HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03121996 - D7 D. 7
Contra
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - Coin
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: March 4, 1996
SUBJECT: Countywide Bicycle Action Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . Adopt a resolution in support of the Countywide Bicycle Action Program.
2. Authorize the Director of Community Development to initiate a review of the
Circulation Element of the General Plan and to propose revisions that would
make it consistent with the Countywide Bicycle Action Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff costs associated with reviewing and proposing amendments to the General Plan
are estimated at $5,000. The County has secured a grant from the Petroleum
Violation Escrow Account in the amount of $250,000 to implement the Countywide
Bicycle Action Program.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): Jeff Smith 40 -
orlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON: March 12 , 19 9 6 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHERX
Following discussion of this matter and on recommendation of Supervisor;
Torlakson, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recomemndations
are ARPPOVED; and it is REQUESTED that at a future meeting of the
Board of Supervisors the Board officially express their gratitude to
the members of th e Bicycle Advisory Committee for their efforts in
completing the plan.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A'
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT) 3 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 March 12 , 1996
Contact: Ernest Vovakis, 335-1243 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
cc: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ° , DEPUTY
Countywide Bicycle Action Plan
March 4, 1996
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee has completed the Countywide Bicycle Action Plan, which
sets as a goal a rate of 5% of County residents commuting by bicycle by the year 2000. The plan calls
for a countywide bicycle coordinator to work with the cities and the County to complete an integrated
system of bicycle paths and lanes, to develop "bicycle-friendly" design recommendations for new
development, and to actively promote bicycling as an alternate mode of transportation.
The plan has been sent to each of the cities with a request that they also adopt a resolution of support.
In addition, the plan has been presented to the technical advisory committees of the four regional
transportation planning committees in the County. Staff is currently completing the grant process for
the Petroleum Violation Escrow Account grant and will soon be advertising for the Bicycle Coordinator
position. Staff is also coordinating closely with the Health Services Department, which has also
obtained funding from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air for a Bicycle Commute Project.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 12 . 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers , DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Bishop
ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 96/ 12 4
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE
BICYCLE ACTION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the bicycle is a mode of transportation that is nonpolluting, healthful, and
economical; and
WHEREAS,Contra Costa County has favorable attributes for use of the bicycle as a mode
of transportation, including an extensive system of regional trails, moderate climate, and favorable
bicycle policies in many cities; and
WHEREAS,the U.S. Census shows that only 0.5%of County employed residents commuted
by bicycle in 1990, the lowest rate of any county in the San Francisco Bay area; and,
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County is experiencing severe traffic congestion in many areas
and air pollution related to vehicular emissions; and
WHEREASAhe Metropolitan Transportation Commission requires the County and the cities
to have an adopted comprehensive bicycle plan to be eligible to receive Transportation Development
Act, Article 3 funds; and
WHEREAS, the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee has prepared a Countywide
Bicycle Action Plan,which proposes a unified and coordinated effort to increase the use of the bicycle
as a mode of transportation; and
WHEREAS, achievement of the goals of the Countywide Bicycle Action Plan will require
a cooperative and coordinated effort by all local governments in the County and other public and
private entities; and
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has secured funding to retain a Countywide Bicycle
Coordinator to work with the cities toward implementation of the actions identified in the
Countywide Bicycle Action Plan.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Board of Supervisors for the County
of Contra Costa supports the Countywide Bicycle Action Program and pledges its cooperation and
assistance in meeting the goals of the Countywide Bicycle Action Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County of Contra Costa agrees to review the
Countywide Bicycle Action Plan and to consider adopting those provisions of the Countywide
Bicycle Action Plan in its General Plan or policy that are appropriate and acceptable, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the County of Contra Costa encourages the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority to incorporate appropriate provisions of the Countywide Bicycle
Action Plan in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and
RESOLUTION 96/ 12 4
f
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Chair
of the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Executive Director of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority.
I hereby certify that this Is a true and Correct copy of
an action taken and entered On the minutes of the
Board of pe sore
an •dete dWN6
ATTESTED; o
PHIL BA of the Board
Au
ay►
.Deputy
Orig.Dept.: Community Development
cc:Ernie Vovakis(5-1243)
EV:aw
bbike.res
RESOLUTION NO. 96/-L2 4
� 1
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
January 17, 1996
The Honorable Jeff Smith, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Administration Building
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Supervisor Smith:
I am very pleased to present you with a copy of the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle Action Plan,which
was prepared by the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee. Also enclosed is a copy of the Comments
and Responses to the draft Plan and a model resolution of support.
The vision of the Countywide Bicycle Action Plan is nothing less than to make the bicycle a fully viable
alternate mode of transportation in Contra Costa County, with 5% of all commute trips utilizing the
bicycle by the year 2000. Achieving this vision will require a unified and coordinated effort by the cities,
the County,transit providers, and other agencies. Contra Costa is blessed with a magnificent system of
regional trails, and many cities are actively developing bikeway systems. The Plan seeks to build on the
progress already made by developing bicycle-friendly designs for new communities, completing gaps in
the countywide bikeway network and actively promoting bicycle use.
Many of the recommendations in the Plan require actions by local governments, in the design of roadways,
for example, and in the approval of subdivisions and other land developments. We ask that you review
the recommendations of the Plan and include in the County's policies and plans those provisions which
are appropriate and acceptable. We also ask that you consider adoption of the enclosed model resolution,
pledging the County's cooperation and assistance in meeting the goals of the Plan. In the months ahead,
we expect to receive a state grant for a Countywide Bicycle Coordinator to work with cities and the
County toward implementation of the Plan. We hope the County will reiterate its support for this
program-
in y u
Charles R. Tyler, Chair
Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
c% Community Development Department, 657 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ACTION PLAN
Bicycle Transportation:
Sensible, Environmenta4 Economica4 and Healthy
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 1995
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ACTION PLAN
Bicycle Transportation:
Sensible, Environmental; Economica4 and Healthy
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 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
D. CASE STUDIES
i
LIST OF FIGURES
CO 1NTVWID . BIK .WAY 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. AT .R ALS
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
0.1
LIST OF TABLES
COUNTYWIDE BIKEWAY PLAN Page
A COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1 BICYCLE COMMUTERS WITHIN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA . . 1-2
1.2 BICYCLE COMMUTERS WITHIN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . . . . . . . . 1-3
1.3 ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL BICYCLE PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
2.1 DEFINITIONS OF BICYCLE FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
iii
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 a "road map" for local jurisdictions to
participate in this countywide effort.
• Chapter 1, The Bicycle as a Mode of Trans2ortation, reviews data on utilitarian bicycle
use in the County and Bay Area and evaluates a number of "case studies" of communities
which have actively promoted bicycling.
• Chapter 2, Guidelines for the Development of Standards to Facilitate Bicycle Tce
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 communities that are more bicycle-
sensitive.
• Chapter 3, Counlywide Bikeway Plan, presents an updated countywide plan for an
integrated and comprehensive network of bikeways throughout the County.
• Chapter 4, Promotion of Bicycle TranspQrtation, 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 at the
request of the cities to comply with MTC requirements for TDA funding. The Countywide
Bicycle Advisory Committee includes representatives from public agencies, bicycle organizations
and supervisorial districts. Members who participated in the development of this plan are shown
in Table A.
The preparation of this Countywide Bicycle Action Plan was supported by a grant of the
Transportation Development Act, Article 3 funds.
1
TABLE A
Name Or anization
Richard Allen Supervisorial District 5
Mike Anderson East Bay Re ional Park District
Gene Farley Su rvisorial District 3
Steve Fiala Supervisorial District 2
C.W. Hobbs California flighway HighwayPatrol
Norma Jellison Conference of Mayors
Derek Liecty Different Spokes Bicycle Club t
Steve Mosle Alternate member for District 5
W. Robert Richards Grizzly Peak C clists
John Ruzek San Francisco_pAy Chapter, Sierra Club
Cecile Shepard Supervisorial District 4
Yehuda Sherman East Bay Bi le Coalition
Kath 'Pate Valley Spokesmen Bicycle Tourin Club
Charles Tyler The Cyclery CycleGrow
Eric Wittig Supervisorial District 1
Staff.
Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department
Clare O'Brien, Community Development Department
Ernest Vovakis, Community Development Department
2
CHAPTER 1:
173E BICYCLE AS A MODE OF TRANSPORTATION
Many positive attributes in Contra Costa County favor a market for bicycle transportation.
Climate, 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 promote bicycle use for transportation, 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, and to increase the use of bicycles in the County for trips to school,
shopping, entertainment, and other destinations. Achieving this goal requires a coordinated, 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
noise, congestion, air pollution, reduced parking requirements, 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. In addition to its more popular use as a recreational
vehicle, the bicycle can be used to commute to school or work, or to reach shopping centers and
other locations. 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, 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. 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 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, gas and
1 - 1
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.
TABLE 1.1
.......:.....:.:::..:.......:..:..:::::.............:.::.......::::..;:::
;.:
........:.....
1.9
County Percent Number
Alameda 1.3% 7,919
Contra Costa 0.5% 1,911
Marin 0.7% 918
Napa 1.2% 626
San Francisco 1.0% 3,634
San Mateo 0.8% 2,606
Santa Clara 1.5% 11,675
Solano 0.7% 1,180
Sonoma 1.0% 1,975
BAY AREA TOTAL 1.1% 32,444
1 - 2
TABLE 1.2
BI
u.: .r.. :> i hex Re r neat :::::::;::<
City/CommunityCity/Community Percent Number
Antioch 0.4% 113
Brentwood 1.0% 34
Concord 0.7% 402
Danville 0.3% 52
El Cerrito 1.6% 183
Kensington 1.2% 31
Lafayette 0.4% 45
Martinez 0.5% 80
Pleasant Hill 0.9% 159
Richmond 0.6% 226
San Pablo 0.5% 53
San Ramon 0.5% 107
Walnut Creek 0.6% 169
1 - 3
.1
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
A summary of those case studies appears in Appendix D.
