Keeping Sonoma County Moving

Document Sample
Keeping Sonoma County Moving Powered By Docstoc
					                                       SCTA
                                                               Sonoma
                                                               County
                                                               Transportation
                                                               Authority
                                         Keeping Sonoma County Moving

               Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory
                                  Committee

                                                              AGENDA
                                                    Tuesday, March 7
                                                     2:00 p.m. – 3:30 pm
                              Location: Sonoma County Transportation Authority

Directors

Robert Jehn, Chair
                       I.      Introductions and public comment on items not on agenda
Cloverdale
                       II.     Consent Items – DISCUSSION/ACTION
Mike Kerns, V. Chair
Sonoma County                  A. Approval of the Agenda
                               B. January 10, 2006 Minutes
Bob Blanchard
Santa Rosa
                       III.    Reports
Stanley Cohen
Sonoma                 IV.     SCTA TDA3 funding proposal - ACTION
Patricia Gilardi       V.      TDA3 Project Review - ACTION
Cotati
                       VI.     Bicycle Plan Update
Linda Kelley
Sebastopol             VII.    MTC – Routine Accommodation Report - ACTION
Paul Kelley
Sonoma County

Jake Mackenzie                              The next CBAC meeting is April 25, 2006
Rohnert Park                               The next SCTA meeting is March 13, 2006
Warin Parker             DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda
Windsor                materials to be in an alternative format or that requires an interpreter or other person to
Mike Reilly            assist you while attending this meeting, please contact the SCTA at least 72 hours prior
Sonoma County                        to the meeting, to ensure arrangements for accommodation.
Lisa Schaffner
Healdsburg
                                                 Staff: Janet Spilman 565-5373
                                                          jspilman@sctainfo.org

                       The entire agenda packet is available online at www.sctainfo.org.


Suzanne Wilford
Executive Director



520 Mendocino Avenue
Suite 240
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
PH: 707-565-5373
FAX: 707-565-5370
                                  SCTA
                                                      Sonoma
                                                      County
                                                      Transportation
                                                      Authority
                                   Keeping Sonoma County Moving

            COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

                                          MINUTES
                                       January 10, 2006

                                         ATTENDEES

Christine Culver, SCBC                            Bruce Kibby, City of Cloverdale
Fabian Favila, City of Santa Rosa                 Steven Schmitz, Sonoma County Transit
Lynn Goldberg, City of Healdsburg                 Eydie Tacata, City of Rohnert Park
Gary Helfrich, Sonoma County PRMD                 Ken Tam, Sonoma Co. Regional Parks
David J. Kelley, Town of Windsor

SCTA Staff present: Chris Barney, Nina Donofrio, Janet Spilman.

VIII.   Introductions and public comment on items not on agenda
        Chair Steve Schmitz called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. Introductions were
        made. There was no additional comment from the public.
IX.     Consent Items – DISCUSSION/ACTION
        A. Approval of the Agenda - approved as submitted.
        B. Approval of the Minutes of June 28, 2005 – approved as submitted.

X.      Reports
        A. Members
        Sonoma County Transit:
        Steven Schmitz reported that Sonoma County has begun the process of updating
        the Bicycle Plan. This is a project that is done on a 10-year cycle, and will be due in
        the near future (2007). Staff will review goals, procedures, and the project list (which
        will have many changes). Staff will also look into the possibility of utilizing TDA funds
        for the updating process, and will check to see how much funding is available for this
        purpose. Funding has been received for the project on Old Redwood Highway near
        the railroad tracks south of Healdsburg.
        City of Santa Rosa:
        Fabian Favila, who replaced Bruce Eisert, reported that staff has been working on
        the Bicycle Advisory Committee (there are currently four vacancies on this
        Committee). The City will be advertising for volunteers. The City of Santa Rosa will
        also be updating their Bicycle Plan, which is approaching its sixth year since its last
        update. They will likewise be attempting to get TDA funding for this. The Department
        of Public Works is working with Caltrans on developing a Pedestrian Master Plan.


                                                                                               2
Town of Windsor:
David Kelley reported that Windsor’s Park and Recreation Advisory Committee will
be reviewing the design of the trail section of their Bike and Pedestrian Plan. The
TDA Article 3 project will provide a connection to the northern section of this trail.
Phase I of the Intermodal Project is complete. It is basically parking for the future
transit building. The County will be going out to bid shortly on this project. The
developer installed a trail section and will dedicate a neighborhood park as part of
this development. Mr. Kelley encouraged the Committee to examine the SMART
EIR, and noted inconsistencies with respect to the design and alignment relative to
Windsor’s Bicycle and Trail Plan. He recommended that each jurisdiction compare
this EIR with their own Bicycle Plan to check for similar inconsistencies.
Sonoma County Regional Parks:
Ken Tam reported that the Joe Rodota Trail is almost finished and should be
completed by the end of this week. Lead contamination was discovered on the site,
and testing has to be completed. Staff is working with the City of Santa Rosa on
completion of a signalized crosswalk at Dutton Avenue to the Joe Rodota Trail. The
City will have a separate street crossing button for bicycle crossing.


Sonoma County Permit Resource Management Department:
Gary Helfrich reported that staff is in the middle of the final phase of the General
Plan update. They are working on two major issues; one of which is the SMART
EIR. Mr. Helfrich identified 100 grade crossings that have very little detail as to how
the bike paths interface with major arterial streets, and cited concerns with respect to
crossings at these major streets, and the fact these have no signalization. Staff is
also attempting to negotiate with Caltrans to make the bike lane on Highway 12 in
Sonoma a Class 1 lane instead of a Class 2. Mr.Helfrich reported that it is possible
Caltrans may relax their design standards, as a Class 3 lane in this area would be
dangerous, since the Sheriff’s Department has reported that they would not enforce
parking in this area. Discussion followed regarding access and connections with the
housing development and school located in this area.


City of Cloverdale:
Bruce Kibby reported that the CAC draft General Plan is aggressive on trails (bicycle
and pedestrian). The developer has dedicated property for this purpose, which will
be maintained by the property owners. The Alexander Valley Resort has raised to
the Planning Commission the possibility of extending three miles of river front trail –
this is an agreement to have a trail extending from the existing trail all the way to the
airport. It would expand the existing trail south, coming out at Asti Road. Staff is
also examining how to bypass the SMART trail, and access to the SMART station
from the trail extension.




                                                                                         3
      Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition:
      Christine Culver presented copies of the current county-wide map. It is available at
      their website, at all bicycle stops, Sawyer’s News, Copperfield Books, The Map
      Store in Windsor, and Our Guys.
      Ms. Culver announced that on January 18 the annual membership meeting and
      Board elections will be taking place. Rick Brown from the Results Group will be
      discussing the SMART rail project. This will be held at the Santa Rosa Oddfellows
      Hall at 6:30 p.m.
      Bruce Kibby announced that the bicycle shop in Cloverdale is closed. This presents
      a business opportunity for anyone interested in opening a bicycle shop.


      City of Healdsburg:
      Lynn Goldberg announced the opening of the first section of Foss Creek Parkway
      from West Side Road to North Street. This $99,000 in TDA funding was used. Steve
      Schmitz noted that this is the first rail trail on the NWP. Ms. Goldberg reported that
      the next phase will be to take the path to the rail station, and then further south to
      Front Street.


      City of Rohnert Park:
      Eydie Tacata reported that Rohnert Park is also updating its Bicycle Master Plan.
      Staff hopes to have this completed this spring/summer. Other projects include road
      maintenance overlays. Their Bicycle Advisory Committee is hoping to meet this
      month. Staff is expecting TDA funding in the near future.


      B. SCTA
      Janet Spilman reported that the SCTA is currently hiring for a Transportation
      Planner.

      Ms. Spilman announced that Cooperative Agreements have been received for most
      projects and programs for Measure M. Guy Preston has requested to address the
      Committee at the April meeting to talk about next year’s Cooperative Agreements
      and Measure M projects.

XI.   Election of Officers- ACTION
      Ms. Spilman referred to Ordinance #3, created by the SCTA Board of Directors. She
      noted that this requires a minimum of one staff member for each of the jurisdictions
      eligible for TDA Article 3; each city with a population less that 10,000 can send a
      representative. CBPAC bylaws have been incorporated into the SCTA
      Administrative Code. The Code stipulates that new officers are to be elected at the
      beginning of each year.
      Eydie Tacata noted that she would approach Barbara Denlis to determine if Ms.
      Denlis would be willing to consider being Vice Chair of the Committee.



                                                                                             4
       Steve Schmitz, the current chair, announced that he would be willing to serve as
       Vice Chair if someone else could fill the position of Chair, noting that he has served
       as Chair for the past two years. After further discussion and nomination as Chair by
       Gary Helfrich and David Kelley, Mr. Schmitz agreed to serve as Chair for another
       term, if the Vice Chair position could be filled by another member. Discussion
       continued regarding potential candidates for Vice Chair. Christine Culver offered to
       take this position if she were to become a member of the Committee. Ms. Spilman
       explained that this would require SCTA Board approval to amend the membership
       rules to open up membership to the public at large at the discretion of the Board.
       Further discussion of potential candidates ensued. These included Ken Tam, David
       Kelley, and Fabian Favila. It was suggested that the Committee return to this item at
       the next agenda, after it is brought to the Board for amendment of membership rules
       to include members of the public at large. David Kelley then agreed to accept
       nomination as Vice Chair.
XII.   TDA Article 3 – 06/07 programming cycle
       Ms. Spilman presented a call for projects for TLC, and explained that this has not
       yet been officially released. She noted that this is largely a TAC responsibility, but
       explained that TAC and PAC have reviewed the criteria, and that it has been
       approved by the SCTA Board. She explained that this is being presented to the
       Committee for informational purposes, since some members may be applying for
       this funding. She noted that this is a fairly rules-intensive program, and that eligibility
       is determined by two factors beyond the control of SCTA; one is the fund source,
       which is CMAC, and the other is the MTC, which originated the program. This
       program is for transportation projects involving walkable streets, bike plans, and
       bridges. The time line is fairly tight (applications are due February 9). The
       applicationt will need to go through the process and be obligated by April, 2007.
       Nancy Adams questioned the 2007 deadline, explaining that she had understood it
       was 2009, and asked for clarification. Ms. Spilman responded that she had
       discussed the issue with MTC, and another option for projects that cannot be
       obligated by 2007 is to move them to a later fund year. This would have to be done
       by March. Information is forthcoming to eligible applicants. Further discussion
       ensued regarding minimum project size andthe amount of funding available ($4.2
       million. Ms. Spilman noted that a realistic figure for minimum project size would be at
       least $200,000. In response to further questions (from Eydie Tacata) Ms. Spilman
       stated that four projects were identified at the previous TAC meeting. Ken Tam
       asked if funds could be used for the acquisition of property. Ms. Spilman replied that
       these funds can only be used for construction. Ms. Spilman also noted that she
       would confirm whether or not right-of-way would be included, in reference to a
       particular piece of property in Sonoma that Mr. Tam identified as a possible project.
       Ms. Spilman announced that the TFCA call for projects would be out soon. There
       are some issues to be resolved; among these is recent legislation that will affect the
       administration of funding by agencies such as the SCTA – they will no longer be
       allowed to carry over a balance to the following funding year. If TFCA funds are not
       programmed within the funding year, the Air District will program the funds.
       TDA Article 3 has no changes – it is largely transit money from a quarter-cent sales
       tax. Ms. Spilman asked that the Committee be notified if any members make



