HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06061995 - SD3 S�. 30-
Contra 0-
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
County
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon,
Director of Community Development
DATE: May 26, 1995
SUBJECT: Report on Countywide Bicycle Action Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept report from Countywide Bicycle Action Committee on Countywide Bicycle
Action Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
See correspondence from Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATU rvey gdon
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
/ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
/UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig Dept: Community Development ATTESTED I&AA o
Contact: Ernest Vovakis, 646-2355 PHIL BATCHE R, CLERK 6F
cc: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
DATE:
REQUEST To SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box. near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing theBoard.Board.
NAME: C �t f�C�-CS 2- �C._.. F-7 tZ- PHONE:
ADDRESS: �-� C/"C S f�� CT CITY: V
I am speaking formyself OR organization: GC - V--Y1-Y V\,tIF—
C
hec (NAME OF ORGANIZNTION)
011e:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # C
My comments will be: general for _L,/ against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY `
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 25, 1995
Hon. Gayle Bishop, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Supervisor Bishop:
When your Board voted to form the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee(CBAC)on August 4, 1992, one of
the mandates you gave us was the preparation of a comprehensive bicycle plan. We were also charged with
advising the County and cities concerning projects submitted for Transportation Development Act funding. After
two years of effort, the draft Countywide Bicycle Action Plan is now available, and I am very pleased to submit
it to the Board of Supervisors as well as to the cities and other agencies for review by technical staff.
The vision of the Draft Countywide Bicycle Action Plan is nothing less than to make the bicycle a fully viable
alternate mode of transportation in Contra Costa County. A goal of the plan is that 5% of all commute trips utilize
the bicycle by the year 2000. Achieving this vision requires a unified and coordinated effort by the cities, the
County, transit providers, and other agencies.
Contra Costa is fortunate to have a magnificent system of regional trails under development, and many cities are
actively developing local bikeway systems. The plan seeks to build on the progress already made by developing
bicycle-friendly designs for new communities, reaching concensus on the ultimate countywide bikeway network,
completing missing gaps in this system, and actively promoting bicycle use.
The development of this plan was truly a collaborative effort of our commitee working with County staff. It was
funded by a grant under the Transportation Development Act. Following receipt of comments from the technical
staffs of the County, the cities of Contra Costa, the East Bay Regional Park District, and others, we will revise the
plan and circulate a final draft for action by your Board,.city Councils and the policy boards of interested agencies.
Our Committee is excited by the vision of the draft plan, and we applaud the County's commitment to expanding
the opportunities for bicycle transportation in Contra Costa. We look forward to working with you toward this goal
in the months ahead. Please submit your comments on the draft plan to the address below by August 1, 1995.
Thank you.
nce ly
Charles R. Tyler, Chair
Countywide Bicycle Advisory C mmittee
c%Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, CA 94553
3c
DRAFT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ACTION PLAN
Bicycle Transportation:
Sensible, Environmental, Economical, and Healthy
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MAY 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
THE BICYCLE AS A MODE OF TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS
TO FACILITATE BICYCLE USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
COUNTYWIDE BIKEWAY PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
PROMOTION OF BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
APPENDICES
A. SOURCES
B. EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS
C. BICYCLE FACILITY EVALUATION SURVEYS
i
LIST OF FIGURES
COUNTY"'IDE BIKEWAY PLAN Page
3.1 EAST COUNTY DETAIL AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2 CENTRAL COUNTY DETAIL AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.3 SOUTH COUNTY DETAIL AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.4 WEST COUNTY DETAIL AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS
B-1 USER MAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3
B-2 SAFETY RULES OF THE ROAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4
B-3 BICYCLE COMMUTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5
B-4 EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . B-5
B-5 SPOT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5
B-6 BICYCLES AND TRANSIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-6
B-7 ADVERTISEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-6
ii
LIST OF TABLES
COUNTYWIDE BIKEWAY PLAN
Page
A COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 BICYCLE COMMUTERS WITHIN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 1-4
1.2 BICYCLE COMMUTERS WITHIN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . . . . . . . 1-5
1.3 ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL BICYCLE PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20
2.1 DEFINITIONS OF BICYCLE FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 2-7
ii
INTRODUCTION
The Countywide Bicycle Action Plan sets forth a countywide strategy for increasing the
opportunities for bicycle use, reducing traffic congestion, and promoting the bicycle as a viable
mode of transportation. The Action Plan provides guidance to local jurisdictions to participate
in this countywide effort.
The Action Plan addresses four topics: the bicycle as a mode of transportation, design
guidelines, the Countywide Bikeway Plan, and the promotion of bicycle commuting. Chapter
1, The Bicycle as a Mode of Transportation, reviews data on utilitarian bicycle use in the
County and Bay Area and presents a number of "case studies" of communities which have
actively promoted bicycling. This is followed by an analysis of the case studies and
recommendations for Contra Costa County communities.
Chapter 2, Guidelines for the Development of Standards to Facilitate Bicycle Use, discusses
design issues which constrain bicycle use including the design of homes, subdivisions, roadways,
schools, shopping areas, work sites, and recreation areas. Recommendations are presented for
developing bicycle-sensitive communities.
Chapter 3, Countywide Bikeway Plan, presents an updated countywide plan for an integrated
and comprehensive network of bikeways throughout the County. Following review by local
jurisdictions and other interested parties, the Plan will be presented to the Board of Supervisors
for adoption as part of the County General Plan.
Chapter 4, Promotion of Bicycle Transportation, provides recommendations for actions to
promote the use of the bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation.
Taken together, this Plan sets forth a broad strategy for making Contra Costa County a more
bicycle-friendly area by building upon actions already taken by the cities, the County, the East
Bay Regional Park District, and others to develop bicycle facilities. The achievement of the
Plan's goals is dependent upon the cooperative efforts of local jurisdictions, other agencies, and
the public at large.
The Countywide Bicycle Action Plan was developed by the Countywide Bicycle Advisory
Committee (CBAC), which was formed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on
August 4, 1992, to perform the following functions:
1) annually review and prioritize Transportation Development Act (TDA) projects in the
cities and unincorporated area of the County; and
2) develop a comprehensive bicycle plan.
The Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee includes representatives from public agencies,
bicycle organizations and appointees of the County Board of Supervisors. Current members are
shown in Table A. Also indicated are members who participated on the subcommittees which
drafted this plan.
The preparation of this Countywide Bicycle Action Plan was supported by a grant of the
Transportation Development Act, Article 3 funds.
1
TABLE A
:<::>:::::::: :.....:>::::::::::::::>;:.
:...:.::............:.:..::::::..:..:..::::.. .. _ .:: _. .. oxn w ;. GB i ....:...:::.:..............::...::.:.:..:..
Name Organization #1 #2 #3
Richard Allen Supervisorial District 5
Mike Anderson East Bay Regional Park District X X X
Gene Farley Supervisorial District 3 X
Steve Fiala Supervisorial District 2 X
C.W. Hobbs California Highway Patrol
Norma Jellison Conference of Mayors
Derek Liecty Different Spokes Bicycle Club X
Steve Mosley Alternate member for District 5
W. Robert Richards Grizzly Peak Cyclists X
John Ruzek San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club X X
Cecile Shepard Supervisorial District 4
Yehuda Sherman East Bay Bicycle Coalition X
Kathy Tate Valley Spokesmen Bicycle Touring Club X
Charles Tyler The Cyclery Group Chair
Eric Wittig Supervisorial District 1 X
111: Design Guidelines Subcommittee
112: Countywide Bikeway Plan Subcommittee
#3: Promotion Subcommittee
Staff:
Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department
Clare O'Brien, Community Development Department
Ernest Vovakis, Community Development Department
2
CHAPTER 1:
THE BICYCLE AS A MODE OF TRANSPORTATION
Many positive attributes in Contra Costa County favor a market for bicycle transportation.
Climate, topography, an excellent countywide trails system, and the growth of employment
centers near residential communities are all important factors that can encourage more residents
to bicycle.
GOAL
The goal of this Action Plan is to establish a safe and effective bikeway system and to promote
bicycle commuting, so that up to five percent (5%) of all County employed residents are
commuting by bicycle by the year 2000, and ten percent (10%) by 2010. An additional goal of
this plan is to increase the proportion of noncommute trips made by bicycle in the County,
including trips to school, shopping, entertainment, and other destinations. Achieving this
objective requires a coordinated, countywide effort to make bikeway development and promotion
a higher priority. Governments, regional agencies, employers, citizens and bicycle organizations
need to actively promote and coordinate a countywide effort to support bicycling as a viable
transportation alternative. Reduced traffic congestion and air pollution, and improved quality
of life are just some of the benefits to communities from increased bicycling.
BACKGROUND
Though many Contra Costa County residents enjoy recreational bicycling, few choose to use the
bicycle as a mode of transportation. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, only 0.5% of County
residents, or 1,911, rode bicycles to work. Despite its more popular use as a recreational
vehicle, bicycles can be used to commute to school or work, or to reach shopping centers and
other transportation facilities. When the destination point is within five miles of the origin, the
bicycle is an especially efficient and inexpensive mode of travel.
Communities that encourage the use of bicycles for transportation purposes benefit from a mode
that is nonpolluting, energy efficient, and cost effective. Bicycle facilities, such as parking, lane
striping, over/underpasses and signs, require only a fraction of the cost usually incurred by
automobiles. Bicycle commuting is more effective in reducing traffic congestion and air
pollution than carpooling, vanpooling or transit. Bicycles take up less space on roadways and
are substantially quieter. Also, the presence of bicyclists can lead to a friendlier and healthier
community atmosphere.
For employers, there are many reasons to promote bicycle commuting. With more employees
riding to work, an employer will be more apt to meet new trip reduction standards (e.g., Bay
Area Air Quality Management District's Regulation 13). Bicycle to work programs are easily
incorporated into a company's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. By
reducing the number of employees who drive alone, an employer could save money on parking
facilities (if zoning allows). An average parking space for one car, costing as much as $10,000,
can hold up to fifteen bicycles. Employees who bicycle are generally healthier and more
1 - 1
productive. Companies who actively support bicyclists are seen as civic minded and
environmentally responsible.
For the individual, perhaps the greatest incentive to commute by bicycle is financial. Riding a
bicycle to work or school instead of driving, saves money on car maintenance, insurance, bridge
tolls, gas and parking. Other benefits include personal satisfaction, improved health, exercise,
a positive attitude, increased personal time, and a stress-free commute.
BICYCLE COMMUTING IN THE BAY AREA
According to the U.S. Census, 32,444, or. 1.1% of all Bay Area residents, commuted to work
by bicycle in 1990 (Table 1.1). Santa Clara County achieved the highest percentage of bicycle
commuters among Bay Area Counties with 1.5%, or 11,675 persons riding to work. Alameda
County ranked second with 1.3%, or 7,919 bicycle commuters.
In comparison, only 0.5%, or 1,911 Contra Costa County residents commuted by bicycle in
1990 (Table 1.2). Though this is the lowest percentage for Bay Area counties, some areas show
considerable potential for increasing public interest in bicycle commuting. Over 700 residents
in the Concord, Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill area use bicycles to travel to work.
Approximately 450 residents of the Richmond, San Pablo and El Cerrito area commute by
bicycle. By advertising the success of bicycle commuting in these areas, and engaging in a
countywide, multijurisdictional development and promotion effort, bicycle use can increase
throughout the County.
