes- about traveling safely, including traffic signals trians. Ambulatory pedestrians may have trouble and street signs, as well as from traffic itself lifting feet and may be tripped, while those with To a degree, redundancy and multiplicity in vision difficulties may not detect changes and signage helps pedestrians assimilate information trip. Similarly, persons using wheeled devices in a number of ways. This increases the likeli- may catch their wheels in level changes and be hood that all users,including people with visual tossed forward, and may even have a difficult and cognitive impairments and children, will be time moving their wheelchair past a level change able to make safe, informed traveling decisions. of no greater than 1/2 inch. Highly visible signs that adhere to format and Corrective measures include ramping or re- location standards enable people with both low moving any level change greater than 1/2 inch, vision and cognitive impairments to locate and while attempting to eliminate the cause of the identify the information. Format and location change in level. This may include routing the standards should be established, preferably at path around raised roots and replacing heaved the state level, but locally at a minimum. sidewalk or buckled brick walkways. Another type of corrective action involves clearly defining ' Knisely, Joseph, `A Guide to lamps and Controls,,, sidewalk edges to provide pedestrians with visual Architectural Record Lighting,August 1990. impairments the means to navigate. Increasing $-1 4 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DESIGN AND PLANNING the visual contrast between the sidewalk, ramp, and street provides navigation clues for people with low vision. r° Other hazards that protrude into the sidewalk corridor higher than 80 inches are generally not a problem for people with visual impairments, while objects on the sidewalk that extend below x, 27 inches are usually detectable by people using white canes to navigate. "Twenty-seven inches is also the height necessary to allow a wheelchair to roll under drinking fountains. Objects in the middle (between 27 and 80 inches) that protrude into the pedestrian cor- ridor must be moved, raised, or lowered, de- pending upon the situation, such as protruding Maps,such as this one in downtown Point Richmond, tree branches. Wall mounted and post mounted help make pedestrians feel more secure about walking in objects within this undetectable height should an unfamiliar environment. protrude no more than four inches outward. - Caltrans Highway.Design Manual, Chapter 100— Basic Resign Policies, Topic 1015: Pedestrian Resources Facilities. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/ pdflchp0100.pdf Caltrans Traffic .Manual, Chapter 9 -- Traffic Sig- DESIGN AND ENGINEERING AND pals and Lighting http:,/www.dot,ca.gov/ GUIDELINES tiq/iraffops/signtech/signdel/chp9/chap9.htm ADA Accessibility, Guidelines for Buildings and Caltrans Traffic Manual,Chapter 10--School Area Facilities (ADAAG), The Access Board, 1998. Pedestrian Safety. http://vvwvv.dot.ca.gov/ http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/ hqltraffops/signtech/signdel/chp10/chapl0.htm adaag.htm Manual on Uniform Rafflc Control Devices,Chap- Accessible Pedestrian Signals by Accessible ter 6D. Pedestrian and.Worker Safety. http-.// Design for the Blind with support from mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/m llennium/06.14.01; the U.S.Access Board, 2998. h t t p: 6dndi.pdf //www.access-board.gov/research&training/ Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part pedsignalslpedestr€an.htrn 7: Traffic Controls for School Areas http:// _. Accessible Rights-of-Way. A Design Guide, Ar- mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/millennium/06.14.01/ chitectural and Transportation Barriers 7ndi.pdf Compliance Board, 2999. http://www.access- Pedestrian Access to Modern Roundabouts: De- board.gov/publications/PROW%2OGaide/ sign and Operational Issues for Pedestrians PROWGuide.htrn who are Blind. The Access Board, 2003. Building a True Community,Public Rights-of-Way http://www.access-board.gov/ptablications/ Access Advisory Committee (PROWAAC), roundabouts/bulletin.htm 2001, http://wvw ,access-board.gov/prowac/ cornrnrept/index.htrn ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, 2003 �-15 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN GENERAL PLANNING RESOURCES INNOVATIVE TREATMENTS Alternative Tieatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Pedestrian Intelligent Transportation Systems Crossings, Nazir Lalani & the ITE Pedestrian (ITS) http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsmart, and Bicycle Task Force, 2001. home.htm Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Elec- tronic Toolbox for Making Intersections More Accessible for Pedestrians Who are Blind or TRAFFIC CALMING Visually Impaired." http://www.ite.org/ Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Traffic Pedestrian- and 'Transit-FFiendly Design, 1996, Calming Web site http://www.ite.org/traffic; Florida Department of Transportation, http: index.html //wwwl1,myfiorida,com/planning/systems/sm/ Federal Highway Administration Traffic Calm- los/pdfVped_tran,pdf ing Web site http:,/www.fhwa.dot.gov/ Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide — Providing environmentltca':m/ Safety and Mobility, 2002, FHWA. http: Traffic Calming.State of the Practice,ITE/FHWA, f/www.waIkinginfo.org/pdf/peduserguide/ August 1999. http:,/www.ite.org/traffic/ covertableintro.pdf tcstate.htm#tcsop Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook, 1997, Wash- ington State Department of Transportation. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/TA/PAandi/Bike-Pedl PROGRAMS PedFacilityGB.pdf California Safe Routes to Schools Web site spore- Pedestrian Safety Toolkit Resource Catalog, 2000, sored by the California Department of Health National Highway Traffic Safety Ad inistra- Services. http://www.dhs,cahwnet,gov/ tion, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safety/ routes2school/ fourthlevel/pdf/C0I4-031 ResourceCatalog,pdf Portland Pedestrian .Design Guide, 1998, City of Portland Pedestrian Transportation Pro- gram. ORGANIZATIONS http://www,trans.ci,portiand.or.us/ Access Board http://www,access-board.gov/ DesignReferences/Pedestrian,/default.htrn America Walks, a national coalition of local advocacy groups dedicated to walkable communities. http://www,americawalks.org/ POLICIES Bay Peds, San Francisco Bay Area pedestrian. 'Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: education group http://www.baypeds.org/ A Recommended Approach," A USDOT indexl.html Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Pedestrian and. Bicycle Information Center, a Walking into Transportation Infrastructure, program of the University of North Caro- 2001. http://www.fhwa.doL,gov/environrnent/ lina Highway Safety Research Center in bikeped/design.htm cooperation with the Association of Pedes- Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64) "Accom- trian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) http: modating Non-Motorized Travel." http: //www,bicyclinginfo.org/ //www.calbike.org/pdfs/caitransdir.pdf Walkability Checklist http://vvww.walking';nfo.org/ pdf/waikingchecklist.pdf B--16 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX C BICYCLE DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL While many of the assumptions used in this mod- Health especially the health benefits of regu- el are based on limited surveys or sample sizes, lar exercise the model does attempt to provide the same basic Age or income levels that deter from driving or methodology to project bicycle use as is common simply not wanting to drive practice in projecting motor vehicle trip gen- eration. As the number of before and after counts Improvements to the bicycling infrastructure become available, the statistical significance of and awareness also contribute to bicycle rider- this model will improve. In its current state, this ship. Such improvements that can cause higher model presents the best available approach to levels of riding include bicycle parking, bike- gauge future demand or usage, and is preferable transit improvements, changing facilities, educa- to other techniques that rely on purely theoretical tion and marketing programs, security, and land assumptions. use practices. The U.S. Census collects "journey to work„ data to provide insight into the number of people Undercounting data various modes of transportation. The This model does not address some characteristics U.S. Census also undercounts bicycle commuters that influence bicycle ridership. Rising bicycle for the following reasons: usage are sometimes attributed to qualitative fac- The census only includes employed adults tors that cannot be easily measured. Examples of agesm and over in the modal analysis. This de- these factors are: letes the biggest group of bicyclists—students-- • Livability such as the compactness of neigh- who by bicycling are in many cases still saving a borhood, traffic calming, and incentives to vehicle trip. bike ■ Bicyclists who ride to transit or commuter rail • Imrpoved safety on bicycle facilities service may, in many cases, identify them- CONTRA COS'T'A COUNTWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FLAN I ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 `04 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN selves as a transit user since the overall non- cent represent new bicycle commuters.This will bicycling mileage is probably much higher. translate into additional daily bicycle commuters t An unknown number of bicycle commuters once all of the buses and trains in your commu- are thought to be lower income and/or mem- nity either carry bicycles or provide adequate hers of a minority group who are traditionally bicycle parking at all stations. undercounted in the Census. Utilitarian trips are also included in the base- • Utilitarian bicycle trips for shopping and line ridership figures. The National Bicycling and other reasons are not reflected in the U.S. Walking Study Case Study No. 1 (FHwA, 1995, Census figures, even though these trips were page 17),using data from seven different sources, the highest trip purpose cited in the National identified utilitarian trips being made by 26.1 Bicycling and Walking Study. percent of active bicyclists versus 15 percent for work/school trip making. It is assumed then that for every bicycle trip to work or school,there are Improving Demand Estimates approximately 1.74 utilitarian trips. In addition to calculating ridership levels, A more accurate assessment of the number of dai- this model also estimates the reduction of vehicle ly non-recreational bike trips has been achieved trips and miles. The percent of bicycle trips that with this model. It uses available studies from actually replace existing vehicle trips is based on around the country to help define additional survey results, and should be supplemented with bicyclists. additional national and local research. Available The U.S. Census statistics are supplemented surveys indicate that, for worker and college stu- by the inclusion of school children. The total dent bicycle commute trips, 73 percent replace school aged population (ages 6-14) from the U.S. a vehicle trip (65 percent drove and one half of Census is factored by the estimated percent of 17 percent shared a ride, or 65 percent + 8 per- school children who currently bicycle as their cent=73 percent). For bicycle trips by childrent _. primary mode of transportation to school.in most to school, 53 percent replaced vehicle trips (48 communities, this will vary between 5 percent percent drive and one third of 15 percent ride- and 20 percent percent of all students. share, 48 percent + 5 percent = 53 percent). Us- College students are also identified in the 1990 ing these assumptions, it is possible to estimate U.S.Census.Local college transportation surveys the bicycle commuters who are currently replac- or a conservative estimate of the assumed mode ing vehicle trips and vehicle miles. split should be used. For most communities, this Table C-1 calculates an estimate for current will be between 5 and 20 percent, with the Na- bicycle usage and reduction in vehicle miles and tional Bicycling and Walking Study Case Study trips for Contra Costa. No. 1 (FHWA, 1995) showing an average college student bicycle commute rate of 40 percent and overall employed adult bicycle commute rate of $1�CeWay! nif�St11e`n �r '� Usage 10 percent. Before and after studies of bicycle usage on cora Bicycle commuters who connect with bus or ridors that have had bikeway improvements offer rail transit also represent a pool of undercounted the best empirical link between bikeway invest- commuters. The Regional Transportation District ments and usage. A nationwide search for this of Denver completed a bike-and-ride survey in data was conducted as part of this research., with 1999 that showed 1.4 percent of total boardings summary findings described below. being bike passengers. Of those people, 63 per- City of Portland The City of Portland is C-2 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX C BICYCLE DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL Table C-1 Estimate of Existing Bicycle Transportation Usage Category Input Calculated Totals Employed Adults,16 Years and Older 2000 Population/1 948,816 2000 Employed Persons/1 442,008 Bicycle Commute Share/2 0.47% Travel Time Less Than 9 Minutes 12 46,853 2000 est. Bicycle Commuters 2,085 School Children 2000 School Enrollment, Ages 6-14/1 133,295 1990 Bicycle Commute Share/3 5.0% 2000 est. Bicycle School Commuters/4 6,665 College 2000 College Population/1 61,975 1990 Bicycle Commute Share/5 5.0% 2000 est. Bicycle College Commuters/6 3,099 Bike-Transit Users Average Daily Transit/Rail Boardings/7 23,140 Potential Bike-Transit Boardings/8 1,4% New Bicycle Commuters/9 63% 204 Utilitarian}(non-work or school)Trips Percent of Work/School Bicycle Trips/10 174% Est, Bicycle Utility Riders/11 9,376 Total Estimated Daily Bicycle Ridership (excl. recreation) 21,429 Average Two-Way Travel Length(crines) Ad u Its/College Students/12 8 School Children/13 1 Percentage of Vehicle Trips Replaced Adults 114 73% Students/15 53% Reduced Vehicle Trips/16 28,620 Reduced Vehicle Miles 117 76,386 Notes and Sources: /1 2000 U.S.Census /10 National Bicycling&Walking Study,Case Study No. 1,p. 16 /2 1990 U.S.Census(2000 Census figure not yet available) /11 Total work,college,and transit bicycle users times 174 percent /3 Lamorinda School Commute Study(Fehr&Peers Associates, /12 Based on survey results from 10 California cities conducted by 1995)and San Diego County School Commute Study(1990) Alta between 1990 and 1999,L.A.Countywide Policy Document /4 Estimated school children who commute by bicycle, 1990 survey(1995),and National Bicycling&Walking Study,FHWA, 1995. /5 Estimated college students who commute by bicycle based on /13 ibid. school children estimates /6 Estimated college students who commute by bicycle, 1990 /14 Ibid. /7 ABAG estimate /15 lbid, /8 RTD(Denver)Bike-n-Ride Survey, December 1999 0 A%of total /16 Assumes two trips for each bicycle ride and percentage replace- boardings). ment of vehicle trips stated above. /9 lbid.(63%of bike boardings represent new bike commuters) /17 Assumes two trips for each bicycle ride,average mileage per trip,and percentage replacement of vehicle trips stated above, ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 C-3 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN widely recognized as being one of the most pro- creases between three different cities to verify if gressive large cities in the United States in terms there is a general pattern.For example,there was of promoting bicycle commuting and developing a 137 percent average increase in bicycle rider- bikeways. The research and findings support the ship before and after bike lanes were constructed contention that the investment in bikeways con- in Portland, at eight locations. tributes to an increase in bicycle commuting and The percent completion of each of the above ridership. mentioned bikeway systems is shown in the Ta- An explanation and analysis is included in ble C-2. For example, Portland's system is about the appendix of this report.The main conclusion 50 percent complete. The adjusted increase in of the research is that, even considering back- ridership assuming the bikeway system was 100 ground factors such as density, configuration of percent completed in each city is shown in the fi- the downtown, and weather, the investment in nal column.For example,the usage of bicycles in bikeways has resulted in a substantial increase Portland is expected to increase proportionately (over 500 percent) in ridership. A consistent to the completion of the entire regional bikeway increase in bicycle ridership occurred on eight system. This assumes that the increases counted selected corridor locations after bike lanes were at the selected locations in Portland, for example, installed. are limited by the fact that many of the existing City of San Francisco An increase in bikeways are disconnected or separated by gaps bicycle ridership was also witnessed at eight in the system. locations in San Francisco after bike lanes were The average increase in ridership based on full installed, ranging from 23 percent to 83 percent completion of a bikeway system is estimated to be increases. The consistency of these increases 279 percent, which represents the average of the appears to support the connection between the three case study cities, improvements and increases in usage. This connection between system. completion City of Seattle Research conducted by and ridership has been cross-checked in the Na- Stuart Goldsmith as part of the rational Bicycle tional Bicycling &Walling Study, Case Study No, & Walking Study (Case Study No. 1) and also 1. Studies of five (5)university communities(Da- published in the FHVVA document Guidebook on vis, Madison., Gainesville, Boulder, and Eugene) Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel are showed a link between the quality of a bikeway based on extensive preference surveys and other system and ridership. For example, Davis has the research tools,designed to establish the potential most extensive bikeway system per capita and bicycle ridership for specific corridor improve- also the highest bicycle commute share, "There ments. According to Goldsmith's projections, the are still three times more commuter cyclists in potential bicycle commuter mode share in Seattle cities with higher proportions of bike lanes," for areas within reasonable distance of a regional according to the National Bicycling and Walking bikeway system was about 8 percent.This is used Study(p. 41). as another independent source for this section of Using the assumptions identified previously, analysis. an estimate of future bicycle ridership in Contra Before and after bicycle counts offer relatively Costa can be made assuming full build-out of a solid evidence that improvements do increase bi- regional bikeway system (Table C-2). cycle usage. The use of empirical bicycle counts and preference surveys offers a unique oppor- tunity to (a) establish real connections between bikeway improvements and(b) compare those in- C-4 ADOPTED DECEMBER 97, 2003 APPENDIX C BICYCLE DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL Table C-2 Estimate of System Completion and User Increases Studies of Other Cities Study Cities Observed Increases Percent of System Estimated Increase at Within Corridor Completed System Completion Portland/1 137% 50% 274% San Francisco/2 61% 20% 305% Seattle/3 90% 35% 257% Average 279% Projected increase in Contra Costa Current(2000) Buildout Increment Bicycle Commute Mode Share/4 0.47% 1.31% 0.84%a Total Daily Bicycle Commuters/5 21,429 59,724 38,296 Total Daily Bicycle Trips/6 42,857 119,449 76,592 Reduced Daily Vehicle Trips/7 28,620 79,767 51,148 Reduced Daily Vehicle Miles/8 76,386 212,898 136,512 Notes and Sources: /1 Before and after bicycle counts conducted by the City of Portland /2 Before and after bicycle counts conducted by the City of San Francisco /3 Based on Preference survey study conducted by Stuart Goldsmith for the City of Seattle /1-3"Corridor increases"refers to the average increase in bicycling in the corridors in each city, before and after bikeways were installed.System completion refers to the percent completion of the bikeway network in each city.Adjusted increase reflects the projected amount of bicycling that will occur when the system is completed,based on studies of communities,with completed or nearly completed bikeway systems(Na- tional Bicycling&Walking Study,Study No. 1, 1995).This translates into an average 279%increase upon system completion. /4 Current bicycle commute mode share from U.S.Census for LA County(.63%), adjusted to potential mode share when system is 100%complete(1.76%),and the increment(1.13%0) /5 Same as above except that it shows total bicycle commuters(school and college students) /6 Total commuters from previous line times 2(each commuter makes 2 trips) /7 Total reduced trips by category(adult employed,students),times 279%increase (see notes,1-15) /8 Total reduced vehicle miles by category(adult employed,students),times 279% increase(see notes 11-15) ADOPTER DECEMBER 17, 2003 C-5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN C-6 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX D FUNDING !SOURCES There are a variety of potential funding sources ing for bicycle and pedestrian projects typically including local, state, regional, and federal fund- comes from Transportation Development Act ing programs that can be used to construct the (TINA) funding,which is prorated to each County proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements. based on return of gasoline taxes. 