                                                                                                5
        changes to the funding plan, as she will have to adjust the spreadsheet. In response
        to Ms. Spilman’s inquiry, Ms. Goldberg of the City of Healdsburg reported that TDA
        funding is not being used for the Foss Creek project.
        Ms. Spilman noted that SCTA Resolution 875 is available online – she will be
        emailing it to the Committee, and will be sending the official call for projects and
        application.
        Steve Schmitz announced that the three-year list of ideas for projects for Sonoma
        County Transit has been updated. Ms. Spilman requested that the Committee bring
        their list of ideas for projects for the next three years to the next meeting, for them to
        be reviewed, in addition to their applications.
        Ken Tam announced that the Sonoma County Parks and Recreation Department
        received the $160,000 grant today. Mr. Favila asked for clarification of the summary
        and status on the spreadsheet
XIII.   SCTA Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan update
        Ms. Spilman reported that the last Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update was in 2003,
        and this is now out of date. The SCTA is launching an update of the Plan. In an
        attempt to coordinate its efforts with local jurisdictions, Ms. Spilman cited the need
        for a listing indicating when Committee members plan to update their bicycle plan.
        Chris Barney presented maps for all the jurisdictions. He invited the Committee to
        review and update, noting that they can feel free to make any changes, notes, or
        additions that are required. He also provided a spreadsheet of projects for the
        Committee’s review. He invited suggestions and feedback. He will follow up with
        each jurisdiction.
        Ms. Spilman announced the kickoff of the update of the Comprehensive
        Transportation Plan (CTP) this summer, and said that she hopes to have the Bicycle
        and Pedestrian Plan completed by this time to incorporate into the CTP . While she
        would like to have the Plan completed and would be willing to wait for the final
        updates, she noted that the CTP cannot be delayed. In response to questioning, Ms.
        Tacata announced that Rohnert Park anticipates having their bicycle plan updated
        by spring. She said they could submit a hand drawn map. Steve Schmitz reported
        that Sonoma County Transit is anticipating the spring of 2007 at the earliest to
        update their bicycle plan.
        Ms. Spilman noted that other items needing to be addressed in the Plan are the
        vision statement, goals, and objectives, which all came from other documents. She
        suggested the formation of a subcommittee to discuss some of these issues, and
        called for volunteers. It was concluded that this would be addressed at the next
        meeting. Ms. Spilman announced that the subcommittee could meet and report back
        to the Committee at the April meeting. There was discussion of the possibility of
        making the subcommittee meeting either a teleconference or an email discussion.
        Ms. Spilman will then draft a report on the vision, goals, and objectives of the Plan.
        Another issue identified in the Plan is the incorporation of the pedestrian element
        into the various bicycle plans. Mr. Schmitz observed that the Plan is really a
        compilation of all the jurisdictions, including goals, vision statement, and objectives.
        These are the result of a compromise by all jurisdictions. Ms. Spilman thanked the



                                                                                                   6
       Committee for the contribution their maps have made to navigation throughout
       Sonoma County. At Mr. Schmitz’s request, Ms. Christine Culver pointed out the
       differences in the maps of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition. She noted that the
       map identifies gaps in bicycle trails, and areas that do not have access. The map
       shows if there are vehicles on roads and if there are shoulders on roads.
XIV.   CBPAC Work Plan
       Ms. Spilman asked for the Committee’s input into her draft Work Plan for 2006. Mr.
       Schmitz noted that Measure M should be included in the Plan. Mr. Kelly observed
       that it would be valuable to review projects that are ongoing at the various
       jurisdictions (he cited the example of the Foss Creek project in Healdsburg). He felt
       it would be useful to have a committee member from each jurisdiction address a
       specific project. Mr. Schmitz suggested that members contact Ms. Spilman if there is
       a specific project they wish to have addressed at upcoming CBPAC meetings. Mr.
       Kibby noted that during member reports, a member could request that a particular
       project be addressed at the following meeting. Ms. Spilman noted that she can
       include this in a staff report if she is given notice prior to the meeting.
       Ms. Spilman noted that monitoring and review of funded bicycle projects applies to
       any funding that goes to the SCTA. She asked to be notified if there is a change in
       any funding by any of the jurisdictions, and said that she would begin including
       monitoring and review of funded projects on a regular basis; probably at every
       meeting.
XV.    ADJOURNMENT
       There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.


       Respectfully submitted,



       Nina Donofrio




                                                                                             7
administered by Caltrans requires technical performance measures that not many
jurisdictions have the time or resources to include.

SCTA Proposal
Staff proposes to launch a more significant Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning process than
we have previously embarked upon. We propose that CBPAC oversee a consultant
contract that would provide each jurisdiction a comprehensive document that will address
their own local concerns as well a provide the technical expertise that would make each
community eligible for a greater number of funding sources. A centralized planning process
would assure connectivity, timeliness and would make efficient use of a specialized
consultant. In addition, this will allow SCTA to provide comprehensive and flexible GIS
services to each community.
We propose to provide the following for each jurisdiction:
    • Electronic and paper GIS maps detailing existing and proposed bicycle and
       pedestrian projects in a variety of sizes;
    • An inventory of existing and proposed bikeways in a central database maintained by
       the SCTA that will be linked to the GIS master map;
    • Public outreach appropriate for each jurisdiction;
    • Update of goals and objectives;
    • Technical performance standards, as required by Caltrans and other funding
       sources;
    • A Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for every jurisdiction, in electronic and printed
       formats.
    • A Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that will serve as an appendix to our
       upcoming Sonoma County Comprehensive Transportation Plan update.



06/07 TDA 3 Funding Information:
   • Current funding available to spend is over $1.1 million
   • Interest and adjustments from MTC total over $165,000
   • The CBPAC has received only three TDA3 applications totaling $348,934
   • Revenue has increased from last year by 11%
   • 05/06 actuals exceeded the fund estimate
   • Substantial carryover balance
   • In short, there is more TDA Article 3 funding available this year than we had
      anticipated. These factors create a unique opportunity to produce plans for the
      SCTA and each jurisdiction that would involve mapping, public outreach and
      technical performance information.

Funding Request
  • Consultant costs - up to $180,000
     • Collection of available data and published materials


                                                                                         9
Staff Report
To:     CBPAC
From: Janet Spilman
Re:     ITEM IV: TDA3 Proposal to fund Countywide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan update
Date:   March 13, 2006



Issue:
Will the SCTA approve an application by SCTA for TDA Article 3 funds for production of
SCTA Bicycle & Pedestrian planning products?

Background:
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are derived from a statewide ¼ cent sales tax
and are directed primarily toward Transit operations. TDA Article 3 funds are approximately
2% of those funds and are set aside for bicycle and pedestrian projects, including bicycle
lanes, pedestrian paths and planning and marketing efforts. The SCTA approves an
expenditure program and tracks projects, while MTC administers the funds.

Creating a New Bike/Pedestrian Vision & Plan
Reinsert your first sentence from other version. The major components of the Plan are
maps of existing and proposed bike facilities, a list of proposed projects, overview of
bicycling conditions and a brief description of the Vision and Goals. Input from each
jurisdiction is vital, as each Bicycle Advisory Committee works in their community to
determine a list of goals and priorities. As the public grows more interested in non-
motorized transportation there is a greater need to invest resources into the overall
planning process.

There is also an increasing need to include a pedestrian element in the plan. Most
jurisdictions do not currently have a Pedestrian plan as a stand-alone document or as part
of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. This effort is, essentially starting from scratch, and will
require a significant effort by CBPAC to determine the needs and priorities of pedestrians.

Bicycle Plans are also becoming more complicated as fund sources require more technical
information to be included. The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), a funding program




                                                                                              8
administered by Caltrans requires technical performance measures that not many
jurisdictions have the time or resources to include.

SCTA Proposal
Staff proposes to launch a more significant Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning process than
we have previously embarked upon. We propose that CBPAC oversee a consultant
contract that would provide each jurisdiction a comprehensive document that will address
their own local concerns as well a provide the technical expertise that would make each
community eligible for a greater number of funding sources. A centralized planning process
would assure connectivity, timeliness and would make efficient use of a specialized
consultant. In addition, this will allow SCTA to provide comprehensive and flexible GIS
services to each community.
We propose to provide the following for each jurisdiction:
    • Electronic and paper GIS maps detailing existing and proposed bicycle and
       pedestrian projects in a variety of sizes;
    • An inventory of existing and proposed bikeways in a central database maintained by
       the SCTA that will be linked to the GIS master map;
    • Public outreach appropriate for each jurisdiction;
    • Update of goals and objectives;
    • Technical performance standards, as required by Caltrans and other funding
       sources;
    • A Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for every jurisdiction, in electronic and printed
       formats.
    • A Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that will serve as an appendix to our
       upcoming Sonoma County Comprehensive Transportation Plan update.



06/07 TDA 3 Funding Information:
   • Current funding available to spend is over $1.1 million
   • Interest and adjustments from MTC total over $165,000
   • The CBPAC has received only three TDA3 applications totaling $348,934
   • Revenue has increased from last year by 11%
   • 05/06 actuals exceeded the fund estimate
   • Substantial carryover balance
   • In short, there is more TDA Article 3 funding available this year than we had
      anticipated. These factors create a unique opportunity to produce plans for the
      SCTA and each jurisdiction that would involve mapping, public outreach and
      technical performance information.

Funding Request
  • Consultant costs - up to $180,000
     • Collection of available data and published materials


                                                                                         9
       •   Extensive interaction with individual Bicycle Advisory Committees and public
       •   Development of Pedestrian element
       •   Technical performance standards
       •   Assistance with development of the database
       •   Production of documents
       •   Presentation of Plan

   •       SCTA GIS services – up to $20,000
       •   Printer Plotter, equipment and supplies
       •   GIS software licensing



Recommendation
Consider approving SCTA funding application for TDA Article 3 funding for Bicycle &
Pedestrian Plan update.




                                                                                          10
Estimate FY 2006/2007 TDA3 Distribution
                             Total          Cloverdale     Cotati           Healdsburg     Petaluma     Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol    Sonoma         Windsor         County
Population                        478,825            7,925            7,025        11,600        55,900        42,150    160,400        7,750          9,675          24,800       151,600
Percentage                          100%         1.7225%          1.5335%        2.4477%     11.8368%        8.8715%   32.6620%     1.6290%        2.0554%         5.3246%       31.9169%
Apportionment                     428,125            7,374            6,565        10,479        50,676        37,981    139,834        6,974          8,800          22,796       136,644
Actuals adj                        21,230              366              326            520        2,513         1,883       6,934         346            436           1,130         6,776
Other adj                         143,914            2,479            2,207          3,523       17,035        12,767      47,005       2,344          2,958           7,663        45,933
total new                         593,269          10,219             9,098        14,522        70,224        52,632    193,773        9,665         12,194          31,589       189,353
05/06 balance                    456,160          72,666             5,466            642       44,300        43,741    130,742            0         15,170             428       143,005
exp funds                         99,695                                          99,695
Grand total                     1,149,124          82,885           14,564        114,859      114,524         96,373    324,516        9,665         27,364          32,017       332,358
Proposed SCTA planning           200,000            3,445            3,067          4,895       23,674        17,743      65,324       3,258          4,111          10,649        63,834
Funding Available For Proj        949,124         79,440           11,496        109,964        90,850        78,630    259,192        6,407         23,253          21,368       268,524
Proposed 06/07 Projects           348,934          50,000                                                                248,934                                                    50,000
Balance Forward                   600,190          29,440           11,496        109,964        90,850        78,630      10,258       6,407         23,253          21,368       218,524
                                                                                                                                                                             revised 3/6/06


Projections              Total         Cloverdale    Cotati                Healdsburg    Petaluma     Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol   Sonoma        Windsor        County
Projected Revenue 07/08        449,355         7,740               6,891          10,999       53,189        39,865    146,768       7,320         9,236         23,926      143,420
Available Funds 07/08       1,049,545         37,180              18,387         120,963     144,039       118,495     157,026      13,727        32,490         45,294      361,944
Allocation 07/08
Projected Revenue 08/09        449,355         7,740               6,891         10,999      53,189         39,865     146,768          7,320          9,236          23,926       143,420
Available Funds 2008/2009   1,498,900         44,920              25,278        131,962     197,229        158,359     303,794         21,047         41,726          69,221       505,364
Allocation 2008/2009
Projected Revenue 09/10        449,355         7,740               6,891         10,999      53,189         39,865     146,768          7,320          9,236          23,926       143,420
Available Funds 2009/2010   1,948,255         52,660              32,169        142,961     250,418        198,224     450,563         28,367         50,962          93,147       648,784




                                                                                            Page 1
                                                                    TDA Article 3 Project status
Project ID                   Project Title                                     Amount funded       Expended                      Balance             Notes