According to the 1980 U.S. Census, 1,631, or 0.6% of Contra Costa County residents rode
bicycles to work. The slight decrease in bicycle commuting may reflect increased traffic
congestion and concerns for safety. This trend is shared by other Bay Area counties, and the
entire Bay Area region.
TABLE 1.1
>::; Bic c1e Commuter »:<:>.>:::.:>:.:..:..:.;..::.;.:...:::>. > .:.::::.;:..:.:::.:. :.
s ..
Y::::::.::.: ::. :: :::::.:::::::::::::::.:::.::.;::.;.:.;:::.:>:.>::::>:.;:.>;::>:>::::>:.>:.>:::::::.>:. ... ...
"
the
:: : .:::. . . ...::: ::..:::::...::::::::.. >;:«
i n the:_San :
raneisco>Ba >:Ar
ea »>>.:
County/City Percent Number
Alameda County 1.3% 7,919
Contra Costa County 0.5% 1,911
Marin County 0.7% 918
Napa County 1.2% 626
San Francisco County/City 1.0% 3,634
San Mateo County 0.8% 2,606
Santa Clara County 1.5% 11,675
Solano County 0.7% 1,180
Sonoma County 1.0% 1,975
BAY AREA TOTAL 1.1% 32,444
1 - 2
TABLE 1.2
»:::Bi
I r >::. ;
:.:::........::.::::......::::::::::::.;:.;:.:;.:;;:.::.:.;::.::.;:.:
... c e.a.qua r to w�. i ::: ::::<:::::>:::::::> :
< .. « .< <
::.::>;:::.::.::.::::..: _.... o t a Costa:fount :.::.::.:::.::..:>:>:>::.;:.:.:::.::: >::>::>::::>:.: .. ...........: >::::::::;:.>:<:
y.,::::.:::::::.::::.:.::::.::::::.::::.:::::::::::::::::::.::::::.: :::::::::;.
City/Community Percent Number
Alamo 0.2% 10
Antioch 0.4% 113
Bayview-Montalvin 0.0% 0
Blackhawk 0.0% 0
Brentwood 1.0% 34
Clayton 0.1% 5
Concord 0.7% 402
Crockett 0.0% 0
Danville 0.3% 52
Discovery Bay 0.3% 9
E. Richmond Heights 0.5% 8
El Cerrito 1.6% 183
El Sobrante 0.4% 19
Hercules 0.1% 13
Kensington 1.2% 31
Lafayette 0.4% 45
Martinez 0.5% 80
Moraga Town 0.3% 23
Oakley 0.1% 6
Orinda 0.1% 5
Pacheco 0.9% 14
Pinole 0.0% 0
Pittsburg 0.2% 42
Pleasant Hill 0.9% 159
Richmond 0.6% 226
Rodeo 0.2% 6
San Pablo 0.5% 53
San Ramon 0.5% 107
Tara Hills 0.0% 0
Vine Hill 0.5% 7
Walnut Creek 0.6% 169
West Pittsburg 0.2% 12
Remainder of County 0.3% 78
COUNTY TOTAL 0.5% 1,911
* Bold font highlights those communities which have at least 0.5% of their employed resident
population commuting by bicycle.
1 - 3
CASE STUDIES
Some communities have successfully promoted bicycle commuting or have been recognized as
"bicycle-friendly." These cities and counties are often highlighted in Bicycling Magazine and
other publications. Some are known for a popular bikeway system or bicycle promotion
program, and others have demonstrated a high level of bicycle commuting. The following case
studies were reviewed in the development of this Action Plan:
City of Palo Alto, CA
Santa Clara County, CA
City & County of San.Diego CA
University of California, Davis & City of Davis, CA
City of Seattle, WA
King County, WA
City of Boulder, CO
City of Phoenix, AZ
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
The City of Palo Alto has made a considerable effort to encourage bicycling and has consistently
demonstrated a high level of bicycle commuting. 5.8% of the workforce who lived within the
city limits in 1990 commuted by bicycle. These 1,827 residents helped to distinguish the City
of Palo Alto as having the highest percentage of bicycle commuters of any Bay Area city.
Palo Alto ranked second in 1990, up from tenth in 1988, in "The Top Ten Cities For
Bicycling," a list developed by Bicycling Magazine. The City has increasingly become a popular
model city for communities all over the United States and especially within California.
Attractive to bicyclists is the extensive bikeway network and sign system, quality parking
facilities, and bicycle-activated traffic signals. Approximately 60 miles of existing bikeway
facilities are already in place. Other aspects that make Palo Alto a "bicycle-friendly" city
include an educational and promotional program and implementation of bicycle-safe pavement
designs.
Many different groups have been active participants in encouraging bicycle commuting in Palo
Alto. Bicycle organizations and student groups keep the City informed about the needs of
bicyclists. Though the City operates without a Bicycle Program Coordinator, the engineering
and planning staff have been responsive to the needs of the bicycling community.
Local employers have also taken an active role. Many offer incentives, such as cash, time off
or prizes, to encourage employees to ride to work. Most of the larger companies provide
clothing lockers and shower facilities for their employees.
The City of Palo Alto has an excellent citywide bicycle promotion program. Offered to the
public at no cost, is a "Bicycle Routes" brochure. The guide includes a map of designated
bikeways, safety tips and theft prevention information. Phone numbers are supplied to
1 _ d
encourage bicyclists to comment on maintenance, design and safety issues. The City of Palo
Alto regularly includes information on bicycling in utility bill mailings to residents.
In 1981, the first "Bike Boulevard" in the United States was implemented by the City. The two-
mile corridor runs parallel to two major arterials and is used exclusively by pedestrians and
bicyclists. Bike bridges and underpasses have been constructed to improve bicycle access to
special areas. An ordinance was adopted that requires every new development (retail, business
and domestic) to incorporate a minimum of bicycle facilities. Bicycle parking, including lockers
and short-term parking stands, is required.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Santa Clara County is known as one of the most "bicycle-friendly" counties in the Bay Area.
1.5% of County residents, or 11,675 persons, commuted by bicycle in 1990. This high statistic
is partly attributable to the City of Palo Alto and the unincorporated community of Stanford that
lie within County boundaries. These two communities have the highest level of bicycle
commuting in the Bay Area.
The Santa Clara County Transportation Agency produced an informative and attractive
"Bikeways" Map in September, 1991. On the reverse side of the map information was provided
on existing bikeways and public phone numbers of cities,clubs and parks. Information was also
provided on bicycle laws, safety, bikeway classifications, locations of bicycle lockers, bicycle
commuting and combining bicycling with transit.
To encourage commuters to ride to work, a "You Can Bike On Us" brochure was developed in
October, 1990. The County's "Bike On Us" program encourages bicyclists 16 years or older
to combine bicycling with the local bus or light rail system.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
The City of San Diego was nominated the third best city for bicycling in 1990 by Bicycling
Magazine. With over five hundred miles of designated bikeways, good weather and several
universities, many San Diego residents use the bicycle as their primary mode of transportation.
The City and County of San Diego both employ a full-time Bicycle Program Coordinator. The
Coordinator works with governmental staff, bicycle organizations, employers, park and school
districts on bicycle-related projects. An active citizenship has helped to ensure that this position
remains a part of the community government.
A countywide sales tax has dedicated an annual expenditure of more than $1 million to bicycle
and pedestrian improvements, much of which is used for facility development.
San Diego organized an exceptional advertising campaign to promote bicycling in 1992. The
promotional program won Second Place in the 1992 Bicycle Action Awards for its effective use
of bicycle posters on local buses.
A wealth of promotional literature is available, including user maps, brochures about bikes and
transit, the County's Bicycle Program, and safety and commuting information.
1 - 5
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS (UCD) & CITY OF DAVIS, CALIFORNIA
The City of Davis is popularly known as the "Bicycle Capital of the United States" and the "City
of Bicycles." Davis implemented one of the first communitywide bikeway systems in the nation.
One fourth (25%) of all vehicle trips in Davis are made by bicycles! Of the 50,000 residents
of Davis, 40,000 own bicycles. A penny farthing bicycle is featured on the City's logo.
Davis citizens choose the bicycle for several reasons, including the mild climate, level
topography, acceptability and "college town" atmosphere. The proximity of residential clusters
near jobs, schools and shopping services also makes'it convenient to use a bicycle. The bicycle
program at UCD focuses on four main topics: enforcement, engineering, education, and
encouragement.
Enforcement
The Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) employs one full-time, nonsworn uniformed
bicycle officer. This officer patrols the campus on a specially-designed mountain bike, enforcing
bicycle traffic, equipment and registration regulations. Most offenders are given the option of
attending Bicycle Traffic School to reduce their fines. This ninety-minute course provides an
opportunity to educate bicyclists on safety, local laws and techniques for bicycling in traffic.
All bikes operated on campus must have a current California Bicycle License. At UC Davis,
mandatory licensing has been an effective method in recovering stolen bikes and identifying
owners of abandoned bikes. UCD has a recovery rate of 20-30% for stolen bicycles, well ahead
of most jurisdictions. The TAPS Bicycle Program is primarily funded through revenue
generated by the UCD licensing program. Though the City of Davis does not require licensing,
the benefits of bicycle registration are strongly promoted.
Engineering
The campus has engineered the "bike traffic circle." First developed in the early 1970's, these
circular nodes help maintain a steady flow of bicycle traffic, where stop or yield signs have
proved ineffective.
Students are also provided with specially designed bicycle racks, popular for safety, convenience
and aesthetic reasons. Parking is available at virtually every campus building, and in most
parking lots.
Education
The Bicycle Safety and Injury Prevention Program has been a successful- educational outreach
program since 1991. The California Office of Traffic Safety awarded a three-year grant of
$105,226 to the Health Education Program Office for administering the program. Outreach
presentations, a physical education course on effective bicycling, the Bicycle Traffic School and
an annual Bike Expo are all major components. Topics addressed in the outreach presentations
are rules of the road, rider courtesy, helmet use and injury prevention.
1 - f
Encouragement
Wide streets, well-marked bicycle lanes, attractive pathways and continuous advertising on the
benefits of bicycling, work together to encourage the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation.
The City of Davis and UCD have been working together to produce a comprehensive user's
guide to local bikeways. "Getting Around...," a popular and useful booklet for bicyclists, is one
of the many promotional items offered at no cost.
CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
The City of Seattle, Washington, has twice been voted as the best city for bicycling in North
America, in Bicycling Magazine's annual list, "Ten Most Bicycle-Friendly Cities". Seattle's
extensive network of bikeways, active education and encouragement program, and pioneering
helmet campaign demonstrates an extraordinary and effective effort to promote bicycling. The
City has also succeeded in providing a total of 145 miles of various bicycle facilities for cyclists.
The Bicycle Program Coordinator for Seattle has estimated that more than $4 million is spent
annually on improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. Seattle bicycle projects and activities
are funded by many different types of sources.
Six full-time staff members manage the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, within the
Seattle Engineering Department. Seventeen funding sources were used to implement the City's
Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. The Bicycle Program Coordinator reviews all plans, projects
and proposals that potentially affect bicycle access or safety. Other duties carried out by the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Program staff include policy development, comprehensive planning, and
facility design and planning. The Bicycle Program Coordinator is also responsible for training
Seattle planners and engineers.