17'lnding for Most federal, state, and regional programs are many of the programs would need to be funded competitive, and involve the completion of ex- either with TDA, general fund (staff time), and tensive applications with clear documentation of regional, state, and federal sources. the project need, costs, and benefits. Local fund- Table D-1 Primary Funding Sources for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects and Programs Federal Funding Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Federal block grant program for projects in dean Eligible Applicants Cities, counties,transit operators, Caltrans, Air Act non-attainment areas that will help at- MPOs, non-profits and private entities. tain the national ambient air quality standards stated in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. Project Examples www.dot,ca.gov/hq/transprog/reports/ County: Iron Horse Trail/Treat Blvd....... .......... .............__ $75,O00 Official SMA( Web _Page,htm EBRPD: Iron Horse Trail/Willow Pass Rd..............................$62,325 CONTRA COSTA COUNTWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ? ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 .......... CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Tabu D-1 Primary Funding Sources for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects and Programs Land and Water Conservation Fund(LWCP) LWCF grants may be used for statewide recre- Eligible Applicants Federal and state agencies, cities, counties, ational planning and for acquiring and develop- recreation and park districts and special districts. ing recreational parks and facilities,especially in urban areas.The funds are limited to outdoor Project Examples recreations projects such as the acquisition of Contra Costa Water District: Los Vaqueros Trails wetland habitat and the development of recre- ation facilities.www.parks.ca.gov/grants/iwcf/ Development.......................... . ....,..............$157,850 Iwcf.htrn EBRPD: Paint Wilson Trail ................................................$114,300 Recreational Trails Program (RTF) RTP annually provides monies for recre- Eligible Applicants Cities, counties, districts, state agencies and ational trails and trail-related projects. non-profit organizations. www.parks.ca.gov/grants,/index.htm Project Examples Danville: Freitas Rd Trail Bridge..........................................$39,000 San Pablo:Wildcat Creek Trail............................................$25,000 County: Rodeo Creek Trail ...............................................$129,000 EBRPD: Bay Trail ...$80,000 EBRPD: Iron Horse Trail....................................................$100,000 EBRPD: Delta de Anza Trail..............................................$100,000 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Federal block grant program for a variety of Eligible Applicants Cities, counties,transit operators, Caltrans, - transportation projects including bike parking MPUs, non-profits and private entities. facilities at terminals, bike racks on buses, bicycle transportation facilities, pedestrian walkways, Project Examples bike-activated traffic lights and preservation of Antioch: Delta de Anza Trail............................................$386,000 abandoned railway corridors for pedestrian and Clayton: Marsh Creek Rd........................ ...,.$667,000 bicycle trails.www.dot.ca.qov/hq/transprog,/ repo rts/Offacial_RSTP We Page.htrn Lafayette: Happy Valley Rd Improvements........................$270,000 Martinez: Pacheco Blvd Bike Lane/Roadway Rehabilitation ........................................................$1,593,540 Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) The TEA program funds transportation projects Eligible Applicants Local, state and federal agencies. Private that help enhance the travel experience.The 12 organizations must partner with a public qualified entity. eligible TEA categories include three that are bicycle-oriented: bicycle and pedestrian facili- Project Examples ties, bicycle and pedestrian educational activities EBRPD: Iron HorseTrail/Walnut Creek Ext. ........$770,000 and preservation of abandoned railway corridors EBRPD: Miller-Knox Ferry Point Bike Path..........................$376,000 for bicycle and pedestrian use.The funds are dispersed to the Regional,Conservation Lands, EBRPD: Point Isabel to Marina Bay Trail..............................$69,000 Caltrans and Statewide Transportation Enhance- El Cerrito/BART: El Cerrito Plaza BART Bike Garage....___$117,000 ment(STE) programs. www.dot,ca,gov/hq/ TransEnhAct D,.-Z ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX D FUNDING SOURCES { State Funding Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) BTA provides state funds for city and county Eligible Applicants Cities or counties. projects that improve the safety and convenience of bicycle commuters. Eligible projects include Project Examples new bikeways that serve major transportation Antioch: East County Trunk Line System, Southern corridors, secure bicycle parking, bicycle-carrying Parallel Route._..............._... ............$138,750 facilities on transit vehicles, installation of traffic control devices, planning, bikeway improve- Pittsburg:Class It Bikeway on Leland Road.......................$208,000 ments, maintenance and hazard eliminations. - www.dot.ca,gov/hq/LocalPrograms/ CA Conservation Corps(CCL.') The CCC program provides emergency assistance Eligible Applicants City, county, state,federal and non-profit and public service conservation work. organizations Project Examples Richmond/San Pablo.Wildcat Creek Trail between the San Francisco 4 Bay Trail and Davis Park in the City of San Pablo Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP) The EEMP funds projects that offset environ- Eligible Applicants Non-profit agencies, and local, state and mental impacts of modified or new public trans- federal governments portation facilities such as streets, Park&Ride facilities and transit stations.wvvw.dot.ca.gov/ Project Examples hq/Land.ArIch/eem/eemframe.htm None in 2000/2001. Habitat Conservation Fund(HCF) The HCF program provides a competitive grant Eligible Applicants Cities, counties and eligible districts program.Trail projects, land acquisition and wildlife corridor restoration qualify for the trails/ Project Examples programs/urban access category. parks.ca.gov/ Lafayette: Sessions Rd Trail.................... ....$10,000 ........................ gr ants/1^cf/hcf.htm San Pablo: Wildcat Creek Trail................... ....$43,000 Office of Traffic Safety(OTS) Program The primary objective of the program is to re- Eligible Applicants State, city and county agencies and non- duce motor vehicle fatalities and injuries. A bicy- profit and community-based organizations. cle and pedestrian safety program should include the following three components:education, en- Project Examples forcement and engineering. www.ots.ca.gov None in 1999/2000 or in 2000/2001. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 D-3 § CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN - Table D-1 Primary Funding Sources for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects and a Programs Petroleum Violation Escrow Account(PVEA) The PVEA Program funds projects that conserve Eligible Applicants Cities, counties,transit operators and Cal- energy and that benefit, directly or indirectly, trans. consumers of petroleum products within the state. Project Examples None Proposition 12 -ABAG Bay Trail Funds In lune 2000, Governor Davis approved a $7.5 Eligible Applicants Cities and counties million allocation from the Parks and Open Space Bond to the State Coastal Conservancy for plan- Project Examples ning and construction of the planned 400-mile El Cerrito-Cerrito Creek Connector................................$100,000 Bay Trail,A portion of the money funds projects Richmond-New Access to Shipyard Ill.............................$70,000 through a competitive grant program managed by the Bay Trail Project,a non-profit organiza- San Pablo-Wildcat Creek Trail.......... .................... .....$17,000 tion administered by the Association of Bay Area EBRPD: West County Wastewater District Segment............$40,000 Governments.www.abag.ca,gov/bayarea/ EBRPD: Edgewater tech. Park to Point Pinole Reg'I Shoreline$85,000 baytraii/grants.html g EBRPD: Point Pinole to Point Wilson ..................................$75,000 County--Carquinez Scenic Bicycle Path.............................$75,000 Regional Improvement Program (RIP) State funding for a variety of transportation Eligible Applicants Cities, counties,transit operators,Caltrans projects such as carpool Ianes,transit stations, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Project Examples Richmond: Richmond Parkway Bike Lanes..........................$30,000 Safe Routes to School Program (SR2S) The SR25 program funds projects that im- Eligible Applicants Cities or counties prove the safety of pedestrian and bicycle routes to/from schools,www,dot.ca.gov/hq/ Project Examples LocalPrograrns/ Antioch: BiWPed Improvements.....................................$212,400 County: Sheldon Elementary School................................$202,638 Richmond:West Contra Costa GSD.................................$190,000 Local Funding Developer Impart Fees Local government agencies charge developers a Eligible Applicants Local jurisdictions developer impact fee to offset the public costs required to accommodate new development Project Examples with public infrastructure. Developer fees gener- No information ally are used for local rather than regional im- provements, D-.4 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX D FUNDING SOURCES Table Dp1 Primary Funding Sources for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects and Programs Transportation for Clean Air Funds(TFCA) Various state legislation have authorized air dis- Eligible Applicants Local jurisdictions in participating Air Dis- tricts in California to impose a two to four dollar tricts motor vehicle registration fee to provide funds for air districts to meet responsibilities mandated Project Examples under the California Clean Air Act(CCAA).The Brentwood: Marsh Creek Trail............_............... ......... ....$25,000 funds can be used to support programs and 80 Bikeway..nt Cou : 1- ewa projects that reduce air pollution from motor Y Y $99,000 vehicles,wvvw.baagmd.gov/planning/pint,,ns/ Crinda: 5t. Stephens Trail...................... .$159,918 tfcapage.htm Pinole: Bay Trail ........................$100,000 Pittsburg: Loveridge Rd...................................................$180,000 Local Sales Tax Voters in Contra Costa County approved Mea- Eligible Applicants Local jurisdictions and agencies sure C,which is a one-half cent sales tax to fund transportation projects. Project Examples Concord: BancroftlHookston Intersection Improvements..$645,000 EBRPD: Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Treat Boulevard,,.....$1,304,000 EBRPD: Iron Horse Trail Improvements......... ....... $689,900 EBRPD:Walnut Creek Channel Trail Improvements...........$419,600 Lafayette: Reliez Valley Road Trail, Phase 2.......................$262,800 Orinda: St. Stephens/Bryant Way Trail...........................$1,332,000 EBRPD: Delta-de Anza Trail Intersection Improvements.....$439,300 EBRPD:Wildcat Creek Regional Trail ................................$599,500 EBRPD: Marsh Creek Trail Overcrossing at SR 4.................$400,000 Bicycle Registration In cities, counties or on college campuses where Eligible Applicants Local jurisdictions high concentrations of bicyclists exist,this source accumulates enough monies to fund bicycle-re- Project Examples fated programs and projects. Not applicable Transportation Development Act(TDA) TDA Article 3 states that one quarter cent of Eligible Applicants Local jurisdictions retail sales tax is returned to the county of origin for the purpose of funding transportation im- Project Examples provements in that county such as bicycle and County Health Services: Contra Costa Bicycle Safety Project$28.390 pedestrian facilities, safety programs and plan- El Cerrito: Plaza BART Bicycle Parkin Hing projects in that county. Y 9............�....1.............$107,700 Lafayette: Reiiez Valley Road Walkway.............................$120,000 Antioch:W. 18th St. Ped/Bike Facility.................................$50,000 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 d-5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ANIS PEDESTRIAN PLAN F ; D--6 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 �.I APPENDIX E U . S, DOT POLICY STATEMENT AND CALTRANS' DEPUTY DIRECTIVE 64 Tura policy statements----the federal Department calls for incorporating bicycle and pedestrian of Transportation's recommended approach to facilities in all new transportation facilities, with accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel few exceptions. In DD-64, Caltrans establishes and Caltrans' Deputy Directive DD-64 on accom- the policy that it "fully considers the needs of modating non-motorized travel—could encour- non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, age significant changes in how transportation bicyclists and persons with disabilities) in all projects are planned, designed and constructed. programming, planning, maintenance, construc- Both these policy statement encourage transpor- tion., operations and project development activi- tation agencies to consider the needs of bicyclists ties and products." and pedestrians in the design of all transporta- tion facilities. In its statement, the federal DOT CONTRA COSTA COUNTWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN { ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Accommodating Bicycle and Pe- SEC.212112. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION AND.. destrian Travel; a Recommended P'EDESTRIAN 11kdALKWAYS. Approach A U.S. DCCT Policy Statement on Integrating €b) Design Guidance.,--- Bicycling and Walking into Transportation In- i (1)In general. In implementing section 217(9) frastrtucture of title 23, United States Code,the Secretary, in cooperation with the American Association of state PURPOSE Highway and Transportation Officials,the Institute of Transportation Engineers,and other interested Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian ?travel.A organizations,shall develop guidance on the various Recommended Approach is a policy statement approaches to accommodating bicycles and pedes- PP p �' trian travel, adopted by the United States Department of {2}Issues to be addressed,Tfre guidance shall' Transportation.U.S.DOT hopes that public agen- address issues Mach as the level and nature of the cies, professional associations, advocacy groups, demand,volume,and speed of motor vehicle traf- and others adopt this approach as a way of co - fie,safety,terrain, cost, and sight distance. witting themselves to integrating bicycling and )Recommendations. -The guidance shall include recommendations on amending and updating the walking into the transportation mainstream. policies of the American Association of State High- The Design Guidance incorporates three key way and Transportation Officials relating to highway and street design standards to accommodate bicy- principles; clists and pedestrians, a) A policy statement that bicycling and walking (4)Time period for development.The guidance shall be developed within 18 months after the date facilities will be incorporated into all trans- of enactment of this Act. portation projects unless exceptional circum- stances exist; b) An approach to achieving this policy that has already worked in State and local agencies; most appropriate way in which to accommodate nda are the two modes within the overall transportation system so that those who walk or ride bicycles c) A series of action items that a public agency, can safely, conveniently, and comfortably access professional association, or advocacy group every destination within a community. can take to achieve the overriding goal of im- proving conditions for bicycling and walking. Public support and advocacy for improved conditions for bicycling and walking has created The Policy Statement was drafted by the U.S. a widespread acceptance that more should be Department of Transportation in response to Sec- done to enhance the safety, comfort, and con- tion 2202 (b) of the Transportation Equity Act for venience of the nonmotorized traveler. Public the 21st Century (TEA-21) with the input and as- opinion surveys throughout the 1990s have dem- sistance of public agencies, professional associa- onstrated strong support for increased planning tions and advocacy groups. funding and implementation of shared use paths, sidewalks and on-street facilities. At the same time, public agencies have be- INTRODUCTION come considerably better equipped to respond Bicycling and walking issues have grown in to this demand. Research and practical experi- significance throughout the 199Os. As the new ence in designing facilities for bicyclists and millennium da-wns public agencies and public pedestrians has generated numerous national, interest groups alike are striving to define the State and local design manuals and resources. E--2 ADOPTED DECEMBER 27: 2003 APPENDIX E US DOT POLICY AND CALTRANS DIRECTIVE IWI An increasing number of professional planners overall goal of fully integrating bicyclists and pe- and engineers are familiar with this material and destrians into the transportation system. are applying this knowledge in towns and cities TEA-21 also says that, "Bicycle transporta- across the country. tion facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, considered, where appropriate, in conjunction building on an earlier law requiring curb ramps with all new construction and reconstruction of in new, altered, and existing sidewalks, added transportation projects, except where bicycle and impetus to improving conditions for sidewalk us- pedestrian use are not permitted." (Section 1202) ers.People with disabilities rely on the pedestrian In August 1998, FHWA convened a Task.Force and transit infrastructure, and the links between comprising representatives from FHWA, AAS- them., for access and mobility. HTO, ITE, bicycle and pedestrian user groups, Congress and many State legislatures have State and local agencies, the U.S. Access Board made it considerably easier in recent years to and representatives of disability organizations to fund nonmotorized projects and programs (for seek advice on how to proceed with developing example„ the Intermodal Surface Transportation this guidance. The Task Force reviewed exist- Efficiency Act and the Transportation Equity Act ing and proposed information on the planning for the 21st Century), and a number of laws and and technical design of facilities for bicyclists regulations now.mandate certain planning activi- and pedestrians and concluded that these made - ties and design standards to guarantee the inclu- creation of another design manual unnecessary. cion of bicyclists and pedestrians. For example,AASHTO published a bicycle design Despite these many advances,injury and fatal- manual in 1999 and is working on a pedestrian ity numbers for bicyclists and pedestrians remain facility manual. stubbornly high, levels of bicycling and walking The area where information and guidance was remain frustratingly low, and most communities most lacking was in determining when to include continue to grow in ways that make travel by designated or special facilities for bicyclists and means other than the private automobile quite pedestrians in transportation projects. There can challenging. Failure to provide an accessible also be uncertainty about the type of facility to pedestrian network for people with disabilities provide, and the design elements that are re- often requires the provision of costly paratran- quired to ensure accessibility. sit service. Ongoing investment in the Nation`s For example, when a new suburban arterial transportation infrastructure is still more likely road is planned and designed, what facilities for to overlook rather than integrate bicyclists and bicyclists and pedestrians should be provided' pedestrians. The task force felt that once the decision to pro- In response to demands from user groups vide a particular facility was made, the specific that every transportation project include a bi- information on designing that facility is generally cycle and pedestrian element, Congress asked available. However, the decision on whether to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to provide sidewalks on neither, one or both sides study various approaches to accommodating the of the road, or a shoulder, striped bike lane, wide two modes.The Transportation Equity Act for the outside lane or separate trail for bicyclists is usu- 21st Century (TEA-21) instructs the Secretary to ally made with little guidance or help. work with professional groups such as AASHTO, After a second meeting with the Task Force in ITE, and other interested parties to recommend January 1999, FHWA agreed to develop a Policy policies and standards that might achieve the Statement on Accommodating .Bicyclists and Pe- destrians in 7}ansportation Projects to guide State ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 E-3 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN and local agencies in answering these questions. completing the Interstate System,and the contin- _ Task Force members recommended against trying ued availability of cheap gasoline all fueled the to create specific warrants for different facilities development of a transportation infrastructure (warrants leave little room for engineering judg- focused almost exclusively on the private motor ment and have often been used to avoid provid- car and commercial truck. ing facilities for bicycling and walking). Instead, Initially, there were few constraints on the the purpose of the Policy Statement is to provide a traffic engineer and highway designer. Starting recommended approach to the accommodation of at the centerline, highways were developed ac- bicyclists and pedestrians that can be adopted by cording to the number of motor vehicle travel State and local agencies (as well as professional lanes that were needed well into the future, as societies and associations, advocacy groups, and well as providing space for breakdowns. Beyond Federal agencies) as a commitment to developing that, facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, a transportation infrastructure that is safe, conve- environmental mitigation, accessibility, com- nient, accessible, and attractive to motorized and munity preservation, and aesthetics were at best nonmotorized users alike. The Policy Statement an afterthought, often simply overlooked, and, at has four elements: worst,rejected as unnecessary,costly, and regres- sive. Many States passed laws preventing the use a) An acknowledgment of the issues associated of State gas tax funds on anything other than with balancing the competing interests of mo- motor vehicle lanes and facilities. The resulting torized and nonmotorized users; bl A recommended policy approach to accom- highway environment discourages bicycling and modating bicyclists and pedestrians (includ- walking and has made the two modes more dan- ing people with disabilities) that can be gerous. Further, the ability of pedestrians with adopted by an agency or organizations as a disabilities to travel independently and safely statement of policy to be implemented or a has been compromised, especially for those with vision impairments. target to be reached in the future; c) A list of recommended actions that can be tak- Over time, the task of designing and building highways has become more complex and chal en to implement the solutions and approaches described above; and lenging. Traffic engineers now have to integrate d) Further information and resources on the accessibility, utilities, landscaping, community planning, design,:operation, and maintenance preservation, wetland mitigation, historic pres- of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. ervation, and a host of other concerns into their plans and designs—and yet they often have less space and resources within which to operate and traffic volumes continue to grow. THE CHALLENGE: BALANCING COM- The additional "burden" of having to find _ #SETING INTERESTS space for pedestrians and bicyclists was rejected For most of the second half of the 20th Century, as-impossible in many communities because of the transportation, traffic engineering and high- space and funding constraints and a perceived way professions in the United States were synon- lack of demand. There was also anxiety about en- ymous. They shared a singular purpose:building couraging an activity that many felt to be danger- a transportation system that promoted the safety, ous and fraught with liability issues. Designers convenience and comfort of motor vehicles. The continued to design from the centerline.out and post-war boom in car and home ownership, the often simply ran out of space before bike lanes, growth of suburban America, the challenge of E--4 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX E US DOT POLICY AND CALTRANS DIRECTIVE paved shoulders, sidewalks and other "amen- that provides access for all, a real choice of f M' ties" could be included. modes, and safety in equal measure for each By contrast, bicycle and pedestrian user mode of travel. groups argue the roadway designer should design This task is made more challenging by the highways from the right-of-way limits in, rather widely divergent character of our nation's high- than the centerline out. They advocate beginning ways and byways. Traffic speeds and volumes, the design of a highway with the sidewalk and/or topography, land use, the mix of road users, and trail,including a buffer before the paved shoulder many other factors mean that a four-lane highway or bike lane, and then allocating the remaining in rural North Carolina cannot be designed in the space for motor vehicles. Through this approach, same way as a four-lane highway in New York walking and bicycling are positively encouraged, City, a dirt road in Utah or an Interstate highway made safer, and included as a critical element in Southern California. In addition, many differ- in every transportation project rather than as an ent agencies are responsible for the development, afterthought in a handful of unconnected and ar- management, and operation of the transportation bitrary locations within a community. system,. Retrofitting the guilt environment often pro- In a recent memorandum transmitting Pro- vides even more challenges than building new gram Guidance on bicycle and pedestrian issues roads and communities: space is at a premium. to FHwA Division Offices, the Federal Highway and there is a perception that providing better Administrator wrote that"We expect every trans conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians will portation agency to make accommodation for bi- necessarily take away space or convenience from cycling and walking a routine part of their plan- motor vehicles. ning, design, construction., operations and main- During the 1990s, Congress spearheaded a tenance activities." The Program Guidance itself movement towards a transportation system that makes a number of clear statements of intent: favors people and goods over motor vehicles with 10 passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Congress clearly intends for bicyclists and Efficiency Act (1992) and the Transportation Eq- pedestrians to have safe, convenient access city Act for the 21st Century {1998}. The call for to the transportation system and sees every more walkable, livable, and accessible comuni- transportation improvement as an opportu- znties,has seen bicycling and walking emerge as an pity to enhance the safety and convenience of the two modes. "indicator species" for the health and well-being "Due consideration" of bicycle and pedestrian of a community. People want to live and work in needs should include, at a minimum, a pre- places where they can safely and conveniently walk and/or bicycle and not always have to deal sumption that bicyclists and pedestrians will with worsening traffic congestion, road rage and be accommodated in the design of new and the fight for a parking space. Vice President Gore improved transportation facilities. launched a Livability Initiative in 1999 with the To varying extents, bicyclists and pedestrians ironic statement that"a gallon of gas can be used will be present on all highways and trans- up just driving to get a gallon of milk." portation facilities where they are permitted The challenge for transportation planners, and it is clearly the intent of TEA-21 that all highway engineers and bicycle and pedestrian new and improved transportation facilities be user groups,therefore,is to balance their compet- planned, designed and constructed with this ing interest in a limited amount of right-of-way, factin mind. and to develop a transportation infrastructure ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 E--5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN • The decision not to accommodate (bicyclists Where sparsity of population or other fac- . anal pedestrians] should be the exception tors indicate an absence of need.For exam- rather than the rule. There must be excep- ple,the Portland Pedestrian Guide requires tional circumstances for denying bicycle and "all construction of new public streets" to - pedestrian access either by prohibition or by include sidewalk improvements on both designing highways that are incompatible sides, unless the street is a cul-de-sac with with safe, convenient walking and bicycling. four or fewer dwellings or the street has severe topographic or natural resource The Program Guidance defers a suggested def- constraints. inition of what constitutes "exceptional circum- 2. In rural areas, paved shoulders should be stances"until this Policy Statement is completed. included in all new construction and recon- However, it does offer interim guidance that in- struction projects on roadways used by more cludes controlled access highways and projects than 1,000 vehicles per day, as in States such where the cost of accommodating bicyclists and as Wisconsin. Paved shoulders have safety pedestrians is high in relation to the overall proj- and operational advantages for all road users ect costs and likely level of use by nonmotorized in addition to providing a place for bicyclists travelers. and pedestrians to operate. Providing access for people with disabilities Rumble strips are not recommended where is a civil rights mandate that is not subject to shoulders are used by bicyclists unless there limitation by project costs, levels of use, or "ex- is a minimum clear path of four feet in which ceptional circumstances". While the Americans a bicycle may safely operate, with Disabilities Act doesn't require pedestrian 3. Sidewalks, shared use paths, street cross- facilities in the absence of a pedestrian route, ings (including over- and undercrossings), it does require that pedestrian facilities, when pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, newly constructed or altered,be accessible. transit stops and facilities, and all connecting pathways shall be designed, constructed, op- erated and maintained so that all pedestrians, POLICY STATEMENT including people with disabilities, can travel 1. Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be estab- safely and independently, lished in new construction and reconstruc- 4. The design and development of the transpor- tion projects in all urbanized areas unless one Cation infrastructure shall improve conditions or more of three conditions are met: for bicycling and walking through the follow- ■ Bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited ing additional steps: by lain from using the roadway. In this Planning projects for the long-term. Trans- instance, a greater effort may be necessary portation facilities are long-term invest- to accommodate bicyclists and pedestri- ments that remain in place for many years. ans elsewhere within the right of way or The design and construction of new facili- within the same transportation corridor. ties that meet the criteria in item 1 j above ■ The cost of establishing bikeways or should anticipate likely future demand for walkways would be excessively dispro- bicycling and walking facilities and not portionate to the need or probable use. preclude the provision of future improve- Excessively disproportionate is defined as ments, For example, a bridge that is likely exceeding twenty percent of the cost of the to remain in place for 50 years, might be larger transportation project. built with sufficient width for safe bicycle E_6 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX E US DOT POLICY AND CALTRANS DIRECTIVE and pedestrian use in anticipation that In addition to incorporating detailed design facilities will be available at either end of information---such as the installation of safe and the bridge even if that is not currently the accessible crossing facilities for pedestrians, or case. intersections that are safe and convenient for bi- ■ Addressing the need for bicyclists and cyclists -these manuals should also be amended pedestrians to cross corridors as well as to provide flexibility to the highway designer to travel along them.. Even where bicyclists develop facilities that are in keeping with trans- and pedestrians may not commonly use portation needs,accessibility,community values, a particular travel corridor that is being and aesthetics. For example, the Portland Pedes- improved or constructed, they will likely trian Design Guide (June 1998) applies to every need to be able to cross that corridor safely project that is designed and built in the city, but and conveniently. Therefore, the design of the Guide also notes that: intersections and interchanges shall ac- commodate bicyclists and pedestrians in a "Site conditions and circumstances often manner that is safe, accessible and conve- make applying a specific solution diffi- nient. cult. The Pedestrian Design Guide should • Getting exceptions approved at a senior reduce the need for ad hoc decision by level. Exceptions for the non..-inclusion of providing a published set of guidelines bikeways and walkways shall be approved that are applicable to most situations. by a senior manager and be documented Throughout the guidelines, however, with supporting data that indicates the care has been taken to provide flexibility basis for the decision. to the designer so she or he can tailor the ■ Designing facilities to the best currently standards to unique circumstances. Even available standards and guidelines. The when the specific guideline cannot be design of facilities for bicyclists and pedes- met, the designer should attempt to find trians should follow design guidelines and the solution that best meets the pedestrian standards that are commonly used, such design principles described [on the previ- as the AASHTo Guide for the Development ous page]." of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, In the interim, these manuals may be supple- and the ITE Recommended Practice "De- mented by stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian sign and Safely of Pedestrian Facilities". facility manuals that provide detailed design information addressing on-street bicycle facili- ties, fully accessible sidewalks, crosswalks, and POLICY APPROACH shared use paths, and other improvements. Examples:Florida DOT has integrated bicycle "Rewrite the Manuals"ApproachExamples: pedestrian facility design information into Manuals that are commonly used by highway its standard highway design manuals and New designers covering roadway geometrics, roadside Jersey DOT is in the process of doing so. Many safety, and bridges should incorporate design in- States and localities have developed their own formation that integrates safe and convenient fa- bicycle and pedestrian facility design manuals, cilities for bicyclists and pedestrians-including some of which are listed in the final section of people with disabilities--into all new highway this document. construction and reconstruction projects. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 E-7 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Applying Engineering Judgment to Roadway This approach also allows the highway engi- ria, Design neer to achieve the performance goal of providing m safe, convenient, and comfortable travel for bicy- In rewriting manuals and developing standards clists and pedestrians by other means. For exam- for the accommodation of bicyclists and pedes- ple, if it would be inappropriate to add width to trians, there is a temptation to adopt "typical an existing roadway to stripe a bike lane or widen sections" that are applied to roadways without a sidewalk, traffic calming measures can be em- regard to travel speeds,lane widths,vehicle mix, played to reduce motor vehicle speeds to levels adjacent land uses, traffic volumes and other more compatible with bicycling and walking. critical factors. This approach can lead to inad- equate prevision on major roads (e.g. a four foot bike lane or four foot sidewalk on a six lane high.- ACTIONS speed urban arterial) and the over-design of local The United States Department of Transportation and neighborhood streets (e.g. striping bike lanes encourages States, local governments, profes- on low volume residential roads) , and leaves sional associations, other government agencies little room for engineering judgment. and community organizations to adopt this Policy After adopting the policy that bicyclists and Statement as an indication of their commitment pedestrians (including people with disabilities) to accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians as will be fully integrated into the transportation an integral element of the transportation system. system, State and local governments should en- By so doing, the organization or agency should courage engineering judgment in the application explicitly adopt one, all, or a combination of the of the range of available treatments. various approaches described above and should For example: be committed to taking some or all of the actions Collector and arterial streets shall typically listed below as appropriate for their situation. • have a minimum of a four foot wide striped a) Define the exceptional circumstances in bicycle lane, however wider lanes are often which facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians necessary in locations with parking, curb and will not be required in all transportation prof- gutter, heavier acid/or faster traffic. ects. • Collector and arterial streets shall typically b) Adopt new manuals,or amend existing manu- have a minimum of a five foot sidewalk on als, covering the geometric design of streets, both sides of the street, however wider side- the development of roadside safety facilities, walks and landscaped buffers are necessary and design of bridges and their approaches so in locations with higher pedestrian or traffic that they comprehensively address the devel- volumes, and/or higher vehicle speeds. At in- opment of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as tersections,sidewalks may need to be wider to an integral element of the design of all new accommodate accessible curb ramps. and reconstructed roadways. • Rural arterials shall typically have a minimum c) Adopt stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian of a four foot paved shoulder, however wider facility design manuals as an interim step shoulders (or marked bike lanes) and acces- towards the adoption of new typical sections sible sidewalks and crosswalks are necessary or manuals covering the design of streets and within rural communities and where traffic highways. volumes and speeds increase. d) Initiate an intensive re-tooling and re-educa- tion of transportation planners and engineers E-8 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX E US DOT POLICY ANIS CALTRANS DIRECTIVE to make them conversant with the new infor- mation required to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Training should be made available for, if not required of, agency traffic engineers and consultants who perform work in this field. CONCLUSION There is no question that conditions for bicy- cling and walking need to be improved in every) community in the United States; it is no longer acceptable that 6,000 bicyclists and pedestrians are killed in traffic every year, that, people with disabilities cannot travel without encountering barriers, and that two desirable and efficient modes of travel have been :made difficult and uncomfortable. Every transportation agency has the responsi- bility and the opportunity to make a difference to the bicycle-friendliness and walkability of our communities. The design information to accom- modate bicyclists and pedestrians is available, as is the funding. The United States Department of Transportation is committed to doing all it can to improve conditions for bicycling and walking and to make them safer ways to travel. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 E-9 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN California Department of Transportation ■ Support of the state's economic development ■ Elimination or minimization of adverse ef- Deputy Directive Number: DD-64 fects on the environment, natural resources, Effective Date: 3-26-01 public services, aesthetic features and the - community Supersedes: New * Realistic financial estimates Title: Accommodating Non-Motorized Travel Cost effectiveness POLICY Individual projects are selected for construc- tion on the basis of overall multimodal system — The Department fully considers the needs of benefits as well as community goals, plans and non-motorized travelers(including pedestrian bi- values. Decisions place emphasis on making dif- cyclists and persons with disabilities) in all pro- ferent transportation modes work together safely gramming, planning, maintenance, construction, and effectively. Implicit in these objectives is the operations and project development activities need to accommodate non-motorized travelers and products. This includes incorporation of the as an important consideration in improving the best available standards in all of the Department's transportation system. practices. The Department adopts the best prac- tice concepts in the U.S. DOT Policy Statement responsibilities on"Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Trans- Deputy Director, Planning and Modal Programs: portation Infrastructure." ■ Ensures that the needs of non-motorized Definition f Background travelers are incorporated into the program The planning and project development process element of Transportation Planning and the seeks to provide the people of California with a modal elements of the statewide strategy for degree of mobility that is in balance with other mobility. values. They must ensure that economic, social Ensures that liaison exists with non-motor- and environmental effects are fully considered ized advocates to incorporate non-motorized along with technical issues, so that the best inter- needs into all program areas including project est of the public is served. This includes all users and system planning. of California's facilities and roadways. Ensures that the needs of the non-motorized Attention must be given to many issues in- travelers are incorporated in personal move- cluding, but not limited to,the following: ment strategies. ■ Safe and efficient transportation for all users Deputy Director, Project Delivery: of the transportation system ■ Ensures that projects incorporate best prac- ■ Provision of alternatives for non-motorized tices for non-motorized travel in the design travel and construction of capital projects. ■ Support of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Deputy Director, Maintenance and Operations: ■ Attainment of community goals and objec- ■ Ensures that the transportation system is tives maintained and operated in a safe and ef- ■ Transportation needs of low-mobility, disad- ficient manner with the recognition that vantaged groups E-10 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 APPENDIX E US DOT POLICY AND CALTRANS DIRECTIVE non-motorized travel is a vital element of the " Advocates effectively for all reasonable proj- transportaton system. ect-specific best practices that support or pro- ■ Ensures that the needs of non-motorized trav- mote non-motorized travel. elers are met in maintenance work zones. Chief Division of Maintenance: District Directors: ■ Ensures State-owned facilities are maintained ■ Ensure that best practices for non-motorized consistent with the needs of motorized and travel are included in all district projects and non-motorized travelers. project planning. ■ Provides guidance and training to those main- ■ Ensure that best practices for non-motorized taining roadways to be aware of and sensitive travel are implemented in maintenance and to the needs of non-motorized travel, travel operations practices. Chief, Division of Traffic Operations: Chief, Division of design • Ensures that the transportation system is ■ Ensures that project delivery procedures and operated in accordance with the needs of all design guidance include the needs of non- travelers including non-motorized travel. motorized travelers as a regular part.of doing ■ Provides training and guidance on the opera- business. tion of the transportation facility consistent ■ Ensures that all project delivery staff is trained with providing mobility for all users. and consider the needs of the non-motorized * Recommends safety measures in consider- traveler while developing and designing ation of non-motorized travel on California's transportation projects. transportation system. Chief, Division of(Manning: Chief, Division of Local Assistance: Ensures incorporation of non-motorized trav- • Ensures that Local Assistance staff, local el elements in transportation plans, programs agencies and interest groups are familiar with and studies prepared by Transportation Plan- funding programs that are available for non- ning. motorized travelers. ■ Ensures planning staff understand and are ■ Ensures that program coordinators responsi- trained in the principles and design guide- ble for non-motorized travel modes are famil- lines, non-motorized funding sources and the iar with non-motorized issues and advocate planning elements of non-motorized transpor- on behalf of non-motorized travelers. tation. ■ Coordinates Caltrans projects with non-mo- Applicability torized interest groups. All Caltrans employees who are involved in the ■ Ensures incorporation of non-motorized planning, design, construction, maintenance and travel elements in Corridor Studies prepared operations of the transportation system. by Transportation Planning. Chief Division of Environmental Analysis: TONY V HARRIS • Ensures that non-motorized travel groups potentially affected by Caltrans projects are Chief Deputy Director identified and have the opportunity to be in- volved in the project development process. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 E-11 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN E-12 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 r APPENDIX F LOCAL PROJECTS Completion of the Countywide Bikeway Network Countywide Transportation Project List (CTPL); would create a web of bikeways that connects proposed bikeways, shared use path-.nays, and communities and improves access for Contra pedestrian improvements submitted by lo- Costans to major destinations. While these cal agencies; and other bicycle and pedestrian countywide facilities are important, more local programs conducted by various agencies. Cost projects--those that will fill in the web of bike- estimates, when available, are given as proof of ways with a denser set of connections to work, the commitment to.non-motorized transportation school, shopping and transit—can have as large present in Contra Costa. an impact on encouraging more people to walk or This appendix also includes an atlas of bicycle.Pedestrians especially are sensitive to dis- bikeways within Contra Costa. The atlas, which tance and a system of sidewalks and crosswalks identifies both existing facilities that local agen- that expands and extends the trails that are part cies have created and bikeways that they plan to of the Countywide Bikeway Network can make put in place, is included on the accompanying walking significantly more attractive. Projects, CD.As the atlas shows, the Countywide Bikeway both bicycle and pedestrian, that improve access Network(also shown in the atlas)is only a part of to schools are a good example of projects that can the network of existing and future facilities that build on the Countywide Bikeway Network. bicyclists can use. Contra Costa cities, the County, and regional Both the list of -projects and the atlas are agencies have an impressive number of bicycle- "living documents" and will be updated as the and pedestrian-oriented projects planned. The Authority receives new information from local following local projects were compiled from the agencies and project sponsors. CONTRA COSTA COUNTWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN I ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 .:»» f' CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FLAN Fes; r- F_Z ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 AC Transit r. ., `i 0492 ADA Pedestrian Enhancement at West install tactile surfaces and other amenities to improve Contra Costa County Transit/Transfer accessibility at the Contra Costa College Transfer Ctr.plus Centers three BART transit/transfer facilities: Richmond, EI Cerrito, Limits: & EI Cerrito Del Norte. Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $200,000 Funding: Source: Type: $177,000 Federal/State $73,000 Local Antioch ';- MMONNEMMEMN 0537 EBMUD Bicycle Pathway/Mokelumne EBMUD Bicycle pathway from Hillcrest Road to Neidom Coast-to-Crest Trail:Construct Ranch Road Limits: Hillcrest Road to Heidorn Ranch Road Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $450,000 Funding: Source: Type: J 0539 Somersville Road Walkway:Construct Somersville Rd.Walkway: construct a walkway and bike Udder SR 4 lane under SR 4 Limits: Under SR 4 Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $200,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0803 Somersville(toad Bridge&Roadway Widen to four lanes, upgrade traffic signals, construct Improvement median,turn lanes,walkway, bicycle lane, new bridge over Limits: Buchanan Rd to James Donlon canal and Markly Creek bridge, Project Status Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $4,000,000 Funding: Source: " Type: ^ � $300,000 STP Federal/State Page 3 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 n�'�8.� e i 9Sk4 k'€�9,5.'t`.,d6S'kS. 'kY4"'v R"".s 'S�"ads��µ,JR"•`r�'k'i�k5.^S!9q e. ...: "!6keYR?`s'Sr�4Rt'f3n2'sR!4fs9C)Kk ..35.n +:d^Af"r; BART MEN MIM11 " ` .�"' 'rl MINIMER ` v wIMMEMAIM . 0574 Lafayette BART Station: Pedestrian/Wheelchair Access to South Entrance of Pedestrian/Wheelchair Access to South Lafayette BART Station Entrance - Limits: NA Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $668,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0838 Richmond, Walnut Creek&Pleasant Hill Develop a program design for a Bicycle Pavilion (a BART Station Bicycle Pavilions designated area for bike storage in lockers, racks and a Limits: At BART stations bicycle station with amenities such as seating, lighting and landscaping)and complete construction of the format at Project Status: resign and ROW the Walnut Creek BART station.The program design will be used as the basis for initiating Bicycle Pavilions at the Other Sponsors: Pleasant Mill and Richmond BART stations. Total Project Cost: $479,000 Funding: Source: Type: $7,000 BART Local $80,000 TFCA Federal/State $392,000 STIP Federal/State 0504 BART Station Pathfinder Program:Access BART pathfinder sign program: prepare an Access Guide Guide twice a year that provides information on available transit Limits: District-wide services,any changes and updates,and bicycle and pedestrian facilities Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $100,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Brentwood 0668 Blackhawk Trail Connection CIP 522-5215 Extend the Deer Creel Trail under the Apple Mill Drive Bridge and connect the trail with the surrounding Limits: CCC Flood Control basin to Buena Vista subdivisions. Includes regrading Geer Creek Channel and Street outfall into the CCCFCD basin. Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $301,600 Funding: Source: Type: $301,600 Developer ContributionsFacilit Developer/Fees Page 4 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2403 Brentwood ...... ___.,.................................._.....«._.......... _...... ................................._............_.................. . ........... y 0679 ECOID Lateral Traits Construct 7.5'trail alongcanals 4N, Sellers Ave northers to Sunset Rd;6N, Balfour std northerly to Sunset Rd ext.; Limits: various 7N, southwesterly from main canal at Fairview then Project Status: Not Begun northerly to north edge of Sub.8209(Brookfield); 7S, southeasterly from main canal a Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $211,000 Funding: Source: Type: $143''J'Ili Al ,000 Facillt Fees Develo er/Fees ON g Sig 0 0653 Anderson Lane Widening Widen existing Anderson lane to a 2-lane collector with 16"landscaped median, B`bike lanes and sidewalk. Limits: Anderson Lane from lone Tree Way to Neroly Road Project Status: Not Begun Cather Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1534,100 Funding: source: Type: $1,534,100 DeveloperuContributions_w«_....__«..«._..«._Developer/Fees W. __.._._..._«_«._.__.._................__..«_»_._�__ v__... ._ 0927 Apricot Way Roadway improvements consisting of two lane residential collector street section for approximately 3,300 feet in Limits: Apricot Way from Empire Avenue to length cosisting of 12 foot lanes, 8 foot bike lane, Fairview Avenue sidewalk and landscaping on both sides of the roadway. Project Status: Under Construction Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $2,158,400 Funding: Source: Type: $2,158,400 Developer Contributions __Developer/Fees 9654 Armstrong Road Extension Extend Armstrong Way residential collector. Includes bike lane, sidewalk, landscaping each side. Limits: Wright Way to Mills Drive then northerly to Balfour Rd. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $2,576,800 Funding: Source: Type: $1,935,300 Assessment District/Facility Fee Developer/Fees .._.__.«,_....,._..»..«...._.._«........»....__...«_._»...«................_._................_$641...500..._...._....Unfunded...........«........_.«.«.«...........W...««__.__......,.«_._....._....__.«._Unidentified. ..._...W«..._ 0657 Balfour Road Improvements-West Widen existing Balfour Road to 4 lanes. includes curb, Limits: West of West Count Club Drive for 1,500 gutter,sidewalk, bike lanes, landscaping,sewer and water lines. feet Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,328,200 Funding: Source: Type: $962,900 Facility Fees/Developer Contrib Developer/Fees $365,300 Unfunded Unidentified Page 5 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 _.. ,fixA,eIKC>S.W...du"Mfr"sc.;;.aV�fi>&,..hfYlDi#rp, C"Fxf. v Brentwood ...................................................._........_..........._.._.._.............._..,................................................__..............................,......................._..................._.............._........._.............._.................,.............................._........_..._........._........_,................ ......._....._..... 0908 Brentwood Boulevard(SR4) Bridge Widen existing bridge on Brentwood Boulevard to 4 lanes, Widening 8'bike lanes and 5'sidewalk on both sides. . : Limits: State Route 4 at... Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,491,000 Funding: Source: Type: $579,0010 . _._ �_. ._._..�._ Local W_ y 0919 Brentwood Boulevard Widening- South l Widen Brentwood Boulevard to four lanes with bike lanes, °. curbs,gutters, medians,sidewalks, street lights and Limits: Brentwood Boulevard from Chestnut Street landscaping. to Fir Street _ Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $2,829,000 Funding: Source: Type: $2,539,000 Unfunded Unidentified $290,000 Ot7b FaciiitY Fees.........._...__._...._.._......._...._......_...._....._....._...[7 vel.nperlFe 0917 Brentwood Boulevard Widening (Central) Widen Brentwood Boulevard with two lanes in each direction with bike lanes, curbs,gutters, medians, Limits: Brentwood Boulevard from Village Drive to sidewalks,street lights and landscaping on each side of Sycamore Avenue the street. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,230,000 Funding: Source: Type: $1,230,000 Unfunded Unidentified 0518 Brentwood Boulevard Widening (North) Widen Brentwood Boulevard with two lanes in each Limits: Brentwood Boulevard direction with two bike lanes,curbs, gutters, 16 foot medians,sidewalks,street lights and lanscaping on each Project Status: Not Begun side of the roadway. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $16,700,000 Funding: Source: Type: $250,000 Facility lees Developer/Fees $1,250,000 Measure C Measure C $$..8,530,000__ #unfundedUnidentified 0928 Brentwwod Boulevard-South 11 Widen Brentwwod Boulevard with two lanes in each Limits: Brentwwod Boulevard from Fir Street to direction to inculde bike lanes,curb, gutter, medians, Balfour Road sidewalks,street lights and landscaping. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Tectal Project Cost: $1,338,000 Funding: Source: Type: 51,338,000 Developer Contributions Developer/Fees Page 6 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 Brentwood --............ ----.................. ........................................ ........................... ............... ............................... ................................................... ......................... .............................. r-n 0661 Central Boulevard Bridge and Road Widen existing roadway and bridge at Marsh Creek to four Widening lanes. includes bike lane,sidewalk and landscaping. Limits: Dainty Avenue to Griffith Lane Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $3,551,000 Funding: Source: Type: $3,551,000—Faciny es Developer/Fees 0662 WY'Central Boulevard Widening-Fairview Widen existing north side of Central Boulevard from one Avenue lane to two 12'lanes,8'bike lane and sidewalk and Limits: Fairview Avenue to Peachwillow Drive landscaping. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost* $1,105,500 Funding- Source, Type: $465,000 Facility Fees Develop 0671 Empire Avenue Extension North Extend Empire Avenue north as 4-lane roadway with curb, to Lone gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, landscaping. Limits: Empire Avenue from Neroly Road Tree Way Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $3,076500 funding: Source: Type: $2,040,700 Developer Contributions/Facifit DeytLqperlFees 0929 Empire Avenue Extension South I Improve Empire Avenue south as a 4 lane roadway with curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes and landscaping. Limits: Empire Avenue from Lone Tree Way to Grant Street Project Status: Under Construction Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $3,569,100 Funding: Source: Type: $3,569,100 Developer Contributions/Asses Deve!qr/Fees 0930 Empire Avenue Extension South 11 Improve Empire Avenue south as a 4 lane roadway with curb, median, sidewalks, bike lanes and landscaping. Limits- Empire Avenue from Grant jStreet to Shady Willow Lane Project Status: Under Construction Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,449,400 Funding: Source: Type: $1,284,900 Developer Contributions/Facilit Developer/Fees Page 7 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2403 - Brentwood ..............................._..._...__................................_.......,......................_....................._._....._..........._..................,.........................................,........................._.............................................................................................................._..._............................................................._.. 0931 Empire Avenue Extension South III improve Empire Avenue south as a 4 lane roadway with Limits: Empire Avenue from Shady Willow Lane to curb, median, sidewalks,bike lanes and landscaping. Jeffrey Way Extension Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,501,000 Funding: Source: Type: _$1,455,300 4FacilitFees,!Developer Con#rib Develop r/Fees 0933 Fairview Avenue Extension Extend Fairview Avenue to future SR4 Bypass consisting of travel lanes, bike lanes, median,traffic signal, water& i Limits. Fairview Avenue from Concord Avenue to sewer lines and landscaping. SR4 Bypass Project Status: Not Begun Cather Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $9,037,600 Funding: Source: Type: __.._ ....._._.__.._.._._._......_...............__............_..___.__...._...,...._.........._..__.._.___...._.M,.....$...946-.-7 ....___..__._......Facility Feeslt3evelc►per Contrib Developer/Fees,.. 0672 Fairview Avenue improvements-Phase II Widen Fairview Avenue on east side adding one lane width, bike lane, curb,gutter and sidewalk. E _ Limits: Central Blvd. north to Buena Vista Street Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,036,700 Funding: Source: Type: _ $620,300 Facillit Fees/Developer Contri L3evelap�r/Fees _ 0673 Fairview Avenue Improvements-Phase III Widen east side of Fairview adding one lane, bike lane, curb, gutter,sidewalk and landscaping. Limits: Balfour Road to Central Boulevard Project Status: Not Begun other Sponsors: Total Project Cast: $1,288,100 Funding: Source: Type: $9,168,100 Facilit Fees/Develo er Contrib Develo er/Fees 0934 Fairview Avenue Improvements-Phase IV Widen existing Fairview Avenue to a 4 lane arterial, including bike lane,sidewalk, guttrs, curbs and Limits: Fairview Avenue from Balfour Road to landscaping. Arlington Way p g Project Status: Linder Construction Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $234,072 Funding: Source: Type: $234,072 Developer Contributions Developer/Fees Page 8 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 .. k:S'�':FA4 aYA!$ %:�; 3N�`a`F:�k9§'Y. RY«'�'a' 43w '.'"�`:��G' Ski`t4'°�"�69k�[v'Zak'3w3n`f5�'2'39SPoTY.BS'-G'e.�»k"!,!;.:,'1,?tiS:+i:^56�5Cr;:E4K.£Y88F.k„:6°ii.SG ?YSF.�:G,e'3:ti#L.,'S%+S&.:Y2:4"e !&4*'�;.✓s«Ye+7}.,�';y'i�tlupc'�U34i2�' Brentwood .w�r _.,..._.._.................................................................................................................................................. ........... .............................................. .. 0674 Fairview Avenue Improvements-Phase V Roadway improvements consisting of two lanes of arterial street,consisting of two 12 foot lanes,bike lanes and 5 Limits: ECCID Canal south to Concord Avenue foot meandering sidewalk on the west side of the Project Status: Not Begun roadway. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $2,448,200 Funding: Source: � Type: $979,310 Facility Fees Develo r/Fees 0678 Marin Parkway Improvements I- Extend Garin Parkway as a 2-lane collector with bike lane, Sycamore sidewalk and landscaping. Limits: Oak Street to Sycamore Avenue Project Status: Under Construction Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,486,000 Funding: Source: Type: _._ $1,486,000_ Developer Contributions/Facilit Developer/Fees 0679 Garin Parkway Improvements 11 to Sunset Extend Garin Parkway 2-lane residential collector. Includes Limits: Sycamore Avenue EXtenson to Sunset bike lane, sidewalk, landscaping. Avenue Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cast: $2,739,800 Funding: Source: Type: $2,411,000 Developer ContributionSlFacilit Develo_per/ ees 0935 Grant Street Roadway improvements consisting of two lane high volume collector street section consisting of 14 foot lanes, Limits: Grant Street from Empire Avenue to Shady bike lane and sidewalk with landscape on both sides of Willow Lane the roadway. Project Status: tinder Construction Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $989,800 Funding: Source: Type: $989,800 Facility Fees/Developer Contrib_ Developer/Fees _.....W..............._. __. .._..._..___....__._......____................__._...... _.._..._ w..._.,.,..W._..._. 