2001/2002                                                                                                      funds expire 6/30/04
02-3379-40    Sonoma         West /East MacArthur St striping                  $    7,500.00                   $0           $7,500           rescind project
02-3379-30    County         Green Valley Road                                 $   80,000.00              $80,000               $0
02-3379-20    Windsor        Windsor Creek Bike Path                           $   64,836.00              $64,754              $82            funds expired
02-3379-21    Windsor        Faught Creek Bike Path                            $   19,344.00               $1,363         $17,981             funds expired

                                             funds expire 6/30/05
2002/2003                                                                                               expended                 balance

03-3472-04    Santa Rosa     Franklin Avenue/North Street Bike lane                 $100,000             $100,000                    $0
              Santa Rosa     loan to Cotati for Marsh Creek Trail                     $2,464                           repayment in 05/06
03-3472-02    Sebastopol     Railroad Forest Bike Path (Connector)                   $42,800                       0            $42,800     rescind project
03-3472-03    Sonoma         Bicycle/Ped Crossing of W. MacArthur                    $49,000                  49,000                 $0
03-3472-05    County         Bicycle Caution Signs                                   $15,000                  $8,116             $6,884      funds expired
                                             funds expire 6/30/06
2003/2004                                                                                               expended                balance
04-3581-03    County         Old Redwood Hwy class II north to Healds              $350,000             $350,000                     $0
04-3581-01    Healdsburg     Foss Creek/NWP Multi-Use Trail                         $99,695                   $0                $99,695      funds expired
04-3581-04    Petaluma       Washington Creek Trail                                $175,000             $175,000                     $0
04-3581-02    Santa Rosa     Sonoma Ave Bike lanes                                  $50,000                 $105                $49,895

                                             funds expire 6/30/07
2004/2005                                                                                               expended                balance
05-0010-084   County         Hunter View Creek Bikeway                             $160,000                   $0               $160,000
05-0010-075   County         Sonoma County “Share the Road Campaign                 $10,000                    $0               $10,000
05-0010-076   County         “Share the Road “ Sign installation                    $15,000                    $0               $15,000
05-0010-077   County         Three Bike Capacity Bike racks on buses                 $5,000                $5,000                    $0
05-0010-078   Rohnert Park   Commerce Bike Bridge at Hinebaugh Creek               $160,000                $6,911              $153,089
05-0010-079   Petaluma       Bike/Pedestrian Corral on Ely                          $54,876               $54,876                    $0
05-0010-080   Santa Rosa     SR Creek Greenway Signage & Entry Gate                 $18,900                    $0               $18,900
2005/2006                                    funds expire 6/30/08                                       expended                 balance
06-0010-53    Sebastopol     Railroad Forest Path                                   $51,356                      $0             $51,356
06-0010-54    Santa Rosa     Pierson Reach/Rodota Connector                        $350,000                      $0            $350,000
06-0010-55    Windsor        Keiser Park Phase I Trail                             $112,000                      $0            $112,000
                                                                                   $513,356
Staff Report
To:      CBPAC
From: Janet Spilman
Re:      ITEM V: TDA Article 3 Review
Date:    March 6, 2006

Background
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds are available to all of the cities and the
County for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Historically, new revenues (approximately $350,000
annually) are distributed to every jurisdiction by formula based on population. Projects must meet
Caltrans safety design criteria and CEQA requirements. The local jurisdiction must be able to
complete the project within two years, agree to maintain the facility and the project must be
consistent with an adopted bicycle plan. If a jurisdiction does not have a project, their allocation will
accumulate in future funding cycles.

The CBPAC Review Process
With the current distribution plan each jurisdiction is awarded its share of TDA3 based on a
population-based formula. This revenue is accumulated over time and can be projected out two
years (under most circumstances). See attachments for revenue and expenditure summary, project
status and project information sheets. CBPAC reviews all project applications and creates a
recommended list of projects to submit to the SCTA.


FY 06/07 TDA Article 3 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities – Proposed Project List

Cloverdale        Cloverdale Bicycle Lane Striping Project                                $50,000
Santa Rosa        Santa Rosa Bike/Ped Plan                                               $248,934
County            Old Redwood Bike lanes – Windsor – Eastside Rd                          $50,000
SCTA              Bike/ped plans, mapping                                                $200,000
Total                                                                                    $584,934

In addition to the application project sponsors must deliver an authorized resolution from their
governing body to staff before the SCTA approves the program of projects at the April Board
meeting (April 10th). Environmental clearance must be obtained by this date as well. Please deliver
these items to the SCTA by April 9th.


What’s new
The SCTA request for $200,000 for preparation of bike/ped plans and mapping services.


Action Requested
Please review this list of projects for FY 06/07 TDA Article 3 program to be forwarded to SCTA for
approval. Consider which projects to add to a projected three year list.




                                                                                                       11
Staff Report
To:      SCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
From:    Chris Barney, Transportation Planner
Re:      ITEM VI: Bikeway mapping status report
Date:    March 7, 2006



Issue: Status of updates to the countywide bikeway map and GIS data.

Background:

Staff is updating SCTA’s Countywide Bikeway Map and local municipality bikeway maps in
preparation for updates to the Countywide Bicycle Plan. Bikeway data is stored in SCTA’s
Geographic Information System (GIS), and updates have been made based on information supplied
by local staff involved in local bicycle planning in conjunction with local bicycle advisory committees.

SCTA Bikeway data tracks the location and extent of bike trails, paths, and routes. The class of the
bikeway, and whether it is an existing or proposed bikeway is also recorded and shown on bikeway
maps. Bikeway data can be provided as a hardcopy map, electronic map document, or electronic
GIS/AutoCAD data file.

Update Status:

The following table outlines the status of bikeway map updates:

Organization        Received              Update Status         Last Plan        Next Plan
Santa Rosa          Waiting on updates                          2001             2006
Windsor             Received              Complete              2002             2006
Healdsburg          Received              Complete              2004             2006
Cloverdale          Waiting on updates                          ?                ?
Rohnert Park        Received              Complete              2000             2006
County              Part. Received        Part. Complete        ?                2007
Sebastopol          Waiting on updates                          none             none
Cotati              Waiting on updates                          ?                ?
Sonoma              Received              Complete              ?                2006
Petaluma            Received              Underway              ?                2006


Action Required:

Review completed updates for submitted update data, provide updated bikeway information if it has
not already been submitted (using updated bikeway maps and project lists that have been provided
by SCTA staff), and verify that the correct years have been recorded for the last released and next
planned local bike plan for your organization.




                                                                                                     12
Staff Report
To:     SCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
From: Janet Spilman
Re:     ITEM VII: MTC – Routine Accommodation Report
Date:   March 7, 2006



Issue: Status of updates to the countywide bikeway map and GIS data.

Background:
MTC has created a report as described below that will make all funding sources
administered through MTC subject to evaluation of bike/ped accommodation.

Executive Summary
One of the Calls to Action included in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC)
Transportation 2030 Plan calls for full consideration of the needs of non-motorized travelers
during project development, design, construction, and rehabilitation. In part, the Call to Action
says that:
        …bicycle facilities and walkways must be considered, where appropriate, in
        conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation
        facilities.
This report evaluates how often these facilities are included in the design and construction of
various transportation projects throughout the region based on interviews with project managers.
It does not attempt to differentiate between different non-motorized improvements, such as bike
lanes versus the shared-lane making (sharrow), or ladder crosswalks versus pedestrian refuge
islands.
Based on the evaluation, this report makes sixteen recommendations for increasing the routine
consideration of such facilities in the future. Recommendations include improving review and
design strategies to ensure that transportation projects routinely accommodate bicycles and
pedestrians.
The evaluation in this report is the result of a review of existing non-motorized policies, 35
interviews with transportation project managers and over 30 interviews with other bicycle and
pedestrian public agency employees and non-motorized transportation advocates in the Bay Area.
Of the 35 project managers interviewed, 21 of them referenced a bicycle and/or pedestrian
planning document for the projects’ planning. The report also includes three case studies.
The report’s recommendations for MTC, Caltrans District 4, and cooperating agencies are listed in
section VII.


Many CMA’s are concerned that these requirements are too rigid and ultimately
unnecessary.


Recommended Action
Is the CBPAC interested in making a recommendation regarding MTC’s report?




                                                                                              13
Staff Report
To:      SCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
From:    Chris Barney, Transportation Planner
Re:      ITEM VI: Bikeway mapping status report
Date:    March 7, 2006



Issue: Status of updates to the countywide bikeway map and GIS data.

Background:

Staff is updating SCTA’s Countywide Bikeway Map and local municipality bikeway maps in
preparation for updates to the Countywide Bicycle Plan. Bikeway data is stored in SCTA’s
Geographic Information System (GIS), and updates have been made based on information supplied
by local staff involved in local bicycle planning in conjunction with local bicycle advisory committees.

SCTA Bikeway data tracks the location and extent of bike trails, paths, and routes. The class of the
bikeway, and whether it is an existing or proposed bikeway is also recorded and shown on bikeway
maps. Bikeway data can be provided as a hardcopy map, electronic map document, or electronic
GIS/AutoCAD data file.

Update Status:

The following table outlines the status of bikeway map updates:

Organization        Received              Update Status         Last Plan        Next Plan
Santa Rosa          Waiting on updates                          2001             2006
Windsor             Received              Complete              2002             2006
Healdsburg          Received              Complete              2004             2006
Cloverdale          Waiting on updates                          ?                ?
Rohnert Park        Received              Complete              2000             2006
County              Part. Received        Part. Complete        ?                2007
Sebastopol          Waiting on updates                          none             none
Cotati              Waiting on updates                          ?                ?
Sonoma              Received              Complete              ?                2006
Petaluma            Received              Underway              ?                2006


Action Required:

Review completed updates for submitted update data, provide updated bikeway information if it has
not already been submitted (using updated bikeway maps and project lists that have been provided
by SCTA staff), and verify that the correct years have been recorded for the last released and next
planned local bike plan for your organization.




                                                                                                     12
Staff Report
To:     SCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
From: Janet Spilman
Re:     ITEM VII: MTC – Routine Accommodation Report
Date:   March 7, 2006



Issue: Status of updates to the countywide bikeway map and GIS data.

Background:
MTC has created a report as described below that will make all funding sources
administered through MTC subject to evaluation of bike/ped accommodation.

Executive Summary
One of the Calls to Action included in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC)
Transportation 2030 Plan calls for full consideration of the needs of non-motorized travelers
during project development, design, construction, and rehabilitation. In part, the Call to Action
says that:
        …bicycle facilities and walkways must be considered, where appropriate, in
        conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation
        facilities.
This report evaluates how often these facilities are included in the design and construction of
various transportation projects throughout the region based on interviews with project managers.
It does not attempt to differentiate between different non-motorized improvements, such as bike
lanes versus the shared-lane making (sharrow), or ladder crosswalks versus pedestrian refuge
islands.
Based on the evaluation, this report makes sixteen recommendations for increasing the routine
consideration of such facilities in the future. Recommendations include improving review and
design strategies to ensure that transportation projects routinely accommodate bicycles and
pedestrians.
The evaluation in this report is the result of a review of existing non-motorized policies, 35
interviews with transportation project managers and over 30 interviews with other bicycle and
pedestrian public agency employees and non-motorized transportation advocates in the Bay Area.
Of the 35 project managers interviewed, 21 of them referenced a bicycle and/or pedestrian
planning document for the projects’ planning. The report also includes three case studies.
The report’s recommendations for MTC, Caltrans District 4, and cooperating agencies are listed in
section VII.


Many CMA’s are concerned that these requirements are too rigid and ultimately
unnecessary.


Recommended Action
Is the CBPAC interested in making a recommendation regarding MTC’s report?




                                                                                              13
  Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area

        Results from Interviews with Transportation Professionals and
          Recommendations to Encourage Routine Accommodation




DRAFT




                               February, 2006
                                                                                       draft



I.    Executive Summary

One of the Calls to Action included in the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission’s (MTC) Transportation 2030 Plan calls for full consideration of the
needs of non-motorized travelers during project development, design,
construction, and rehabilitation. In part, the Call to Action says that:

      …bicycle facilities and walkways must be considered, where
      appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and
      reconstruction of transportation facilities.