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 already demonstrated a commitment to bicycle
transportation, the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee has identified the following actions
that would strengthen the Countywide Bicycle Program in Contra Costa County. (The Contra
Costa County Health Services Department implemented a bicycle commuter program, funded by
a grant from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, directed at increasing bicycle commuting
to the Shadelands business park in Walnut Creek. The project was intended to demonstrate how
bicycle commuting can be enhanced by a direct marketing effort.)
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
countywide Bicycle Program Coordinator; to work with local governments. The Coordinator
would be responsible for formulating policies, updating the bikeway plan, and working with the
Bicycle Advisory Committee. The Coordinator would review development plans to ensure that
projects or related mitigations support bicyclists. The Coordinator would also assist 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.
1 - 4
.;.
11
I'll..........I.......-- . - 9.q
.. ''..''
.z:". .: .............. "**,*,
.....- < ... -::-:-.--. . ,............. :�,:*:,"
""", .:>:: ..............I., ................ '............... .....- ... I....... ...�...... ..............., ................ : :::;:.:.:
;�::::::::::. .......- .., .� . . .
:::. ............. I . ... :-:::-::: X-:-:-:-:-:-:
,. . ......:.:. :-::-:-:-X. .. .::...: ..... p"' , : ::"....--
;IIIIIIIIII .::::::::: ..:.:.::::::::.,... ................ L,
. '............... .............. ................
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
;..
:: ,:
K <:: :;:
ill K ::::>
I�! :: ' ?�
C..:::.::.:::.
...:
. ::: :::....... . .-�
:: > ::
• � : k ......S.> k ': :: :
� '
�: . lil.S
:: : `::'
::
iR::
�:
:<+ i.
k
... ...... ........
o::>:»
%s:::z':
... .:: . I
K <.::.:::::.: k ::
�j K .:.:.::.:: K :::;::.:.::: K ; k :::`%:::;;
is
: `
'O. ;':
W.::
j
::..
ill
Ill:
{� K
K i';<'?.,.-.%
:::::::
K
SSS i>
::.
�.iRii
LW {44{
``^^ w
Wl
:;
➢!i:
Q .
K r%?;'�:
>:: .s::::::: >:::::>:
::::::.
:::.
a
:::CL .: K K
:<'' :::�i c
:::a.''�..' .: >.
:.:<... :Ys;::;::i ........ ;::i:::: :::::::;:::
:Si:. ..
......... :
::<t: :<'
:<i:::;: ::::
........AI. ::;:;::; ::::::i: ::;::;: ::4:>:::::
:'`:;: !:
rel
V ...... "
M 0
V
�'I
•�•1
iiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiii :'::?:
MM ::;:
p,1
Governments that support bicycles also 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.)
Physical improvements, such as grading separations or signalized intersections may be constructed
to improve bicycle access to critical areas. The lack of these bicycle facilities along commute
corridors can easily discourage residents from trying bicycle commuting.
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.
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, AND EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK
DISTRICT)
1.3 Seek funding for a Bicycle Program Coordinator in the Contra Costa County
government to work with cities and 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 PL.A_WONC=
a) Develop and administer policies, programs and guidelines that include
consideration of bicycle safety and access.
b) Develop programs for the review of 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
Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings.
e) Maintain and periodically update the Countywide Bicycle Plan and map.
1 - 6
f) Conduct surveys of licycle. 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 new development projects to be "bicycle-friendly" (see Chapter 2). (CITY
AND COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENTS)
1.5 Encourage new plans, projects and programs of local transit agencies to include
considerations for bicycles. (METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
[MTC], CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY [CCTA], CITY AND
COUNTY GOVERNMENTS)
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 - 7
�.1
2. CONBUTM ENT 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). Most funding sources can only be used for capital improvemnts. Funding
for maintenance of bicycle paths must also be developed.
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:
1.7 Utilize 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), Mdropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Fast Bay
Regional Park District (EBRPD), Contin Costa County Transportation Authority
(CCTA), Transit Agencies)
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 - 8
also be encouraged to participate in the program by phone. The Coordinator would be responsible
for informing the appropriate jurisdiction:.
Recommended Actions:
1.8 Encourage citizens to advise local jurisdictions on issues relating to bicycle facilities
and promotion. (COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE)
1.9 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, bicycle organization)
1.10 Develop a public phone line specifically designed for bicyclists and/or a page on the
County's Internet web site. The "hotline" would provide information on
recommended routes, 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)
1.11 Sponsor community forums on bicycle-related issues and projects, such as major
projects or plans that affect bicycle access or safety. (BICYCLE PROGRAM
COORDINATOR)
Encourage voluntary assistance of bicycle organizations and the public in performing
minor maintenance of bikeways such as sweeping debris and trimming vegetation.
(BICYCLE PROGRAM COORDINATOR)
1 - 9
D41
CHAPTER 2:
GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS
TO FACH:ITATE BICYC F USE
The current transportation system in the United States is designed around the automobile
Accommodation for the automobile is 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. 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. An extensive road system for the automobile
links our home with the work place, shopping, schools and recreational facilities. Destinations
have convenient paring 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 that would 'implement the action.
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 it is 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.
2 - i
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:
2.1 Include policies in local general plans supporting housing design that facilitates the
use of bicycles. (CITY, COUNTY)
2.2 Develop standard conditions of approval that may be applied to residential
development projects, providing for accessible and secure bicycle storage areas.
(CITY, COMM
2.3 Develop policies for design review and/or staff review of site plans for building
permits that provide for homes to be designed with accessible and secure bicycle
storage areas. (CITY, COUNTY)
2.4 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:
2.5 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
V
2.6 Develop standard conditions 4 of approval that can be applied to residential
development, providing that subdivisions be designed with a circulation system and
connections necessary to facilitate bicycle use. (CITY, COUNM
2.7 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, COUNT
Note: Although the recommended actions addressing each issue are presented separately,
in many cases they can be accomplished together, e.g., actions 2.4 and 2.7.
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:
2.8 Develop a bikeway circulation map as part of the circulation element of general plan.
(CITY, COUNTY, EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT)
2.9 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, COUNT
2.10 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, COUNT
2.11 Develop a priority list of bike lane improvements and include them in the Capital
Improvement Program. (CITY, COUNT
2 - 3
TABLE 2.1
�► .BIc �I ..: ,
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-df--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, H 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).
2 - 4
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:
2.12 Identify the missing links in the system by comparing the bikeway circulation maps
of the local general plans. (CITY, COUNM
2.13 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)
2.14 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. Access to some BART stations is
difficult for bicycles. BART allows bicyles on BART trains during non-commute hours if a
permit is obtained. Bicycle racks and lockers are available at most stations. County Connection
and Tri-Delta transit allow bicycles on buses, at the discretion of the driver.
Recommended Actions:
2.15 Compare transit route maps with the bicycle system plan and insure that appropriate
links are planned. (CITY, COUNTY, TRANSIT PROVIDERS)
2.16 Encourage transit providers to accommodate bicyles.(TRANSIT PROVIDERS)
2.17 Encourage BART to work with local jurisdictions to improve bicycle access to BART
stations.
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.
2 - 5
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
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. Schools should incorporate these
considerations in any planned reconstruction. There should also be a safe local network of bicycle
lanes and trails from the neighborhoods to the school.
Recommended Actions:
2.18 Encourage school districts to provide 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, COUNM
2.19 Bicycle circulation plans should be designed to accommodate safe access to schools.
(CITY, COUNTY, EBRPD, SCHOOL DISTRICTS,)
2.20 Consult with school districts in drafting bicycle circulation plans to ensure they match
any school adopted bicycle access routes from the surrounding neighborhoods. (CITY,
COUNM
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 to community facilities. Rather than excluding bicycles from commercial and business
2 - 6
a
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.
Recommended Actions:
2.21 Include policies in the general plan that require the design of commercial
developments to facilitate the use of bicycles. (CITY, COUNTY)
2.22 Develop standard conditions of approval, and incentives (such as reduced automobile
parking requirements) that may be applied to new commercial development, and
require safely designed parking lots, bicycle racks and lockers to facilitate bicycle use.
(CITY, COUNTY)
2.23 Develop policies for design review and/or staff review of site plans for commercial
projects that are designed to facilitate bicycle use. (CITY, COUNTY)
2.24 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)
2.25 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:
2.26 Include policies in the general plan that require business development and
employment centers to provide features that facilitate the use of bicycles. (CITY,
COUNT
2.27 Develop standard conditions of approval, that may be applied to new business
development projects that require installation of employee showers, and secure, dry
bicycle storage. (CITY, COUNTY)
2 - 7
�1
2.28 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, COUNTY)
2.29 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 parka 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:
2.30 Develop design standards for recreational facilities that include safe, secure bicycle
parking, such as bicycle racks or lockers. (CITIES, EBRPD)
2.31 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:
2.32 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
2 - 8
provide a convenient location of the bicycle storage facilities. (CITY, COUNTY AND
TRANSIT PROVIDERS)
2.33 Develop standard conditions of approval, that may be applied to development
projects, that require the installation of bus stops with bicycle racks or lockers-and
installation of bicycle lockers and racks at park and ride lots. (CITY, COUNM
4. REGIONAL TRAMS
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:
2.34 Coordinate the design of street crossings with the local jurisdiction, during the
planning process of a regional trail system. (EBRPD)
2.35 In consultation with local jurisdictions, develop a "gateway" design for a trails
crossing streets that would be universally recognized 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.