0681 Grant Street Extension-to Minnesota Extend Grant Street as a 2-lane collector which will cross over the UPRR. Includes bike lane,sidewalk and Limits: East of Lone Oak Road to Minnesota landscaping. Avenue Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $2,740,100 Funding: Source: Type: W $2,650,100 Developer Contributions/Facilit Developer/Fees Page 9 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian projects December 17, 2003 t����•;; sf .a�s^t�a�+ ._ ca�:...�. ,.^a�� �er.=s:r�xt+ .Aeaa�:avt+2x.�:s .e�. �.,.,: ^+tea^._... cea,.e..�s,u� rr ,n..u.w,. . ,.x; s;�a�.-ais�uata �-.,,a��. avr.r�; Brentwood ..................................__ ._... .............__............................-................__..........................-........................................................................................._.............._............................................._.._....._........................_................................_.......................................... 0680 Grant Street Extension 11 (Fairview Extend Grant Street as a 2-lane collector with bike lanes, Avenue) sidewalk and landscaping. Limits: Fairview Ave.to extension of Empire Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $2,177,700 Funding: Source: Type: $2,177,700_ Developer Contributions 4P Developer/Fees 0936 Heidorn Ranch Road- phase It Roadway improvements consisting of four lane arterial street section consisting of 12 foot lanes with median, Limits: Heidorn Ranch Road from EBMUD Channel water line bike lame and meandering sidewalk with to Sand Creek Road landscape on both sides of the roadway. Project Status: Not Begun -. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $5,435,000 Funding: Source: Type: _......-.-_...._._.-.._.Y.----__._._....._. _._._.._._...._........ __ _..$3,194,504___.__Facility_Fees/Developer Contri Developer/Fees ' . _................... 0937 John Muir Parkway Extension Extend 4,350 linear feet of John Muir Parkway to a collector street consisting of travel lane, bike lane, Limits: Jahn Muir Parkway from Foothill Drive to sidewalk, median,traffic signal at Jahn Muir Parkway and Fairview Avenue Concord Avenue, landscape on each side,water, sanitary Project Status: Not Begun sewer and non-potable water lines. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $4,714,300 Funding: Source: Type: $4,086,400 Facility Fees/Developer Contri DeveloperCFees 0688 Lane Tree Way Widening C[P#336-3131 Widen existing Lone Tree Way to 4 lanes. Includes median, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping and bike {` Limits: Lone Tree Way,from 400 feet west of lanes,drainage and utility relocations. O'Hara Avenue to Brentwood Boulevard Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $9,313,000 Funding: Source: Type: $613,000 Facility Fees Developer/Fees _. $8,700,000 Federal/State Funding Federal/State 0938 Minnesota Avenue Widening Widen 950 linear feet of street, install curb, gutter, Limps: Minnesota Avenue from Balfour Road to sidewalk, bike lane and landscape on the west side of Minnesota Avenue. Woodside Drive Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $597,600 Funding: Source: Type: $597,600 Developer Contributions Developer/Fees Pagel 0 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December l7' 2003 Brentwood 0691 O'Hara Avenue Extension Extend O'Hara Avenue northerly from future Sand Limits: Sand Creek Road to Lone Tree Way Creek/O'Hara intersection to Lone Tree/UHara intersection; includes water main, sewer and non-potable water lines, Project Status: Not Begun fiber optic conduit and storm drain, street lights,curb& gutter and bike trail ` Total Project Cost: $3'698.600 Funding: Source: Type: ( � $3,185,600 Facilily Fees/Developer Contrib Developer/Fees 0692 OHaxaAvenue Widening Widen O'Hara Avenue tu4-lanearterial, Includes bike imnps. bndscapedn�ed�n. s� lights \ | Limits: O'HaraAvenuehomLoneTreeVVaytn L� NerdyRoad Project Status: Not Begun | Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $3'976,200 Funding: Source: Type: — 0923 OHanoLoop Realignment Extend 515linear feet ufSecond Street toanarterial street con�t�guft�v��n� bN��n� ��ewa|� meian UmWto' Second Street Central Boulevard median, > � ' traffic signal and |andscape' [` O'Hara Avenue ` Project Status: Not Begun | Other Sponsors: | Total Project Cost: $1'011,500 Funding: Source: Type $11.500 Facility Fees Developer/Fees $1,000,000 Redevel!pp Me��tAq.ti2�y Local 0693 San Jose Avenue Extension Q'tnSand Extend San Jose Avenue 2-|onecollector. includes bike Creek lanes'sidewalk, landscaping, sewer and water lines. � Limits: West end ofSan Jose northwest toSand Creek Road Project Status: Not Begun ` Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1.832'608 Funding: Source: Type: $1,351,500 Developer Contributions/Facilit Deyelqp�� 0695 Sand Creek Road(To Sellers Avenue) Extend Sand Creek Road as a 2-lane collector with bike ) Unm�m� Sand Creek Road from Brentwood lanes, curb' gutter,sidewalk, landscaping, sevver, potable � Boulevard tuSeUeraAvenue and non-potable water lines. / Project Status: Not Begun ! Other Sponsors: ! Total Project Cost: $6'507'500 Funding: Source: Type: � $4,653'800 Facility Fees/Developer[onthb Developer/Fees / ! Page 11 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 s�'MA'3u�GC';a-+,#^cT uT 2u3352$ 6�Ad. i :�S�J.ESff�tP9f'k" b��'ISYd.k3�N.i"N..*"�'.�?�v�F,.ffut7R"""4'd✓9.;22...,✓.xv8w.,:.Yk3� #.K°.+'ei�i*':..^"��"a'u.U'G.>r,.Sr..Y,*±'�•�Cv"effigy„:,.Fwd”s".f£?k'?>BYS�Ye:.:"fz�2;5};�'" anazkY'd:s"z� !Aez4.6�.`TC'Piv'".v o;:"zt,.^'1yf+5Z-�`a.•.,. �.. Brentwood _......_....... _......._...................._............................_....._..................................................................................................._._._................................................................................................................................................................ ....._.............. 0696 Sand Creek Road Widening I (UHara Widen future Sand Creek Road to 4-lane arterial. Includes Avenue to Fairview Avenue) bike lanes,sidewalk and landscaping. ` Limits: O'Hara Avenue to Fairview Avenue Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: 'notal Project Cost: $3,498,600 Funding: Source: Type: $2,274,100 Facility Fees/Developer Contrib Developer/Fees 0697 Sand Creek Road Widening If to Widen existing Sand Creek Road to 4-lane arterial with Highway 4 Bypass median, bike lanes,sidewalk and landscaping. Limits: Fairview Avenue to Hwy 4 Bypass Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $4,066,800 Funding: Source: Type: is $2,159,500 Facility Fees/Developer Contrib Developer/Fees .........................a...__... 0698 Sellers Avenue Widening I -to Chesnut Widen existing Sellers Avenue. includes curb, gutter, Limits: Sellers Avenue from Balfour Road to sidewalk, bike lanes, median, parkways and water line. t Chestnut Street Project Status: Under Construction Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $2,470,000 Funding: Source: Type: $2,470,000 Facility Fees/Developer Contrib Developer/Fees 0925 Shady Willow Lane Extension- Phase I Extend and widen 2,800 linear feet of Shady Willow Lane Limits: Shady Willow Lane from Grant Street to to an arterial street consisting of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, Lane Tree Way bike lanes, landscaping and two lanes in each direction. Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $3,499,000 Funding: Source: Type: $3,499,000 Facilit Fees/D�vela er Contrib Develo er/Fees 0700 Shady Willow Lane Extension-Phase Il Extend and widen Shady Willow Lane to 4-lane arterial. Limits: Shady Willow Lane from Grant Street to includes curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes, landscaping. Sand Creek Road Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $5,880,500 Funding: Source: Type: $3,822,800 Facility Fees/Developer Contrib Developer/Fees Page 12 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 Brentwood ..........................._....................-.............._.............._................................_........................................................._.........._.................................................._............_...._..............................................................................._.._................_................................................._............................................... 0704 Sycamore Avenue Improvements-Garin Extend Sycamore Avenue as 2-lane collector including bike Parkway lanes, sidewalk and landscaping. Limits: Present terminus easterly to Garin Parkway Project Status: Under Construction Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $739,200 Funding: Source: Type: $739,200 Developer Contributions Developer/Fees CCTA 0809 SR 4/Contra Loma-'L"' St. Interchange: Widen street to 6 lanes with bike lanes. Replace both Replace and Widen freeway bridges, Construct new ramps. Remove G st. Limits: Buchanan Rd to north of SR4 ramps Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Caltrans,Antioch Total Project Cost: $20,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $10,000,000 East County Fee Developer/Fees Clayton 0950 Concord-Clayton Bikeway Construction of missing segments of on-and off-street bikelanes along the Concord-Clayton Bikeway. Missing Limits: Clayton Town Center#o Treat Boulevard in segments include Mitchell Canyon Road and Pine Hollow Concord Road in Clayton. The full bikelanes will increase safety for Project Status: Not Begun students using the bikelanes to access Mt. Diablo Elementary School, one block off the bike route. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $362,000 Funding: Source: Type: 5 0948 Marsh Creek Road Upgrade Development activity between Pine Lane to Russelmann Park Road will trigger the need to improve this segment of Limits: Marsh Creek Road between Pine Lane and Marsh Creek Road in accordance with the Marsh Creek Russelmann Park Road Road Specific Plan(i.e., 2 full-width lanes with bike lanes, Project Status: Not Begun shoulders, and walking path). Developer fees will Other Sponsors: contribute toward this project. Total Project Cost: $1,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: Page 13 of 42 r--z Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 fru'zYw_Rwwww'3 Concord 0783 Concord:Implement Citywide Trail Implementation of the City of Concord's Trail Master Flan Master Plan Limits: Citywide Project Status: Under Construction Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 _ Unidentifed 0229 Iron Horse Trail Gap Closure:Mayhew to Complete Mayhew to Monument section Monument Limits: In City of Concord: Mayhew to Monument Project Status: Under Construction Other Sponsors: East Bay Regional Park District Total Project Cost: $1,160,400 Funding: Source: Type: $150,000 TFCA r ; $436,400 Measure C $574,000 Federal/State Contra Costa County 0809 Bicycle-Friendly Storm Drain Crates Instal bicycle-friendly storm drain grates on the 1-80 Limits: 1-80 Bikeway Bikeway Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $35,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0841 Camino Tassajara Shoulder Improvements Improve shoulders along Camino Tassajara for Class 11 bikeway. Shoulders would be improved to 4-foot wide Limits: Blackhawk Drive to Alameda County paved and 2-foot wide graded shoulders. Project will Project Status: Design and ROW include pavement widening; asphalt concrete overlay; storm drain, drainage inlet and culvert extensions; bank Other sponsors: repair; driveway conforms and culverts; and striping. Total Project Cost: $1,703,000 Funding: Source: Type: $1,000,000 STIP Federal/State $400,000 South County AOB Developer/Fees $303,000 Tassajara Fund Trust AOB Developer/Fees Page 14 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 :z�. s�r;.•r�.,H „,,.m :c,�w bn:�,r. ,a�. .ea�as�:szu�x,a”�.a,s°�c+:2.-.,. .u�,;..<:.,r,u,ws u���::x�,,,.a,zoa E.s,.:5,pus,.r,v�.t��z:.,a xs'A�san..�*e.�;.»,.,:�±�a�:sa,,,..mac.k.�x�:rs�s,.t�.esr.�::.�rsae.,��;,.,5:� �st�,e„tt�...��s,3r^;,nz. i I Contra Costa Count ....... ......................................................_......_..............................................._........_............. _........ ................... ....... ........._...._........._».....»................................. .................. .................. . .... 0968 Countywide Curb Ramp Program Annual program to Install ADA-compliant curb ramps at locations throughout the unincorporated areas of the Limits: Countywide County. Funded at$50,000 per year. Total cast shown is Project Status: Unknown $350,000 for the next seven years. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $350,000 Funding: Source: Type: $350,000 Local funds Local 0782 David/Minert Shortcut Bike/ped shortcut to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Limits: Project Status: Not Begun F Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $200,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0819 Delta DeAnza Trail Gap Closure Project Fill a gap in the Delta DeAnaa Trail by creating a Class i bikeway on the west side of Bailey Road in Bay Point,from Limits: from EBMUD aqueduct to SR 4 westbound the EBMUD aqueduct to the SR 4 westbound on-ramp on-ramp from Bailey Road. Also includes lighting and signage Project Status: Not Begun improvements on the north side and Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $719,000 Funding: Source: Type: $311,000 CCTA STIP Bikewa Federal/State 0557 Delta Road:Add Bicycle Lane or Route Delta Road: add bicycle lane or route Limits: Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: _ $0 Unidentifed 0711 Delta-De Anza Trail Gap Closure Build Class 1 path on Bailey Road between EBMUD Aqueduct and SR4 WB on-ramp, install pedestrian lights Limits: On Bailey Road between EBMUD Aqueduct along trail leading to Amborse Park and SR4 WB on-ramp Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $719,000 Funding: Source: Type: $12.8,500 Developer fees Developer/Fees $300,000 STIP Federal/State Page 15 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 Contra Costa County...... ..........................................._................_....___.................._........................ ................_......................................................................................._.._.........................__... .................._.._._..........................._......................._........_...._ 0564 Delta-De Anza Trail, Evora Road to Port Delta-De Anza Trail: construct Class I bikeway from Evora Chicago Hwy Road to Port Chicago Hwy Limits: Evora Road to Port Chicago Highway Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: East Bay Regional Park District Total Project Cost: $500,000 Funding: Source: Type: $189,000 Local $311,000 2002 STIP Federal/State __._.._._..__.._..._......._..........__.............._........._. .............._............_....__........ _............_............_......... ..... .. 0565 Delta-De Anza Trail, Port Chicago Hwy to Delta-De Anza Trail: construct Class I bikeway from Port Iron Horse Trail Chicago Hwy to Iron Horse Trail Limits: Port Chicago Hwy to Iron Horse Trail - Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: East Bay Regional Park District Total Project Cost: $1,500,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed _......................................................_._..._......._...._.._.._.........................._......_....__................................................._._......................._...._...._......_....__.....-..-___.._...._.._............._..............._......................_...._.._.........._._......_ ............_.._................ ...._...................__......__.._. 0566 Delta-De Anza Trail: construct signal and Delta-De Anza Trail: construct signal and bridge at Cypress I bridge at Cypress Rd Rd Limits: At Cypress Road Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: East Bay Regional Park District Total Project Cost: $500,000 Funding: Source: Type: i $0 Unidentifed 0568 Franklin Canyon Undercrossing, Sobrante Sobrante Ridge to Carquinez Strait Trail: construct Franklin Ridge to Carquinez Strait Trail Canyon undercrossing for regional trail access Limits: Sobrante Ridge to Carquinez Strait Trail Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: East Bay Regional Park District Total Project Cost: $300,000 Funding: Source: Type: Unidentifed 0554 1-680 Bikeway Signage 1-680 Bikeway Signage: install signage for bicyclists in unincorporated portions of the 1-680 Bikeway: Rudgear Limits: Rudgear Road to Danville Town Limits Road to Danville Town Limits Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $20,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Page 16 of 42 r�- Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 Contra Costa County..........................._.................................... ...................................................................�.....-......_..................... ................_.................................................................-........................................................._....__........................._..._................................................ 0999 1.80 Bikeway Inlet Grate Retrofit Project Replace storm drain grates with bicycle-friendly versions at various locations identified along the 1-80 Bikeway in West Limits: County,to improve safety for bicyclists. f Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $30,000 Funding: Source: Type: $30,000 STIP Federal/State 0228 Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing at Treat Build trail overcrossing Limits: At Jones and Treat in Walnut Creek Project status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $2,500,000 Funding: Source: Type: $500,000 CMAQ Federal/State $3,000,000 County redevelopment funds Local $7,000,000 Measure C Measure C r , 0555 Iron Horse Trail Signage iron Horse Trail Signage: install signage for bicyclists and Limits: Entire length pedestrians along entire length of Iron Horse Trail Project status: Unknown Other sponsors: Total Project Cost: Funding: source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0407 Market Avenue Railroad Crossing Project Improve the pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the UP Limits: Market Avenue at the Union Pacific tracks railroad tracks along Market Avenue in North Richmond. in North Richmond Project Status: Not Begun Other sponsors: Richmond, San Pablo Total Project Cost: $2,700,000 Funding: Source: Type: ---------__.. . .-_-_........._...._..- $0 Unidentifed -- 0793 Olinda Road Sidewalk Clap Closures Fill in sidewalk gaps along Olinda Road including the Limits: Beginning at Valley View Road and installation of pedestrian bridge over a creek. extending southernly about 850 feet Project status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $789,000 Funding: Source: Type: $93,000,000 Safe Routes to School Federal/State $96,000,000 STIP Federal/State Page 17 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 ContraCo. County................_....._.................................__........,......_.........._.........._................................_...._...............................-.._...,..........................................._.............._...__...........-........................._........._..................................._.._.............. 1003 Olympic Boulevard Pedestrian Path Provide a pedestrian path along Olympic Boulevard from Tice Valley Boulevard to Pleasant Hill Road to provide a Limits: Tice Valley Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road safe pedestrian facility. Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $537,000 Funding: Source: Type: $733,000 Measure C return to source Measure C v $282,000 Transportation Development Federal/State $22,000 Contra Costa Flood Control Di Local 0190 Pleasant Hill SART Station Bicycle and Improve access for pedestrian and bicyclists R Pedestrian Access Limits: Vicinity of Pleasant Hill BART station Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: BART Total Project Cost: $1,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0714 Reliez Valley Road Pedestrian Path Construct pedestrian path. Limits: Grayson Road intersection to about 300 feet north of Stage Coach Drive Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $339,000 Funding: Source: Type: $210,000 STIP Federal/State $129,000 TDA Federal/State ___.�._......__._...._.___,___._..__-.___.__._-._................,.,....__..__....__...._...._...._._.__..__._,_____..._ _..__..._.__..__.._._..._.._._._._.._ ...._._..._..._....._. 0208 San Pablo Darn Road: Pedestrian and Add a pathway, walkway bicycle lanes along roadway Bicycle Lanes Limits: No specific limits identified, where appropriate. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: _ Type: _....._.._._._...._... -_-..._...._..._._.__._....__..........._.... ............. $0 0553 SR 24 Bikeway SR 24 Bikeway: Unincorporated portions of bikeway from Limits: Fish Ranch Road to Walnut Creek Camino Pablo to Walnut Creek: Install destination, warning and traffic control signage; new bike lanes on Project Status: Unknown Olympic Blvd, Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $128,0300 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Page 18 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 .5.m:ftaJ.A iS k`94. "s:X".:.4'k25µ'PkMYYS%Ss"3"As�.41i.3b&,.ir LA.EFF,YiS 3"z897k�."` ,&b'xnrem}:e.XdylzYS,96# 'fPblt t�>.u,N,:'x fE .,em%MaV&W%r'.aT.u'&�"�.�+6rv�tl'„s PdR"v�, T.Hi4i�3kYF. 4*aC&>FG<.. ,+'S�"9EsdHa3'.axk_'24:�x>2'.#t'i..w,a1t`.: Contra Costa County .............................................._....._....._....................._.._............__.............................._.........._......_....__......._..__......_.........................._...................................