This report evaluates how often these facilities are included in the design and
construction of various transportation projects throughout the region based on
interviews with project managers. It does not attempt to differentiate between
different non-motorized improvements, such as bike lanes versus the shared-
lane making (sharrow), or ladder crosswalks versus pedestrian refuge islands.

Based on the evaluation, this report makes sixteen recommendations for
increasing the routine consideration of such facilities in the future.
Recommendations include improving review and design strategies to ensure
that transportation projects routinely accommodate bicycles and pedestrians.

The evaluation in this report is the result of a review of existing non-motorized
policies, 35 interviews with transportation project managers and over 30
interviews with other bicycle and pedestrian public agency employees and non-
motorized transportation advocates in the Bay Area. Of the 35 project
managers interviewed, 21 of them referenced a bicycle and/or pedestrian
planning document for the projects’ planning. The report also includes three
case studies.

The report’s recommendations for MTC, Caltrans District 4, and cooperating
agencies are listed in section VII.




                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     2
                                                                                           draft


                                             Contents
Results from Interviews with Transportation Professionals and
Recommendations to Encourage Routine Accommodation .......................... 1
I. Executive Summary ................................................................... 2
II. Introduction............................................................................ 4
III. Policies ................................................................................. 4
   Federal Policies .......................................................................... 4
   State Policies............................................................................. 5
   Regional Policies......................................................................... 6
   Funding Policies ......................................................................... 7
   Transit Access Policies.................................................................. 8
   County and City Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans .....................................10
IV. Interviews and Results ..............................................................13
   Project List Development .............................................................13
   Quantitative Results ...................................................................14
   Qualitative Results .....................................................................17
     WHY ACCOMMODATIONS ARE ROUTINELY INCLUDED ...........................17
     WHY ROUTINE ACCOMMODATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED ........................19
V. Case Studies...........................................................................22
V. Case Studies...........................................................................23
   Case Study 1: SR-152/SR-156 .........................................................23
   Case Study 2: Highway 101 – Marin-Sonoma Narrows .............................24
   Case Study 3: Golf Course Drive Overlay ...........................................25
VI. Recommendations ...................................................................26
   PROJECT PLANNING and DESIGN .....................................................26
   FUNDING and REVIEW ..................................................................27
     TRAINING .............................................................................29
VII. Conclusion.............................................................................30
Appendix....................................................................................31
   1. Web Resources:......................................................................31
   2. Project Manager Survey ............................................................33
   3. Questionnaire Results ..............................................................35
   4. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian
   Checklist .................................................................................39
     4A. Planning and Programming Checklist ........................................39
     4B. Scoping Checklist ...............................................................41
     4C. Final Design Checklist ..........................................................43
   MTC COMMISSIONERS...................................................................45




                    Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area       3
                                                                                         draft


II.    Introduction

There are a growing number of transportation policies that encourage the
routine accommodation of bicyclists, pedestrians and persons with disabilities
in all transportation projects. Federal, State, and Regional agencies adopted
guidelines to promote the regular inclusion of non-motorized transportation
improvements in both new and rehabilitation project planning, design and
construction. Many policies also exist in the region’s municipalities and more
are currently in development.

The study reviewed various types of projects including local road
rehabilitation, transit, interchanges, and highway improvements, which were
sampled from MTC’s TIP database. In summary, a majority of projects (57%)
included non-motorized facilities consistent with adopted policies, however
many projects (43%) did not. Projects. Retrofitting our transportation
infrastructure to include facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians and the disabled is
often more expensive than incorporating them as part of a larger project due
to economies of scale.

This report reviews federal, state, regional, and local Bay Area funding policies
related to routine accommodations of non-motorized transportation users. It
then reports on the results of interviews with 35 transportation project
managers and more than 25 bicycle and pedestrian public agency employees
and non-motorized transportation advocates in the region. The report includes
three case studies, which examine how non-motorized accommodations were
addressed in those projects. Finally, the report recommends procedures for
increasing the number of successful routine accommodations for bicyclists,
pedestrians, and persons with disabilities in all transportation projects.

III.   Policies

Federal Policies

Policies supporting the routine accommodation of non-motorized transportation
users are found at all levels of government. At the federal level, the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990, provides rights and protections to
people with disabilities. It states that:

       No qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such
       disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits
       of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be
       subjected to discrimination by any such entity.

As a result, new construction projects are obligated to design and construct
facilities so persons with disabilities can successfully use them without
restrictions. These facilities are required for all new projects including roads

                   Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     4
                                                                                       draft


and sidewalks. The success of ADA compliance in transportation projects is due
to several legal victories for people with disabilities in suits against public
agencies when these facilities were not developed. However, concern about
the maintenance costs of these improvements (e.g. new sidewalks) may
actually limit their development.

The 1998 Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) emphasized
the accommodations of non-motorized transportation users. TEA-21 stated
that:

       Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be
       considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction
       and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except where bicycle
       and pedestrian use are not permitted. (Section 1202)

TEA-21 was the first mention in a U.S. federal government policy that explicitly
stated the importance of providing for non-motorized transportation facilities
in transportation projects. This federal legislative reference pressed other
public agencies to follow suit, especially after the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued and
recommended states to follow design guidance based on the language
presented in TEA-21. The 2000 U.S. Department of Transportation Policy
Statement, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended
Approach is the design guidance for including bicycle and pedestrian facilities
in other transportation projects. It states:

   Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in all urbanized areas
   unless one or more of three conditions are met:

   •   bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the roadway.
       In this instance, a greater effort may be necessary to accommodate
       bicyclists and pedestrians elsewhere within the right of way or within
       the same transportation corridor.
   •   the cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively
       disproportionate to the need or probable use. Excessively
       disproportionate is defined as exceeding twenty percent of the cost of
       the larger transportation project.
   •   where scarcity of population or other factors indicate an absence of
       need.

State Policies

Following the release of the federal routine accommodation design
recommendations, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
released its own policy as suggested by TEA-21. In 2001, Caltrans approved
Deputy Directive 64 (D.D. 64) stating that:

                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     5
                                                                                       draft



      The Department fully considers the needs of non-motorized travelers
      (including pedestrian bicyclists and persons with disabilities) in all
      programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations and
      project development activities and products. This includes
      incorporation of the best available standards in all of the
      Department’s practices. The Department adopts the best practice
      concepts in the U.S. DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling
      and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure.

California Assembly Concurrent Resolution 211 (ACR 211) passed the California
state assembly in 2002 on Bike to Work Day. It encourages cities and counties
to implement Caltrans’ Deputy Directive 64 at the local level. ACR 211 uses the
same language as D.D. 64 and also references the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s design guidance document on integrating bicycling and
walking when making road improvements.

Regional Policies

In 2001, the same year D.D. 64 went into effect, MTC adopted the Regional
Bicycle Plan with the principle goal to: “Ensure that bicycling is a convenient,
safe, and practical means of transportation throughout the Bay Area for all Bay
Area residents.” This was the first mention of a bicycle or pedestrian policy at
the regional level in the Bay Area. Since 2001, MTC adopted similar language in
the regional transportation plan (RTP): Transportation 2030 Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area. One of the report’s “Calls to Action” states that:

      Bicyclists, pedestrians and wheelchair users must be full partners in
      the planning process, and bicycle facilities and walkways must be
      considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new
      construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities.

This means that consideration for routine accommodations are necessary, as
prescribed by MTC, in all transportation projects in the region. In addition, the
Call to Action pledges “MTC will monitor routine accommodation of
nonmotorized transportation needs in its programming process.” Therefore, the
federal government, Caltrans, and the Bay Area Regional transportation
planning agency now all recommend including routine accommodations in
transportation projects.




                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     6
                                                                                       draft


Funding Policies

Some funding sources for Bay Area transportation projects encourage the
routine inclusion of facilities for non-motorized travel in projects. For example,
Measure A in Marin County, the one-half cent sales tax increase passed in
November 2004, provides funds to maintain, improve, and manage the County’s
local transportation infrastructure. Its Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure
Plan, which includes funding for bikeways, sidewalks, and pathways, states
that:

      Where feasible, locally defined bicycle and pedestrian projects will be
      implemented at the time a roadway is improved. Improvements could
      include striping and signing of bicycle lanes and bikeways, sidewalk
      improvements, curb ramps, and other accessibility and safety
      improvements.

TAM will work with city engineers in Marin County to include these facilities in
projects when feasible. Included as a part of Measure A is a Technical Advisory
Committee and a Citizen Oversight Committee to evaluate how the tax funds
are spent on projects and to ensure that they are used consistent with Measure
A’s expenditure plan. This statement in Measure A helps tie facilities for non-
motorized transportation users to specific funding.

Another countywide policy that influences funding of transportation projects is
Measure B in Alameda County. Measure B was a ballot measure passed by the
County’s voters in 2000 that created a half-cent sales tax between 2002 and
2022 for transportation improvements. The Alameda County Transportation
Improvement Authority (ACTIA) is responsible for overseeing the expenditure
and strategic plan for the sales tax. Of the measure’s money, five-percent of
the funds collected by Measure B is dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian
projects; more pertinent to this report, there is a policy in the 2004/2005
Strategic Plan that highlights non-motorized transportation improvements in
other types of transportation projects. The ACTIA policy states that:

      The Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) and
      its project sponsors recognize that certain traffic signal design features
      may provide benefit to pedestrian/bicycle and transit mobility.
      Therefore, ACTIA encourages project sponsors to include the following
      elements into Measure B-funded capital projects and the costs are
      eligible for reimbursement with Measure B funds.

The two non-motorized transportation elements Measure B refers to are:
audible pedestrian signals and adjustable pedestrian timings. The policy also
suggests other facilities that would assist in bicycle and pedestrian travel,
including: pedestrian countdown clocks, lighted crosswalks, and enhanced


                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     7
                                                                                       draft


pavement markings such as ladder crosswalks. These improvements can be
incorporated when a signal is either added or replaced.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Measure J sale tax (2004) included the
following language:

       Moreover, as appropriate, components for routine accommodation of
       bicycle and pedestrian travel shall be incorporated as part of
       construction projects.”

In addition to the adopted policies above, the Napa Country Sales Tax (ballot
June 2006) includes the following requirements for pedestrian and bicycle
accommodation:

       Projects funded all or in part with Authority revenues must
       include bicycle and pedestrian facilities at those locations called
       for by applicable bicycle plans … unless the addition of that
       bicycle or pedestrian facility exceeds ten percent of the cost of
       the project without that facility. The cost of removal and
       replacement of existing facilities necessary for the placement of
       the pedestrian and/or bicycle facility may be included in the
       determination of the ten percent threshold at the discretion of
       the local agency.

Measure A in Marin County, Measure B in Alameda County, and Measure J in
Contra Costa County are all examples of local funding policies that promote
routine accommodation approved by the voting public. The effectiveness of
these new policies is still to be determined, but the policies indicate growing
support at the county level for the regular inclusion of non-motorized needs in
transportation projects.

Transit Access Policies

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are also critical at more particular locations.
MTC’s Transit-Oriented Development policy recognizes the needs of non-
motorized users to access Bay Area transit stations. This policy calls for station
access and circulation plans for non-motorized access that:

      Clearly identify any barriers for pedestrian, bicycle and wheelchair
      access to the station from surrounding neighborhoods, and propose
      strategies that will remove these barriers and maximize the number of
      residents and employees that can access the station by these means.