As part of the City Bicycle Program, there is a mountain bike police patrol, consisting of 100
officers. This patrol has been a model for many other communities throughout the nation.
Seattle encourages citizen participation through the Bike Spot Improvement Program. An annual
budget of$100,000 is devoted to this program. "Spot Improvement" postcards can be found at
local bicycle shops, parks and schools. They provide a quick and easy way to involve citizens
in the improvement of the city's bikeway system. Often it is only minor problems that are cited.
Problems like sweeping and filling potholes are solved within days or weeks of the request.
Requests for additional bikeways, over and underpasses, and bridge conversions may take
several months to plan and fund. This program has proved popular with cyclists and the city
government, as it is a low-cost, quick way to respond to cycling deterrents.
An active citizenry also helped secure $33 million for open space preservation and trail
development by passing a recent bond issue. This resource will help to finance parts of the
extensive bikeway system in both Seattle and King County, Washington.
Seattle is also one of the few places in the nation that has practiced some form of "traffic
calming." The City has installed more than 200 traffic circles in residential neighborhoods at
the request of local residents, to reduce traffic and traffic speeds. This technique makes the
streets safer for cyclists as well as motorists.
1 - 7
The City of Seattle has produced a video on their successful bicycle program and has made it
available at no cost to interested communities and individuals.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
King County has been very receptive to the needs of bicyclists. By coordinating efforts with the
City of Seattle, the county has successfully achieved a high level of bicycle commuting. In
addition to a responsive government and an active citizenship, significant effort and resources
have been devoted to improving.opportunities for bicyclists.
The King County "Roadshare Spot Improvement Program" is similar, but more comprehensive
than Seattle's program. Over $100,000 of County funds is earmarked every year for
improvement of bicycle facilities. The County employs a full-time "Roadshare Program"
manager, who works with the King County Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Cascade
Bicycle Club to rank the improvements cited by, bicyclists. Requests for extended or additional
bikeways, striping of bicycle lanes, bicycle racks and signs, and installation of rubberized
railroad crossings are ranked and provided in priority order.
The "King County Bicycling Guide Map" provides the public with important information and
maps for bicycle use. In addition to detailed maps of the entire County, the guide includes
written material on safety, commuting, mountain biking, rules of the road, and bikeway
development and design.
The Guide also cites a hotline phone number to encourage citizen participation in the King
County "Roadshare Spot Improvement Program." If a bicyclist observes the need for improving
the bikeway system in a particular area, they are encouraged to call the appropriate authority.
Improvement requests may include sweeping, modifying the pavement condition or street grates,
striping, access improvements, route signing and parking.
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
Slightly less than 7% of Boulder residents use bicycles for daily commuting. Coordination
among local jurisdictions and bicycle groups to encourage bicycle commuting continually takes
place. Boulder has approximately fifty miles of various types of bicycle facilities.
The Boulder Department of Public Works established an Alternative Transportation Center
(ACT) in 1989. This group is assisted and advised by a Citizen's Transportation Advisory
Committee and has a full-time bicycle/pedestrian coordinator, a bike-week coordinator, and a
bicycle education specialist at the University of Colorado. The ACT has been charged with
achieving a 15% modal shift away from single-occupant vehicles to an alternative form of
transportation, including bicycles. In 1990, the overall modal splits for trips were 43% single-
occupant vehicle, 9% bicycling and 48% other.
The Transportation Master Plan for Boulder Valley, adopted by the City of Boulder in October,
1989, clearly identifies the need for new bikeways, improved facilities and a bicycle education
program. The Plan recommends extensive use of Transportation Funds to add new paths and
lanes, and to build over and underpasses for bicyclists and pedestrians. The City employs two
full-time staff members devoted to bicycle-related activities. The 1991 budget for
I - R
implementation of the bicycle program included $95,000 for operations and $520,000 for capital
improvements.
The Boulder Bike Week Procedure Manual, written in 1991 as part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Program, provides an overview of Boulder's annual Bike Week celebration. This event is
traditionally scheduled during the third week of July. Efforts since 1981, have focused on a
Bike to Work Day, to promote the benefits of bicycling to work. Bike to Work Day has
expanded into a nine-day celebration.
Over sixteen events were described, including Bike to Work Day, Bicycle Polo, Nonpolluting
Commuting Race, Family Ride, Bike Safety Rodeo and Mountain Bike Improvement Project.
The Boulder Bike Week Coordinator expanded the event in 1989 to include the other
communities in the area.
In 1990, more than 4,500 riders participated in Bike to Work Day, almost 10% of the city's
population.
In 1991 the state of Colorado hired a full-time bicycle coordinator to oversee bikeway
development and promotional activities. That same year, the City of Boulder contracted a full-
time coordinator from April through August, on a temporary basis to be the Bike Week
Coordinator. The City also provided a budget of $7000. The week spanned a total of 9 days,
with at least two events scheduled for each day.
In 1992, 100 different employers participated during Boulder's Bike to Work Day. The
traditional "Business Challenge" event invited companies to compete in their efforts to promote
bicycle commuting. Over 7,000 people rode to work that day, with many participants clad in
company shirts specifically designed for the event.
"The Business of Bicycling", a brochure targeted for Colorado employers, identifies the benefits
of implementing a bicycle to work program. The brochure is succinct, attractive, resourceful
and clearly outlines the components of a bicycle commuting program.
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
A 1989 survey by the League of American Bicyclists identified Arizona as one of the top five
"bicycle-friendly" states in the nation. Criteria for nominations related to bicycle policies, rules
and regulations.
As of July, 1992, the City of Phoenix had plans for a bicycle network of over 700 miles with
appropriate bicycle facilities. Despite the provision of facilities, however, the level of bicycle
commuting has been relatively low. Promotion and education programs, as well as additional
bicycle lanes to encourage beginning cyclists have been noted by the city as needs if bicycling
statistics are to improve.
Approximately $500,000 of the community's budget is devoted annually to bicycle and
pedestrian projects.
� _ 4
Bike racks are provided on all city buses, as part of the City's "Bikes-on-Bus" program. Some
city buildings provide showers and bicycle lockers, to encourage other employers to do the
same. The bicycle system map is continually updated and distributed to the public through the
Parks Department and other outlets. The map contains rules of the road and safety information.
In December of 1992, a study was conducted on bicyclist behavior during typical commute and
noontime hours. The results have been used to design bicycle safety and commute training
programs. Another study showed characteristics of bicyclists during the City's successful "Bike
to Work Week" that year. The study emphasized the need for preventative enforcement, where
police officers routinely provide warnings or instructions to bicyclists.
The City's Traffic Safety Coordinator prepared a Traffic Safety Plan which includes a safety
program targeted at both children and adults. Ten to twelve bicycle rodeos were held in parks
and schools, funded by the Governor's office of Highway Safety in 1992. These rodeos were
an effective method in educating and providing hands-on training to new cyclists. The City's
downtown police bicycle detail officers acted as teachers of these training sessions.
ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDIES
The elements shared by communities with successful bicycle programs are summarized in Table
1.3. These elements address general issues relating to bicycle use such as public outreach,
bicycle facilities, citizen participation, government support and expenditure. These elements can
be grouped into three categories: supportive government, commitment of funding, and active
citizen participation. While Contra Costa County has demonstrated a level of commitment to
bicycle transportation, the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee has identified the following
actions to strengthen the Countywide Bicycle Program in Contra Costa County. Following
each action, and identified in italics, is the agency(s) responsible.
1. SUPPORTIVE GOVERNMENT
Issue: Public plans, projects, programs and review of development proposals do not always
incorporate bicycle safety and access, potentially restricting the use of bicycles as a
viable mode of transportation.
One major action of a community to demonstrate support for bicyclists is the designation of a
full-time Bicycle Program Coordinator, usually employed in the Public Works or Planning
Department. The Coordinator is responsible for formulating policies, updating the bikeway
plan, and working with the Bicycle Advisory Committee to rank improvement projects.
Throughout the year, the Coordinator reviews development plans to ensure that projects or
related mitigations support bicyclists. The Coordinator may also train planners and engineers
on bicycle-friendly designs, and local employers on bicycle to work programs. These and many
other related tasks collectively would form a Countywide Bicycle Program.
The Contra Costa County Health Services Department currently has a bicycle commuter
program, funded by a grant from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. This program is
directed at increasing bicycle commuting to the Shadelands business park in Walnut Creek. The
project is intended to demonstrate how bicycle commuting can be enhanced by a direct marketing
effort.
1 - 10
, ::::::::::: .............. -..,.:::::
I -.. ...., .:.- "'"' ���]�i�. .............. :.:id .�
" .... ...,. :.:::.:.::: :... .. ....%.......:, ....... :::::......
_ d' ...
..L':<,;: K iiYi:::i K i;9y':p>.; K ii>: K i`: i K:?:;y:: K;;`:::;;
',.': 'i::.,:::
.�'>; ;:
.r.
�:<:<.[:
,:,:,:,:,:,:.: I.:Ml
::i::Q: :
i:a2:.�2i`::i
K£S: K :ifFi K Y-, i'i K 2;'i ii
oi
:.::.:
K:i:i:i%:::i K i2i'i�
1::>:: :
....... . ...
:::::.
;... .: ..::<:
: :::
'?'.«..iii':;';'?":'`::
::a`:.`<
iiiia Ei
06J>?:
Ci5"'
M':
:�:'
�;:� �
,�.V:
y K:%::'::::::: K ::::::::::
k::::::::::::: K <:::::::::
K''�::: :
't !;iri:i; siY':
;>::: ::
�i:
p W
-:%:i:
i..
:2iiiL.
:. .;. .,.
..::::. ::i::: ::.::::.
fL�':..... ::::::ii: ;;::;:;X.:
ii.... :
Q,ii.i.
..=:.
a:.
»�:: .:.
fl..
5:
. :>5: .
—:ar:ad
:. :: ::.L
;:::;t;:t0:
Ki %: K
;:». ....... .......
r.>:<: :ac;:
�:'
:�:::: :
op
..:L
:`::�.;
::.7'.
Qt
�.
o:::::
♦V ...
L
s�
.I....i ii:. ..
Z1. .
fl::
i::::G: ....
:;::i::::: :.:::s::.:
>::
Ra;
0
K K K..:...'.:: K.r;:>i: K?::':::' k :: C.' K :': k .i:: :i
Pk �Q 'i
::::
:.
a� dw .;:..
1.
M .^ ffi
�:
{„ . : a. ..
L C+_'
'C .V K K K K:.'. K K <:
4.. "�� ~
E—+ u
v� .>::::
4*- C :: K K<::::::.
C °ac
'LL] ,."....L.., :����: i�iiii�iii�� ".*...., .:.:,.::- ...... .....-- I.........
C .;
o
vL.�"
Wrte, o V. .;
Q,OT7O . K K ... K K K
!d o:s.
.moi �' Q :y.
�'_Q
.: .>: ..
::::
.'::
> fl::� �:
Xo ` ;;;::;
C+.fl�.,'r%p K K K K K K K K
QA� .:6i
Q
U
U o U
U H a a o
o 3 3
0 0 ° G K
S. < 'o A ar a1:1
G
a o U o 3 c c
v O ° L
,, Cl. c U c U m a
+� c U ° °
o G
a U q U U U
U.............-..... �i���:]j Lv� °�'
U
Governments that support bicycles also adopt ordinances to ensure that new developments
provide facilities for bicyclists and do not restrict their access or safety. The provision of
bicycle facilities, such as showers, parking and bicycle lanes may be required by new
commercial and office developments. (These issues are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.)