2 - 9
. t
Recommended Action:
2.36 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:
2.37 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 2.9.) (EBRPD)
2.38 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:
2.39 Include policies in the general plan that support development of the infrastructure
and support facilities necessary to encourage and facilitate bicycle use. (CITY,
COUNTY)
2.40 Develop route designations and a directional signing plan for regional trails. (EBRPD)
2.41 Develop design standards for the construction of trails to provide the needed support
facilities. (EBRPD)
2 - 10
i
2.42 Develop standard conditions of approval, to be imposed on development, to install
support facilities for proposed trails, where appropriate. (CITY, COUNT
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:
2.43 Establish guidelines for maintenance activities that place importance on the continued
use of the road trail system by bicyclists. (CITY, COUNTY, EBRPD, EBMUD, CCWD)
2.44 Establish a maintenance schedule to properly maintain bikeways. (CITY, COUNTY,
EBRPD)
2 - 11
D'q
CHAPTER 3:
COUNTYWIDE BIKEWAY PLA
N
The Countywide Bikeway Plan shows the proposed future network of bicycle transportation
facilities throughout Contra Costa County. Construction of the facilities shown on 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 ON COUNTYWIDE PLAN
The maps of the Countywide Bikeway Plan (Figures 3.1 - 3.4) show an integrated network for
bicycle transportation throughout the County. 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
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.
3 - 1
�.1
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:
3.1 Recommend that Contra Cosat cities and the County amend their general plans, as
needed, to be consistent with the Countywide Bikeway Plan. (CITIES, COUNTI)
3.2 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)
3.3 . request the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to consider incorporating the
Countywide Bicycle Action Plan in the CCTA Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan. (CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY
CONMUTTEE)
3 - 2
BRADFORD wEBB,TRACT
TRACT
c
JERSEY '
1
A ��' !BEANO FRANKS
'�\ TRACT TRACT i
AGO HMY
--�" fy a T
PIT , _- ...........
HWY
HOUAVD
�•. TRACT
NCORO �••.. : CTP •. Ra ;
•,r.
jk
HTSEN
'Y •• � •• i
•• ••• •••••••••••• •M••••••••••
CLAYTON � + � �,•, � •••
A� LORA ACK a ��,. .. .V•� I
v: BR TWO00
y BAL RO • +
•
y w•ww. •wiww �
•
�y
i�♦ASsm, CRE K
is
f
Mor '•••. ..
,• KT
�g ca«•'- aq•.,•• BYRON �.
s �
♦ qs
Fe ala
u SFE sount COumv qui MAILAR" •.•10T�SPR NGS
YCAM C� ••�
YALL Y •.••
68 iASSAJARA ^�j w•• -
ao AN RAMON ^
OROSS �p0 d p ' _
d
N
rr�
dsd:¢rm _
eB"Tmuwpodw
enxTsrr,r;� e M'p''"°"`}'�""
o•Sawftidhy EAST COUNTY DETAIL AREA Figure 3.1OR SawF•cititY DMQAmBown"Y COUNTYWIDE$IKEWAYPLAN
Page 3-3
4w
i
J
.- -!' 377rgS�3iyW0S H zo
d
Q o�
o-
M
� Orb
• i0 7�ta
• r,.: r,en OA 19 of
08
• ��< <�'
2 • �O QD >:
C1r �' f o r• �A
o o .t
u a vA
v •.rrrr��wrrr•••• y ♦♦•♦�6f C� •• � �,o, C� o
i 4 •
,' t o fir•• ` & •i'''fJ/J +°�`� ♦� >'� O
•, a 7 �}i �d r♦Y♦♦. 4 ,_�'� • fir= • �t �Wy t�
s • • c `y-
' �l ♦ oc `9 NO
b O� • L``- `' ••• ' •' 02i S'Atj
•
ca
o J • o
u c r
rd VIJ3180
py 021 a 'A t
1. 0
00Q• ++` i�� � a b �- •Y � m
.' u
4
�'N w 4r �•
tidy •,tel �O EQ? � s�N,� OJ�•• \/;,
•co
a e r
♦ � Od i
r
ri3
s
Q <� O L�S
f
OROpN ��
4P = s
PP
i M
a nn
ON raAr+ra �ONERI
VPS
# Tt3+3191 04)8 OM
O O 4 C)
z Qa o ��p + r r
Cl
• Qd !•� w Jrr �, o ,' F
sr AS LE
tr '+ r'i,� ' Q vy
*w l s Q w� +fir ._J J .- d W M
•� ck p � ;' a
`$ d
r*r- i 00
a '
tit i w 1
r ♦1 �� CD
Y j � •«� '"O t"'� N k QO i
•� a 4� i
r Cr J3
r+ PABLO, g
t
. %0.
jpQ .A TA
Q M3dd1 �V
4
4Q � r`j��
Q exp
C}
�i �• r
�~••••
r•
r N N
is, o4
o
C)
AMN
d XPi >,� U <Z ," a w
�4 fl J a cr i v V)CL tart
M
Ll-
co
co d
n 3Ar Qp V RILE �0
�p�� as a
as p� 41-
X
wX
JBR� Pit �_. -_ a 'klA
gt
i r o ' D
`.�' r.•� 0 0� p cn
to
W
i W ��� •.�'i f� i', V
J O
14,
COWIMEZ4J O cy
SRIOLLJ
i ♦� adt Q Qa ?'
i
•✓� v S
i O ♦ ;p
00
: cr-
LJ Or-
LJ
t pt' •�.
! * c add �� �+• .,
rr•O � .dtY] • �.
a.
..o
..................... ', ..t
� ♦ i V b'ybbP�
r
rr • cr .. j
( IL
tr
•
--
9"q
CHAPTER 4:
PROMOTION OF BICYCL.F 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 also need to be made aware of the benefits of bicycling and encouraged
to try it. Transit providers, schools and recreation providers should 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:
4.1 Develop, assemble, and provide the public with information and promotional
materials on bicycle use and bicycle facilities in Contra Costa County, including
brochures, newsletters and posters, presentations and videos. (TRANSIT DISTRICTS,
BICYCLE ORGANIZATIONS, RIDES FOR BAY AREA COMMUTERS, INC.)
4 - 1
. i
4.2 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
COALITION, EBRPD)
Issue: Bicycling Events/Programs have been shown to be important elements in the
promotion of bicycling.
4.3 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)
4.4 Support and maintain the Safe Roads/Safe Families Prevention Program, promoting
safe bicycling in Contra Costa County. (CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH
SERVICES DEPARTMENT)
4.5 Include bicycle commuters in Guaranteed Ride Home, preferential parking and TDM
Incentive Programs. (REGIONAL TDM PROGRAMS, EMPLOYERS OF CONTRA
COSTA COUNM
Issue: Bicycle Training Programs are needed to assist prospective bicyclists in developing the
necessary skills for bicycle transportation.
4.6 Coordinate workshops with local law enforcement agencies and bicycle organizations
on safe and effective workshops for all ages and skill levels. (SCHOOLS, COLLEGES,
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PREVENTION PROGRAM)
4.7 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 TDM PROGRAMS, EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION
COORDINATORS, HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT PREVENTION PROGRAM)
4 - 2
APPENDIX A
SOURCES
V-q
APPENDIX A:
SOURCES
CHAPTER 1: The Bicycle as a Mode of Transportation
1. Bicycle Federation of America. National Bicycling and Walling Study: Case Studd No.
S: An Analysis of Current Funding Mechanisms for Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs a
the Federal. State and Local Levels. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation. April, 1993.
2. Bicycle Federation of America. National Bicycling and Walling 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: Tran=rtation 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. P=rint: 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 Walling 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 Walling 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 Ray
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:
A - 1
0.1
1993.
Chapter 2: Guidelines for the Development of Standards to Facilitate Bicycle Use
A. Bicycle Planning Issues
1. Kroll and Sommer. Bicyclist'Re=nse 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 RoadwaysysPlanning and Design Gu, .
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-Volum .
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 Bicycles. 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.
A - 2
13. Personal Communications between Douglas Weber and Anne Lusk. Lusk's Leeway
Design Applications. Stowe, Vermont. March 24, 1993, 20 pp.
14. Mackay, James. EnLineejjng Skill Without Insight Aren't
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 Chea r to
do it Right the Fist Time. City of Denver. (prepared for) ASCE Specialty Conference.
Denver, Colorado. 1993, 7 pp.
17. Eisen, Victoria A. Breaking the Recreational Stereotype: Trails as Transportation -
BBuilding 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). Gul&
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.
Und=mses, Tunnels, etc.,, City of Denver. (prepared for) ASCE Specialty Conference.
Denver, Colorado. 1993, 5 pp.
6. Mackay, James. Developing Viable Bike Facility Construction Detour . 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
A - 3
1. Fletcher, Ellen. Bicycle Parking. 777-108 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303.
1983. 6th ed, 46 pp. with 1993 update, 10 pp.
2. Pugh, B. A Bikeway Parking Cookbook. P.O. Box 974, North Highlands, CA 95660-
0974. 1992, 30 pp.
3. Williams, John. cycle Forum Technical Note Series #P1: 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. cycle 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 Plan. 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
A - 4
14. The Bay Trail Plan, Association of Bay Area Governments. 1988
15. Pittsburg General Plan. 1988
16. Existing Trails Map, City of Antioch. 1988
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. 1 , 21 pp.
A - 5
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS
EXAMPTY—S OF REFECTIVE PROMOTIONAL MATERTAT C
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:
L USER MAPS
1.1 Santa Clara County Bikeways. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency.
September, 1991.