There are over 20 transit agencies in the Bay Area and many of them also have
bicycle and pedestrian policies. Transit agencies’ policies often relate to
developments surrounding stations and for accessing the service. For example,

                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     8
                                                                                       draft


Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) includes bicycles and pedestrians in its 2003
BART Station Access Guidelines. These guidelines establish a five-level
hierarchy of transportation modes, with walking as the first in importance.
Access issues to stations for pedestrians are:

   •   Directness and speed of route
   •   Safety and security
   •   Pedestrian-friendly design
   •   Information

Bicycling access is also important for BART stations. This mode of
transportation ranks third in the modal hierarchy and the transit agency has an
exclusive Bicycle Access and Parking Plan. Key considerations for bicycles
included in the BART Station Access Guidelines are:

   •   Access
   •   Convenient, available parking
   •   Secure, sheltered parking

The City of San Francisco’s Transit-First Policy, located in the City Charter,
Section 16.102, guides the city’s investments in transportation. This policy
clearly supports walking and bicycling in addition to transit. The first three
principals of the policy are:

       1. To ensure quality of life and economic health in San Francisco,
    the primary objective of the transportation system must be the safe
    and efficient movement of people and goods.
       2. Public transit, including taxis and vanpools, is an economically
    and environmentally sound alternative to transportation by individual
    automobiles. Within San Francisco, travel by public transit, by bicycle
    and on foot must be an attractive alternative to travel by private
    automobile.
       3. Decisions regarding the use of limited public street and sidewalk
    space shall encourage the use of public rights of way by pedestrians,
    bicyclists, and public transit, and shall strive to reduce traffic and
    improve public health and safety.
To implement the policy, the city revised the Public Works Code to include the
following:

    Whenever the Department or other Municipal Excavator undertakes a
    project involving the planning, construction, reconstruction or repaving of
    a public right-of-way, such project shall include, to the maximum extent
    practicable and feasible… transit, pedestrian and bicycle improvements…

                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     9
                                                                                       draft


    To the maximum extent practicable and feasible, the Director shall
    condition all excavation and street improvement permits on the inclusion
    of the improvements set forth (above).

There are many policies that make non-motorized transportation facilities a
priority in projects. These range from federal legislation to city plans and
transit station planning guidelines.

County and City Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans

In addition to the funding policies noted above, all nine counties in the Bay
Area have bicycle plans and several have pedestrian plans. For example, Contra
Costa and Marin County both have Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans while Solano
County has separate bicycle and pedestrian plans. Some cities within the Bay
Area have combined bicycle and pedestrian plans, while many cities include
bicycle networks in their general plans. The number of cities with these varying
types of bicycle plans is shown in Table 1. According to information collected
by MTC in 2004 and 2005, over 70 percent of Bay Area cities have some type of
bicycle plans (general plan, city plan, adopted countywide plan).

These plans are important because MTC’s Transportation Development Act
Article 3 (TDA-3) allocation procedures requre that in order for a bicycle
project to receive funds, it must be included in “a detailed bicycle circulation
element or plan included in a general plan or an adopted comprehensive
bikeway plan.” Furthermore, a city is only eligible for Caltrans Bicycle
Transportation Account (BTA) funds if there is an approved bicycle plan less
than five years old on file.

In some cases, cities choose to adopt bicycle and/or pedestrian plans prepared
at the county level. However, local bicycle plans typically include more local
detail and community input than the county plans. For example, the Palo Alto
Bicycle Transportation Plan identified a much denser bicycle network within
the city boundaries compared to the Santa Clara County Bicycle Plan network.

Please note in the table below each city is only counted one time based on the
type of plan adopted based on the following rank:
       1. Stand-alone bicycle and/or pedestrian plan
       2. Adoption of county bicycle and/or pedestrian plan
       3. General plan element including bicycle and/or pedestrian plan




                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     10
                                                                                                    draft


                                           Table 1 –Adopted Bicycle Plans*

                                                        Cities in
                                                        counties Cities without bike plan
                                            Cities with with bike   or bike element in
                                    Cities      bike     plan or       general plan
                 Cities  Cities   adopted elements element Cities without any bike
                   in   with bike county in general in general plan or bike element in
     County     County    plan    bike plan     plan      plan         general plan
Alameda            14       8         0           4        86%        2           14%
Contra Costa       19       7         0           6        68%        6           32%
Marin              11       8         1           0        82%        2           18%
Napa                5       3         0           2       100%        0            0%
San Francisco**     1       1         0           0       100%        0            0%
San Mateo          20       5         1           4        50%       10           50%
Santa Clara        15       7         0           3        67%        5           33%
Solano              7       1         3           3       100%        0            0%
Sonoma              9       5         2           0        78%        2           22%
Total             101      45         7          21       72%        27           27%

       *information collected in 2004 & 2005
       ** San Francisco has a city/county plan and elements are adopted in the general plan

       There are far fewer pedestrian plans in the Bay Area than bicycle plans. Of 101
       cities, only three have specific pedestrian plans, seven have a combined
       pedestrian and bicycle plan, while 89 percent of cities in the Bay Area do not
       have pedestrian plans. The 2005 pedestrian plan inventory results are shown in
       Table 2.
                             Table 2 – Adopted Pedestrian Plans*
                                                             Cities
                             Cities       Cities           combined           Cities adopted  Percent of
                               in        with Ped          ped/bike           county ped or cities without
         County             County         Plan               plan            ped/bike plan any ped plan
     Alameda                   14            2                 5                     0            50%
     Contra Costa              19            0                 1                     0            95%
     Marin                     11            0                 1                     1            78%
     Napa                       5            0                 1                     0            80%
     San Francisco              1           1**                0                     0             0%
     San Mateo                 20            0                 0                     0           100%
     Santa Clara               15            0                 0                     0           100%
     Solano                     7            0                 0                     0           100%
     Sonoma                     9            0                 0                     1            99%
     Total                    101            3                 8                     2           87%
             *information collected in 2005
             **San Francisco Bicycle Plan is in development (2005/6)


                             Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area      11
                                                                                      draft



There is no link between pedestrian planning and funding currently. It appears
that the bicycle planning requirement for both TDA and BTA programs has
success encouraging cities and counties to prepare and adopt bicycle planning
documents.




                Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     12
                                                                                         draft


IV.       Interviews and Results

Project List Development

MTC staff interviewed transportation project managers to gain a better
understanding of how existing policies impact the decision to include routine
accommodations for bikes and pedestrians in the planning, design and
construction process. 35 managers were interviewed and spoke about various
project types, including:

      •   Local roads
      •   Mass transit
      •   Highway interchanges
      •   Highway expansions
      •   Highway HOV lane developments

The original project list was created from MTC’s WebFMS system (online at:
http://apps06.mtc.ca.gov/webfms/home) and originally included more than
3,000 archived and active projects from the 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). That list of projects was shortened
to create a reasonable length list to survey over the course of 4-6 weeks.

First, all bicycle and/or pedestrian oriented projects were removed since this
report focuses on other types of transportation project types that are not
bicycle or pedestrian specific. Next, most interstate transit projects were
removed from the list because these facilities do not allow bicycles and
pedestrians. This is consistent with the FHWA routine accommodation policy.
Transit projects were mostly removed as well. Finally, projects funded before
1999 were removed because these projects began before D.D. 64 came into
effect in California. These reductions left a list of 120 eligible projects to
survey. During July and August 2005, an attempt was made to interview every
project manager on that list; 35 successful interviews were completed.

Information was garnered from transportation project managers in phone
interviews. Depending on the detail of conversation, most interviews ranged
from 10 to 30 minutes. In the interviews, interviewees were directed with
specific questions regarding non-motorized facility planning in transportation
projects. The survey is shown in Appendix 2 and the complete results from the
questionnaire are in Appendix 3. As shown in Table 3, most interviews were
with local road project managers.




                   Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     13
                                                                                              draft


                Table 3 – Completed Surveys by Project Type
                                                                                 Percent of
      Project Type                                               Number
                                                                                   Total
      Highway – Interchange                                                8           23%
      Highway - Other Widening                                             3             9%
      Local Roads – Other                                                  3             9%
      Local Roads – Rehabilitations & Overlays                            20           57%
      Mass Transit - Buildings & Other                                     1             3%
      Total                                                               35          100%

MTC recognizes that this is not an exhaustive list of transportation projects.
The intent was to find a list of transportation projects designed or completed
since the signing of D.D. 64 in 2001. Due to the short time since D.D. 64 was
adopted, and the time transportation projects take in planning, design, and
construction phases, only a small number of projects met the report’s criteria.
The sample does not perfectly represent the number of these types of
transportation projects planned, designed, and constructed since D.D. 64’s
adoption.

While not exhaustive, this report represents the first, project-level data
collection effort and helps inform routine accommodation recommendations.
It should be noted the study did not attempt to assess the quality of the non-
motorized improvements that were included in each project, an effort that
would require extensive qualitative assessment.

Quantitative Results

Figure 1 shows the number of interview responses from different types of
agencies. Most responses to the local roads projects were from cities, as
reflected by the larger number of city respondents. Of the 35 project managers
interviewed, 20 of them were from Bay Area cities.




                Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area             14
                                                                                                 draft


                 Figure 1 – Responding agencies to interviews
  24
  22      20
  20
  18
  16
  14
  12
  10                       9
   8
   6
   4                                          2                 2
   2                                                                               1             1
   0
          City      California DOT         County        Transportation       Consultant   Transit Agency
                                                            Authority
Most Bay Area counties and transportation authorities are project managers on
larger, more complex projects which take longer to develop compared to other
projects. This partly explains the relatively small number of interviews
conducted with project managers from these larger agencies. Also for the
report, only five project managers were interviewed from Caltrans, a small
number compared to the number of state projects in the planning, design, and
construction phases of development.

Project managers were asked if they consulted a bicycle plan in the process. As
shown in Figure 2, most project managers consulted a bicycle plan, whether it
was the MTC Regional Bicycle Plan, a county bicycle plan, or a city bicycle
plan. As Figure 3 conveys, of respondents that said “yes” to reviewing a plan,
only three consulted the Regional Bicycle Plan. Comparing the other bicycle
plans reviewed by traffic managers, city plans were reviewed most often. Also,
in the interviews, only one project manager specifically cited D.D. 64 as a
reason to add non-motorized user facilities.




                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area                 15
                                                                                              draft


       Figure 2 – Responding agencies who referenced a bicycle plan

                     24
                     22
                     20
                     18
                     16
                     14
                     12
                     10
                      8
                      6
                      4
                      2
                      0
                                    Yes                           No



       Figure 3 – Types of bicycle plans reviewed by project managers

 20
 18
 16
 14                                                                                    13

 12
 10
  8                                                 7

  6
                 4
  4
  2
  0
              Regional                           County                                City



Of the 35 project managers interviewed for this report, 20 (57%)confirmed
bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities are or will be included in the project.
These include any bicyclist and/or pedestrian facility, other than facilities
specific to persons with disabilities. Thus, a majority of the projects surveyed
accommodate non-motorized travelers to some extent. These results can be
seen in Figure 4 below.




                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area            16
                                                                                                                                draft


                            Figure 4 –Plan review and inclusion of new facility

20

18           17

16

14

12

10

8                                                                          7

6
                                                                                                    4                       4
4                                    3

2

0
       Checked a plan,      Did not check a plan,                 Did not check a plan,   Checked a plan, did      Did not check plan or
      included a facility     included a facility                   did not include a     not include a facility    include facility but
                                                                         facility                                       plan exists




     Figure 4 shows the clear relationship between a project manager reviewing a
     non-motorized plan and including non-motorized accommodations. In locations
     where there was a plan and it was reviewed, facilities were included 17 out of
     35 times. This is a key finding of the study and indicates the importance of
     non-motorized planning.

     There are a few other interesting results worth commenting on. Figure 4 also
     shows four instances when project managers stated there was not a plan for
     the location when in fact there was one. Further, as noted elsewhere in the
     study, it does not attempt to distinguish between the quality of the non-
     motorized improvements (e.g. is a bike lane or ladder crosswalk “better” than
     a signed bike route or a standard crosswalk respectively). This qualitative
     effort was beyond the available resources for the study, but it would certainly
     be useful information for project managers considering non-motorized
     accommodations.


     Qualitative Results

     WHY ACCOMMODATIONS ARE ROUTINELY INCLUDED

     Other than the project managers associated with the results in Table 1, more
     than 30 other conversations took place with transportation planners and
     engineers at local, county, and state levels of government. Some of these
     interviewees are members of the Regional Bicycle Working Group and the


                                Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area                                 17
                                                                                       draft


Regional Pedestrian Committee; others were referenced in various project
manager surveys. Bicycle, pedestrian, and persons with disability advocates
were also interviewed to get the most thorough information considered in the
planning of these and other Bay Area transportation projects.