Over and underpasses are constructed to encourage bicyclists, and to improve bicycle access to
critical areas. The lack of these bicycle facilities at destination points or along commute
corridors can easily discourage, residents from trying bicycle commuting. Transportation
Demand Management or Trip Reduction Ordinances can mandate bicycle training programs for
Employee Transportation Coordinators (TDM) of local work sites.
Successful bikeway plans represent a coordinated effort with related programs of other
jurisdictions. City and County governments work with a variety of parties, but depend mostly
on the Bicycle Advisory Committee and Bicycle Program Coordinator for recommended
actions. Depending on the area and scope, the bikeway plan may also be reviewed by regional
agencies, school districts, transit agencies and interested citizens.
Recommended Actions:
1.1 Consider the needs of the bicyclist in the day-to-day planning and public works activities
of local governments; address the needs of the bicyclist in the general plans,
transportation plans and capital improvement plans of local governments. (CITIES AND
COUNTY GOVERNMENT)
1.2 Establish a Countywide Bicycle Program, as outlined in this Plan, to carry out a
coordinated, comprehensive effort in support of bicycling as a viable transportation
alternative. (CITIES, COUNTY GOVERNMENT, CALTRANS AND EAST BAY.
REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT)
1.3 Seek funding and employ Bicycle Program Coordinator in the Contra Costa County
Public Works or Planning Department to administer the Countywide Bicycle Program.
The duties of this position are listed below. The promotional functions could be
performed separately by the Health Services Department if funding is available.
INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION AND FACILITIES PLANNING
a) Develop and administer policies, programs and guidelines that include
consideration of bicycle safety and access.
b) Review plans, projects, and development proposals that potentially affect bicycle
safety or access.
C) Advise City/County planners and engineers on bicycle-friendly facility designs,
including parking, -signs, traffic lights, and pavement surfaces. Identify gaps in
regional bicycle routes and seek funding to complete the missing segments.
d) Coordinate interdepartmental and inter jurisdictional activities, such as the
Count),wide Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings.
1 - 12
e) Maintain and periodically update the Countywide Bicycle Plan and map.
f) Conduct surveys of bicycle facilities and make recommendations for
improvements to local jurisdictions.
g) Work with transit agencies to promote bicycle use.
h) Identify the need for legislation in the areas of bicycle safety and funding.
Propose, support and advocate such legislation.
i) Coordinate the preparation of funding requests for projects on the Countywide
Bikeway Plan, and work on developing support for these funding requests.
BICYCLE PROMOTION
a) Work with employees and regional TDM programs to promote bicycling as an
alternative transportation mode.
b) Coordinate countywide, citywide and employer-based bicycle events including
Bike-to-Work days and safety-oriented Bike Days events which include bicycle
rodeos.
C) Coordinate workshops with local law enforcement agencies and bicycle
organizations on safe and effective bicycling training for all ages and skill levels.
d) Coordinate with the Safe Roads/Safe Families Coalition and other traffic safety
programs to promote safety education.
e) Promote bicycling as a healthy activity to promote healthy lifestyles and to fight
chronic disease among at-risk populations.
f) Coordinate the development and distribution to the public of information and
promotional materials on bicycle use and bicycle facilities in Contra Costa
County, including brochures, newsletters, posters, presentations and videos.
1.4 Require the provision of bicycle facilities such as showers, parking and bikeways in
major new office and commercial developments to promote the use of bicycles. (CITY
AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS)
1.5 Ensure that all new plans, projects and programs of local transit agencies include
considerations for bicycles. (METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
[MTC], CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY[CCTA])
1.6 Enforce local and state traffic and equipment regulations for bicyclists, to demonstrate
to both motorists and cyclists that bicycling is a legitimate mode of transportation. (LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES)
1 - 1�
2. COMMITMENT OF FUNDING
Issue: Ensuring the institutionalization of bicycles as a mode of transportation often
requires a variety of funding sources and coordinated effort by local agencies and
organizations.
"Bicycle-friendly" communities devote significant resources to the promotion of bicycling and
to the development of bikeways or bicycle facilities. Governments, citizen groups and
employers actively seek private, local, regional, state and federal resources. Funding for bicycle
projects is often creative, using as many as seventeen different sources for a single project or
program (e.g., Seattle, Washington).
The following are possible funding sources for bicycle projects in Contra Costa County:
Transportation Enhancement grants under the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), AB 434 funds, Transportation Development Act, Article 3
(TDA), Bike Lane Account of Caltrans, Measure C, Measure AA, Regional Measure 1, and the
California Clean Air and Transportation Initiative(Prop 116). Creative funding sources can also
be utilized, such as development fees, gas tax increases, private contributions and coordinated
fundraising efforts.
Recommended Action:
2.1 Initiate a coordinated funding effort, utilizing private, local, state and federal resources,
to implement the Countywide Bicycle Program, prepare grant applications, and fund
the highest priority projects. (CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS, REGIONAL
AGENCIES: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Contra Costa County
Transportation. Authority (CCTA), RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, The County
Connection., AC Transit, Tri-Delta Transit)
3. ACTIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Issue: Citizen participation can be a valuable asset in the countywide effort to increase
bicycling in Contra Costa County.
"Bicycle-friendly" communities encourage active citizen participation. Holding public forums
on bicycle related issues and projects, recruiting members for the Countywide Bicycle Advisory
Committee and implementing a public-motivated Countywide Spot Improvement Program are
ways to ensure public input.
A Countywide Spot Improvement Program could operate as part of the Countywide Bicycle
Program, as a mechanism to provide low-cost, quick service to improve conditions for bicyclists
and ensure their input. This program would be administered by the Bicycle Program
Coordinator. Bicyclists would inform the Coordinator via a "Spot Improvement Request"
postcard of unsafe bicycling conditions or inadequate facilities (e.g., potholes, debris, lane
striping, etc.). These postcards could be made available to bicyclists at bicycle and sport-related
stores, by Employee Transportation Coordinators (ETCs) and bicycle groups. Bicyclists should
1 - 14
also be encouraged to participate in the program by phone. The Coordinator would be
responsible for informing the appropriate jurisdiction.
Recommended Actions:
3.1 Continue efforts by citizens to advise local jurisdictions on issues relating to bicycle
facilities and promotion. (COUNTMDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE)
3.2 Implement a Countywide Spot Improvement Program to provide a communication link
between bicyclists and the appropriate planning or engineering staff. (CONTRA COSTA
CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS)
3.3 Operate a public phone line specifically designed for bicyclists. The "hotline" would
provide information on bicycle-related programs, projects and events throughout the
County, and would record public requests and comments. Through this phone line,
bicyclists could participate in the Countywide Spot Improvement Program. (CONTRA
COSTA CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS)
3.4 Assist Contra Costa County jurisdictions and the Bicycle Program Coordinator in the
design of the Countywide Spot Improvement Program. Apply the knowledge and
experience gained from the informal "Hazards Elimination" program. (EAST BAY
BICYCLE COALITION)
3.5 Coordinate efforts with Contra Costa County jurisdictions and the Countywide Bicycle
Advisory Committee to hold community forums on bicycle-related issues and projects.
These community forums should include, at the least, major projects or plans that affect
bicycle access or safety, and a public hearing on the Countywide Bikeway Plan (Chapter
3). (BICYCLE PROGRAM COORDINATOR)
3.6 Enlist the voluntary assistance of bicycle organizations and the public in performing
minor maintenance of bikeways such as sweeping debris and trimming vegetation.
(BICYCLE PROGRAM COORDINATOR)
CHAPTER 2:
GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS
TO FACILITATE BICYCLE USE
The current transportation system in the United States is designed around the automobile, with
accommodations for the automobile provided in every aspect of American life. From the design
of our homes and our transportation network to the work place and all points in between, it is
clear that the automobile is the king of transportation. Homes are designed with two- or three-
car garages that provide ready access from the living quarters to the automobile and from the
garage to the street. We have built an extensive road system for the automobile to link our
home with the work place, shopping, schools and recreational facilities. Each of our destination
points has convenient parking lots, drive-in facilities and well-lighted, secure areas for night use.
All necessary services for the automobile, such as fueling and repairs, are provided throughout
the road network. If the bicycle is to become a viable and feasible alternative to the car and
meet some of our transportation needs, then our transportation system must provide a
comparable level of support for the bicycle and the bicyclist.
This chapter presents a list of issues related to the contemporary design of facilities affecting
bicycling, from the home to the destination. These issues are some of the hurdles that must be
overcome to successfully integrate bicycles into the transportation system. Recommended
actions are identified with each issue, along with the agency responsible for implementing the
action in parenthesis.
1. DESIGN ISSUES AT THE HOME
Issue: Contemporary homes do not provide for convenient access to bicycles, or safe, dry
and secure bicycle storage.
Homes should be designed to provide convenient and easy access to bicycles, with a safe and
secure place to store them. The only place to store the bicycle in most contemporary single-
family homes is the garage. With the design of the typical garage, residents have to move their
cars from the garage to get their bicycle out to the street. This is inconvenient and itis bad for
air quality. Home design for bicycles includes three elements; interior access, exterior access,
and street access.
Homes should be designed to provide a separate exterior access into the garage for bicycles.
The access should be at a bicycle and human scale, such as a standard door. The typical garage
door could be maintained for automobile use, but a separate door and a separate storage area
adjacent to the door should be allotted for bicycle use and storage. Residents should be able to
conveniently enter the bicycle storage area from the house.
Driveways should be designed to provide access to the street for the bicycle from the access
door in the garage while leaving space on the driveway apron for parked cars.
Home design should allow the homeowner access to the bicycle storage area from the house and
provide for moving the bicycle from the storage area to the street without having to move parked
cars in the garage or driveway apron. An alternative design would be to provide a secure
covered storage area for bicycles separate from the garage.
Safe and secure storage for bicycles is also needed in multiple-family residences. A bicycle
storage room with access limited to residents owning bicycles should be provided in new
condominiums and apartments.
Recommended Actions:
1.1 Include policies in local general plans supporting housing design that facilitates the use
of bicycles. (CITY, COUNTY)
1.2 Develop standard conditions of approval, to be imposed on residential development
projects, that require residences to be designed with accessible and secure bicycle storage
areas. (CITY, COUNTY)
1.3 Develop policies for design review and/or staff review of site plans for building permits
that require homes to be designed with accessible and secure bicycle storage areas.
(CITY, COUNTY)
1.4 Hold workshops with the planning commission, design review committee, etc., to explain
the design elements of a home that are needed to facilitate bicycle use. (CITY, COUNTY)
2. DESIGN ISSUES ON THE TRIP
Issue: The design of subdivisions often ignores the needs of the bicyclist.
Suburban subdivisions are often designed independently of each other, and automobile access
to each subdivision is provided directly from an arterial street. This type of "isolated
neighborhood" development does not provide for circulation from subdivision to subdivision.
Bicyclists need a circulation system that provides more direct access to destinations. Bicycle
circulation from development to development or from developments into the surrounding
neighborhoods could be provided by the traditional grid system of streets or by parks and trails.