1.2 San Diego County Bike Man. Cooperative effort: Commuter Computer,
SANDAG, various bicycle shops and organizations.
1.3 King County Bicycling Guideman. Cooperative effort: King County,
Washington, REI and Cascade Bicycling Club. 1990.
1.4 Bicycle Transportation Mag of the East Bay. East Bay Bicycle Coalition 1993,
$6.50.
2,
SAFETY/RULES OF THE ROAD
2.1 GettinLy 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 Quide. 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_ Safely Guide. Commuter Computer. Undated.
2.5 California Bicycle aws. California State Automobile Association. April, 1990.
BICYCLING COMMUTING
3.1 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
B - 1
�.1
4.1 The Business of Bicycles. Cooperative effort: Department of Transportation,
Colorado, Ride Arrangers, City of Arvada, City of Boulder, CO. Undated.
4.2 Bicycle Commuting: Why Should My Business Car ? Cascade Bicycle Club,
Seattle. February, 1992.
SPOT DWROVEMENT PROGRAM
5.1 Bicycle Rack Request Postcard. City of Seattle Bicycle Program.
5.2 Citizen Bicycling Improvement Request Postcard. City of Seattle Bicycle
Program.
BICYCLES & TRANSIT
6.1 You Can Bike On IN. 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.
ZADVERTISEMENT
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
FigureB-1
USERMAPS
�"G,yiy�r.nyi a4
Aa-
� O r.}� -' __ '��l�� .•, ... �� � r ,fir , ;
u
c
4
Q
C
Q
a
Ir.
1 '
c
fiz a
bi
< U
N
B
Figure B-2
SAFETY/RULES OF THE ROAD
CA ca
a-SAMOS"
1�
i �� _jam?
_ _ ,
tn
16"l
PMCA
COD
v ;
•
09
����� CnG� CnCnCnG� G� G�
�•s
Figures B-3, B-4 and B-5
cn
$ s9 ami
# oma. EE cu
�¢
Cr- E '
j l i cap
s
o � L- t1 $
_ gF� 1 � Q`
� � 11 Car
W
j 1.4 ca
� s
U $$ aa) o
3. ............: . Uta a� a
{ i
LL
of
-10
Rk
-• A
x. , »,• k
zY w
z
W au a M
M a CLU
�� ww
B - 5
! : � �
0
��C '
�S) ..�J.a.. .���.._
_ �.
i>
;3 ":i..`
� K
•'
_ • �.
+ �♦ _,
1 y'�r � � �
•• 1��" •�1\i�w:_ _ ,t 1�
'.
I � ,
� � i , � ; I ,
t S " i _
`;`'x� . _ ._ �1'�.;.`via"" _ �
_ 1 V 1•.
f 3
i
5 t �
APPENDIX C
BICYCLE FACILITY EVALUATION SURVEYS
�.1
BICYCLE FACII.ITY 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
C - 1
,1
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 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;
C - 2
Y �
Posts at bridge ends along a trail;
Coordination with facility operators (cities, County, Caltrans, Park Districts).
C - 3
CASESTUDIES
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. 6% 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 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.
D-1
p1
SANTA CLARA COUNTY,'CALIFORNIA
Santa Clara County is known as one of the most "bicycle-friendly" counties in the Bay Area. 2%
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.
D-2
741
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
D-3
,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.
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
D-4
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.
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.
D-5
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 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.
D-6
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.
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.
D-7
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ACTION PLAN
Comments and Responses
Bicycle Transportation:
Sensible, Environmental, Economical, and Healthy
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 1995
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ACTION PLAN
Comments and Responses
m®
Bicycle Transportation:
Sensible, Environmental, Economical and Healthy
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 1995
INTRODUCTION
This document contains comments and responses on the Draft Countywide Bicycle Action Plan.
The plan, which was prepared by the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee, was presented
to the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County on June 6, 1995, and was simultaneously
transmitted to the 18 cities of the County and other interested parties for review and comment
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. Contra Costa is
fortunate to have a magnificent system of regional trails, and many cities are actively developing
local bikeway systems. The plan seeks to build on the progress already made by promoting
bicycle-friendly designs for new communities, reaching concensus on a countywide bikeway
network, completing missing gaps in this system, and actively promoting bicycle use. A goal
of the plan is that 5% of all commute trips utilize the bicycle by the year 2000. Achieving this
goal will require a unified and coordinated effort by the cities, the County, transit providers, and
other agencies.
Letters commenting on the draft plan have been received from 11 agencies. Section I contains
copies of the comment letters, followed by a summary of the comments with the Committee's
responses in Section II. Comments and responses have been organized in the following
categories: A. comments concerning the text and recommended actions of the plan; B. comments
concerning the role of the plan and the review and adoption process; and C. comments
concerning the plan maps.
Y.�
I. COPIES OF COMMENT LETTERS
AC Transit
Association of Bay Area Governments
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
City of Concord
Contra Costa County
Town of Danville
City of Martinez
City of Orinda
City of Lafayette
City of Walnut Creek
City of Brentwood
ACTransit 1600 Franklin Street,Oakland,California 94612 ❑ (510)891-4777
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
August 2, 1995
Charles R. Tyler
Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
c/o Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine St.
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: Comments on Draft Countywide Bicycle Action Plan
Dear Mr. Tyler:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Countywide Bicycle Action Plan. It is
my understanding that the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee will be incorporating
various comments into the plan and then distributing the final draft to various public
agencies for comment. As the Transportation Planner currently assigned to coordinating
bicycle issues, I have a few general comments for your consideration.
Virtually every transit agency in the country is anticipating a reduction of Federal and
State funding over the next three fiscal years. I currently believe that this loss of operating
subsidies will significantly impact AC Transit's ability to implement many of the excellent
AAstrategies outlined in the draft plan. Unless an ongoing source of funding is identified for
the implementation of many of the measures included in the plan, obtaining support for
those measures will be problematic. For example:
• purchase and maintenance of bike racks,6n buses;
• increased operating expenses due to the rerouting of buses to access the bicycle
network;
• installation and maintenance of bike lockers at transportation centers.
I applaud the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee for producing such a
comprehensive plan and look forward to receiving the final draft. I can also be reached by
phone at 510-891-4721.
Sincerely, f
Patricia Broadbent
Associate Transportation Planner
CC: Stephen T. Parry, Manager of Service Development
July 28, 1995
Charles R. Tyler, Chair
Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Tyler:
The Bay Trail Project has just received, from a friend in the bicycling
community, a copy of the Draft Countywide Bicycle Action Plan. We would like
to commend you on the plan, and also to suggest several additions for the
Committee's consideration.
The plan does an excellent job of outlining successful policies promoting
bicycle facilities. In addition, the issues/ actions format is very effective. The
Countywide Bikeway Plan. itself, would benefit from a great deal more
specificity and background information for the benefit of elected
decisionmakers, funders, implementing planners and the cycling community.
We would offer the following suggestions:
• We are pleased to see the inclusion of Bay Trail routes in the County.
Regional trail facilities--of which there are many in Contra Costa County,
including the Bay Trail, Iron Horse Trail, Lafayette-Moraga, Briones-to-Mt.
Diablo and Contra Costa Canal Trails--should be identified by name. (They
may or may not be candidates for TDA Article 3 funding, but they are
significant resources to cyclists). The western trail shown as a dashed line
C.3 along the shoreline in figure 3.4 (p. 3-6) should be identified as the Bay
Trail. It is a Class I path, but much of it follows the alignment of the
Richmond Parkway. Where a trail is not named, as at Marina Bay,
Richmond, street names or other localtional references should be provided.
I have enclosed Bay Trail user maps of Contra Costa County for your
reference.
• Identification of existing vs. proposed segments would be very helpful.
This would provide a visual index to the existing bikeway system and those
parts of the system which still need to be approved, funded and constructed
via the plan. It would also be helpful to have some narrative description
CAdiscussing development opportunities/or impediments, the responsible
jurisdiction (City, County, Caltrans, Park District) and recommended
Ad—rostered by the Association of Bay Area Governments
P.O.Box 2050•Oakland California 946042050
Joseph P.Bon MetroCen ter-101 Eighth Street-Oakland Callornia 94607-4756
Phone:510.464.7935
Fax510.464.7970
implementation actions. -An example of this would be implementation of
the Bay Trail segment mentioned above by the City of Richmond, after
inclusion in the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan, or inclusion of
bicycle facilities by Caltrans on the planned new Carquinez and Benicia-
Martinez Bridge spans, with related surface street routes (like Marina
Vista in Martinez) needed to be developed by local jurisdictions.
• Chapter 1 focuses on bicycle commuting in the Bay Area. We believe it is
important, particularly in the light of funding opportunities offered by the
ISTEA Transportation Enhancements Program, not to emphasize
distinctions between commutes to work and recreational cycling. Given
that many Bay Area highways are now as congested on weekends as
during weekdays, recreational trips (and traffic impacts) should be as
meaningful as business commutes; and given Contra Costa County's ever-
A.2 growing number of parks, and particularly the trail systems and regional
shorelines being developed by the %ast Bay Regional Park District,
recreational "commutes" to nearby parks should be given serious
consideration in their own right. If safe and convenient bicycle facilities
were provided to these destinations, and the definition of bicycle commuters
expanded, Contra Costa County's half-percent of bicycle commuters would
certainly increase as well!
• Further discussion of funding opportunities is needed. The Bay Trail
Project has compiled a trail funding guide and calendar, which we will be
A.3 happy to provide at your request (510/464-7904).
A number of counties are currently engaged in devising/revising bicycle plans:
Marin and Solano have just completed one, Napa is beginning one, Santa
Clara looks forward to a major revision next year. It would appear to be
helpful if much of the research, methodology and information were shared.