Interviewees provided insight as to why routine accommodations may or may
not be included in projects. These conversations provided numerous ideas why
this may occur as well as potential solutions for ensuring these facilities are
included in transportation projects in the future. The respondents gave several
reasons why facilities for non-motorized travel are included in projects.

Documented in a plan

In many cases, non-motorized facilities are included in project design and
development because they are included in a bicycle and/or pedestrian plan
ranging from the regional bicycle plan to a neighborhood circulation plan.
When municipalities or neighborhoods have non-motorized transportation plans
that include maps of designated routes and key districts, and preferred design
alternatives transportation project designers are more likely to follow them.

Presence of bicycle/pedestrian staff

About five percent of CMAs, counties, and cities in the Bay Area have paid staff
working exclusively on bicycle and/or pedestrian planning. Among other things,
these employees work with outside advocacy groups, other public agencies,
city departments, and project engineers to include non-motorized
transportation facilities into projects. Bicycle/pedestrian staff also makes
certain that the most appropriate facilities are established in the best places.
While many cities, counties, and CMAs have a designated a bicycle/pedestrian
staff person, this work could be any portion of their overall job responsibilities.

One bicycle/pedestrian staff person interviewed is currently working with
engineers to include bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure on a road
rehabilitation project where there is a gap between non-motorized facilities.
This effort entails working with project engineers and area advocates to
determine which improvements to include based on state design standards and
the needs of non-motorized transportation users. Staff stated that without
their bicycle/pedestrian position in the agency, the project would not have
included these non-motorized facilities.

Internal advocates within agency

In the Bay Area, accommodation of non-motorized transportation users is often
the result of proactive employees or commissioners. These internal advocates
are often bicycle commuters or recreational bicyclists who understand the
importance of providing for non-motorized transportation users where possible.

                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     18
                                                                                       draft


At the staff level, they are personally motivated to seek out policies, whether
it is D.D. 64 or a local planning document that allows them to pursue the
inclusion of these facilities. Local planning officials, such as planning
commissioners, can also be internal advocates for non-motorized transportation
facilities; one interviewee stated that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are
important when “important people care.” Not only do these decision makers
promote projects specific for these facilities but they also motivate
transportation staff to include them in other types of transportation projects.

For example, in a Bay Area city that does not have a set protocol for bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in projects, bicycle facilities that were not in any
planning document were included in a road construction. According to the
interview, this was a direct result of one planner’s efforts because often, under
normal circumstances in this agency, engineers do not think of including these
types of facilities in projects. In this example, the road accesses a major Bay
Area destination, making these non-motorized facilities especially beneficial.

WHY ROUTINE ACCOMMODATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED

Despite the policies and guidelines established at various levels of government
in the Bay Area, routine accommodations for non-motorized vehicles are often
not included in transportation projects or the best routine accommodation
alternatives are not chosen during a project design and development. As
gleaned from interviews with engineers, planners, and advocates in
transportation, there are many reasons why this is the case. This section of the
report discusses several overall reasons why non-motorized facilities are not
routinely included in transportation projects or why the best facilities are not
always developed.

New policies and standards take time to take effect

National legislation that included policies supporting the routine consideration,
as an aspect of other transportation facilities, was not passed until 1998.
California did not have its own directive supporting routine consideration for
non-motorized travelers until 2001 – making this a relatively new guideline
necessary for planners and engineers to incorporate into transportation project
development. In several interviews, public agency employees stated that
historically transportation design engineers have been trained to consider
design standards for vehicles based on the California Highway Design Manual
and that they need a better understanding of transportation facilities for
bicycles, pedestrians, and wheelchairs. Also, based on the interviews for this
report, there is a deficiency in transportation design professionals’ training in
facility design for non-motorized transportation users.

Facilities can be incrementally expensive and dedicated funding is insufficient


                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     19
                                                                                        draft


Based on interview results for this report, another explanation for inadequate
routine accommodations for non-motorized transportation users is funding.
Respondents indicated the marginal cost of adding non-motorized facilities can
add to the expense of the project and there is a lack of funds to cover these
costs. While it is unclear how much bicycle and pedestrian facilities add to
total project costs, some staff estimate that ADA-related facilities can add 20
percent to the cost of a project. As a result, non-motorized facilities are often
omitted from projects.

Retrofitting existing facilities

Most cities and counties include bicycle and pedestrian facilities in their
general plan standards for arterial and collector streets. Unfortunately, cities
and counties are adding relatively few new streets. When new arterial or
collector streets are constructed, they generally include these facilities, but
many existing streets do not include them. As noted elsewhere in this report,
retrofitting existing streets can be difficult and often expensive. Many streets
do not have adequate right-of-way to add bicycle lanes or sidewalks without
removing parking or a travel lane. While this is sometimes possible, often
additional right-of-way is needed which is expensive to acquire, especially in
more urban areas. Changes to existing streets are sometimes resisted by
adjoining property owners or by other users.

Review at various agency levels

Many different public agencies including Caltrans, Bay Area congestion
management agencies (CM As), transit operators, counties and cities, have
roles in the project development, design, and construction processes. These
agencies also manage different aspects of the funding process. This potentially
makes coordination and review difficult. Furthermore, coordination between
city departments, or between cities, counties, CMAs, MTC, and Caltrans on a
single project can confuse the responsibility for non-motorized
accommodations.

At the local level, it is common for city and county bicycle and pedestrian
advisory committees (BPACs) to have little input into project development or
design. BPACs are established as part of the public planning process to review
bicycle and pedestrian plans and programming, not specifically to review other
transportation projects. However, these committees may present a useful
forum for project managers to discuss their projects and solicit feedback. The
Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Advisory Committee regularly engages in this
process. Furthermore, coordination between city departments, or between
cities, counties, CMAs, and Caltrans on a single project can confuse the
responsibility for routine accommodations. This is especially important on
projects where a state facility interfaces with local roads.


                  Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     20
                                                                                      draft


MTC’s online TIP application, the Project Screening Criteria – Step 6 as shown
in Figure 5, asks questions regarding routine accommodations for non-
motorized users. This form presents a new opportunity to examine how cities
and counties address non-motorized needs during the project development
process.

  Figure 5 – Online TIP application’s Step 6, relating to D.D. 64 in WebFMS




This is a new form developed in late 2004 that will provide MTC an opportunity
to monitor results of regional and state routine accommodation policies. MTC
expects to revise this form to collect more meaningful project data while
providing more useful information to project sponsors.




                Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     21
                                                                                       draft


At the state level, Caltrans requires a project initiation document (PID) for
projects on the state highway system. These documents, required at the
beginning of the project development process, outline the purpose and need of
a project. The PID is shown as the second step in
Figure 6, “How Caltrans Builds Projects.” The               Figure 6 – “How
PID does not currently require project managers              Caltrans Builds
                                                               Projects”
to specifically address the needs of non-
motorized users. Nor, in Project Study Reports
(PSR), do the documents prepared by project
managers during the course of transportation
projects' design and construction, include
questions relating to routine accommodation
requirements. Caltrans is now considering
modifications to the requirements for these
documents, which presents an opportunity to
improve non-motorized accommodations.
Since cities, counties, and transportation
consultants, in addition to Caltrans staff,
regularly sponsor projects on the state highway
system and complete PIDs and PSRs, it is
important to have standards to address non-
motorized needs no matter the author.

Appendix 4 includes a checklist used by
Pennsylvania DOT to evaluate pedestrian and
bicycle needs during project planning. Both
Illinois and Iowa DOTs have similar forms in use.




                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     22
                                                                                      draft


V.    Case Studies

These case studies are examples of results found in the interviews. They are
three transportation projects that included or hope to include routine
accommodations. The case studies incorporate background information and
how the non-motorized accommodations came to be in the projects.

Case Study 1: SR-152/SR-156

   Figure 7: SR 152/156 existing
 conditions – surface, 2-lane state                    Figure 8: SR 152/156 proposed –
      highways with shoulders                          grade-separated overpass facility




State Routes 152 and 156 intersect in southern Santa Clara County near
Hollister, California. They are both two-lane highways that currently connect
with an at-grade intersection as shown in Figure 7. There are wide shoulders on
the routes that bicyclists use. West of the intersection, State Route 152
connects to Gilroy and San Jose and State Route 156 connects to Hollister and
to Monterey. Where they connect, State Route 156 ends and State Route 152
becomes the Pacheco Pass Highway, the only route for bicyclists to the Central
Valley. Caltrans owns the right-of-way for both routes, but Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority is leading an effort and coordinating with the DOT to
improve the intersection due to its a high average accident rate and vehicle
delay.

The original design for the $33 million project was to reconfigure the existing
at-grade intersection to a grade-separated interchange. There were no original
plans for bicycle facilities in the project except to extend the wide shoulders
over the overpass. Bicyclists would be permitted, but potentially dangerous
merges would exist. Plus, in the new interchange, bicyclists will not be able to
go westbound on State Route 152 from eastbound State Route 156 like they can
presently. These facilities were not deemed acceptable by bicyclists at VTA



                Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     23
                                                                                       draft



BAC meetings in 2004, however no changes were made to the design until
recently.

As of summer 2005 a separate Class I facility for bicyclists is being designed for
the interchange. The facility will be the original gravel maintenance road
converted to a paved path and will cost an additional $250,000 (0.8% of project
cost). Unfortunately, since this improvement was not in the original project
plans, it is not included in the project’s budget and funding package. Project
sponsors currently are applying for additional funds from the BTA to pay for the
maintenance path improvements.

Case Study 2: Highway 101 – Marin-Sonoma Narrows

The Marin-Sonoma Narrows is a section of Highway 101 in Marin and Sonoma
counties. A portion of the project is now an expressway, meaning that there
are local intersecting streets. This portion of Highway 101 is unique, because to
the north and south the highway is a freeway with on and off ramps. Part B of
the Narrows project will change eight miles of expressway into freeway and
requires accommodations for bicycles because currently they are allowed on
the expressway’s shoulders. This project will cost about $240 million and there
are currently no estimates for the bicycle facilities because they are still in the
design phase. One segment is shown in Figure 9.

 Figure 9 – Segment of the Marin-Sonoma Narrows Project. West of Highway
    101 is a Class II bikeway (solid line) and Class I bikeway (dashed line).




As a result of the Narrows project, a series of bike and pedestrian paths will
connect with frontage roads. These improvements have been included since
planning for the project began. Caltrans is leading this project and working
with several environmental and bicycle advocacy groups to make certain that



                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     24
                                                                                       draft



appropriate facilities are developed. This route is not on any current bicycle
plan, but Caltrans is developing these accommodations for non-motorized users
because bicycles are currently permitted on the shoulder and therefore they
are required to do so.

Case Study 3: Golf Course Drive Overlay

In July 2004 the Rohnert Park City Council voted to include traffic calming
measures in its future overlay projects. The first overlay project after the
council’s action was on Golf Course Drive. Golf Course Drive is an arterial in
Rohnert Park, Sonoma County. Originally, the road had 12-foot wide lanes with
no bicycle lanes. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour.

The Public Works Department worked with the city’s Bicycle Advisory
Committee to develop Class II bicycle lanes on both sides of the street by
narrowing the travel lanes. The traffic lanes were reduced to 10 feet with
bicycle lanes on either side. As a result of the new striping plan, the number of
vehicles traveling over 55 miles per hour dropped by 73 percent in the
westbound and 88 percent in the eastbound direction. Public Works staff see
this as an effective measure and plan to routinely include bicycle lanes when
there is space in the existing right-of-way in all of its repainting and overlay
projects on arterial and collector streets.




                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     25
                                                                                         draft



VI.    Recommendations

Our findings indicate that some form of bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations are included in a majority (57%) of projects that were
reviewed. Based on discussion with project managers, local agencies, Caltrans,
and stakeholders, this section of the report provides recommendations to
encourage greater levels of routine accommodation. Making the
accommodation of non-motorized users routine will require the cooperation
and support from various levels of government responsible for both distributing
funds and planning, designing, and constructing the transportation
infrastructure.