In addition, many subdivisions include cul de sacs that back up to an arterial street and are
bordered by a sound wall. A bicyclist living in the cul de sac must follow a circuitous route to
the collector street and then to the arterial. A connection between the cul de sac and the arterial
would eliminate the lengthy trip through the neighborhood and would enhance the viability of
bicycle use.
Recommended Actions:
2.1 Include policies in local general plans that provide subdivision design with a circulation
system and the connections that facilitates the use of bicycles. (CITY, COUNTY)
2.2 Develop standard conditions of approval, to be imposed on all residential development,
that require subdivisions to be designed with a circulation system and connections
necessary to facilitate bicycle use. (CITY, COUNTY)
2.3 Hold workshops with the planning commission, design review committee, etc., to explain
the need for a circulation system and connections between subdivisions, roads, and
destinations, to facilitate bicycle use. (CITY, COUNTY)
Note: Although the recommended actions addressing each issue are presented
separately, in many cases they can be accomplished together, e.g., actions 1.4
and 2.3.
Issue: The road system does not always provide bikeways where they are needed; where
they are provided, bike lanes are often too narrow for safe use by bicyclists.
An effective bicycle circulation system is composed of an interconnected system of bikeways and
may include bicycle and joint use trails, bicycle lanes and/or shared roadways (see Table 2.1).
The dedication of pavement on a street to provide for a bike lane is usually dependent on the
traffic volume on the street, the functional classification of the street (neighborhood street,
collector road, arterial road), and the prevailing speed of traffic on the street. In general,
bicycle lanes are not needed on local roads serving local neighborhood traffic unless they serve
an elementary school. Collector roads providing access to a neighborhood should have bike
lanes. The higher the functional classification of a street, the higher the traffic volume and the
higher the traffic speed, the wider the bike lane should be. The safety concern of bicycle lanes
next to parked cars should be addressed by eliminating parking adjacent to bike lanes wherever
feasible.
Recommended Actions:
2.4 Develop a bikeway circulation map as part of the general plan. (CITY, COUNTY, EAST
BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT)
2.5 Develop a functional classification for the road system along with typical sections
identifying the right of way widths, vehicular lane widths and bicycle lane widths for
each functional classification. (CITY, COUNTY)
2.6 Require developers of projects to construct bikeways at the proper widths along the
frontage of their projects as identified in the general plan as a condition of approval.
(CITY, COUNTY)
2.7 Develop a priority list of bike lane improvements and include them in the Capital
Improvement Program. (CITY, COUNTY)
1) 12
TABLE 2.1
: >:.::::;.;:.::.::.::.::.
Inl . :
def ti nS :: �
BIKEWAY - Any road, path or way which in some manner is specifically designated as
being open to bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designed for the
exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes.
BICYCLE PATH - A bikeway which provides a completely separated right-of-way
designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists
minimized._ (A Class I Facility)
BICYCLE LANE - A bikeway which provides a restricted right-of-way designated for
the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or
pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and
motorists permitted. (A Class II Facility)
BICYCLE ROUTE - A bikeway which provides a right-of-way designated by signs or
permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists. (Class III Facility)
SHARED ROADWAY - Any roadway upon which a bicycle lane is not designated and
which may be legally used by bicycles regardless of whether such a facility is
specifically designated as a bikeway.
Class I, II and III facility definitions are from the California Streets and Highways Code, §890.4, (1994).
Bikeway and Shared Roadway definitions are from AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
(1991).
7 _ n
Issue: The current road network in Contra Costa County does not provide comprehensive
continuity of bikeways.
In many areas of the County, bike lanes or bike trails end suddenly. The bicyclist is given no
guidance on the most appropriate route from these points. Continuity of the bike lane system
is vital to accommodate the use of bicycles.
Recommended Actions:
2.8 Identify the missing links in the system in the bikeway circulation map of the General
Plan. (CITY, COUNTY)
2.9 Require development projects to construct the missing links, where appropriate, or to
share in the cost of constructing the missing links as a condition of approval. (CITY,
COUNTY)
2.10 Develop projects to construct improvements to eliminate the missing links; include them
in the Capital Improvement Program, and seek funding to construct them. (CITY,
COUNTY)
Issue: The bicycle network of bike lanes and trails must provide for linkage to rail transit .
and bus transit hubs, stations and stops.
The design of the bicycle circulation map should include access to existing and planned regional
transit systems. The current network of bike lanes and bike routes in the County does not
always provide convenient linkage with either rail or bus transit.
Recommended Actions:
2.11 In developing the bicycle circulation map, compare transit route maps with the bicycle
system plan and insure that appropriate links are planned. (CITY, COUNTY, TRANSIT
PROVIDERS)
2.12 Allow bicycles on all transit systems and designate bicycle areas on trains. (TRANSIT
PROVIDERS)
3. DESIGN ISSUES AT THE DESTINATION
Issue: Some schools are not designed with separate access for the three modes of
transportation to the school (bus, car, bicycle). Some neighborhoods do not have
a complete network of bicycle lanes and trails to serve the school, or do not direct
bicyclists to the proper entrance at the school.
Transportation to schools is normally by buses, cars, or bicycles/pedestrian. To the greatest
degree possible, these three forms of transportation and their parking/pick-up systems should be
separated on the school campus. Schools typically designate walking routes to the school from
the various neighborhoods they serve. In addition, bicycle routes should also be designated that
2 - 5
provide a desirable access point into the school and that do not conflict with the automobile
drop-off/pick-up area, or the bus loading/unloading area. There should also be a safe local
network of bicycle lanes and trails from the neighborhoods to the school.
Recommended Actions:
3.1 Encourage school districts to separate bicycle access from bus and automobile drop off
areas and to provide safe and secure bicycle storage facilities which are protected from
the weather. (CITY, COUNTY)
3.2 Bicycle circulation plans should be designed to accommodate safe access to schools.
(CITY, COUNTY, EBRPD, SCHOOL DISTRICTS,)
3.3 Consult with school districts in drafting bicycle circulation plans to ensure they match
any school adopted bicycle access routes from the surrounding neighborhoods. (CITY,
COUNTY)
Issue: Contemporary design of commercial areas often does not accommodate the use of
bicycles.
Access to commercial shopping areas, especially large ones, is designed for the automobile. In
order to appeal to bicyclists, shopping areas must provide for a safe means of entering and
exiting the shopping area and a safe place to store the bicycle. For example, automobiles could
enter the complex from a major street while bicycles could enter from a side street where
automobile access is restricted or prohibited. Bicycle storage facilities should be provided at
convenient locations and be out in the open and visible for increased security. Parking lots
should be designed for bicycle circulation in addition to pedestrians and automobiles. Parking
lots create safety problems for bicyclists because of the intense vehicular movements. The
design of the parking lot should minimize the distance a bicyclist must travel through to get from
the street access point to the stores.
Lockers should also be provided adjacent to bicycle racks for bicyclists to store back packs,
shopping goods and other small items. This will provide the bicyclist with the same degree of
freedom as the automobile driver to store their goods while shopping.
Developers of commercial facilities should be offered incentives, such as reduced automobile
parking requirements when bicycle parking facilities are provided.
In some areas, ordinances have been adopted which discourage bicycle access to commercial
areas. Those ordinances contradict the efforts of county, park district, local communities, air
quality and congestion management agencies to provide alternatives to motorized transportation
and access tocommunity facilities. Rather than excluding bicycles from commercial and
business areas, infrastructure (i.e., secure bicycle parking, bicycle paths, bike lanes and shared
bicycle routes, etc.) should be developed which would support and encourage more use of
bicycles.
� h
Recommended Actions:
3.4 Include policies in the general plan that require the design of commercial developments
to facilitate the use of bicycles. (CITY, COUNTY)
3.5 Develop standard conditions of approval, and incentives (such as reduced automobile
parking requirements) to be,imposed on all commercial development, and require safely
designed parking lots, bicycle racks and lockers to facilitate bicycle use. (CITY,
COUNTY)
3.6 Develop policies for design review and/or staff review of site plans for commercial
projects that are designed to facilitate bicycle use. (CITY, COUNTY)
3.7 Hold workshops with the Board of Supervisors or city council, planning commission and
design review committee, to explain the design features of a commercial project that are
needed to facilitate bicycle use. (CITY, COUNTY)
3.8 Discourage ordinances that restrict bicycle use in commercial areas. (CITY, COUNTY)
Issue: The design of the contemporary work place often does not provide for the bicycle
commuter.
Many of the problems associated with commercial developments also pertain to business parks
and business centers. Business developments should be designed to accommodate bicycle use.
Unlike commercial developments, bicycle use in business parks is generally limited to the
bicycle commuter. Bicycle commuters need a higher level of security for their bicycles than
shoppers in commercial areas, since the bicycles are in longer term storage. Bicycle lockers
(rather than racks) are appropriate for business development centers. Showers and clothing
lockers should also be provided at the work place for bicycle commuters. In addition, the design
of bicycle lockers or storage facilities should be harmonious with the design of the building
itself. Incorporating design elements that result in increased bicycle commuters will also help
employers achieve the trip reduction goals of the Air District's Regulation 13.
Recommended Actions:
3.9 Include policies in the general plan that require business development and employment
centers to provide features that facilitate the use of bicycles. (CITY, COUNTY)
3.10 Develop standard conditions of approval, to be imposed on all business development
projects that require installation of employee showers, and secure, dry bicycle storage..
(CITY, COUNTY)
3.11 Develop policies for design review and/or staff review of site plans for building permits
that require business developments to design their projects to facilitate bicycle use.
(CITY, CO UNTY)
I . 7
3.12 Hold workshops with the Board of Supervisors or city council, planning commission and
design review committee, to explain the design elements of a business project that are
needed to facilitate bicycle use. (CITY, COUNTY)
Issue: Some recreational areas are not designed to accommodate the bicycle as a mode of
transportation to the recreation area.
Riding a bicycle to a recreational facility is in itself, a utilitarian trip. Surface streets leading
to recreational facilities should be part of the integrated network for bicycle transportation.
Recreational destinations, such as parks and marinas, have parking lots which encourage people
to drive single-occupant vehicles. This encourages two cold-starts of motor vehicles for each
round trip. Bicycle lockers or racks should also be provided at these locations so bicycles can
be safely stored while the owner is enjoying the park. Without bicycle lockers or racks, people
.will be inclined to drive to the park, rather than ride their bicycle. Development of recreational
areas should include appropriate access to the staging areas with bicycle lanes and trails.
Recommended Actions:
3.13 Develop design standards for recreational facilities that include safe, secure bicycle
parking, such as bicycle racks or lockers. (CITIES, EBRPD)
3.14 Develop design standards for recreational facilities that include adequate bicycle access
from the main road, including bicycle lanes where appropriate. (CITY, COUNTY,
EBRPD)
Issue: Transportation centers often have inadequate bicycle facilities.
Transportation centers such as rail transit stations or bus transit stations should provide for safe
and adequate storage for bicycles. A higher degree of security is necessary for storage of
bicycles at transportation destinations because of the long term storage needs, especially for
commuters. The bicycle storage area should be in a highly visible area for increased security,
and should be located close to the ticket counter or entrance to the transportation center for
maximum convenience. The design of bicycle lockers or storage facilities should be harmonious
with the architecture of the station. The transportation center itself, whether a rail station,
multimodal station, or bus terminal, should be designed to provide safe access for bicycles from
the road network to the bicycle storage facility in the center. Park and ride lots should also have
secure bicycle storage areas.