I have enclosed a couple of pages from Solano County's recently completed
plan for your information. You may obtain a complete copy from the Solano
Transportation Authority, 333 Sunset Ave., Suisun City, CA 94585, attn: Dan
Christians.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Countywide Bicycle
Action Plan, and hope that these comments will be useful. Would you please
add the Bay Trail Project (c/o ABAG, P.O. Box 2050, Oakland 94604) to your
distribution list. We will look forward to the final Bicycle Plan.
Sincerely,
Brian Wiese
Trail Development Coordinator
CONTRA COSTA
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
COMMISSIONERS:
Julie Pierce October 18, 1995
Chair
Don Talzin Mr. Charles R. Tyler, Chair
Vice Chair Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
Gayle Bishop Community Development Department
Taylor Davis 651 Pine Street
Millie Greenberg Martinez, CA 94553
Cathie Kase! SUBJECT: Draft Countywide Bicycle Action Plan
W.D. 'Bill'Landis
John E.Marquez Dear Mr. Tyler:
Allen Payton Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review the draft Countywide Bicycle
Tom Toftakson Action Plan. As the agency responsible for implementation of the various regional
Hermann Welm bicycle and pedestrian trail projects identified in the Measure C Expenditure Plan and as
Robert K.McCleary the Congestion Management Agency concerned with vehicular trip reduction it is our
Executive Director sincere interest to encourage such alternative modes of transportation as the bicycle.
We have discussed our comments on the plan with Ernie Vovakis of the County
Community Development Department. The issues addressed are summarized below:
1) The goal of the Plan to utilize the bicycle for 5% of all commute trips by the year
2000 appears too lofty. Considering the reduction in bicycle commuters in
Contra Costa County during past ten years from 0.6% to 0.5%, a trend reversal
of the magnitude necessary to meet this goal does not appear realistic. We feel
A-1 6 that a more realistic goal of 2% should be stated in the Plan. Although the
significant improvement in the existing system of local and regional trails has
resulted in a dramatic increase in recreational bicycling, this does not necessarily
translate into an exponential improvement in bicycle commuting.
2) The Action Plan should discuss the trade-off between the cost of providing grade
separated crossings of local arterials versus the long term maintenance costs of
A-17 signalized crossings. In addition, the increased safety and enhanced travel time
associated with grade separated crossings should be emphasized.
1340 Treat Blvd, 3) With the San Francisco Bay Area now designated as a maintenance area by the
suitelso Air Quality Management District, the use of the bicycle should be promoted on
Walnut Creek
CA 94596 the basis of contributing health benefits, not only from the exercise aspect, but
A.18 also from the reduced concern about the hazards of physical exertion in relation
PHONE: to air pollutants.
5101938-3910
FAX,
5101938-3993
�1
0I) ur Co ,:coiti) CITY COUNCIL
FMANEFRIM;& IRLANSVOR[AlioN DF.mRINIEN-1 Helen Ni. ,Alen, Malloi
115—, All(-N Lou Rosas,Vice Nlavor
Cmicm(1, Calik,i imi 415211-480., G)lleen Coll
v (5 101 680-1660 Bill NicManigal
1-holluts 1. Clallwil Michael A. Pastrick
Dii c(toi of Engincci ing&-Transl-mirtAtion L%iinct Keilil, Citv Clerk
lch-pholic: (510) 671-3137 ConeUrd Thomas Wending', Cite Ti caskii c,
Edward R. James.Cit% Ntaiiagci
July 28, 1995
Mr. Ernie Vovakis ro
Community Development Department
6151 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94533
Z:_
Z7
Dear M�v is:
I am writing to provide comments on the "Countywide Bicycle Action Plan" dated May 1995. We
appreciate the time and effort to develop the Plan. Encouraging bicycle use can be an important part
of transportation demand management. We also appreciate the opportunity to comment on it.
My comments follow the item numbering in the Plan. On page 1-1, the goal is to have up to five
percent of all County employed residents commuting by bicycle by 2000. The total now is one-half
A.1 percent. This goal certainly seems ambitious, to say the least. The proposed goal of five percent
is ten times the current total.
On page 1-13, Item 1.4 states "Require the provision of bicycle facilities such as showers, parking
and bikeways in major new offices and commerciAl#developments to promote the use of bicycles."
It would be important to coordinate any requirements with existing Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management (BAAQM) Board,
A-5
Contra Costa County and the cities in the County. We suggest that the requirements be limited to
developments with 100 or more employees, since it may be very difficult for smaller, in-fill projects
to provide these items, particularly showers and bikeways.
On page 1-15, Item 3.3 specifies "... a public phone line specifically designed for bicyclists." This
A-6 line may be helpful, particularly if it is a countywide line. An important issue is the funding source.
It may be possible to obtain a grant, perhaps from SB 434 funds through the BAAQM District.
In Chapter 2, Items 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.6, 2.9, 3.5, 3.10, 3.16, 5.4 are similar to Item 1.4 noted above.
Items 1.2 and 1.3 related to requiring "... residences to be designed with accessible and secure
bicycle storage areas" seem particularly excessive. The economy is rather slow, and there are
concerns expressed by many that there are already too many requirements on development that add
A.7 to the cost. These concerns are particularly expressed in regard to housing costs. If carefully done,
some of the other recommended actions may be useful and not unreasonable burdens. Item 2.6 may
require extensive right of way, and may be possible for a large development along a new street.
However, this requirement may not be reasonable for some developments, particularly in-fill or small
developments.
DOI
We applaud the Committee's vision in promoting the bicycle as a meaningful alternative
mode of transportation and look forward to the completion of the final Countywide
Bicycle Action Plan.
Sincerely,
Robert K. McCleary
tive Director
B
Paul F. Maxwell
Deputy Director, Projects
file: bikepin.ltr
Item 2.12 may be helpful, but perhaps should be expressed as "Encourage transit providers to
A.8 provide for bicycles where appropriate." For example, it may not be advisable to allow bicycles on
a crowded BART train to the exclusion of.passengers.
A.9 Item 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 could be helpful. However, the source of funding is not clear.
A.10 Item 3.16 may be useful in some areas, but bicycle racks or lockers may be appropriate at only a
limited number of bus stops or park and ride lots.
Item 4.2 includes developing a "standard 'gateway' design for a trail crossing that would be
A.11 universally identified as a trail crossing." A uniform design may be helpful, but great care should
be taken when developing a "standard." A guideline or suggested design would be more appropriate
since different locations have differing aspects that must be considered.
The proposed Countywide Bikeway Plan as shown in Figure 3.2 includes roadways in Concord
where we would not desire to encourage use by bicyclists, particularly younger riders. Of particular
concern are Ygnacio Valley Road, Kirker Pass Road and Oak Grove Road. The off-street facility
that parallels Ygnacio Valley Road would be a more desirable route. As I am sure you know, any
C.13 roadway can be used by bicyclists. The only routes that should be designated are those where
bicyclists are encouraged. The portion of this Plan in Concord should correspond to the Trails
Diagram of the Parks, Open Space and Conservation Element of the City General Plan (copy
enclosed).
If you have any questions, please contact John Templeton at 671-3129 or me at the number listed
above.
Sincerely,
/got
Tom Clausen
Director of Engineering & Transportation
VP07W 19
cc: Edward R. James, City Manager
Barbara Neustadter, TRANSPAC
John Templeton, Associate Transportation Engineer
Enclosure
N FT
foam Im#
PITTSBURG
S6 � 11
+: +4
PACtEC4
E .. i �.
1
�! 1
Lin�r
loom
t g
PLEASANT •�� •
CLAYTON
.4 w 1! 1i b .4 1
M�M
WALNUT CREEK
�.... Planning Area Boundary
Figure 1 PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Regional Trait
���■ Collector Trail
i City Park
CON CORD GENERAL PLAN , MILE
SCALE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET 0 1 2 3 5
E.
Community Contra Harvey of ommu n
Director of Community Development
Development Costa
Department Courcy
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Sly'✓ 4 t'
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553.0095
Phone: 9 �
646-2034 ,-. M
`�
July 20, 1995
Charles R. Tyler, Chair
Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
% Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Tyler,
Thank you for inviting us to comment on the Draft Contra Costa County Countywide Bicycle Action
Plan. It has many positive suggestions that will be beneficial in improving the bicycle trail network
of the County. I can enthusiastically endorse the work done by the committee and will attempt to aid
in implementation.
There are a few comments, however, on the Draft Action Plan I would like considered before it is
finalized.
The Introduction on page 1 discusses the role of Chapter 3, the Countywide Bikeway Plan(page 3-2
of Chapter 3 makes the same statement). It states that the Countywide Bikeways Plan will be
presented to the Board of Supervisors for adoption Is part of the County General Plan. This seems
far to exclusive of an adoption process to further the goals found in the plan. The County is one of
19 local governments with a General Plan and the vast majority of the urbanized portions of the
Bel County where commute bikeways would function are located within cities. The implication is clear,
portions of this plan should be recommended for adoption by all cities as well as, the County. Cities
should be encouraged to ensure that the Concepts of the Countywide Bikeway Plan are included for
their Sphere of Influence (at a minimum). The way this is written currently, implies that adoption
by the County will somehow provide Countywide policy concurrence. I assure you this is not true;
ask any city. I also presume that many cities already have within their general plans a more extensive
bicycle trail system than is shown in Chapter 3 and that general plan changes may not be needed by
them.
Secondly, I presume what is desired is that the bike links shown on the plan map should be added to
local governments General Plan Bicycle Plan. The County's Bicycle Trails Plan is shown in Figure
9-5 of the Contra Costa County General Plan. It shows bicycle recreation trails which are not
C■2 included in the maps shown in Chapter 3 which focus on commute bike use. I could see augmenting
the plan map to insure that both trail uses are included, however, I would hesitate to delete those
recreation trails.