-........................._............._............................_............_............... ............................. ........................... 0569 SR 4 West Bikeway: Construct SR 4 West Bikeway: Construct bikeway parallel to SR 4 west Limits: 1-80(or San Pablo Avenue)to Martinez Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: East Bay Regional Park District, Martinez, Hercules Total Project Cost: $200,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0744 Stone Valley West Sidewalks at Iron Construct sidewalks on west side of Stone Valley Road at Horse Trail its intersection with the Iron Horse Trail Limits: Either side of Iron Horse Trail Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $35,000 Funding: Source: Type: $35,000,000 STIP Federal/State 0983 Camino Tassajara-Blackhawk Road Reconfigure the northbound approach to provide two left- Intersection Project turn lanes, one through lane,one shared through/right Limits: Intersection of Camino Tassajara and turn lane,and one exclusive right-turn lane; remove Blackhawk Road median add bike lane on Tassahara Ranch Drive. Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost. $673,000 Funding: Source: Type: $673,000 SCC DoughertV Valley Area of Developer/Fees 0712 North Richmond Transportation and Repair sidewalks, install curb ramps,slurry seal pavement, Enhancements Phase 1 improve street lighting, construct median island with trees Limits: Chesley Avenue to Wildcat Creek and greenscape, and restripiing to include bike lanes. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $583,000 Funding: Source: Type: $515,995 TLC Federal/State $67,005 Redevelo meat A enc Local 0093 San Pablo Clam Road Access Provide circulation and access improvements for local Improvements traffic, pedestrians and bicycles to be determined through Limits: EI Portal Drive to Appian Way the Downtown EI Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan, subject to a pending (November 2003)general plan Project Status: Not Begun amendmen Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Page 19 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 Centra Costa County........................._..... _.........._....................:...............-.................... .. ... ..... ........ .............................__................-......................................_...................................... 0332 San Pablo Dam Road in EI Sobrante: Add transit stop access and amenities, sidewalks and other Improve improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities,turn Limits: Appian Way to Tri Lane lanes. i>.. Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: City of Richmond Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 1009 Stone Valley Road Improvements Widen the roadway to provide two 12-foot travel lanes (Roundhill to Glenwood Court) and two 5-foot Class II bike lanes. Limits: Roundhill Road to Glenwood Court Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,125,000 Funding: Source: Type: $1,125,000 Alamo Area of Benefit Developer/Fees _.. W._..._..._......_._..._.....__._._......._.._..._.._........_.........._._._..__._......_.____..........._......_._..........._._......................__..__.____...W... 0646 Widen Cummings Skyway Interchange at Widen Cummings Skyway overcrossing to provide turn 1-80 and bicycle lanes ` Limits: 1-80/Cummings Skyway Interchange Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $10,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $10,000,000 Unidentifed ..;Y`..i•N:x'�..3.�,1,�a 2i�faF,,.3&`c 4k`"± bF.si«.nwa"$xh•�,s�'.�iCS,.., e v,�w,,. ",i,�}3'T a, s �S i .6.. .. �:A ,.., ..,...,..�aw`C,os ._.A �x.,�,e.,x '::rAn fN� ,.,:.4�w.>,.v :'k,€.. -.�".'i,�'� ,3..»�� Manville 0719 Diablo Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Construct a bike/walkway path within the Diablo Read corridor. Limits: Green Valley Road to Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $850,000 Funding: Source: Type: $1,270,106 NERIAD Developer/Fees. 0722 EI Pintado Road Trail and Street Widening, realignment, and pavement rehabilitation. Improvements Includes a decomposed granite pedestrian path adjacent Limits: El Cerro Boulevard to 1-680 to the roadway. Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $624,438 Funding: Source: Type: $50,000 Measure C Return to Source Measure C $494,062 Other Other $80,376 CEP General Purpose Local Page 20 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 �� .,f :`SGXd?,t...,idr:5'ka.�Nll•�frA'3.4'.F•'.e�A#t.�f99au�aC'.�r: bks.siRssA3Y�e9na,:...r,s.'�"z' s:.xenr�y.z,'SxE.&ew......+::,ro;.�.z.d�:.;;'s,"t:..STs,w+�,.n.,a0.�4C3s,..x1'x.ti�'�iSf:G n'�;?: s<&',.;:da`T.h...,.s.:.a¢taXs➢i&...a.a.:..«,+5,..,.: „asaa t ....:..:4ron,,,s:�rz Danville .............._................................................................_..................W.................................... ........................_............................................................................................................................................................................... .............__.................._ ............_.... 0231 Iron Horse Trail Overtrossing at Build overcrossing Sycamore Valley Road Limits: At Sycamore Valley Road Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $3,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed -, 0866 Mariposa Court Pedestrian Walkway Construct a five foot wide asphalt walkway on Mariposa Court from Sherri Lane to Estates Drive and Prospect Limits: Estates Drive to Sheri Lane Avenue. The project includes a storm drain so that the Project Status: Not Begun existing roadside drainage ditches can be filled in to provide the additional width needed to construct the new Other Sponsors: walkway. Total Project Cost: $61,531 Funding: Source: Type: 0724 Oak Hill Park Frontage Improvements This project improves Stone Valley Road along the Oak Hill Park frontage with paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk,and Limits: Glenwood Court to West High School a wood retaining wall. The street will be striped for Driveway parking and a Caltrans Standard Class ll Bicycle Lane. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $200,000 Funding: Source: Type: 1 42.•..k,#:>.e, f...�-d3. ^.a£�.,P.,��F- .k,...,"u'.:Y. ,.,_....n",13 .,{A§�mK.uS.a$t*1.:....�3 k. .G's.'Ym..,, .x... 3 .;.a... ...�. �.< East Bay Regional Park District 0571 Bay Trail:Complete Gaps on Carquinez Bay Trail: complete gaps on Carquinez Scenic Trail section, Scenic Trail section including construction of 8-foot Class I bikeway between Limits: Crockett to Martinez Port Costa and Ozol Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0804 Big Break Shoreline Trail Develop Class I trail Limits: Vintage Parkway west to Antioch-Oakley Shoreline Bridge Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors. Total Project Cost: $1,500,000 Funding: Source: Type: $2,000,000 Federal/State $2,000,000 Developer/Fees Page 21 of 42 . . . ......... ................................. Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 East Bay Regional Park District ......................._..........._............................_....................._..................................................._...........-..................................................................-...................._...._..-...................._._........................................_.....................__....._..._....._..................................................._ ..... 0204 Delta-de Anza bikeway project Complete the Delta-De Anza bikeway project, from Antioch to Oakley and to the Iron Horse trail. Limits: Antioch to Oakley and to the Iron Horse trail. Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,150,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0835 Delta-de Anza Trail: Construct Crossing Construct and signalize an at-grade railroad crossing near at Neroly Road Neroly Road Limits: near Neroly Road Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,155,700 Funding: Source: Type: $300,000 Federal/State $415,700 Measure C Measure C $440,000 Local 0295 Iron Horse Trail:Construct Bike Path Construct an approximately six-mile Class 1 bike facility Limits: Pleasant Hill BART station to Waterfront along entire length of Iron Horse Trail Road Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: TRANSPAC Total Project Cost: $2,800,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0562 Iran Horse Trail: Diamond Boulevard iron Horse Trail Diamond Boulevard Undercrossing: Undercrossing Construct a grade-separated 400 linear foot concrete Limits: At Diamond Boulevard undercrossing and a 1250 linear foot a/c paved section of the Iron Horse Trail north and south under Diamond Project Status: Design and ROW Boulevard along Walnut Creek Channel Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $275,000 Funding: Source: Type: $33,000 Local $242,000 STP/CMAQ Federal/State 0563 Iron Horse Trail: Willow Pass Road Iron Horse Trail Willow Pass Road Undercrossing: Undercrossing Construct a grade-separated 450 linear foot concrete Limits: At Willow Pass Road undercrossing and a 1100 linear foot a/c paved section of the Iron Horse Trail under Willow Pass Road north and Project Status: Design and ROW south along Walnut Creek Channel Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $300,000 Funding: Source: Type: $264,000 STP/CMAQ Federal/State $36,000 Local Page 22 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 I. „-,a,..�.^:�..Z^'a£:n&:';5542' Io-.+fXS.�r.kR:;S '. �#��N..k.:sP� ;4.�m•F�Pti:;'.;k1xa�9.al.;,o-+�"u�:�.Y.....G; "n..:T.'F;E;E§�ni.<'i£Ye'4�5.ff5A.3,a'..:4�3uz%Sd.Wi?U�.kZ a51�::aro'Z.R:�'E�:n;."�.,'ARaiF5o3...,Yu4:a:Y.F��.n�a'..,rSA�.`�f�',fs��.4.�'+:,•;u2�*3':;.. East Bay Regional Park District ......................._.._.._-____......_...._.........................._...._............_.._................................................................................._...............................................__.......................__......................................_.............._................._.............................. ..........._.......... ry 0805 Marsh Creek Trail, Brentwood to Develop Class I trail and install safety fencing Discovery Bay Limits: Brentwood to Discovery Bay Trail Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0818WY"Walnut Creek Channel Trail This trail will start at the terminus of the Iron Horse Trail and run along the Walnut Creek Channel northward to Limits: Terminus of Iron Horse Trail to DeAnza Trail conned with the Delta DeAnza Trail. The multi-use path Project Status: Under Construction will be a ten foot wide paved hiking/bicycle trail. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,115,100 Funding: Source: Type: $406,100 Measure C $110,000 Federal/State $0 Unidentifed $600,000 Federal/State 0836 Wildcat Creek Regional Trail: Construct Construct a bridge for the Wildcat Creek Regional Trail Bridge over Railroads across the South Pacific and Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Limits: at SPRR and AT&SF Railroads railroad tracks. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: $1,326,000 Federal/State $250,000 Federal/State $631,500 Measure AA Local $556,900 Measure C Measure C INS W1111WE 0806 Regional Trail Maintenance Repave and overlay pavement on Contra Costa Canal, Lafayette-Moraga, Iron Horse, Delta-de Anza, and Marsh _._. Limits: Contra Costa Creek Trails Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $6,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Page 23 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 - ,35& 'tFi''E'2.. tY: Y. @5u4uHi.:%bufi"fl ,. .,:ter EBMUD 0205 EBMUD trail: Complete Completion of EBMUD trail linking Los Medanos College and Brentwood Limits: Linking Los Medanos College and Brentwood 1 Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $450,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed EI Cerrito 1027 Banter Creek`frail:Ohlone Greenway to Construct a Class I bicycle-pedestrian trail from the Richmond Greenway terminus of the Ohlone Greenway at Key Boulevard west Limits: N. end of Ohlone Greenway to Richmond to the terminus of the proposed Richmond Greenway at San Pablo Avenue. Greenway Project Status: Not Begun 4�{ Other Sponsors: City of Albany Total Project Cost: $730,000 Funding: Source: Type: $151,000 City of EI Cerrito Local $100,000 Grant Federal/State 0873 Cerrito Creek Bay Trail Connector Master Construct a bicycle and pedestrian facility to connect the Plan/Cerrito Creek Greenway Project Ohlone Greenway to the San Francisco Bay Trail.The Limits: Ohlone Greenway to 5F Bay Trail project would start at the Ohlone Greenway at EI Cerrito Creek and continue west along EI Cerrito Creek as a Class Project Status: Design and ROW III bike trail (pedestrians would use sidewalks and crosswalks)through El Cerrito Plaza.The trail would Other Sponsors: Richmond and Albany continue north along San Pablo Avenue as a shared bike/ped pathway and would cross San Pablo at Carlson. Pedestrians would continue on Carlson and go south on Adams to connect to the trail in Creekside Park; bicyclists would use Class Il bike lanes on Carlson and a marked Class III bike route on Lassen and Belmont to connect to the Class I trail in Creekside Park.That trail would connect to Pierce via a new Class 1 trail at the edge of the Pacific -' Plaza mall.The Greenway would continue south along Pierce in Albany and west under 1-80 through the future Pierce Street Park to connect to the Bay Trail. Total Project Cost: $2,700,000 Funding: Source: Type: Page 24 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 t3f»e.g.J1 ,W, M .^kAr El Cerrito ........................._............. ­............................_..................................._............................._..........................................._._......................................................................................._...................................................................................................................................._............................_.._.__. 0405 El Cerrito Plaza Bicycle Parking Construct a state of the art bicycle parking facility with a combination of smart-key bike lockers, and racks for about Limits: At El Cerrito Plaza BART station 100 bicycles located along the"Greenway", a pedestrian Project Status: Under Construction and bicycle way, adjacent to the El Cerrito Plaza BART station. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $368,000 Funding: Source: Type: $80,000 STIP Federal/State $25,000 Other $63,000 City Local $117,000 TEA Federal/State $107,700 TDA,Article 3 Federal/State 0839 Ohlone Greenway Pedestrian-Bicycle Make improvements at 14 street crossings and Route Improvements intersections along the Ohlone Greenway. Improvements Limits: EI Cerrito Plaza to dei Norte BART station include crosswalk striping improvements, signage improvements, signage changes, striping modifications, Project Status: Design and ROW lighting additions, curb ramp changes, curb extension and median island installations, and pedestrian signal Other Sponsors: modifications. Total Project Cost: $176,000 Funding: Source: Type: $30,000 City of El Cerrito Local $141,000 STIP Federal/State Hercules 0251 SR 4 Expressway: Construct Bikeway Bikeway Limits: Along SR 4 Expressway Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Caltrans Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0123 San Pablo Avenue Reconstruction Reconstruct San Pablo Avenue and extend bicycle lanes Limits: In City of Hercules Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Caltrans,Contra Costa County Total Project Cast: Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Page 25 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 Lafayette 0583 Burton Ridge Regional Trail, Olympic Burton Ridge Regional Trail:Olympic Blvd.to Michael Lane Blvd.to Michael Lane Limits: Olympic Blvd.to Michael Lane Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: East Bay Regional Park District Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0861 Deer Hill Road Walkway, Brown to New pedestrian walkway to connect the Class i facility on Pleasant Hill Road the EBMUD aqueduct(project 418)to Pleasant Hill Road. Limits: Brown Avenue to Pleasant Hill Road Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: _. f._ 0419 Lafayette-Moraga trail safety Various pedestrian crossing protection improvements at improvements crossings: Bicycle-pedestrian protection at crossings (such Limits: Along Lafayette Moraga trail in cities of as raised crosswalks) Lafayette and Moraga Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Moraga Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: $0_ _ Unidentifed 0579 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Pedestrian Path gap Mt. Diablo Blvd. Pedestrian Path gap closure: South side of closure: South side of Mt. Diablo Blvd. Mt. Diablo Blvd.from Mt.View Dr.to Lafayette Reservoir from Mt.View Dr.to La Limits: Mt.View Dr.to Lafayette Reservoir Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost, $186,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0414 4�Mt. Diablo East End Corridor Non-motorized,transit and vehicle safety Improvements Limits: Pleasant Hili Road to Carol Lane Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $2,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Page 26 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 u43Mfi^^Ar';:w-, .,�...l,.:Y;vs ..;',,.. 3'S,,.£'E�' 21C #=;£&93ArL'�Ff6##dn'�:a'.*YSkt3 w.......`�i6:."�,3�;.'Xtr3�`siYHa9,..x�`c�%$JE'�'^:"zM"2't'�.°.��`F&-"..i ��:.a'�i �'.�,r.'+ifd4'.YP.,�1i4.:"k.^s:Y�#,.,x„ti✓.�t�'�,..xRcrb',,.: it6`ffiRi4R�N;�2; ,�.,,"z'ui"':'. Lafayette ........._.._n..__....__-_..........................................................................................__._................................................._.................._...._..._.................................................__................................................._........................._................_........................................................................................ ._._.. 0584 Old Tunnel (toad Pedestrian Path, Old Tunnel Road pedestrian path: Pleasant Hill Rd.to El Pleasant Hill Rd.to El Curtola Blvd. Curtola Blvd. Limits: Pleasant Hill Road to EI Curtola Boulevard Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $200,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0844 Pleasant Hill Road South End Pedestrian Modify Pleasant Hill Road to provide 2 10-foot wide multi- and Bicycle Improvement Project,Phases purpose pathways;tree-lined landscaping strips; 2 6-foot 1 and 2 bike lanes; and narrowed travel lanes (from 2 12-foot to 2 Limits: Mt. Diablo Road to Condit Road 10-foot lanes).The project also includes intersection improvements at bid Tunnel road and Mt. Diablo Blvd. Project Status: Under Construction and installing a traffic signal at Condit Road. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,668,000 Funding: Source: Type: $259,000 City of Lafayette Local - $200,000 TDA Article 3 Federal/State $1,209,000 STIP _ Federal/State 0845 mmPleasant Hill Road South End Pedestrian Modify Pleasant Hill Road to provide 2 10-foot wide multi- and Bicycle Improvement Project, Phases purpose pathways;tree4ined landscaping strips; 2 6-foot 3 and 4 bike lanes;and narrowed travel lanes (from 2 12-foot to 2 Limits: Condit Road to Olympic Blvd. 10-foot lanes).The project also includes intersection improvements at Old Tunnel road and Mt. Diablo Blvd. Project Status: Not Begun and installing a traffic signal at Condit Road. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,820,000 Funding: Source: Type: $611,200_—City of Lafayette Local 0418 Regional bicycle-pedestrian trail on Construct regional Class I bicycle-pedestrian trail on ESMUD aqueduct EBMUD aqueduct: Walter Costa Trail to Brown Avenue. Limits: Wafter Costa Trail to Brown Avenue May require two grade separations(First Street and Oak Hill Road). Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: EBMUD Total Project Cost: $2,700,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Page 27 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 «,.&'#Effi5Y4G:w'- '� ''-h�''.zCw"Ysb'iit3e.'H':/.SbR..S',.P.:._,.Sb�.'#%t�s`v�g43RP§a�S,.n.Ea1HE�TYc��: '�za.�vnA#ie�,�,.f'i3,"a.Yt�:,., .,�d>' �w4.�9,,,,'.a�.St.Evv '�&+3+tv •k.-"SdP�la?8^.,�i'�T4u3hs�'$` `F'�wan,l:. #.'L t....:'..Ye. b"..,d' ^.4' � Martinez 0587 Alhambra/Berryessa Bike Lanes, Buckley Alhambra/Berryessa Bike Lanes—Buckley to K Street to K Street Limits: Buckley to K Street Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $235,000 Funding: Source: Type: $27,000 Local $209,000 Federal/State 0233 Bay Trail in Martinez: Close gap, Phase 3 Construct new bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the UPRR tracks at North Court Street from the existing trail in Limits: the Martinez Regional Shoreline Park to the Escobar-Court Project Status: Not Begun Street intersection in downtown Martinez Other Sponsors: East Bay Regional Park District Total Project Cost: $3,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $1,500,000,000 U n identifed _._.......... _.-- $1,500,000,000 __Coastal Conservancy _ _._-..