Recommended Actions:
3.15 Develop design standards for transportation centers that provide safe access for bicycles
from the street to the bicycle storage area and from the street through the transportation
center; provide a safe, secure and dry storage area for bicycles; and provide a convenient
location of the bicycle storage facilities. (CITY, COUNTYAND TRANSIT PROVIDERS)
� - R
3.16 Develop standard conditions of approval, to be imposed on development projects, that
require the installation of bus stops with bicycle racks or lockers, where appropriate, and
installation of bicycle lockers and racks at park and ride lots, where appropriate. (CITY,
COUNTY)
4. REGIONAL TRAILS
Issue: The design of trail crossings of major roads is often inadequate.
Where trails cross roadways, the possibilities for crossings include separated facilities either
above or below ground, or an at-grade crossing. Where there are high levels of motorized
traffic, separated crossings should be pursued subject to availability of right-of-way and funding.
With an increasing number of regional trails in Contra Costa County, the operational and design
issues of at-grade crossings should be addressed. The entity planning a regional trail should
coordinate the trail crossings of streets, highways, railroad tracks, or utility corridors with the
agency or owner responsible for the roadway, track or corridor.
The safest at-grade crossing is at an intersection either controlled by stop signs or signals. The
trail should cross the roadway in a perpendicular fashion with adequate sight distance for both
motorists and cyclists. Bicyclists should be able to access signal actuators without having to
dismount. This may be either a pushbutton or bicycle loop detector. Properly designed curb
cuts and ramps are also critical for safe, useful crossings.
On neighborhood streets without controlled intersections, a midblock trail crossing can cause a
safety problem. This situation results from the fact that motorists do not expect to have cyclists
crossing their paths on public roadways. The safety of a mid-street crossing would be enhanced
with a unique trail crossing "identity." An example might be a particular type of landscaping
or arrangement of landscaping, a particular type of street light at the trail crossing, a tall visible
distinctive identification standard, a particular type of sign, etc.
Recommended Actions:
4.1 Coordinate the design of street crossings with the local jurisdiction, during the planning
process of a regional trail system. (EBRPD)
4.2 Develop a standard "gateway" design for a trail crossing that would be universally
identified as a trail crossing. (EBRPD, CBAC)
Issue: Major trails should be connected to the regional road system and transit system.
Regional trail systems along canals, railroad right of ways, and utility corridors, should be
designed to connect to other trails and the bike lane system in the road network. Our current
trail system is not adequately linked with our regional road system and transit system.
1 _ o
Recommended Action:
4.3 Coordinate regional trails planning with city and county bikeway plans and with the
transit network. (EBRPD)
Issue: The increased use of regional trails is resulting in over crowding of some trails.
As the volume of trail users increases, the design elements of the trail (trail width,right of way
widths, clear zones, structural section, horizontal and vertical layout) must be reviewed for
adequacy. To properly design a trail, the volume of future users must be estimated. The
volume of trail users will vary depending on the trail's function and location. A functional
classification system for the trails should be established similar to our road system (arterials,
collectors, freeways) allowing for development of design standards for each functional
classification.
Recommended Actions:
4.4 Develop a functional classification for the trail system to be included in the bikeway plan.
(This classification may differ from the functional classification for roads called for in
Action 2.5.) (EBRPD)
4.5 Develop design standards and typical sections for the design of each type of functional
classification in the trail system. Separation of users (pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians)
should be considered for the high use trails. (EBRPD)
5. SUPPORT FACILITIES AND MAINTENANCE
Issue: Support facilities necessary to encourage bicycle use are virtually nonexistent.
To provide for a convenient and functional bikeway system, appropriate support facilities should
be provided including directional and locational signs along bike trails and adoption of route
designations for the various bike trail routes. Route designations could be formulated similar
to the interstate freeway system (even numbers for east/west routes and odd numbers for
north/south routes). In addition, drinking fountains, rest rooms, rest areas, storage lockers,
pressurized air facilities, roving repair/security patrol, strategically located pay phones, should
also be provided where needed.
Recommended Actions:
5.1 Include policies in the general plan that support development of the infrastructure and
support facilities necessary to encourage and facilitate bicycle use. (CITY, COUNTY)
5.2 Develop route designations and a directional signing plan for regional trails. (EBRPD)
5.3 Develop design standards for the construction-of trails to provide the needed support
facilities. (EBRPD)
5.4 Develop standard conditions of approval, to be imposed on development, to install
support facilities for proposed trails, where appropriate. (CITY, COUNTY)
Issue: Bikeways must be adequately maintained.
The paved surface of all trails and bike lanes, in addition to the striping and signing, must be
maintained to provide for a safe riding environment. Sweeping of bikeways is especially
important and yet often neglected. A bicyclist can lose control by driving over a relatively small
rock. Trimming of vegetation near the edge of trails should be performed to provide for
adequate sight distance at trail intersections and to keep the trail itself clear. Maintenance of
drainage facilities, bike racks, bike lockers and other support facilities, is also important. It may
be possible to maintain some of the above items through-local lighting and landscaping districts.
When maintenance is performed, it should be done with the bicyclist in mind. For example,
overlays of streets should include grinding of the pavement at the gutter lip so the finished edge
of pavement and the gutter lip match.
Recommended Actions:
5.5 Establish guidelines for maintenance activities that place importance on the continued use
of the road trail system by bicyclists. (CITY, COUNTY, EBRPD, EBMUD, CCWD)
5.6 Establish a maintenance schedule to properly maintain bikeways. (CITY, COUNTY,
EBRPD)
- 11
CHAPTER 3:
COUNTYWIDE BIKEWAY PLAN
The Countywide Bikeway Plan has been prepared by the Countywide Bicycle Advisory
Committee, showing the proposed future network of bicycle transportation facilities throughout
Contra Costa County. Implementation of this Plan is fundamental to making bicycle
transportation a viable alternative to the automobile for local residents. A continuous countywide
network of bikeways would provide residents with logical, direct access to major destination
points, including jobs, schools, and shopping areas.
The Countywide Bikeway Plan is intended to serve as a guide for planning regional bicycle
facilities throughout the county. The maps provided in this chapter should be used in evaluating
projects for funding. The Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee, in their annual review of
Transportation Development Act (TDA) grant applications, should evaluate the relationship
between the proposed project and the Countywide Bikeway Plan and give priority to projects
which are part of the Countywide Bikeway Plan or which provide connections to the planned
facilities.
CRITERIA FOR BIKEWAYS
The maps of the Countywide Bikeway Plan (Figures 3.1 - 3.4) propose an integrated network
for bicycle transportation throughout the County. They may not include all the local bikeways
or recreational trails proposed by individual cities. The following criteria were applied in the
selection of facilities shown on the Countywide Bikeway Plan:
1. Facilities should be regional, connecting a minimum of two communities;
2. Wherever possible, facilities should be continuous, connecting with other
bikeways;
3. Facilities should connect residential areas with major activity centers, such as
schools, employment centers and commercial areas; and
4. Facilities should provide connections to the public transportation system, including
BART stations and major bus stops.
COUNTYWIDE BIKEWAY PLAN MAP
To provide a greater level of detail and readability, the Countywide Bikeway Plan map has been
separated into four detail areas: East, Central, South and West County. Existing/proposed
bicycle lanes and routes (Class II and III) are shown as on-street facilities. Existing/proposed
bicycle trails (Class I) are shown as off-street facilities. The location of major activity centers,
BART stations, and bus transfer points have also been shown in the Countywide Bikeway Plan
maps.
� _ t
1. COUNTYWIDE BIKEWAY PLAN
Issue: A coordinated, comprehensive network of bikeways is required to ensure the
viability of bicycles as a mode of transportation.
Recommended Actions:
1.1 Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Countywide Bikeway Plan as a
General Plan Amendment to the County General Plan. (CONTRA COSTA COUNTY)
1.2 Use the Countywide Bikeway Plan in the evaluation of projects proposed for
Transportation Development Act Article 3 funding and other sources of funds for bicycle
projects. Give priority to projects which are consistent with the Countywide Bikeway
Plan. (CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE)
3 - 2
W BRADFORD WEBS.TRACT
2 TRACT
_._--------_._--------- JERSEY\a. ISLAND FRANKS
CAGO HWY �� P TRACT. .•G TRACT
4 .
�'••R• �•• • •..r-r x i 5Pµ ✓Fy � �L �•i� .,
• PIT fS * * A s4yo�''� •
. • �• vi T RY HwY ,�•• ��'
. •Ir;Ar• ' •F•;'*
4 HOLLAND
c' �• :� TRACT
NCORD
[YRR[S` R,7 a
�P pS`' e' � O• % • i
Q •� /
� �� nr KIRK.ER � w •• � :
R ••..• •: a.• r., H T SE N
CLAYTON ------y... .................................
�F H LOw U LACK
' i • kBRENTWOOD
s BALklp Rp
S i�", • w
0 1A/SH CREEK R�
C • : m .
A/CUNi =
DIABLO i - •,
Au,1N0 •� -
\ BYRON
RD DIA LO \ •'
RD
a�p}�
SEE SOUTH COON-n B( \ ��1
Cr,y4 DETAILAREA ` BYkCI:
4 C� :!Qi $PRIM,$
by
0
YCAW
VALLEY P ii�p
680 TASSAJARA
Po AN RAMON HIGH:AN
si \ -
HiON
I
LEG EIV �.•^�'^ ••^-
Oo Sueet F•ciliry FIMP BART s=oo A1a;u Acc.;ry Censer EAST COUNTY DETAIL AREA Figure 3.1
■■ Of Same F&nbr) B.Tr"&fu Ni. B Oct"Arca Boundary COUN-n' 'IDE BIKENVAN'PLAN
PaI'e 3-3
140, a n o s
"ate �9
k a F= of
rr
i, i �• d ap �O
b F-
M
•i; ♦ W Q
J 08 NOANV) IN
. #9F • , U 'k13Elaifrt ' Cf}
CD
CD
IP
or
,t Ja aYP
• � +, Q U4
> p 4
e
z • . rr O G + ¢ v
M
o � � +•• z r' •w�� ptS CAS lE � Q�
Gas+' �♦ d?r 1 rit ♦ V'• W <
QMH �7i��• Od~•vwr�
C o
ih
P�■ ••+ �, s■�, �L� rr r i Jb, ip� ME W CA
Z SQA Pio •+s• 7 ♦mw a M:•40410, w.. •• Q v
s
LU 0
441. ME
0
r ' .. ♦.- �� ��C a O
V 4h V ct-
V) �9 V
ro ••ii d i •`. w O W3 z
wo-�: n :, J IAVf •�� v• Lr,
{` 3.. �y� •
•'M r4
��.,iuUrt- 4 �•� �y. r 5�1 •• , Ge •• a �..�
4 a¢ .w•• VALLEY ♦ ; S�b+a
••rr••• RC l:J9F
•' 2 , '�'Yp Q 'AIA AJJVI 2
PI
qPM •!�_. ��� / ��.' d> 2 � 1
�C, a a4 �� c
Q• �'Y 5� ♦ Oily 3
lNEZ+�
1DGt; C 4
\ • c F�S�'- rr
1 w,
� o @�
co • 11J e QP
•
W • L � �a Z j a
a
Q �
1 $
C4-,
cr,
cc
r
a
.z
a
a
h +
Z q NERt ♦+o o
O QO ��srrrrr + a�
00
4 Q �P a.♦ +"000
Lam]
CA
co
CD
t 40
x ,�`' n Qdw ♦'♦`♦ � 'ti o �� '�,, p G M
p
_ p
o U
eoO4 'i• ♦♦'♦1 Q �
. fib♦ ..•''• 0.5 �E "'■ 4'� >. � H
♦w�'�`'CD
�'+
rrrr E (rrrrr`!t. •~ S
• S�
a ■ fl - y ��\ cr
o ZDC.- u a�
VI ♦r \ ' ,t++ i ♦ 0� • 4 pct VN I
CD
>j �d� i �1C�y ♦ CX O
v
� N
v
_ a w w 3
G
a r w
�b� a3dd) y 13ra01) �O
G4
a
CD
4
sa dr V� �� x x s
R
'-
A` p a d c o a> O
✓, Spm :> �;K� �QJ rz
ccCD - {0 a_
CD
:' 1 a W Q=o a —t �
d " o GLJ.i m w z<+ W V In
✓ }- q #' z a u �?;- F—n. Inos I j en
co
to
ac • a 2i01AV1 Q
pi13i0�1 �� cp VALLEY Q WJ
C) Oa
LIRA y1E.