Recommendations are sorted into three major categories:

       Project Planning and Design
       Project Funding and Review
       Training

FHWA’s, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended
Approach states: “Retrofitting the built environment often provides even more
challenges than building new roads and communities.” Recommendations for
improving the funding and review, and design of projects so the best routine
accommodations are included at the outset of projects are discussed below to
facilitate safe and convenient travel for all non-motorized users.

PROJECT PLANNING and DESIGN

These recommendations promote early consideration of routine accommodations in
transportation projects and that they are the best facilities for projects. The 2001
Director’s Policy for Context Sensitive Solutions and the new Caltrans Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities in California (2005) technical reference guide can aid in this process.
They will provide California transportation project designers the most practical
routine accommodation improvements for each project.

The Caltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in California (2005), VTA’s Bicycle
Technical Guidelines (1999), and VTA’s Pedestrian Technical Guidelines (2003) all
serve as examples for designing routine accommodations in projects. They include
descriptions, technical information, and an array of details pertaining to bicycle and
pedestrian facilities in various environments. These documents are valuable to
planners and engineers.

Caltrans District 4 staff also discussed the need for more careful coordination between
their project initiation document (PID) /project study report (PSR) process and bicycle
and pedestrian planning activities. Given the number of studies underway in District 4




                   Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     26
                                                                                         draft



at any point in time, this will be a difficult issue to address. The following
recommendations, however, should be explored:

   1. Recommendation: Caltrans and MTC will make available routine
      accommodations reports, publications available on their respective websites.

   2. Recommendation: Caltrans District 4 will maintain a database and share a list
      of ongoing Caltrans and local agency PIDs and PSRs either quarterly or semi-
      annually at the District 4 Bicycle Advisory Committee to promote local non-
      motorized involvement in projects on the state highway system.

FUNDING and REVIEW

As previously shown in Tables 1 and 2, nearly 30 percent of cities in the Bay Area do
not have a bicycle plan or bicycle element in the general plan and almost 90 percent
of cities do not have a pedestrian plan. As demonstrated in the interviews, these plans
appear to be a key component of successful non-motorized accommodation in
combination with staffing and institutional support. These planning documents serve
as a reference for transportation planners and engineers, helping them understand the
need for these facilities within their cities. Also, a bicycle or pedestrian plan can
include a priority list of projects on the network, design elements including best
practices for the development and inclusion of facilities, and goals, policies, or
benchmarks for a city’s future bicycle or pedestrian facilities. It should be noted that
the presence of specified route preferences in a bicycle plan do not negate the need
for safe travel by bicyclists and pedestrians on all roadways where they are permitted.

Pursuant to the FHWA’s Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A
Recommended Approach, when costs for non-motorized accommodations are less than
20 percent of total construction, non-motorized travel is legal, and there is demand in
the area for these improvements, they should be included in the final project. If
routine accommodations are not proposed in the project due to funding constraints,
project managers should seek funds for construction of bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations.

As previously shown in Figure 2, the MTC TIP application for federally funded
transportation projects includes questions relating to D.D. 64 and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. These questions were incorporated into the online application in
2004 and only a few project sponsors have used the new application. The questions
should be modified as needed to gather the best information, while keeping the
process brief. MTC should review the success of the application process and ensure
project application responses include adequate designs for non-motorized users
wherever appropriate and feasible.

MTC’s TDA Article 3 guidelines require counties and cities to have a Bicycle Advisory
Committee (BAC) to review and prioritize projects spending these funds. At this time,
there are no requirements that counties or cities review non-bicycle/pedestrian
projects with these committees. Given the complicated and lengthy project



                   Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     27
                                                                                        draft



development process already in place, it is important to balance project review with
project delivery requirements. VTA staff is currently developing a process to ensure
that the VTA BAC is involved with project design when it reaches 35 percent. This
example should serve as a model for other project sponsors in the region.

One way to improve the review process is to have designers complete a checklist that
formalizes the consideration of bicycle, pedestrian and disabled needs in the design of
transportation facilities and review their results early in the planning process. For
example, as shown in Appendix 4, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT) has an established bicycle and pedestrian facilities checklist.

Also, at the local agency level, there are different viewpoints in current BACs or BPACs
due to varying representation of non-motorized users. Resolution 875, which outlines
the requirements for the TDA Article 3 program, states that BACs should be composed
of both bicyclists and pedestrians. However, there are often more bicycle advocates
than pedestrian advocates. Agencies should form balanced BPACs to understand the
needs of bicyclists, pedestrians and the disabled community. If this is not possible,
BACs should be made aware of different non-motorized users’ needs in transportation
projects, including bicyclists, pedestrians, and persons with disabilities.

   3. Recommendation: MTC will continue to support the use of TDA funds for
      bicycle and pedestrian planning, with special focus on the development of new
      plans.

   4. Recommendation: MTC’s regional discretionary fund programming policies shall
      ensure project sponsors consider the accommodation of non-motorized
      travelers consistent with Caltrans’ Deputy Directive 64. Projects funded all or
      in part with regionally discretionary-funds must include bicycle and pedestrian
      facilities at those locations called for in applicable plans and standards unless
      those facilities exceed 15% of the total project cost.

   5. Recommendation: TDA Article 3, Regional Bike/Ped, and TLC funds shall be
      reserved for improvements to existing sub-standard facilities that are not part
      of a roadway rehabilitation project, or in cases where the non-motorized costs
      exceed 15% in #4 above. Further, TDA Article 3, Regional Bike/Ped, and TLC
      funds shall not be used to fund new non-motorized facilities that need to be
      built to mitigate roadway construction activities.

   6. Recommendation: MTC will monitor how the needs of non-motorized users of
      the transportation system are being considered and accommodated in the
      design and construction of transportation projects by auditing candidate TIP
      projects.

   7. Recommendation: Caltrans shall develop an online form to serve as a checklist
      review for state highway and interchange projects at system planning or




                  Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     28
                                                                                        draft



       project initiation phase. Caltrans shall monitor select projects based on their
       online forms and the proposed checklist.

   8. Recommendation: Caltrans, CMAs and local agencies shall have BPACs review
      projects during the design stage to provide input on appropriate bicycle and/or
      pedestrian facilitiesforproposed projects. BPACs shall include members that
      understand the range of transportation needs of bicyclists, pedestrians and the
      disabled.

TRAINING
MTC has the potential to improve the routine accommodations for bicycle and
pedestrians in projects with training and education programs for project managers and
project designers. At the regional level, MTC should look to examples in and outside of
the Bay Area for techniques for developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The
program could inform public professionals of bicycle and pedestrian tools and manuals,
the various types of facilities available to include in project designs, and the best
practices for developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in projects. In May 2005, MTC
hosted two, one-day training sessions on designing pedestrian facilities that should
serve as examples in the future.

Caltrans can continue to train its own staff to promote D.D. 64 through their context
sensitive design and the new Caltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in California
Technical Reference Guide. In addition, Caltrans can be a valuable partner in training
and outreach efforts at the city and county level.

   9. Recommendation: Caltrans and MTC will continue to host project manager and
      designer training sessions to staff and local agencies to promote routine
      accommodation Deputy Directive 64.




                  Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     29
                                                                                       draft




VII.   Conclusion

This report summarizes the results of interviews with 35 project managers, and
almost as many interviews with bicycle and pedestrian planners, engineers and
advocates. The results indicate that a majority of projects accommodate
bicyclists and pedestrians to some extent and that many local jurisdictions
have existing policies that support routine accommodation. Based on these
findings and interviews, in consultation with Caltrans District 4 staff, the study
establishes recommendations to improve bicycle, pedestrian, and disabled
accommodation in Bay Area transportation projects.

These recommendations will be strengthened by implementation at all levels of
government, from city to state. This is the first study of its kind for MTC and
will serve as a benchmark for future evaluations of routine accommodations.
MTC will continue to work with partner agencies to increase the regular
accommodation of all users into transportation projects.




                 Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     30
                                                                                      draft



Appendix

1. Web Resources:

Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, Strategic Plan for
Measure B:
http://www.acta2002.com/WHAT_IS_ACTIA/FullSP0405Final%20070804-1.doc

Americans with Disabilities Act homepage:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm

BART Station Access Guidelines:
http://www.bart.gov/docs/planning/access_guidelines.pdf

California Assembly Concurrent Resolution 211:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_0201-
0250/acr_211_bill_20020820_chaptered.html

Caltrans Deputy Directive 64:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/bike/Appendix_B.pdf

Caltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in California:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/pedbike.htm

Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 8 - Overview of
Project Development:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pdpm/chap_htm/chapt08/chapt08.htm

Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual: Chapter 31 - Non-Motorized
Transportation Facilities
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pdpm/chap_pdf/chapt31.pdf

Federal Highway Administration: Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian
Travel: A Recommended Approach:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

Federal Highway Administration: Improving Conditions for Bicycle and Walking,
A Best Practices Report:
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/rd/planning.htm#improve

Illinois Department of Transportation: Bureau of Local Roads & Streets Manual,
Bicycle Facilities Chapter and Checklist:
http://www.dot.state.il.us/blr/manuals/Chapter%2042.pdf



                Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     31
                                                                                      draft




Iowa Department of Transportation: Iowa Trails 2000, Bicycle and Pedestrian
Accommodation Guidance: http://www.dot.state.ia.us/trails/AppendixC.html

Marin County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan (Measure A):
http://www.tam.ca.gov/Uploads//pdfs/TSTEP_050604_FINAL.pdf

MTC 2001 Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicycle/

MTC Bike/Pedestrian Toolbox:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools.htm

MTC Transportation 2030 Regional Plan:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2030_plan/

MTC WebFMS: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/fms_intro.htm

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
Checklist: http://www.bicyclecoalition.org/presentations/padotchecklist.htm

City of San Francisco Transit First Policy
http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=3179

Taking Steps: An assessment of Metropolitan Planning Organizations support for
Bicycling & Walking:
http://www.bikewalk.org/assets/Reports/steps_booklet.pdf

Thunderhead Alliance, Complete the Streets Report:
http://www.thunderheadalliance.org/doc/Thunderhead%20Complete%20Street
s%20Report%2012-11-04.pdf

Transportation Development Act and Training:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/tdao.htm

Valley Transportation Authority: Bicycle Technical Guidelines
http://www.vta.org/news/vtacmp/Bikes/Bike%20Tech%20Guidelines.pdf




                Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     32
                                                                                                                   draft



2. Project Manager Survey

1. Name:
2. Title:
3. Agency:
4. Project Name:
5. Project Type:
6. Please provide a brief project description:
7. Where was the project located?
City:
County:
8. What agency was the project sponsor?
9. Were there other project sponsors? If so, who?
10. What was the setting of the project?
    a. Urban      b. Suburban      c. Rural
11. What was the total cost?
12. If this was a roadway project, on what type of road did it occur?
    a. Interchange
    b. State Highway
    c. Local Road
    d. Not a roadway project
12B. If this was a local road project, how was the local road classified in FHWA standards? As
a(n):
    a. Arterial - Provides the highest level of service at the greatest speed for the longest
    uninterrupted distance, with some degree of access control.
    b. Collector - Provides a less highly developed level of service at a lower speed for shorter
    distances by collecting traffic from local roads and connecting them with arterials.
    c. Local - Primarily provides access to land with little or no through movement.
    d. None of the Above
    e. Not a local road project
12C. If a road project, please provide details about its characteristics not related to bike
and/or pedestrian facilities (i.e. – number of lanes, street trees, sidewalk characteristics,
posted speed limit, presence of signals, etc.):
13. Under CEQA, what level of environmental review took place prior to the project’s
selection?
    a. An Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Impact Report
    b. A Notice of Exemption was filed due to categorical exemption or no possible significant
    effect
    c. No environmental review took place




                                   Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area 33
                                                                                                                  draft