, 1
C.1 Third, the plan-distinctions between off and on street facilities is helpful, however, have they been
reviewed by the cities they cross for their concurrence?
Summarily, on the issue of the adoption of the maps in Chapter 3 into the County General Plan. I
could endorse modification of Figure 9-5 of the County General Plan to include all the routes shown
on the Countywide Bikeway Plan, but I would also show the recreation trails currently found on the
C.2 existing plan but not found on the Countywide Bikeway Plan. Whether it is desirable to add detail
to the General Plan differentiating between on and off street facilities is something that needs further
thought. This is more of a trail implementation idea and one wouldn't want to create general plan
interpretation problems if, for example, a trail couldn't be built on-street. For example, would a
development project be inconsistent with the plan if the trail needed to be built within the street right-
of-way? More importantly, though, I feel the wording on pages 1 and 3-2 be modified to encourage
both the County and the cities to insure the trails shown on the Countywide Bikeway Plan be placed
B.1 within their general plans. For cities it should be for their Spheres of Influence.
Other Suggestions
1. Table 1-2 on page 1-3 lists West Pittsburg; the correct name for the community is now Bay
Point.
2. Recommended Actions. 2-8 on page 2-5 urges jurisdictions to identify missing links in the
bikeway circulation map of the General Plan. This is inappropriate. A general plan is to
A.1 2 present a long term picture of what a jurisdiction could look like. Missing links will change
over the time as facility improvements are implemented.
3. There are several recommended actions listed throughout the report which urge the cities and
the County to add policies to their general pans(e.g. 3-2, 3-4, 3-9, 5-1, etc.). Should it be
B.1 suggested somewhere in the document that these should be done concurrently with review
of the Countywide Bikeways Plan?
Summarily, I feel the work of the Committee is very valuable and can be the impetus to a better
bicycle trails program. It will need to be imputed into the 19 unique planning programs of the cities
and the County and handled within that context.
Sincerely yours, ,
James W. Cutler
Assistant Director,
Comprehensive Planning
JWC:drb
Jwc 1995/drbBikeplan.ltr
c:d iandocs/bikcplan.ltr
cc: Ernie Vovakis
City of Martinez ...'
y 525 Henrietta Street. Martinez. CA 94553-2394
e��
IM76 .. _ - a.i•
August 21, 1995
Mr. Ernie Vovakis
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Ernie:
Subjects Proposed Countywide Bicycle Action Plan
The City of Martinez wishes to thank the Countywide Bicycle
Advisory Committee for its work on the proposed plan. We feel that
this is an important step toward encouraging bicycles as a viable
form of transportation.
We feel that the next step in developing this plan should be
reaching a consensus among the County, Cities, the East Bay
Regional Park District, and other interested parties . In the plan, .
Bn3workshops are suggested. These would be useful, but perhaps. a
first step would be a "road show" - presenting the plan and various
alternatives to the Board of Supervisors, City Councils,
Transportation Authority, Regional Committees (such as Transpac) ,
and various private organizations such as the BIA and the Contra
Costa Council. Without community support, nothing meaningful will
result from the plan.
The plan is not clear about the procedural next steps . There is a
reference to the Board of Supervisors adopting the plan map
(Chapter 3) as part of the general plan. The map should be adopted
as part of the circulation element, and the adoption should include
BA/�
appropriate policy language as well, such as is contained in the
other chanters of the Plan. There is also a reference in the
transmittal letter to adoption by other policy bodies . This would,
be desirable. Perhaps adoption of a, local plan consistent with the
Countywide plan could be a pre-condition to receiving TDA funds .
B�5It would also be desirable to have this plan incorporated into the
Countywide Transportation Plan adopted by the Transportation
Authority.
In Section 2-2 . 5, the plan calls for a functional classification of
the road system identifying bicycle lane widths along with the
typical road standards . This is very important and should be
DO 3 stated more strongly. Bicycle lanes should be incorporated into
the standards used by engineers to design roads and subdivisions .
Until bicycle facilities are part of the standards, they will be
treated as options, and usually left out.
DOI
-?
°® DANVUE
PT
July 27, 1995
Mr. Ernie Vovakis
Transportation Planning Division
Community Development Department
651 Pine Vt:L
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Ernie:
Thank you for forwarding the Countywide Bicycle Action Plan to the Town of Danville.
Staff and the Bicycle Advisory Committee have reviewed the Countywide Bicycle Action
Plan and feel that it is very comprehensive.
Regarding some of the items that are designated in the plan as the responsibility of local
B.2 governments - is there an expected deadline by which the items should be addressed and
if so, do we need to report any progress on these items to anyone?
On Figure 3.3 it shows Diablo Road/Blackhawk Road as an on-street facility. The Town
widened and resurfaced Diablo Road/Blackhawk Road this past year. No bike path, route
or lane exists on the road. Also,no additional right-of-way is available to establish a bike
C.14 route or lane in the future. We questioned whether this road is appropriate to be shown
on the Countywide Bike Plan since the road is still very unsafe for bicyclists.
Also, the northern portion of Doughtery Road at Camino Tassajara does not exist to Crow
60.15 C;anvon Road as shown on Fi ure 3.3. This section needs to be deleted from the plan.
New development has already occurred in this area with no off-street facility for bikes
planned or available.
Thank you for routing us this plan and if you have any additional questions regarding our
comments, please contact me at 820-1080.
Sincerely,
Christine McCann, AICP
Sr. Planner
510[,a Gonda Wad 9 Danville,California 94526-1722 (510)820-6337
cot I ams
ATTACHMENT R
General Bikeway Plan
Requirements
This Bikeway Plan shall include as a minimum, the following elements:
(A) Route selection which shall include, but not be limited to, the commuting needs of
employees, businesspersons, shoppers and students. (Some of this data is available
in the Regional Transportation Plan.)
(B) Land--= of the areas adjacent to the bike routes. (This data is usually available in
the city or county master plan.) Populationdensityand :settlement patterns of the
areas adjacent to the bike routes.
(C) Transport ion interface which shall include, but not be limited to, coordination
with other modes of transportation so that bicyclists may employ multiple modes
of transportation in reaching their destination.' (This data is available in the Public
Transportation Inventory.)
(D) Citizen and community_ involvement in planning. (The Transportation
Commission's. Citizen Advisory Committee could fulfill this requirement.)
(E) Flexibility and Coordination with long-range transportation planning. (The close
coordination with the Regional Transportation Plan could fulfill this
requirement.)
(F). Local government involvement in planning. (This planning requirement can be
accomplished through the Transportation Commission's Technical Advisory
Committee.)
(G) Provision i2f rest facilities, including, but not limited to, rest rooms, drinking water,
public telephones, and air for bicycle tires. (This data could be shown on the plans
or statement of availability.)
(H) Provision for parking, facilities, including, but not limited to, bicycle parking with
theft prevention devices located at, in, or near civic and public buildings, transit
terminals, business districts, shopping centers, schools, parks and playgrounds, and
other locations where people congregate. (Much of'this data can be acquired from
the school districts, libraries,*etc.)
Generally speaking, it is the District Local Streets and Roads Engineers' responsibility to
see that the above requirements are incorporated in the Bikeway Plan prior to review and
subsequent approval by the Office of Bicycle Facilities.
�i
In Section 2-2 . 12, bicycles on transit are encouraged. This is
also very important, but deserves more discussion and analysis in
4,14 the plan. A bicyclist wheeling or walking into a BART station and
train during the rush hour is not compatible, and will not produce
political and public good will.
On the Central County portion of the map (Chapter 3) an on-street
17 facility should be indicated along Muir Station Road and Brackman
Lane to connect to Franklin Canyon Road at Alhambra and to Muir
Road at Center.
The plan map should distinguish between existing and proposed
V.1 8 facilities, and the Plan should contain a list of proposed p'ro jects
and their priorities.
Caltrans has standards for "General Bikeway Plans" (attach--d) . The
00 5 Proposed plan should be consistent with these guidelines in order
to qualify for Caltrans funding.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this plan. We are
enclosing a copy of our Transportation Element of the General Plan,
which contains our bicycle plan.
Sincerely,
gt,��
P --
Richard Pearson
Assistant City Manager/
Community Development Director
RP:nbA tr-vovak-cntybikeplan
cc: Mayor and City Council
Acting City Manager
Barbara Neustadter, Transportation Consultant
26 orindo wad • orindo • colifornio • 94563 • 510 • 253-4200
July 18, 1995
Ernie Vovakis
Transportation Planning Division o
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
Re: Countywide Bicycle Action Plan z cn
Dear Ernie:
Thank you for the opportunity afforded the City of Orinda to
comment on the proposed plan. My comments relate primarily to page
3-4 entitled "Central County Detail Area" and page 3-5 "South
County Detail Area" .
Page 3-4 : The City believes that El To oval is an important
regional bicycle link. This includes both the section EK-a-is
currently partially closed (but regularly used by bicyclists)
between Wildcat Canyon Road (in Contra Costa County) and the
section of El Toyonal that is open to all traffic in Orinda. By
designating and ultimately improving as an off road bicycle
facility the section that is currently being neglected by both the
C.5 County and the property owner, EBMUD, an alternative to the steeper
section of Wildcat Canyon Drive and the heavily traffic loaded
section of Camino Pablo will be provided for those bicyclists
accessing Orinda from Grizzly Peak area. Attached is a letter sent
by the City last year during the TDA project review period
supporting this concept .