'A 1A A ;rs 4.2.
r J 2 0 Y4 83 d p117Ly0T�
� 'd -
i
D � .
SEP •;"' E Qp�E�� i 4��� dE ►'r w
o o E d
W
LLJ
CARWINEZ! LJ
BRIDGE;
m r; W
r■ • j 2 ' J'
14 ::D `
.{ CD :'■ C-) a spy
W F4` CT,
1- Q
LLJ
Ar
.+
O
LLJ
+ i C7 �z
Ar ctoD ■
• �C$ l�Q ac +�
■ 0- DIN 5
+ i ?tup, AYi ■�
. hrrgso R■q■ dE -k 7 9
■
+ �4to i S ■ •
�•rriR l� � S
• k F
4• �r � �R}� XG,
CHAPTER 4:
PROMOTION OF BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION
The case studies presented in Chapter 1 make it clear that local jurisdictions with successful
bicycle programs do more than provide infrastructure, or bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. These
local governments also actively promote bicycling as a viable mode of transportation. Residents
of Contra Costa County need to be made aware.of the benefits of bicycling and encouraged to
try it. Employers in the County should encourage bicycling as a trip reduction measure in their
efforts to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Trip Reduction Rule.
Finally, transit providers, schools and recreation providers should also promote bicycling.
Promotional efforts include the preparation and distribution of materials, conducting bicycle-
related events, and providing training for prospective bicyclists.
1. EDUCATION/PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM
Issue: Educational/public informational materials are essential in the promotion of bicycles
as a viable mode of transportation.
A coordinated countywide Education/Public Information Program is essential for a successful
bicycle program. Promotional materials and activities provide the means to educate the public
on bicycle-related information. Topics usually addressed in these materials include maps of
bikeways (routes, lanes and paths) and bicycle facilities; recommendations on safety and rules
of the road; commuting tips; benefits of bicycling; bicycles on transit vehicles; events and
bicycle to work/school programs.
Distribution of promotional materials is also a key element in encouraging residents to bicycle.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, bicycle shops, and schools can be major
distributers of bicycle literature. "Bicycle-friendly" communities should coordinate their
promotional efforts with colleges or universities, schools and parent groups, local employers,
law enforcement agencies, bicycle organizations and bicycle shops. Colleges can focus
promotional efforts and education on the student population, and employers on the commuter
market. Schools and parent groups promote safe bicycling to school children. Law enforcement
agencies work to increase community awareness of safety issues and local and state laws and
regulations. Bicycle organizations can act as a liaison between bicyclists and policy makers, and
inform the public about bicycle-related issues and events. Bicycle shops have the ability to
inform customers about the benefits of utilitarian cycling, equipment regulations and rules of the
road. Though marketing efforts are often focused on a selected group, the development of
promotional materials and activities is most cost-effective if there is a coordinated effort among
all the above groups.
Recommended Actions:
1.1 Develop, assemble, and provide the public with information and promotional materials
on bicycle use and bicycle facilities in Contra Costa County, including brochures,
4 - 1
newsletters and posters, presentations and videos. (7RANSIT DISTRICTS, REGIONAL
TDM PROGRAMS, BICYCLE ORGANIZATIONS, RIDES FOR BAY AREA
COMMUTERS, INC.)
1.2 Maintain and update existing bicycle maps including the Bicycle Transportation Map of
the East Bay prepared by the East Bay Bicycle Coalition and recreational trails maps
prepared by the-East Bay.Regional Park District. (EAST,BAY BICYCLE COALI770N,
EBRPD, COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT PREVENTION PROGRAM)
1.3 Work with regional TDM Program Managers, Employee Transportation Coordinators
(ETCs) and small local employers in promoting bicycle commuting among County
employees. (REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
COORDINATORS)
Issue: Bicycling Events/Programs have been shown to be important elements in the
promotion of bicycling.
1.4 Organize countywide, citywide and employer-based bicycle events including Bike to
Work Days and Bicycle Rodeos. (BICYCLE ORGANIZATIONS, SCHOOL AND
COLLEGE DISTRICTS, COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT PREVENTION
PROGRAM, REGIONAL TDM COORDINATORS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES)
1.5 Support and maintain the Safe Roads/Safe Families Prevention Program, promoting safe
bicycling in Contra Costa County. (CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES
DEPARTMENT)
1.6 Include bicycle commuters in Guaranteed Ride Home, preferential parking and TDM
Incentive Programs. (REGIONAL TDM PROGRAMS, EMPLOYERS OF CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY)
Issue: Bicycle Training Programs are needed to assist prospective bicyclists in developing
the necessary skills for bicycle transportation.
1.7 Coordinate workshops with local law enforcement agencies and bicycle organizations on
safe and effective workshops for all ages and skill levels. (ELEMENTARY, JUNIOR
HIGH AND HIGH SCHOOLS, DIABLO VALLEY COLLEGE, ST. MARY'S COLLEGE,
CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY HAYWARD, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, HEALTH SERVICES
DEPARTMENT PREVENTION PROGRAM)
1.8 Work with employers and sponsor training programs for employees who are considering
using the bicycle to commute to work. (RIDES FOR BAY AREA COMMUTERS,
REGIONAL 7DM PROGRAMS, EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION COORDINATORS,
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT PREVENTION PROGRAM)
4 - 2
APPENDIX A
SOURCES
APPENDIX A:
SOURCES
CHAPTER 1: The Bicycle as a Mode of Transportation
1. Bicycle Federation of America. National Bicycling and Walking Study: Case Study No
5• An Analysis of Current Funding Mechanisms for Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs at
the Federal. State and Local Levels. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation. April, 1993.
2. Bicycle Federation of America. National Bicycling and Walking Study: Case Study No.
18 Final Report: Analysis of Successful Provincial. State, and Local Bicycle and
Pedestrian Programs in Canada and the United States. Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation. March, 1993.
3. Bicycle Institute of America. Bicycling Reference Book: Transportation Issue. 1993-
1994 Edition.
4. Clarke, Andy. Preprint: Bicycle-Friendly Cities: Key Ingredients for Success.
Transportation Research Board, 71st Annual Meeting, January 1992.
5. Cynecki, Mike, Grace Perry & George Frangos. Preprint: A Study of Bicyclist
Characteristics in Phoenix. Arizona. Transportation Research Board, 72nd Annual
Meeting, January, 1992.
6. Evans, David and Associates, Inc. National Bicycling and Walking Study: Case Study
No. 3: What Needs to be Done to Promote Bicycling and Walking? Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. February, 1992.
7. Goldsmith, Stewart A. National Bicycling and Walking Study: Case Study No. 3:
What Needs to be Done to Promote Bicycling and Walking? Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. 1992.
8. Lagerwey, Peter A., and Bill Wilkinson. National Bicycling and Walking Study: Case
Study No. 23: The Role of Local Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinators. Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. 1992.
9. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Journey-to-Work in the San Francisco
Bay Area: 1990 Census, Census Transportation Planning Package (Statewide Element).
Working Paper #5. April, 1993.
10. Williams, John. Bicycle Advocate's Action Kit. The Bicycle Federation of America.
1993.
A - 1
Chapter 2: Guidelines for the Development of Standards to Facilitate Bicycle Use
A. Bicycle Planning Issues
1. Kroll and Sommer. Bicyclist' Response to Urban Bikeways. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, Vol. 43, No. 1, January, 1976.
2. Sommer, R., and D. Scott. City of Davis Bicycle Programs. Davis City Council,
Davis, California. Circa 1976, 73 pp.
3. Feldman, William. Bicycle Compatible Roadways - Planning and Design Guidelines.
New Jersey Department of Transportation. December, 1982, 31 pp.
4. Von Borstel, E. Controlling Neighborhood Traffic. APWA Reporter. November,
1985, 2 pp.
5. College Station, Texas. Guidelines For Using Wide-Paved Shoulders on Low-Volume
Two-Lane Rural Highways Based on Benefit/Cost Analysis, Research Report 114-1F.
Texas Transportation Institute. 1989, 41 pp.
6. Williams, John. Improving Local Conditions for Bicycling. Bike Forum, Bike
Centennial, Missoula, Montana. 4 pp.
7. National Bicycle and Walking Study: Case Study #24: Current Planning Guidelines and
Design Standards Being Used by Late and Local Agencies for bicycle and Pedestrian
Facilities. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C. 1992 (draft), 32 pp.
8. Wilkinson, William C., A. Clarke, et al. Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to
Accommodate Bicycles. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C. 1992
(draft), 32 pp.
9. Pugh, B. A Bikeway Master Plan Cookbook. P.O. Box 974, North Highlands, CA
95660-0974. 1992, 45 pp.
10. Ourston, Leif. British Interchanges. and Traffic Control Devices. Western ITE.
September - October 1992, XXXV No. 5, 3 pp.
11. Ruzek, J. Selected Examples of Bikeway Designs on Bridges. Regional Bicycle
Advisory Committee of the San Francisco Bay Area. Oakland, CA. January, 1993, 28
PP.
12. Weeler, A.H., M.A.A. Leicerster and G. Underwood. Advanced Stop-Lines for
Cyclists. Traffic Engineering + Control. February, 1993, 7 pp.
13. Personal Communications between Douglas Weber and Anne Lusk. Lusk's Leeway
Design Applications. Stowe, Vermont. March 24, 1993, 20 pp.
A - 2
14. Mackay, James. Engineering Skill Without Insight Aren't Enough - The Need for
Awareness on Bicycling Issues. City of Denver. (prepared for) ASCE Specialty
Conference. Denver, Colorado. 1993, 7 pp.
15. Mackay, James. Developing Design & Operational Solutions for On-Street Bike
Facilities. City of Denver. (prepared for) ASCE Specialty Conference. Denver,
Colorado. 1993, 6 pp.