___.._Federal/State 0233 Bay Trail in Martinez: Close gaps, Phase 1 Close gaps on the Bay Trail in the City of Martinez: construct trail from existing staging area east along the Limits: In City of Martinez south edge of the Martinez Regional Shoreline to existing Project Status: Not Begun Shoreline Trail near Ferry Street. Relocate and repave parking lot. Other Sponsors: East Bay Regional Park District Total Project Cost: $587,338 Funding: Source: Type: $452,338,000 City of Martinez Local $85,000,000 Coastal Conservancy Federal/State $50,000,000 Local contributions Other 0233 Bay Trail in Martinez: Close gaps, Phase 2 Close gaps on the Bay Trail in the City of Martinez: Construct trail from Nejedly staging area on the Carquinez Limits: Nejediy Staging Area to UPRR ROW Scenic Drive to Berrellesa Street along south side of UPRR Project Status: Not Begun ROW and improve existing trail along Berrellesa Street Other Sponsors: East Bay Regional Park District Total Project Cost: $800,728 Funding: Source: Type: $300,000,000 Unidentifed $50,000,000 Local contributions Local $450,728,000 ABAG Trail Grant Local Page 28 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 N Mart.................._._.._............................_..................._............................................_.............................._................................................_..........................................._...._...................................._..........................................................._..................................... ......._...................................... 0234 Contra Costa Canal Trail:Extend, Muir Extension of Contra Costa Canal Trail:extend the existing Rd.to Martinez Reservoir trail from Concord, Willow Pass Road near 6th Street to Limits: Muir Road south of SR 4 to Martinez Evora Road Reservoir Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $500,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0592 Howe Street Bicycle Lanes Howe Street bicycle lanes:Add bicycle lanes and pavement Limits: 7'3 7? overlay Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: _ $0 Unidentifed ............. ............................._........._............_......u.._.....__._..............._...._................ _....................................... 0235 Marina Vista Bike Lanes: Extend Extend under 1-680 along Waterfront Road to Point Edith Limits: Extend under 1-680 along Waterfront Road to Point Edith in Martinez Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $500,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0864 Morello Avenue Bicycel Lanes Gap_____ Morello Avenue is a two-lane arterial street extending Closure from Pacheco Boulevard southwesterly to Contra Costa Limits: Pacheco Boulevard to Petit Lane Boulevard.The street is currently improved with curb and gutter, sidewalks, and a Class 11 bicycle lane on both sides Project Status: Not Begun of the street except for a 1200' stretch from a point 100' south of Pacheco Boulevard to Pettit Lane, which is 500' Other Sponsors: north of the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. The project will widen both sides of the street to provide a total of 34 feet of pavement,which will be striped to provide two 11 foot travel lanes and two 6 foot bicycle lanes. Minor grading work is needed to accommodate the widened pavement. Relocation of several small retaining walls and minor drainage improvements is also anticipated. The work can be completed within the existing 55'wide right-of-way. Total Project Cost: $265,000 Funding: Source: Type: $90,000 City of Martinez Local $175,000 TFCA TFCA Page 29 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 ..,T.d..'�Eiia'w"''4kR:.•. rT�2:vi,£64tZK iX632&i�rva.�':5�.Z95.�'3�; L&�'�3'i�Y€��.fS.,..AfiSMGK.'vrr. b'S+J��A[GSa�,93f.+,�"B•r.H^s✓Y'�,2�u'S ei"5' Yi'b2i23"xi..m`,1"�XYf.�A$rii�`tm•.4Pffia3,w,rd..:" ...+^�„4�1�i^a7Ei c."z�.•�AYr4kE*YrtY9S. .;�d+35b8�Sna'±�.c.'HA vim",- ,_� Martinez .......................................:_....................._...._...._._.._.._...................._......................................__...................................._...........................................................-..._......................_..........................._............................................................................................................................................................ 0591 North Court street Bicycle Lanes North Court Street bicycle lanes: connect the Martinez Intermodal Facility to the Martinez Shoreline Park and Limits: Bay Trail to Martinez Shoreline Park future ferry terminal Project status: Unknown Other sponsors: Total Project Cost: $195,000 Funding: source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0589 Pacheco Blvd. Bike Lanes,Arnold far. to Pacheco Blvd. Bike Lanes between Arnold Dr. and Muir Rd. Muir Rd. Limits: Arnold Dr.to Muir Rd. Project status: Not Begun i Other sponsors: Total Project Cost: $75,000 Funding: source: Type: $1,930,000 Federal/State $250,000 Local Page 30 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 x. : .. :: ..y.. . . ...< ..._. . .., ,.;. .. >., .:. ... M,�. � WA � �. Martinez ....................._......_........._...........,..........................__................................_..........................................................................................._.........._........--........................................................................................................................................................._............................................................_.................... 0865 Vine Hill Walkway Project will provide a separated pedestrian/bicycle path on a street currently without pedestrian or bicycle Limits: Morello Avenue to Alhambra Avenue improvements, improving safety and providing better Project Status: Not Begun access to schools, parks,and other destinations on connecting streets.The road connects to Alhambra Other Sponsors: Avenue at the west end,which is the access route to both the John Swett Elementary School and the Nancy Boyd Memorial Park.At the east,the road connects with Morello Avenue,which is the access route to the Hidden Valley Elementary School, Hidden Valley Park, and Hidden Lakes Park. Morello Avenue has two Gass 11 bicycle lanes, which extend easterly to Contra Costa Boulevard, providing access to Diablo Valley College. The project will provide a separated 5'wide asphalt concrete path approximately 2200' in length along the north side of Vine Hill Way.The path will connect to a 600' section of path being built by a developer extending east from Alhambra Avenue and an existing 600' section of path extending west from Morello Avenue. The existing Vine Hill Lane pavement edge will be widened by 6',to provide a total of 28-30'of pavement which will be striped to provide two 11-12'vehicle lanes and a 6' shoulder.A 6"asphalt concrete berm will be placed between the shoulder and the adjoining travel lane to protect pedestrians and to channel runoff. Other improvements will include installation of drainage inlets, relocation of existing landscaping where in conflict with the path,and possible installation of short retaining walls where needed to provide adequate width for the improvements. It will be necessary to obtain a 5'walkway easement from adjoining property owners in order to install the walkway. A potential alternative to the easement acquisition is grading and installing retaining walls along the opposite side of the road to shift the vehicle lanes to the south, and restriping the existing pavement to provide the walkway. This alternate will be explored and utilized if it is less expensive than the easement acquisition. Total Project Cost: $322,000 Funding: Source: Type: 0843 Vine Hill Way Walkway, Morello Ave.to Provide a separated 5-foot wide asphalt concrete path Alhambra Ave. approximately 2,200 feet in length along the north side of Limits: Morello Ave,to Alhambra Ave. Vine Hill Way, connecting a path being built east from Alhambra Avenue and an existing path ended to the west Project Status: Not Begun of Morello.The existing roadway will be widened by 6 feet to provide a total of 28-to 30-feet of pavement to provide Other Sponsors: 2 11-12-foot travel lanes and a 6-foot shoulder.A 6-inch asphalt concrete berm will be placed between the shoulder and adjoining travel lane. Total Project Cost: $322.,000 Funding: Source: Type: $122,500 City of Martinez Local Page 31 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 20033 Martinez 0086 Alhambra Avenue improvements: Phases Phases 11 and III:Widen Alhambra Avenue from 2 to 4 11 and III,SR 4 to MacAlvey lanes,with medians,turn lanes, bicycle lanes, bus Limits: SR-4 to McAlvey Drive turnouts,sidewalks, retaining walls, landscaping and soundwalls; SR-4 to McAlvey Drive Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $12,800,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0173 Martinez Intermodal Project: Phase 3 Additional Parking,Access, Bay Trail Connections (final segments) Limits: Downtown Martinez Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $10,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed -; 0173 Martinez Intermodal Project: Phase 3 Additional Parking,Access, Bay Trail Connections (initial segment) Limits: Downtown Martinez Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $6,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Moraga 0846 Moraga Road-Rheem Boulevard Install pedestrian sidewalk along east side of Moraga Road Signalized Pedestrian Crossing at the signalized intersection with Rheem Boulevard and Limits: At intersection install pedestrian ramps at the south leg of the intersection. Upgrade signal operation and signal Project Status: Not Begun equipment, including audible pedestrian signals. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $350,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Page 32 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2403 .,+3c5kffi,kHkg�B�e.YS,k`8i�'. �:�x..r,.9fs,!°�SfrY:."sks"'4sFx o:%%Y 'S+^-' i.°�'a"'+:i''8E: 898�nki�53vt`Xk%.`F7GE.:#S' Pr4+1£ atiY':k:5>.aR k.E�'?.i. "iS,�SAi.,a+.,,..'h",K,S .„?iss”Ck"Cu^fi.T✓d";uRda'•'4".'�.a' «u^vwh�S'A' "a�`,E?. Orinda E 0828 Crossroads Area Streetscape Streetscape improvements which may include roadway Improvements modifications, enhanced pedestrian improvements, and Limits: Crossroads area south of Hwy 24 soundwail. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: LPMC Total Project Cost: $175,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 _ Unidentifed 0827 Miner Road Pathway Construct pathway along Miner Road from the Sleepy Hollow Gate to Camino Pablo. Limits: Miner Road from Camino Pablo east to Sleepy Hollow Gate Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $811,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 W_ _ Unidentifedv 0829 Minter(toad Pedestrian Bridge Provide pedestrian bridge over San Pablo Creek on Miner Road at Camino Pablo. Limits: Pedestrian Bridge at Miner Road and Camino Pablo to link Miner Road Path Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0824 Orinda Way Pedestrian Bridge Upgreade pedestrian bridge over San Pablo Creek on Limits: Bridge traversing San Pablo Creek at the Orinda Way at Camino Pablo. north terminus of Orinda Way Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: __ $0 Unidentifed 0823 Pedestrian Cap Closure, Orinda Village to Pedestrian linkage from Orinda Village to Orinda Orinda Crossroads Crossroads. Limits: Orinda Way at Hwy 24 south past BART to Moraga Way Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Page 33 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 o'II6,.:,.,:"Y5 '�A'➢i,�NY3'S"S#e+�' ."C{ ..._. ,;..�8#4�..,8 E.�X n�...�.P .x,. �..r.x.r.fR... Y.:A..^xk... .'vJ,,iN,,,k'G^".. '� .,..4... „6lA..a a,5:.. ',. �'.�, �,r w, ;`� JPx�eS.an�,`kx..afl?Tk,'tSg`x�'&dM�C a..._'a� _ Orinda ......._....._.................................................. .......................:...................................._.........._.........................................................................................._......._...................................................................................................................................._..............................................._.................. ; 0822 San Pablo Creek Pedestrian Way Provide improved pedestrian access to the section of San Pablo Creek running parallel to Camino Pablo from Orinda Limits: Orinda Way westerly to San Pablo Creek Way to Camino Sobrante. Will include paths and trails Project Status: Design and ROW along the creek. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $739,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed ,•� �" ,aabrm"�€e�t.t.�s: +,.�'.d'-�-s�k`�r, "�'3,,�t^� :c _ ,n.M.,.�,a�,.....ata�em�c,,., �aaaR.xs �.�:...:-a.,�re�r...�air�l.�d,.n;a�.e`a..,a l V'•Miaeraods*- .. r5x.S .kR�kFs,a'�riR...3� 4u,w?o:>,�m T�3�'�^. Pinole MMOMMOME 0237 Bay Trail Connection Construct pedestrian bridge across Pinole Creek and paves existing gravel road. Connects existing EBRPD trail at Santa - Limits: From Bayfront Park to Santa Fe Road Fe Road to trail near old Hercules dynamite plant. Project Status: Under Construction Other Sponsors: EBRPD Total Project Cost: $190,000 Funding: Source: Type: $1,000 Pinole Local $89,000 EBRPD Local _$10.0,000 �ABAG Bay Trail Grant W Local _ 0599 Bay Trail Connection, Bayfront Park to Bay Trail connection across railroad ROW Sunnyview Drive Limits: Bayfront Park west to Sunnyview Drive Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $2,200,000 Funding: Source: Type: $500,000 railroad Other $125,000 Redevelopment Agency Local $1,000,000 Unidentified $600,000 EBRPD Local Pittsburg 0011 Buchanan Road Bicycle Lanes,Railroad to Constructing Class 11 bikeway facilities along Buchanan Rd. Harbor The project includes pavement widening. Class 11 bikeway Limits: Railroad Avenue to Harbor Street exists on Buchanan Rd.from Harbor St.to Eastern City Limits. Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $78,000 Funding: Source: Type: $25,000 Other Page 34 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 Pittsburg .............................._..................................:. .............................._............................... ........._....................._._.......................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ - 0203 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station Develop the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station and development surrounding area, including development of housing, Limits: At the Pittsburg Bay Point Station retail and office. Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: BART Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: p $0 Unidentifed 'Fla V 0034 Range Road Overcrossing (no Construction of a 2 -lane, Highway 4 overcrossing with no interchange)at State Route 4 freeway access. Design to include sidewalks and bicycle Limits: 500 feet in both directions from State lanes. Route 4--West of Railroad Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $5,700,000 Funding: Source: Type: 5r100,000Cs 's,Traffic Mitigation Fee Developer/Fees _ 0033 Willow Pass Road Widening and Bridge Widen existing 2-lane arterial to 4 lanes, including bicycle Reconstruction lanes and parking.North side of SR 4. Reconstruct Limits: Loftus Rd.to Range Rd./N. Parkside Dr. roadway grade separation at Willow Pass RdJNorth Parkside Dr./Range Rd. interchange. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $3,500,000 Funding: Source: Type: $2,600,000 City's Traffic Mitigation Free Developer/Fees Pleasant Hill 0898 Bicycle Route Program rehabilitate and enhance bicycle route network. repair Limas: citywide existing trails,add striping and signage.Gap closures Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $170,000 Funding: Source: Type: 0897 Contra Costa Canal Trail realignment at gap closure of trail at Taylor Blvd. (between Morello and Taylor Blvd. trail) Limits: Contra Costa Canal Trail to Morello Avenue Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $60,000 Funding: Source: Type: Page 35 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 PW Pleasant Hill ..................._....... .. ..................................................._.........................__........................................._...................._...._.................................................................................................,.........................................._..................................................................................................... .................... 0608 Morello Avenue Bike Lanes Morello Avenue Bike Lanes Limits: 77?? Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $102,000 Funding: Source: Type: $93,000 Local 0605 Pleasant Hill Road Pedestrian Bridge Pleasant Hill Road Pedestrian Bridge Limits: Diablo View Road to Barnett Terrace Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $200,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0224 Pleasant Hill Road Pedestrian Resurface roadway, repair pedestrian bridges, add bike Improvements lanes and sidewalks Limits: Boyd Road to Geary Road Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,100,000 Funding: Source: Type: _ $0 Unidentifed 0609 Taylor/Morello Pedestrian Improvements Taylor/Morello Pedestrian Improvements Limits: At Taylor Boulevard Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $18,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 y Unidentifed 0896 Grayson Road/Gregory lane Bike Route add bike lanes Limits: Releiz Valley Road and Contra Costa Canal Trail Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $375,000 Funding: Source: Type: Page 36 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 � au�u"'$$'�Lk%„�v" ni?ff3A1,liJfffi±33a��2e;4v. �r..:�iY�k"W�X.ffY?.,,,.�'.,r ...a�, �:. ,.L .. }':..i ...x-z£;'.yV.�N,�.-.Ty,,..�'.. �9_i:T2.. < c3 a:�....'4't�, .., „c'� .,,�d5�gSS,i.S�.r2>..,- .6�M�:i�'.�5`N, < ,.,9...y 'r•r.,�::: Pleasant Hill ......_......_......_................._........_...._........................._......._..........................................................._..........................................._.... .......................... 0890 Pleasant Hill Road Improvement project- Project includes gateway improvements, pedestrian bridge phases ili,iv,v replacement, bicycle improvements, parking and roadway Limits: Boyd Road to Gregory, Diablo View Rd.to repairs Lucinda Lane Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,800,000 Funding: Source: Type: Richmond 0400 Harbour Way:Widen to Add Class 1 Reconstruct roadway to include Class 1 Bikeway Bikeway Limits: From Cutting Blvd.to Hall Avenue Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cast: Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0295 H µRichmond Bike Trailmm^ Construction of a 1 mile Class 1 bikeway Limits: In Richmond at Miller-Knox Regional Park Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $1,355,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0408 Richmond Greenway project Link Ohlone Greenway and Bay Trail in the City of Richmond. Constructs a trail and greenway on 2.5 miles of Limits: Garrard Blvd.to 1-80(City of Richmond? abandoned Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Community Youth Council for Leadership and Education Total Project Cost: $1,900,000 Funding: Source: Type: $1,900,000 TLC Federal/State 0847 Richmond Parkway Bicycle Lanes Gap Completion of a half-mile gap from Pennsylvania Ave to Closure Castro Street. Limits: Pennsylvania Avenue to Castro Street Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project cost: $387,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed Page 37 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 �. eac�an �,; srt��a�mw..�:�.� „.� �.,. sxs za.,,.�.,�:_.,, .,...a-n€.�.,, -:,e;..�, ,.,. ,:r,..r ,.....,.�„ .,..,,..�= ,�..� .,, z=.,. a..sr.-.zrx....�.��«••�,,.�, � .zEa�,.�a�..�rr.�:._.:.r,><=, Richmond ...........-....__............ ........................._................................................................_..........................................._...............................................................................................................................................................................................................-..............................._...._........... 0404 Richmond Parkway Bike Lanes Add bike lanes Limits: Along Richmond Parkway - Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: WCCTAC Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed ME` NEI 91 � e r +E a 0740 Carlson Boulevard Improvements Reduce superelevation and add features to improve liveability of adjoining'neighborhood. {Could include Limits: El Dorado to I-80 bicycle lanes,median with Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $4,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed San Pablo 'Y �`' 'M;$11`0”, 1016 Church Lane Bridge:Widening at San Widen bridge to allow for sidewalk and bike lane. Pablo Creek Limits: At San Pablo Creek south of El Portal Drive Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $500,000 Funding: Source: Type: ................._..._....._.................._.___..-._............__...._..._._......_...._..___ -_. 1017 San Pablo Avenue Sidewalk Construction Complete gaps in sidewalks on San Pablo Avenue between Rivers Street and Lancaster Street Limits: Rivers Street to Lancaster Street Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $300,000 Funding: Source: Type: 0729 San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk-Pedestrian Pedestrian path on south side of San Pablo Dam Road,to Path,Amador Street to Morrow Drive close the gap between existing sidewalks. Project includes Limits: Amador Street to Morrow Drive new street light to provide lighting for the path. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $665,000 Funding: Source: Type: $10,000 City of San Pablo Local Page 38 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 San Pablo _..-....-...................-_..._.................-.._........................._............................._.