Page 3-5: Between Fish Ranch Road and downtown Orinda, bicyclists
connecting via Fish Ranch Rd/Grizzly Peak/Claremont to Alameda
County must use the Highway 24 shoulder. This is a currently
necessary but ultimately undesirable connection for a number of
reasons. Between Gateway Boulevard interchange and Camino
Pablo/Brookwood off-ramp, the City has planned and par is y
assured the funding for alternative off-road facilities for
C.6 bicyclists. This includes a Measure C project to study and develop
bike path between the interchange and the end of Brookwood road,
and conditions of approval accompanying the tentative approval of
development within Gateway Valley that require the construction oT
off-street bicycle facilities between Hig way 24 an sou Orin a.
I have marked on the maps both the off-road and on street portion
of both of these linkages. If you or the committee members have
any questions, please feel free to call me at (510) 253-4231.
Yo t 1 - -
ohn Lisi o
Public Works Director\City Engineer
f' CITY COUNCIL
Gayle B.Ulikema,Mayor
Ivor Samson,Vice Mayor
L A FAYET T E Judy Gardens
Anne Grodin
Donald L Tatzin
August 14, 1995
Mr. Charles R. Tyler, Chair
Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
c/o Community Development Department
651 Pine St.
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Chair Tyler:
The City of Lafayette applauds your efforts to promote bicycles as a viable transportation
alternative and as recreation. We would like to add a bike lane to your plan on the
Lafayette portion of Reliez Valley Rd. up to the planned off-street facilities as noted in the
Draft Countywide Bicycle Action Plan.
C, A dedicated bike lane could be installed on Reliez Valley Rd. up to the planned off-street
facility using TDA grant funds. Should Reliez Valley Rd. be identified as a proposed on-
or off-street facility, the City would cite your Action Plan in its grant application.
The City would also like to consider adding tri-use facilities in Lafayette in the future
should funds become available. The Lafayette-Moraga Trail is a successful form of multi-
C-16 1 6 use facility that is noted in your plan. However, we noticed that the draft plan shows the
Lafayette-Moraga Trail as 8 feet wide when in'det it is up to 10 feet wide in many
locations.
Thank you for considering our request. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact Todd McCown, at 284-1968.
Sincerely,
Gayle B. Uilkema
Mayor '
GB U/tm
a:\traffic\bikepIan.doc
POST OFFICE BOX 1968
3675 MT. DIABLO BLVD.,SUITE 210, LAFAYETTE,CA 945494968
- TELEPHONE: (510)284-1968 FAX: (510) 284-3169
ill DI
1
l�J Inut U 3
city of i
August 3, 1995
Ernie Vovakis
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Ernie:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft Countywide Bicycle Action Plan. City staff and
several members of the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee have reviewed this document and the
following comments are offered for your consideration:
Page 3-4
• Pleasant Hill Road between Taylor Boulevard and Geary Road\Camino Verde- this
C.8 section of Pleasant Hill Road has been omitted in the County Plan as a future Class II bike
facility. The City feels that it should be included as a natural continuation of a future bike
lane serving the Geary Road\Pleasant Hill Road route.
• rkside Drive between North Main Street and Civic Drive- this section is too
C-9 nto accommodate a Class II facility.
• Oakland Boulevard between Ygnacio Valley Road and Mt. Diablo Boulevard -
C-1 O because of the new 1680\24 off-ramps and the subsequent relocation of Oakland
Boulevard between YVR and Trinity Avenue, it is unclear whether a Class II facility can
be installed along this section of the roadway.
P.O. Box 8039 r 1666 North Main Street o Walnut Creek, California 94596 - (510) 943-5800
• BrioneskMt. Diablo Trail-the County Plan continues this Class I trail all the way to
C11 Pleasant Hill Road. The City feels that parts of this trail are too steep for normal cycling
and has excluded these parts from its own Bicycle Plan.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [510] 256-3529.
Sincerely,
Jim Kellar
Transportation Planner
crrn op..
AH 11= 34
July 19, 1995
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94533
Attention: Ernie Vovakis
Subject: Countywide Bikeway,Plan, 1995
Gentlemen:
We commend Contra Costa County in its efforts to develop a countywide plan that
includes existing Bicycle Plans in the cities. We hope this leads to a "seamless"
network for the benefit of the bicyclist.
We notice the East County Detail Area shown on Figure 3.1 of the Countywide Plan
does not show many of the critical bike lanes in the City of Brentwood. These bike
lanes connect important local activity centers and are major transportation links,
C ♦ especially to schools. It is important for all bike lanes proposed in the Brentwood
. 1 2 Bicycle Transportation Plan 1995 to be shown on the Countywide Bikeway Plan,
especially if the Countywide Bikeway Plan is usgd to give priority for funding bike lane
projects. It should also be noted that local bike lanes usually carry a steady volume of
bicycle traffic throughout the week compared to certain regional routes which only carry
recreational bicycle traffic on the weekend. We notice there are many more on street
bike lanes shown in other areas.
Very truly yours,
Daniel R. Arellano, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
DRA:bd
cc: Greg Sherman, Chair, Brentwood Bicycle Advisory Committee
Bicycle Advisory Committee Members
Marc Goto, Director of Public Works
City Hall-708 Third Street,Brentwood,California 94513-1396
Administration Offices-(510)634-6900 • Planning-(510)634-6905
Public Works-(510)634-6920 • Building-(510)634-6906 • Fax-(510)6346930
Police Department-500 Chestnut Street,Brentwood,CA 94513-1377 • (510)6346911 • Fax-(510)6346919
D•7
II. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES
1
Response:
SB 437 has eliminated mandatory local trip reduction programs. The text will be revised
to indicate that the recommendations are options for local jurisdictions to consider.
6. A phone line for bicyclists would be useful if it were a countywide line; perhaps AB 434
funds could be obtained. (Tom Clausen, Director of Engineering and Transportation,
City of Concord)
Response:
The County has been notified that its Countywide Bicycle Implementation Program is
eligible for funding from both the Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) and AB
434, administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. A dedicated phone
line could become an implementation task of this program.
7. Many of the recommendations in Chapter 2 seem excessive or could impose additional
costs on development. (Tom Clausen, Director of Engineering and Transportation, City
of Concord)
Response:
Chapter 2 is intended to be a comprehensive analysis of current design issues that inhibit
bicycle use. Implementation of the recommendations in the chapter is at the discretion
of local jurisdictions. Many of the recommendations call for amending plans, policies
and ordinances. Developers would then be required to incorporate the new requirements
in the design of their projects. The costs associated with these changes are not expected
to be significant.
8. Item 2.12 concerning allowing bikes on transit should be revised. (Tom Clausen,
Director of Engineering and Transportation, City of Concord).
Response:
The text will be revised.
9. Recommendations 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 could be helpful, but the funding source is not clear.
(Tom Clausen, Director of Engineering and Transportation, City of Concord)
Response:
Comment acknowledged. The intent of the policy is that at the time of reconstruction
activities, schools also consider bicycle access in their plans.
2
A. COMMENTS CONCERNING THE TEXT AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS OF
THE PLAN:
1. The goal of 5% of County employed residents commuting by bicycle by 2000 seems
ambitious. (Tom Clausen, Director of Engineering and Transportation, City of Concord)
Response:
The committee believes it is important to keep a bold goal in the plan. Attainment of
this goal will depend on the combined efforts of the cities, the County, the Regional Park
District, schools, and other implementing entities identified in the plan.
2. Do not emphasize distinctions between bicycle commuting to work and recreational
cycling in the plan. (Brian Wiese, Trail Coordinator, San Francisco Bay Trail)
Response:
Although this project began with a focus on the bicycle as a mode of transportation and
particularly related to commuting to work, it also includes consideration of the
recreational aspects of bicycling. While the plan maps are essentially oriented to
utilitarian users, local jurisdictions may choose to show all bicycle facilities (both
recreational and utilitarian) in their general plans.
3. Further discussion of funding opportunities is needed. (Brian Wiese, Trail Coordinator,
San Francisco Bay Trail)
Response:
A brief discussion of funding sources appears on page 1-14. It should be noted,
however, that funding sources, levels, and application procedures are subject to frequent
change, and this would require frequent updating of the text. The Planning and
Conservation League Foundation publishes an excellent Guide to Bicycle Program
Funding.
4. Due to reduced funding, AC Transit would have difficulty in implementing many of the
measures identified in the Plan. (Patricia Broadbent, Associate Transportation Planner,
AC Transit)
Response:
Comment acknowledged.
5. Requirements for showers, parking and bikeways in major office and commercial
development should be limited to employers of 100 or more and coordinated with TDM
programs. (Tom Clausen, Director of Engineering and Transportation, City of Concord)
10. Bicycle racks or lockers may be appropriate at only a limited number of bus stops or
park and ride lots. (Tom Clausen, Director of Engineering and Transportation, City of
Concord)
Response:
Comment acknowledged.
11. Great care should be taken in developing a gateway design to designate a trail crossing.
A guideline or suggested design would be preferable. (Tom Clausen, Director of
Engineering and Transportation, City of Concord)
Response:
The Committee will consult with local jurisdictions when developing a gateway design.
12. Recommended action 2-8 on page 2-5, identify missing links in the bicycle circulation
plan of general plans is inappropriate. Missing links will change over time as facility
improvements are implemented. (James W. Cutler, Assistant Director, Comprehensive
Planning, Contra Costa County)
Response:
Comment acknowledged. The language will be revised to clarify the intent of this
policy.
13. Section 2-2.5, the need for a functional classification of the road system identifying
bicycle lane widths should be emphasized. (Richard Pearson, Assistant City Manager,
City of Martinez)
Response:
Comment acknowledged.