16. Mackay, James. Quality Engineering for Off-Street Bikeways - It's Always Cheaper to
do it Right the First Time. City of Denver. (prepared for) ASCE Specialty Conference.
Denver, Colorado. 1993, 7 pp.
17. Eisen, Victoria A. Breaking the Recreational StereoMM: Trails as Transportation -
Building a Better Bike Path. Fourth National Rails to Trails Conference. Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy. Washington, D.C. 1993, 5 pp.
B. Bikeway Design
1. California Department of Transportation. Bikeway Planning and Design. California
Highway Design Manual, Fourth Edition, Chapter 1000. Sacramento, California. 34
PP
2. East Bay Regional Park District. Bicycle Standards: Bicycle Trails and Routes.
Oakland, California. 1976, p. 40-47.
3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO). Guide
for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, D.C. 1991.
4. Pugh, B. A Bikeway Design Cookbook. P.O. Box 974, North Highlands, CA 95660-
0974. 1992, 150 pp.
5. Mackay, James. Recommendation for Grade-Separated Bikeway Overpasses,
Underpasses, Tunnels. etc. City of Denver. (prepared for) ASCE Specialty Conference.
Denver, Colorado. 1993, 5 pp.
6. Mackay, James. Developing Viable Bike Facility Construction Detours. City of Denver.
(prepared for) ASCE Specialty Conference. Denver, Colorado. 1993, 5 pp.
7. Denver Public Works Department. Construction Detour Standards for Bikeways and
Multi-use Trails. Denver, Colorado. 1992, 12 pp.
C. Bicycle Parking
1. Fletcher, Ellen. Bicycle Parking. 777-108 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303.
1983. 6th ed, 46 pp. with 1993 update, 10 pp.
A - 3
2. Pugh, B. A Bikeway Parking Cookbook. P.O. Box 974, North Highlands, CA 95660-
0974. 1992, 30 pp.
3. Williams, John. Bicycle Forum Technical Note Series #Pl• Bike Parking Location.
Bike Forum, Bike Centennial. Missoula, Montana. 1988, 1 p.
4. Williams, John. Bicycle Forum Technical Note Series #P2: Choosing Parking Devices.
Bike Forum, Bike Centennial. Missoula, Montana. 1988, 1 p.
5. Ross, Arthur. Bicycle Forum Technical Note Series#P4• Madison's Parking Ordinance.
Bike Forum, Bike Centennial. Missoula, Montana. 1988, 4 pp.
CHAPTER 3: Countywide Bikeway Plan
1. Draft Concord General Plan. 1993
2. Oakley Parks Master Plana 1993
3. Tri Valley Bike Plan. 1992
4. 1991 Martinez General Plan. 1991
5. Contra Costa County General Plan. 1991
6. Dougherty Growth Management and Specific Plan. 1991
7. Contra Costa County Countywide Bikeway Plan. 1990
8. Revised Draft Circulation Map, San Ramon General Plan. 1990
9. Survey of Existing & Potential County Bikeways (Rich Juricich, Contra Costa County
Intern). 1990
10. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. 1989
11. Walnut Creek General Plan. 1989
12. Danville General Plan. 1989
13. Westside San Ramon Specific Plan. 1989
14. The Bay Trail Plan, Association of Bay Area Governments. 1988
15. Pittsburg General Plan. 1988
16. Existing Trails Map,, City of Antioch. 1988
A - 4
17. Pleasant Hill General Plan. 1986
18. San Pablo General Plan. 1980
19. Richmond Bikeways Plan. 1978
20. Concord Trial Plan. 1972
CHAPTER 4: Promotion of Bicycle Transportation
1. Rowe, N. Dianne. Bicycling to Work Seminar Information. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 1983, 19 pp.
2. Harnik, P. How to Organize a Bike Day. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C. 1985, 17 pp.
3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C. 19 , 21 pp.
A - 5
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS
EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS
All materials are free to public unless otherwise noted. For illustration, see Figures B-1.through
B-7. The following list is a list of effective materials by topic:
1. USER MAPS
1.1 Santa Clara County Bikeways. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency.
September, 1991.
1.2 San Diego County Bike Map. Cooperative effort: Commuter Computer,
SANDAG, various bicycle shops and organizations.
1.3 King County Bicycling Guidemap. Cooperative effort: King County,
Washington, REI and Cascade Bicycling Club. 1990.
1.4 Bicycle Transportation Map of the East Bay. East Bay Bicycle Coalition 1993,
$6.50.
2. SAFETY/RULES OF THE ROAD
2.1 Getting Around...A Guide to Safe Bicycling at UCD. Transportation & Parking
Services, University of California, Davis. September, 1991.
2.2 Street Smarts: Bicycling's Traffic Survival Guide. John S. Allen. Rodel Press,
$.32/ea. 1991.
2.3 Cycling Safely in Traffic. Editors of Bicycling Magazine. Rodel Press, limited
request. 1990.
2.4 San Diego's Regional Safety Guide. Commuter Computer. Undated.
2.5 California Bicycle Laws. California State Automobile Association. April, 1990.
3. BICYCLING CON Bl UTING
3.1 1 Commuting on Your Bike. Editors of Bicycling Magazine. Rodel Press, limited
request. 1991.
3.2 Bicycle Commuting: How to Get Rolling. Cascade Bicycle Club, Seattle.
February, 1992.
4. EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION
4.1 The Business of Bicycling. Cooperative effort: Department of Transportation,
Colorado, Ride Arrangers, City of Arvada, City of Boulder, CO. Undated.
B - 1
4.2 Bicycle Commuting: Why Should My Business Care? Cascade Bicycle Club,
Seattle. February, 1992.
SPOT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
5.1 Bicycle Rack Request Postcard. City of Seattle Bicycle Program.
5.2 Citizen Bicycling Improvement Request Postcard. City of Seattle Bicycle
Program.
6. BICYCLES & TRANSIT
6.1 You Can Bike On Us. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency. October,
1990.
6.2 Buses & Bikes Go Places Together: Here's How. San Diego Transit. June,
1991.
6.3 San Diego Trolley's Bike-N-Ride Program. Cooperative effort: San Diego
Trolley, American Youth Hostels, La Mesa Cyclery, Valley Bicycles, and The
Transit Store. July, 1993.
7. ADVERTISEMENT
7.1 Photo of Bus with a "Bike to Work for a Healthy- Environment" poster.
Sponsored by the City of San Diego. 1992.
B - 2
p.
��I;r,.„m,rr.�.,m...gptrrfR/(hrtrnr,�r+ortn�rntttf.':''tl+,t%ttntl!r/tttr(Itrtll'tttitlt,'t ttlrrti!t,+tttttttftt rrt(rt!ti t(!ttftrt t( i t
Y
4
Q
O
m
a
a,
`c
0
ire B Z -VLO W
G
• U -
N
o v
T v
T E
B _ 4
Figures B-3, B4 and B-5
Q c
cn
cr
w
I E m CD
CL
Q £ a) o it 4 m
fs I i n� Y a� ZI
Uja
J �N �cu I g E- m a E mm yy
m ! Z 0) 4 O i
CD kn
CU
CO
X•r", v3� � d e - "
xd ? „
Ew
a
6_
3 0 = o of
it! >g Y
kfi� '"r, �G "L. �JtL �b rfLs. O C • g 8
JE
z
0
La!CO Ui
c
10
U
0 _Cr)
W Z �f;.. cri W
0 !i
w �
B - 5
NP.
• t � ! i r
' i
',� ��.r ice., �•�t.+t� �4�t�t { ! '•�I
' cfir�i •�M � � ! '! t! '
1 t � � � � a 1� � t•
�• rt
•t f
.r
APPENDIX C
BICYCLE FACILITY EVALUATION SURVEYS
BICYCLE FACILITY EVALUATION SURVEYS
Four bicycle facility evaluation surveys were conducted by employees of the Community
Development, Health Services, and Public Works Departments, along with members of the
Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee and guests, during the Spring of 1994. The objectives
of these survey tours were as follows: to give County employees a real-life experience in bicycle
transportation in the County; to evaluate the current and planned bicycle transportation system;
and to prepare recommendations for improvements. Participants completed an evaluation form
at the end of each tour. Each survey was 15 to 20 miles in length, with a rest stop at the mid-
point. Routes included both bike paths and on-street facilities to simulate actual bicycle
transportation conditions. The routes and dates of each survey were as follows:
WEST COUNTY TOUR - April 14, 1994
Start at San Pablo Bay Regional Park; follow San Pablo Avenue through Hercules and Rodeo,
Pomona Street through Crockett, and Carquinez Scenic Drive to Port Costa for a rest stop. Take
Carquinez Scenic Drive to the Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline Park in Martinez.
CENTRAL COUNTY TOUR - April 28, 1994
Start at Hidden Valley Park, Martinez; follow the Contra Costa Canal Trail through Pleasant
Hill to Buena Vista Avenue in Walnut Creek, thence to the Walnut Creek BART station,
boarding BART to Pleasant Hill. From Pleasant Hill BART, follow the Iron Horse Trail and
the Contra Costa Canal Trail to Heather Farms Park for a rest stop. Return via either the
Contra Costa Canal Trail back to Hidden Valley Park, or the Ygnacio Canal Trail back to the
Contra Costa Canal Trail and from there back to Hidden Valley Park.
SOUTHWEST COUNTY TOUR - May 11, 1994
Start at Broadway Plaza Shopping Center, Walnut Creek; take
the Iron Horse Trail to Danville Boulevard, then follow Danville Boulevard to the farmers
market site in Danville. Following a break, take the Iron Horse Trail to the end point at the San
Ramon Community Center, Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road. Transportation was
available to Walnut Creek.
EAST COUNTY TOUR - May 25, 1994
Start at Antioch Sports Park, Antioch; follow the Contra Costa Canal Trail to Hillcrest Avenue,
thence to Lone Tree Way; Lone Tree Way to Marsh Creek Trail; Marsh Creek Trail to Cypress
Road for a rest stop. Continue on Cypress Road to Empire Avenue; Empire Avenue to Lone
Tree Way, thence back to Hillcrest Avenue, Contra Costa Canal Trail and to the starting point.
An evaluation of each survey tour revealed specific issues identified with each route as well as
generic issues which occurred often. Problems were identified in the areas of planning, design,
safety and maintenance. These surveys were instrumental in the recommendation in this plan
C - 1
to retain a bicycle coordinator. One function of this position would be to organize and conduct
periodic surveys of bicycle facilities. The following is a general listing of the types of issues
identified in the four surveys:
1. Planning Issues
Need coordination of planning for bikeways by cities and the County;
Lack of continuity in the system;
Need to protect rights-of-way;
Different levels of bicycle user need different facilities;
Coordination with Caltrans;
Inadequate funding;
2. Design Issues
Sight distance; blind curves along trails;
Width of bike lanes and trails;
Intersection of trails and roadways;
Design of drainage grates in bike lanes;
Design of wooden bridges over creeks;
Transitions between trails and streets;
Connections to transit stations;
3. Safety and Maintenance Issues
Design of street crossings;
Vegetation encroaching into trail or bike lane;
Debris, leaves, glass, gravel on bike lanes and trails;
Potholes, cracked and crumbling pavement along edge of roadway;
Posts at bridge ends along a trail;
.Coordination with facility operators (cities, County, Caltrans, Park Districts).
C - 2