-...... ....._...................._......................................................_..._.................._.......................__......................................................_......................_.........................._........................................................................................ 0840 Wildcat Creek Trail, Davis Park to 23rd Construct a paved trail along Wildcat Creek for pedestrians Street and bicyclists.This segment will complete the trail Limits: Davis Park to 23rd Street connection between Rurnrill Boulevard and 23rd Street in the city of San Pablo.The Wildcat Creek Trail will connect Project Status: Design and ROW the Bay and Ridge Trails in the future. Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $460,000 Funding: Source: Type: $71,300 City of San Pablo Local $34,400 Habitat Conservation Fund Federal/State $10,000 City in-kind services Local ................................_.--.-. -W..........._. . _...-............_.-.....$_17,000 .........Bay Trail Grant........................._........._......_._.-.............-Local.............. ........._............. 1018 Wildcat Creek Trail: 23rd Street to Construct segment of Wildcat Creek Trail,to help the Bay eastern San Pablo city limit Trail and Ridge Trail, between 23rd Street and the eastern Limits: From 23rd Street to eastern San Pablo city limit of the City of San Pablo. limit Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $0 Funding: Source: Type: ry °. p 1014 El Portal Gateway Construct roadway safety improvements, streetscape and Limits: Church Lane to 1-80 bicycie/pedestrian path. Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $3,000,000 Funding: Source: Type: $113,000 City of San Pablo Local San Ramon 1 aIP A a M 3 w,�p-� t"o @� ''"+ M% � , ��s_ a . Z 'k" ..Sa�' � NEE mg 0614 Cross Valley Bicycle Trail Cross Valley Bicycle Trail Limits: ???? Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $35,000 Funding: Source: Type: $35,000 Federal/State Page 39 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 San Raman _....................._........_.........--.................................._....._._....................................................._.............................................................................................................................._.........._............................................................................................................................................... _ 0238 Iron Horse Trail Overerossing at Bollinger Overcrossing at Ballinger Canyon Rd. Canyon Rd. - Limits: Iron Horse Trail at Bollinger Canyon Rd. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $2,500,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0Unidentifed 0616 Old Ranch Road Bicycle Trail Old Ranch Road Bicycle Trail Limits. Old Ranch Park to Stage Coach Road Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $683,000 Funding: Source: Type: $60,000 Federal/State .SY h+53C93SA,o<a3 9p a'pti,ro >_ S rc,'k, 94Vli ,v..,. SWAT 0560 Danville: Bus Shelter and Bicycle Rack Bus Shelter and Bicycle Rack Project Project Limits: Town-wide Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $23,000 Funding: Source: Type: $23,000 Federal/State 0575 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Bike/Pedestrian Trail Mt. Diablo Blvd. Bike/Pedestrian Trail Limits: ???? Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $252,000 Funding: Source: Type: _ $0 Unidentifed 0586 St. Mary's College Bicycle Improvement St. Mary's College Bicycle Improvement Project Project Limits: ????? Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $12,000 Funding: Source: Type: $12,000 Federal/State Page 40 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 SWAT .......... _..............................»......................................................................................._.._........................_....._.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......_....... 0551 Sterne Valley Road Bicycle Lanes Stone Valley Road Bicycle Lanes Limits: ???7 Project Status: Unknown Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $13,000 Funding: Source: Type: $13,000 Federal/State .,,ke��°-. F:s:'�L'..9ev '+m'MF.:'.�_.veX�1AY:�.E's'h..?�".2?'a.k.>'3F:i:t�C'�'8�f.$iFr`s.�.4.'n.$lvs'ib:Y.h2ffi'4Ik.,'�*k^:f:�sr'.�c#. �SPp.,'{"Ri4y 5?v,n �e,:::,��'+.a�•YSaYn?5i .R':='r.Y2i�', .. "a3�i�iv&"re�BS 'dYl?kR.�.? 4S#K£2„1W"#Nr'” TRANSPAC K KH rx . b r• R? 1 111,1410 IBMi4 rr� 0837 Olympic Boulevard Pedestrian Construct pedestrian improvements along Olympic _ Improvements Boulevard, including lighting,to provide link between Limits: Bridgefieid Rd.to Boulevard Way Bridgefield Rd.and Boulevard Way. Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cast: Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed 0945 Community/School Improvements Including but not limited to:school/community bicycle,pedestrian,circulation improvements/facilities, Limits: Various locations in TRANSPAC area school carpool and transit incentives, local bus facilities. Project Status: Unknown To be administered by TRANSPAC and its Commute Alternatives Progam. Funds may be combined with local Other Sponsors: arterial, CC CAN and Bicycle and Pedestrian funds. Total Project Cost: Funding: Source: Type: Walnut geek 0748 Buena Vista Pedestrian Improvements The Phase I project will complete the sidewalks along the east side of Buena Vista Avenue in a manner that Limits: Phase I is Parkside Drive to San Luis Road- implements traffic calming designs guidelines such as on the east side only. Subsequent phases street narrowing and bulbouts. Subsequent phases would will be between Geary Rd and Parkside. be designed using similar guidelines. Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $507,000 Funding: Source: Type: $152,000 CIP Local $355,000 Pedestrian Safety Program Federal/State Page 41 of 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects December 17, 2003 Walnut geek ...................._......................................................................_......................_..........._........._..............................................................._...._.............................._...................................................................................................._............_....................._.........._............................................................. 0756 Parkside Drive Sidewalk Gap Closure The project will complete the sidewalks along Parkside Drive Limits: Hillside to San Juan Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $200,000 Funding: Source: Type, $0 Unidentifed 0757 Walnut Boulevard Pedestrian The project will add sidewalks or walkways along the west Improvement Project side of Walnut Boulevard. Limits: Ygnacio Valley Road and Homestead Avenue Project Status: Design and ROW Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $498,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed13FIN1,111", MM �...__ 'AMA, Z k ' r n'r yytiz�" a gi?'A 0357 Geary Road Widening Phase 3 Geary Road Widening Phase 3:Widen to one through lanes in each direction with a two way left turn lane, bike Limits: Pleasant Hill Road to Buena Vista lanes, parking and/or landscaping, and sidewalks Ave/Putnam Blvd Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Pleasant Hill Total Project Cost: $6,854,000 Funding: Source: Type: $0 Unidentifed WCCTAC AC w i� a 01"y..,;�. .° �", 'r .�, `�"� g, ` ice. dux ,. ° .. ur;,�;�r9�`:, <r'' h�.' Tts< s `+�}'?Io-� �y z FR 0612 Richmond Pkwy Transit Center: Bike Bike Lockers/Racks at Richmond Pkwy Transit Center Lockers/Racks Limits: At Richmond Parkway Transit Center Project Status: Not Begun Other Sponsors: Total Project Cost: $62,000 Funding: Source: Type: $36,000 Federal/State Page 42 of 42 APPENDIX F LOCAL PROJECTS (77, Bikeway Atlas In addition to the existing and proposed bikeways Keeping the bikeway database current will de- included in the Countywide Bikeway Network, pend on local agencies sharing information on local agencies have established a denser system their plans and policies and the completion of of trails,bike lanes and bike routes within Contra projects within their jurisdictions. Costa have designated many more future facili- Both the County and the Authority hope that ties. local jurisdictions will make use of the database The following atlas shows existing and and help in keeping the database up-to-date planned bikeways within Contra Costa as of the and accurate. Please contact John Cunningham end of 2003. It represents a"snapshot" of current at Contra Costa County (925 335 2243 or facilities and planning within Contra Costa and jcunn@cd.co.contra-ccsta.ca.us) or Brad Beck at will updated by County and Authority staff as lo- the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (925 cal jurisdictions and agencies update their plans. 256 4726 or bbeck@ccta.net) to request the use This atlas is built on a GIS-based database of the database and to provide information on of bikeways initially developed by Contra Costa newly completed facilities and changes in bike- County. It reflects the input and comments of way planning within your jurisdiction. staff from local jurisdictions and agencies as well as the significant initial work by Contra Costa County staff. The GIS database was expanded as part of the preparation of the CBPP. In particular, John Cunningham at Contra Costa County, Becky Choi (formerly at ALTA Planning + Resign), and Kirsten Lawrence at Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners contributed significantly to the creation of the database. The County and the Authority hope to main- tain and refine the bikeway database as facilities are developed and local policies are updated. ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 43 EXISTING AND PLANNED BIKEWAYS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Y � 1 2 3 4 i 5 6 8� I \ MRC'LFS ------------------------ ti ten,. r• r 4 SAN `1.,. �.•.� t ... -7 � r , 242 � �� JAMEY r....� 9 ) fl� 2' Ir 12 3 1 14 w 1 15 — 167 1 sA5A r41CHMONI, �� C ti H�'i' ' I.AY7Y9• ' me N on LAPA TE 19 20 2 N 23 24 25 26 2 Atlas Legend 28 S"" °N 30 31 32 ~•�„ City Limits I �+ a I l.+wia� Class I-Existing - - - Class I-Planned -� Class II-Existing - - - - Class II-Planned Class III-Existing Class III-Planned Class I-Existing/Class II-Planned Class I-Existing/Class III-Planned Class II-Existing/Class I -Planned Class II-Existing/Class III-Planned Class III-Existing/Class II-Planned Class I&II-Punned Countywide Bikeway Network 5 2.5 0 5 Miles Prepared by Dyett&Bhatia,December 16,2003 ; t i r i t r.._{ i 444111 � . ,l i ,�•ter, ,�\\\�- HB CUlE S t }. 13 14 15 1 17 a t l Is,2 21 22 23 24 25 26 (r t0 2,250 4,500 +r 9(} ti �, � •, 28 29 1W 32! i I �1 1 I MARTINEZ 6 •2; v ;a: � ,,,,, 1U l i 12 13 14'15 16 17 1 f 9 2 21 22 23 24'25 261 2 1 0 2 250 $,500 9000 �y 28 29 32 1.. Peet"; Ll r- S i 4, `I at�g� gg ,; - 1 7 � r TT 14 15 16 17 1 �+►" ',��% � „ 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 24 32 tD 2,2515 4,5()0 9,000 eet •+,•,�°+ ' I '. t-- ! i 9. I I i in `' � Port Chico o H � a IVY, 14 13 15 X2165 2167 21 2 PITTS $ UR © 2,250 4,500 21 t 1 5? cirri St .� •�'� h 13 14 15 1b �7 1 2$ 29 32 y m / t GiveArnie � k,, 9,000 2,250 4,500 Feet - j i F�• 1 ' a e� 2M2426 ' IO';11 12 t 2 256 4,500 9,000 Feet I i 1ly l \y 2 6 1i3 11 12 13 14 15 16 �— ' 22123 24'25 26 2 0 2,250 4,500 91000 21 29 32' Peet t r t . 11 r i i t �t -y wff i 1C v�t. 1tlt11 12 13 14 1516 171 19 ZO 21 22 23 24 25 26 ` 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 28 29 10. 32 i� Peet ._ r-^e RICHMO D i I in , v\ J R I C ,r .p l'r A lll 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 19 20'21 22 23 24 25 26,2 a 2,250 4,500 9,000 28 29 32 Feet PINULE 17 L��lw N AR ...t7Yl � s �+� �` 3r � 'r`_�,.`�r f'- e � !Y'.�'y � v i•�..{. R I C 'M O D Tj as ait , a �, ''fJ-. 's ,:.� t ✓�"" (�'� � •Y � ��_ i/ �,_ aflratalar +arna� lYsaYafFlalY — r I _/ fq aa.ae.da. ` k . JLLit 11;111, I frl �[ 3 ` j It±c i�/c�-��r-• ., I .z..0 L-+iYt���:,,"2 j,ry i-c.=� �'r-.�i !�' s `;U'.�-\ \� J 1 ,f. R I Mi M D lei r �:✓ • ,' i 1 11 12 13 1413 16 17,1 13 2 21J2829 2,250 4,500 9'0Feet 32 a� s Al r r 400 r a } � � � � p� � ` �t -`"� r�`�. �._-CYCY/� <r►i �, L x * Y ! i /f h _ 4 { tt r � � � � �r �` �-�°•*�� ! ;"� 281 2g r `C xr. }: f +Yy S � q k r — tii Axt+old x 1i AX OL rsrrr�a � � C i \t i ,i yam. ..,a ,uYYYS 'Kp ,iwd s 1 , 71 1 jtf • ___ j 10 11 I3'14 15 1b 17 1 ry ss r rY r n t •: } flc Y $d 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 E 4 2,254 4,504 91444 Peet l \ 1 L� r 64 -;Ar" _ 4ttf Nc '`� �; 1,'`� '4-� i -T. '�" _ )'�-.._.J- Yip"! , ` -° ' ••t `, \� \! /,\ Gi IN 71 � •� iI �\_�\ - � pkwy l_vc 4 l\.L,_l / !�/� y .. s}..� t�' 11L1 � '"mow �� 1 '.!�J' „ry 9�y � -�i-..�L �r�-f'��. '�' \\ /W, '• �-_ T <�� � ( �" .7 � 5 3 -I!�IJ_��� �— H^'� I Y t �f--f�'�i���� , ✓�� tl i�', i --Ljj °vXdd IOF v `yam �L V �, rF •a nj�\ ✓ X 4 y ti �1 •fir•• -"� �, �1 ,a '-. ra� _j� JuntaIf ` f �( San'Lum Rd,` San�xus �y...� r i �*r `n I1' 10:11 121 14 15 16 17 1 f _+' Tj L. � I o _.m .Z 1\\• lo 2 21 x2 23 24'35 IS 2 L A F ' E 2,250 4,500� �o 9,00 yrs a, 28 29 32 . Fit Y, 7 �_- i -1411,x v i 1 4 `� . ..< PITTSBUR .�d y Na __�1�% 16,f LNJ i .YTp�j\?� X�"�w. 7e"<`� } /�> v,�'�', �+ ��� ��L`ttnwia7.rt' r�rv' l�`��7T�; �1, � �"> �•. �� � -� �'�� / � i�i X1--11 WI 0 iC /� y.•�= ? v f i C YT N r� � i f I. :E E K r exp 3. k �• ,_..ate 1 `w°"i .. b r is'11 12 13 15 16 17 1 -- y 19 2 22 123 24 25 26 2 fit 2250 4,500 9,000 28 29 32 Feet I s c ----- 7T-, y (I fX. j i t �r•+r..�r.r.a.•- Fr rick-n Ln 1 1 r ■ - � :r■.�rr .r�r.■r.ar l Y IL r 2 6 t,, 1Q 11 12 13'1 16 171 1 19 2 21 22 23,,2425 26 2 tN, 0 2,250 4,5.00 9,00 eet r 28 29 "32 I i 1 I . ■ __ I1 _ 1V Main sc f y, ng y L LKmez"d t mar •��� � .��1� ,I ii+-i / --r�y t.. s � ��� � ..`. � �..,,_ i "• S 1 t \ i i „r■.r,. Pr ncluonLn ET �t Mo umn r I �lr_rr r,r.rrr.r..r„ ;...r..r„r.. .r..r,.r.,rr4r.,r.■r.■ �d t _�^��r`n _I, _ arra r Frit ire Mia{. c,�e m Sri l • . � �"�� ralt i a 2 6 e� I s 10 11 .12 13.14 15 17 1 19 20'21'22 23 24'25 26 2 28 29 32 0 2,250 4,560 91000et ..r rr .�. _ R. a �,d*. .r.a DutchSiou Rd —_�.-�. `_�.-/"+\ �� •1''lam 1, f ixT t a- ..._.__. Tule Ln BrowaewaeR a. s�a■rrr ! %L� bSfi-pfd :3', ..,.�--t-.--r.�.--Y, -��r....,-�. . ate,, � � � � �.wa■■a i r' \ I i .. 4 _ n_c Tre2 ■ I I. l., } _ Surue2&d rf r-- 1 ry \ 1 r t I i``LL L 1 - _..-._.1 -. 1 .L r_.✓ r f. .QPWQ4d,AU2d (`"Y I Y t1 Balfour Rd a h ,-. { or io 1; 1 12 14 zs I 16 i 19 20 21,,22 2 2A 25 26 3 2 J Ave 2B 29 32 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 ' t Feet I i Dolt ra o- 1 i I ti". II Ba�ovr Rd y .I 10 11i 12i 13 14 15 16 17 �� -- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 2 Paint 0fT'I bex 0 2.250 4,500 9,0 xc�c 1 i 28 z9 32 i `T\` �. h 1 meati a l I I ~' 2 � 6 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 21 22'23 24 25';26 0 2,250 4,500 91000 e1 28 29! 32 1 4000, )o & r i i i i i 2 6 '' :10 11;12 13 14 15 16 17 1 191 J282 24 i 25 262,250 4,500 9,000 32 Peet r "000% } i L A F MYETTPAI. 24 24 • �`�' �` xw Creat y D 1 xw t a � ; r r rz. t Y 77 re 2 6 `t tU 11 112 13 14 15 16 17 1 19 2 22 23{24 25 26 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 28,29 32 Fee[ A 5 U�'Tqac f _ I i J Ali8' 4 r Y � Ual ryry _ 2v�t5� 14 WALNUT CREEK ^.__� X13 - \ y• .\\� ! t'�Ce�ade 11.1 g " /1'�i'"� s� l a '.00� 1 � \ tra.�. -_ .•its S '—`—'--= y.! r :.r �r+� A' IP s jr r y L � ■ �ere ( J/ �t�`,,� 1. i 1�,+ ? Q u d ! D y I? ;r s I. 10 11 i2 I3 14 is 16 17 11 1 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 2 E E 0 2,250 4,500 41000 28 29 32 Feet f I y ��� btu` -'' •�' Z._�t/Y`� _� � �' � 1 r > t y � y 1, w , r -100 i lb 37. VI � 1 � .�, •�, -�y,,,i �el � � r�� 1 r ��``�'" +�,�s t�}„�T' �p �� ,gyp 25 �. - r ➢3 y, F / .,7., ✓ -r�y`t, ,` �. W.' r �,:= "�44r S.- r tt� g� Ix r �1 ID r' 1 #Sfla l +R:_ �yfl i / r �Vv 1 } 1 "4 , � I l I j I I 1 l - - � 1 13 14;15 lb 1711 1 22 23 25 26 2 i i0 2,250 ' 4,500 9,000et 28 24 32 I , ■ B u EN r > 00 a A�?hJp i i z 10"11 12,13 14;15 16 19 1 19 za z1 zz z3 24 z z a 2,250 4,540 9,0Feet 00 - za i i l3alfour Rd ya -- ly E i �„ Pa c Ave t Point O•Timber Rd Ilk _ Concord A - " - Marsh Creek Rd i —-- � x� a 7; u0 vfd gii 1 ; 1' r Holey Rd a i j' 6 10 ilill 131415 1619 2223 24 25 2,250 4,500 9,000 zs Feet � r; j \ � I Point O T:reber Ra qh Marst Cxer3c A IL I r k•"' 1 L % t r i �f l 10 11 12 1314 1516 19 l 22 23 24 25¢26 28 29' 32 j 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 _ Feet C i ■�Wi�r r t b I � E r G a � I i i 2 6 ; i ! 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 1 19 2 21,22 23 24 25 26 2 / 0 29 32 2,250 4,500 910 Feat it1• ' i I ................................................. Wwk DT y , AF D A 1Veff 1� Tf,rl,� oe r t I i f t �) t U .J� .a r L. f'rr ,r A � r I 2 6 to 1 11 il 12 13 14 15 1617 1 —�� 19 2 21 22 23 24 1.25 26 2 1 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 28 32 Feet i ekhawkDc � jj ✓ bf � A 1 44 i Syr � d { j�"ry�.. i. at' r r r Y ~ L I IL try' I 2 6 I xo it iz z3 ra rs;16 17 19 2 21 22 23 24 25126 2 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 28 29 32 �� Feet 1 � � r L r 2 t 6 10 11:12 13 14 15 1116 0 17 1 19 2 21 22 23 432 2b 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 26 29 j f Feet jjArrmtrongpd� ✓� i� i i i� ,I l� I i 2 6 10 11 12 13 14'15 16 171 I I 19 20'21 22 23 24,25 26 2 (� 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 2a a9 7 Feet APPENDIX G LOCAL ADOPTION OF PLAN more extensive, they could be listed in an One of the key purposes for developing the attachment to the resolution. (See below for Counn Kdde Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) recommended local additions.) is to help local jurisdictions become eligible 2. Use the CBpp As a Template for the Local for State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) plan. In the second approach, the jurisdiction funds. According to Chapter 21 of Caltrans' Lo- would create their own local Bicycle Master cal Assistance Guidelines, "to be eligible for BTA plan using the CBPP as the starting point.The funds, a local agency must have an adopted Bicy- Authority will make an electronic copy of the cle Transportation Plan (BTP) that complies with CBPP available to jurisdictions so that they Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code." create their plan from it. The Authority believes that the CBPP complies with these State requirements. Local agencies, In either approach, a jurisdiction would adopt however, will not automatically meet Caltrans some version of the countywide plan. We have requirements when the Authority adopts the been careful to design the CBPP so that it meets Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. the 11 requirements in State law for a bicycle How can jurisdictions use the countywide plan. (Those requirements are listed in the In- plan to provide local eligibility? There are two troduction of the CBPP.) A plan that doesn't meet basic methods: those requirements would not get Caltrans ap- 1. Adopt the Capp with Any Changes Listed in proval and those would not provide eligibility for BTA funding. the Adopting Ordinance. In this approach, In addition, Caltrans will be looking for addi- the jurisdiction would simply adopt the Yional detail from each jurisdiction submitting an Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan but application. This information could be included with specific caveats in the adoption language to make it more relevant to that community. as part of their adoption or adaptation of the Those changes, if not extensive, could be CBPP. The steps to customizing or supplement- listed in the resolution. If the changes are ing the Countywide Plan for Caltrans are actually quite simple and are outlined below. CONTRA COSTA COUNTWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN E ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ANIS PEDESTRIAN PLAN 1. land use map. Include the most recent copy including TDA, regional, state, and federal of your land use map from your General Plan grants. in your application. 5. Projects. Local jurisdictions may need to 2. Existing and proposed bicycle transport modify the list of recommended projects ac- and parking facilities in connection with cording to local priorities. other modes.The Countywide Plan does pro- vide a countywide summary of both of these items. Local jurisdictions should supplement Review of Local Bicycle Plans this with a paragraph describing the general extent of bicycle parking in the community After a jurisdiction adopts its own bicycle plan and the presence of any multi-modal termi- (using either approach outlined above), it must nals (but excluding bus stops except where get approval first from the Authority and then they are transfer points). from the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit. (The 3. Existing and proposed facilities for clung- CBPP will need to be approved by the Metropoli- ing clothes. Caltrans defines this as any tan Transportation Commission and Caltrans.)To school, park, or other public location where qualify for BTA funds, the plan must be adopted bicyclists may be able to change their clothes no earlier than four years prior to the beginning and possibly shower. Caltrans did not intend of the State fiscal year. it to include private showering or changing facilities. Local jurisdictions may wish to write a paragraph describing existing parks, schools, or other public facilities that have changing or shower facilities. 4.. Past expenditures. Agencies should provide a simple estimate of the past annual amounts spent on bicycle facilities in your community, G-2 ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2003