14. Section 2-2.12, more discussion analysis is needed concerning bicycles on transit, i.e.
BART. (Richard Pearson, Assistant City Manager, City of Martinez)
Response:
Additional text will be added.
15. The proposed plan should be consistent with Caltrans standards for bikeway plans to
qualify for Caltrans funding. (Richard Pearson, Assistant City Manager, City of
Martinez)
3
A
VA
Response:
Comment acknowledged.
16. The goal of the plan to utilize the bicycle for 5% of all commute trips by the year 2000
appears too lofty. (Paul Maxwell, Deputy Director, Projects, Contra Costa
Transportation Authority)
Response:
See reponse to comment A.1 above.
17. The Action Plan should discuss the trade-off between the cost of providing grade separate
crossings of local arterials versus the long term maintenance cost of signalized crossings.
(Paul Maxwell, Deputy Director, Projects, Contra Costa Transportation Authority)
Response:
The text has been revised.
18. The use of the bicycle should be promoted on the basis of contributing health benefits,
not only from the exercise aspect, but also from the reduced concern about the hazards
of physical exertion in relation to air pollutants. (Paul Maxwell, Deputy Director,
Projects, Contra Costa Transportation Authority)
Response:
The Committee concurs.
B. COMMENTS CONCERNING THE ROLE OF THE PLAN AND THE REVIEW
AND ADOPTION PROCESS:
1. The County is one of 19 local governments with a General Plan; the vast majority of the
urbanized areas of the County where commute bikeways would function are within cities;
portions of the plan should be recommended for adoption by cities, as well as the
County. (James W. Cutler, Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Contra Costa
County)'
Response: `
The intent of the Countywide Plan was that cities as well as the County would amend
their General Plans to be consistent with the bikeway plan maps and policies of the
Countywide plan. The text of the Plan will be revised to clarify that successful
implementation requires action by the cities as well as the County.
4
�. ... ... . stn. ✓ .. �
fl
2. Is there a deadline or reporting process for the actions indicated as the responsibilities
of local governments? (Christine McCann, Senior Planner, Town of Danville)
Response:
No. The plan is advisory to local governments.
3. The next step in the development of this plan should be presentations to the Board of
Supervisors, City Councils, the Transportation Authority, Regional Committees, and
private organizations. (Richard Pearson, Assistant City Manager, City of Martinez)
Response:
sponse:
At a minimum, presentations should be made to the regional transportation planning
committees, preferably after the countywide coordinator position has been filled.
4. , The plan should be adopted as part of the circulation element, and the adoption should
include appropriate policy language as well. Perhaps adoption of a local plan consistent
with the Countywide plan could be a pre-condition to receiving TDA funds. (Richard
Pearson, Assistant City Manager, City of Martinez)
Response:
The Committee concurs. Policy 3.2 on page 3-2 of the plan states that TDA funding
priority should be given to projects which are consistent with the Countywide Plan.
5. It would be desirable to incorporate this plan into the Countywide Transportation Plan
adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. (Richard Pearson, Assistant City
Manager, City of Martinez)
Response:
The Committee concurs. Appropriate language will be added to the plan.
C. COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PLAN MAPS:
1. Do cities concur with the distinctions between on and off street facilities in their
jurisdictions? It may not be appropriate to make this distinction on the County General
Plan. (James W. Cutler, Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Contra Costa
County)
Response:
No adverse comments have been received on this distinction from the cities.
5
2. (Use the Countywide Biycle Action Plan maps to) augment the Bicycle Trails Plan in
Figure 9-5 of the County General Plan, but do not delete the recreational trails on the
plan. (James W. Cutler, Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Contra Costa
County)
Response:
The bikeway plan proposed for adoption by the County will include the recreational trails
currently in the General Plan. However, the Committee supports placement of the
bicycle plan map in the Circulation element of the General Plan. It is very important that
bicycles be included as an alternative transportation mode as well as a means of
recreation.
3. Regional trails should be identified by name, including the Bay Trail. (Brian Wiese, Trail
Coordinator, San Francisco Bay Trail)
Reponse:
The maps are for planning purposes and not user maps. Adding trail names would put
too much information on the maps and create a cluttered effect; also it would create
confusion since some portions of the Bay Trail are on streets.
4. Identify existing vs proposed segments and add narrative descriptions. (Brian Wiese,
Trail Coordinator, San Francisco Bay Trail)
Response:
The purpose of the Countywide Bicycle Plans is achieve a long range plan among the
cities and the County relating to regional bicycle facilities that will be further
implemented by local plans and programs. To differentiate between existing and
proposed segments would require constant updating.
5. Page 3-4: The City (of Orinda) believes that El Toyonal is an important regional bicycle
link. This includes both the section that is currently partially closed (but regularly used
by bicyclists) between Wildcat Canyon Road and the section of El Toyonal that is open
to all traffic in Orinda. (John Lisenko, Public Works Director, City of Orinda)
Response:
This route appears to meet the criteria of the plan and will be added to the plan.
6. Page 3-5: Between Gateway Boulevard interchange and Camino Pablo/Brookwood off-
ramp, the City has planned and partially assured the funding for alternative off-road
facilities for bicyclists. (John Lisenko, Public Works Director, City of Orinda)
6
D
Response:
These routes appear to meet the criteria of the plan and will be added to the plan.
7. Add a bike lane on the Lafayette portion of Reliez Valley Road. (Gayle Uilkema,
Mayor, City of Lafayette)
Response:
The plan does not differentiate between bicycle lanes (Class II facilities) and bicycle
routes (Class III facilities); the plan shows an on-road facility on this portion of Reliez
Valley Road.
8. A bike lane on Pleasant Hill Road between Taylor Boulevard and Geary Road should be
added to the plan map. (Jim Kellar, Transportation Planner, City of Walnut Creek)
Response:
Due to the configuration at the Taylor Boulevard/Pleasant Hill Road split, it does not
appear possible to provide a bicycle lane on this road in the westbound direction. If the
City has a plan to accomplish this, staff agrees that the facility should be included on the
plan.
9. Parkside Drive between North Main Street and Civic Drive is too narrow to be a Class
II facility. (Jim Kellar, Transportation Planner, City of Walnut Creek)
Response:
The plan does.not differentiate between Class II and Class III facilities. The Committee
believes that Parkside Drive provides an important east-west connection for bicyclists in
this area and should be retained on the plan.
10. Oakland Road between Ygnacio Valley Road and Trinity Lane may not support a Class
II facility due to the 680/24 project. (Jim Kellar, Transportation Planner, City of Walnut
Creek)
Response:
This route provides an important regional connection to the BART station and should be
retained on the plan.
11. Briones\Mt. Diablo Trail to Pleasant Hill Road is too steep for normal cycling. (Jim
Kellar, Transportation Planner, City of Walnut Creek)
7
Response:
The Committee agrees that this is a steep route; however, some cyclists will use it and
the plan includes other steep routes as well (e.g. Deer Hill Road in Lafayette and Kirker
Pass Road.)
12. Figure 3.1 does not show many of the critical bike lanes in the City of Brentwood.
These bike lanes connect important local activity centers and are major transportation
links, especially to schools. It is important for all bike lanes proposed in the Brentwood
Bicycle Transportation Plan 1995 to be shown on the Countywide Bikeway Plan. (Daniel
R. Arellano, Traffic Engineer, City of Brentwood)
Response:
The Committee commends Brentwood for its bicycle planning efforts and will amend the
plan to include the routes shown on the Bicycle Transportation Plan 1995.
13. The proposed bikeway plan includes roadways in Concord which we do not desire to
encourage use by bicyclists, particularly young riders. Of particular concern are Ygnacio
Valley Road, Kirker Pass Road and Oak Grove Road. The map should correspond to
the Trails Diagram in the City General Plan. (Tom Clausen, Director of Engineering
and Transportation, City of Concord)
Response:
The Committee is concerned about bicycle circulation in and through the City of
Concord. Many of the major arterial roads are difficult for bicyclists due to the lack of
bicycle lanes and the high traffic volumes. Yet some provision must be made to
accommodate the bicyclists. Kirker Pass Road is one of only two connections between
east and central county, and Oak Grove Road is an important route for school children.
The Committee believes that these routes should be designated for bicycle use.
14. Diablo Road/Blackhawk Road should not be shown since it is not safe for bicyclists.
(Christine McCann, Senior Planner, Town of Danville)
Response:
The Committee believes that Diablo Road/Blackhawk is an important route for bicyclists
and is heavily used. It serves as a through route and provides access to Mount Diablo.
15. The northern portion of Dougherty Road at Camino Tassajara does not exist to Crow
Canyon Road and should be deleted from the plan. (Christine McCann, Senior Planner,
Town of Danville)
8
I
Response:
The map will be revised to delete this portion of Dougherty Road.
16. The draft plan shows the Lafayette-Moraga Trail as 8 feet wide when it is up to 10 feet
• wide in many locations. (Gayle Uilkema, Mayor, City of Lafayette)
Response:
Comment acknowledged.
17. An on-street facility should be shown along Muir Station Road and Brackman Lane,
connecting Franklin Canyon Road at Alhambra and Muir Road at Center. (Richard
Pearson, Assistant City Manager, City of Martinez)
Response:
This route meets the criteria of the plan and will be added to the plan. (Brackman Lane
does not connect directly with Alhambra Avenue; however, a connection can be provided
along an East Bay Regional Park District right-of-way.)
18. The plan map should distinguish between existing and proposed facilities, and the Plan
should contain a list of proposed projects and their priorities. (Richard Pearson,
Assistant City Manager, City of Martinez)
Response:
See response to comments A.6 and CA above. Development of projects and priorities
will be an implementation task of the Countywide Bicycle Program Coordinator.
9