14. What processes were used to determine whether or not bike and/or pedestrian facilities
should be included in the project (circle all that apply)?
    a. Review of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policies
    b. Review of state policies (cite: ______________________________)
    c. Review of regional policies (cite: ______________________________)
    d. Review of local policies (cite: ______________________________)
    e. Public outreach/involvement (type(s): ______________________________)
    f. None of the above
15. If other bike and/or pedestrian plans were reviewed during the project’s planning
process, what type were they (circle all that apply)?
    a. the Regional Bicycle Plan
    b. County bike plan(s)
    c. City bike plan(s)
    d. County pedestrian plan(s)
    e. City pedestrian plan(s)
    f. Other public bike and/or pedestrian documents
    g. No bike and/or pedestrian plans were reviewed during the project’s planning process
16. Other than bike and pedestrian plans, what other types of plans were reviewed during this
project’s processes?
    a. City/County Master Plan(s)
    b. Regional Master Plan
    c. Park Plan(s)
    d. Trail Plan(s)
    e. Other:_____________________________
    f. None
17. Specifically, what types of bike and/or pedestrian facilities were included in the project?
18. Were facilities included in the design but not in the final project? If so, what were they?
Why weren’t they included?
19. Did nearby land uses (i.e. – school, library, transit stop) affect your bike and/or
pedestrian planning decisions?
    a. Yes          b. No
20. If bike and/or pedestrian facilities were included in the planning process, who helped
inform this decision? Please list below those that were involved in the decision-making.
Other Public Agencies and Committees (i.e. - Planning Department, Bicycle/Pedestrian
Advisory Committees, etc.):
Advocate/Interest Groups:
21. How did including bike and/or pedestrian facilities affect the project’s budget? If bike
and/or pedestrian facilities were not included due to cost, how much would they have
increased the project’s budget? Was this budget increase more or less than 20 percent of the
project’s total budget?
22. Do you have any other comments about the bike and pedestrian planning involved or not
involved in this project? Also, do you have opinions about your agency’s policies for
considering bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities in projects?
23. Please provide us with your phone number and email address so we can contact you if we
have additional questions.
Phone:
Email:




                                  Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area 34
3. Questionnaire Results
                                                                                                        Local Road                                                  Policies &
                                                                                                                            Road/Station          Environmental                        Public
 Number   Project Type        Status        Type of Agency      Cost        Setting    Type of Road       FHWA                                                        Plans
                                                                                                                           Characteristics           Review                         Involvement
                                                                                                       Classification                                               Reviewed
                                                                                                                         4 interchanges in
            Highway -                       Transportation                                             Not a roadway project, 3 are local roads                                     public env'tal
    1         HOV         In Construction     Authority      $141,754,000    Urban      Interchange       project       with state highway          EIS/EIR                           meeting
            Highway -                                                                                  Not a roadway                              CatExempt or      State design
    2         HOV         In Construction       DOT          $11,800,000     Urban      Interchange       project     no existing interchange       NegDec           guidelines
                                                                                                                       Intersection of two 2-
            Highway -                       Transportation                                                           lane state highways at t-                                      public env'tal
    3      Interchange        Design          Authority      $27,250,000     Rural     State Highway      Arterial          intersection.           EIS/EIR                           meeting
            Highway -                                                                                  Not a roadway clover interchange, state    CatExempt or
    4      Interchange    In Construction        City         $7,600,000     Urban      Interchange       project             highway               NegDec
            Highway -                                                                                   None of the
    5      Interchange      In Design           DOT           $6,300,000     Urban      Interchange        above                                     EIS/EIR
                                                                                                                       Multi-lane roads with
            Highway -                                                                                                    signals. AM peak         CatExempt or
    6      Interchange      In Design            City         $2,000,000     Urban      Interchange      Collector            problem               NegDec                         public meetings
            Highway -                                                                                  Not a roadway    Two state highways        CatExempt or
    7      Interchange      In Design           DOT          $30,000,000    Suburban    Interchange       project             intersect             NegDec                            too early
            Highway -                                                                                                                                               Bike Coord.
    8      Interchange      Complete            DOT          $75,455,000     Urban      Interchange       Arterial       freeway interchange         EIS/EIR         Meetings
            Highway -                                                                                                                                                              public meetings,
              Other                                                                                     None of the     Convert expressway to                                       work with bike
    9       Widening        In Design           DOT                          Urban     State Highway      above               freeway                EIS/EIR          DD 64             groups
            Highway -
              Other                                                                                     None of the   add a lane for uphill       CatExempt or
    10      Widening        In Design           DOT           $9,000,000     Rural     State Highway      above         traveling trucks            NegDec                          public hearing
            Highway -                                                                                               Currently, there are three
              Other                                                                                    Not a roadway bores with two lanes
    11      Widening        In Design           DOT          $220,000,000    Urban     State Highway      project             each                   EIS/EIR                       public meetings
          Local Roads -                                                                                             Originally a freeway and
    12        Other         Complete            DOT          $12,000,000     Urban      Local Road         Local      parking underneath             EIS/EIR          Bay Trail     public meetings
                              Need                                                                                                                                 City policy to
          Local Roads -    Construction                                                                                                           CatExempt or      include bike
    13       Other           funding             City        $14,000,000     Urban      Local Road        Arterial         4 lane overcross         NegDec        lanes in projects
                              Need                                                                                                                                 City policy to
          Local Roads -    Construction                                                                                                           CatExempt or      include bike
    14       Other           funding             City        $14,000,000     Urban      Local Road        Arterial         4 lane overcross         NegDec        lanes in projects
                                                                                                                                                                        ADA
          Local Roads -                                                                                                2 lanes, 2 sidewalks, 25 CatExempt or        compliance,        Ad Hoc
    15     Pavement         Out to Bid           City          $85,000      Suburban    Local Road       Collector          mph, no signals       NegDec            General Plan      Committee
                                                                                                                       4 lanes, 2 sidewalks, no
          Local Roads -                                                                                                   median, 35 mph, 2     CatExempt or
    16     Pavement         Complete             City                        Urban      Local Road       Collector               signals          NegDec
                                                                                                                         5 streets, 2 lanes, no
          Local Roads -                                                                                               sidewalks, 45 to 55 mph,  CatExempt or
    17     Pavement         Complete           County                        Rural      Local Road       Collector       1,000 to 2,000 ADT       NegDec
                                                                                                                          2 to 4 lanes, partial
          Local Roads -                                                                                               sidewalks, 25 to 30 mph,  CatExempt or
    18     Pavement         Complete          Consultant                     Urban      Local Road       Arterial       no signals, 2 - 3 miles   NegDec
                                                                                                              Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area     35
                 Reviewed  City             Reviewed Other Types of                                                   Land Uses
       Reviewed                   Reviewed                                                                                        Other public
                  County bike/ped            County Plan Reviewed                   Type of bike/ped facilities        affected                  Advocates
Number Regional                   City Bike                                                                                         agencies                                              Comments
                   Bike    Plan             Pedestrian (ie - Park Plan,                     included                   bike/ped                   involved
       Bike Plan                    Plan                                                                                           consulted
                  Plan*   Exists             Plan**       Trail Plan)                                                  facilities
                                                                                   continued bike lanes over 2 of
                                                                                     the intersections. Lost bike
                                                                                    lanes over 1 because made it
                                                                                        into off-ramp. Marked                                                  Need different design standards where highways meet with local
   1         No         No        Yes        No          Yes         Trail Plan       crosswalks on 2 intersect.         No                      Trail Group        streets. Context Sensitive Design. This PM bicycles
                                                                                    Class III 5ft shoulder, added
                                                                                   crosswalk/signals to fill gap on                                        PM is a bicyclist – “there should be more $ allocated for bike/ped
   2         No         No        Yes        Yes         No            None           either side of interchange         No                                                  by making it a priority in Sacto.”
                                                                                                                                                             Bicycle safety review performed to look at conflicts. Agency
   3         No        Yes        Yes        No          Yes           None             Bike Path in Design              No                                               doesn't want to make facilities worse.
                                                                                                                                                           This project started pre-DD64, so bike lanes are not included. City
                                                                                                                                                   Bike      has bike/ped bridge planned north of interchange and parallel
                                                                                   crosswalks and sidewalks, no                                   Advocate route needing more funds. Major challenge for small agencies is
   4         No         No        No         Yes         No            None                 bikelanes                    No                        Group   accumulating funds including bike/ped projects. Aware of DD 64
                                                                                                                                                            no bike lanes or sidewalks "because there are none on the other
   5         No         No        Yes        No          No            None                     None                     No                                                        side of interchange"
                                                                                   Existing crosswalks &existing                 Neighborhood
   6         No         No        Yes        No          Yes           None        Class II bikeway (on 1 street)        No         Assoc.                                     Early in the process for this project.
                                                                                                                                                               Site has bicycle designations in County Plan & working on adjac.
   7         No         No        No         Yes         No            None                      none                    No                                     facility instead that hopes to be completed by project completed
                                                                                  bike lanes eb, painted shoulder
                                                                                    & bike lanes after overcross
                                                                  Regional Master wb; sidewalks on southside of
   8         No         No        Yes        Yes         No            Plan                    interchng                 No
                                                                                   Type I to Type II facilities on                               Bike
                                                                                       service road parallel to                                Advocate           Bike path funds come from separate sources as road funds.
                                                                                  highway. Funding not included                     policy    Group, envt'l       Bike/ped funds higher on list than others so they don't lose
   9         No        Yes        Yes        No          No            None           in original project budget         No     advisory group advocates                                 attention.
                                                                                     existing bike path is being
   10        No         No                   No          No            None       rebuilt, no additional amenities       No                                       Designer stated additional funding needed for new facilities
                                                                                 None, separate feasability study                Neigbhorhood      BFBC,
   11        No         No        Yes        No          No            None             for bike/ped crossover           No         Assoc.         EBBC
                                                                                     Class II bike lanes on both                  Community
                                                                   City/County     sides with central median (10                  Aesthetics
   12        No        Yes        Yes        No          No         Master Plan     ft), landscaping, 3 gateways         No       Committee
                                                                                                                                    BPAC,
                                                                                     bike lanes & possible ped                     Business
   13        No         No        Yes        No          Yes           None                  facilities                  No         Assoc.
                                                                                                                                    BPAC,
                                                                                     bike lanes & possible ped                     Business
   14        No         No        Yes        Yes         No            None                  facilities                  No         Assoc.
                                                                                                                                                 Local ADA
                                                                                                                                                   Group,
                                                                    City/County                                                    Council        General          City is pretty good about including bike/ped facilities. It is
   15        No         No        Yes        No          No         Master Plan              ADA ramps                   Yes       Members       Community                         included in the General Plan
                                                                                   5 foot bike lanes on both sides                                                Traffic engineer decided to put bike lanes because there was
   16        No         No        No         No          No            None                    of street                 Yes                                            room. Marked crosswalks already exist at signals
                                                                    City/County                                                                                Project was five rural road overlays - maintenance with low ADT.
   17        No         No        No         No          No         Master Plan                 None                     No                                                  Roads are 22 ft so there are restrictions.
                                                                                                                                                                 There is a parralel trail to the road. The town tries to included
    18        No         No       Yes       No           No          Trail Plan                 None                     No                                              bike/ped on major streets with designated routes
*all counties have bicycle plans
**Contra Costa, San Francisco and Solano Counties have pedestrian plans

                                                                                                                                 Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area          36
                                                                           Reviewed     Other Types of       Type of
          Reviewed        Reviewed
                                          City bike/ped    Reviewed City    County      Plan Reviewed       bike/ped       Land Uses affected           Other public       Advocates
Number   Regional Bike   County Bike                                                                                                                                                         Comments
                                           Plan Exists       Bike Plan     Pedestrian   (ie - Park Plan,    facilities     bike/ped facilities        agencies consulted    involved
             Plan          Plan*
                                                                            Plan**         Trail Plan)      included
                                                                                                                                                                           County Tax
                                                                                                                                 6 to 8 lanes,                              Measure,
         Local Roads -                                                                                                   discontinuous sidewalk,        CatExempt or        Bicycle
  19      Pavement         Planning          County                          Urban        Local Road        Arterial          45 mph, median              NegDec           Guidelines
                                                                                                                           4 lanes, 2 sidewalks,
                                                                                                                            landscaped median,
                                                                                                                          street trees, bike lanes,
         Local Roads -                                                                                                      25 mph, ped scaled                               ADA            Neighborhood
  20      Pavement         Complete            City          $942,000        Urban        Local Road        Arterial               lighting                EIS/EIR         compliance         Meetings
                                                                                                                            2 lanes, continuous
         Local Roads -                                                                                                   walking path, 35 mph no        CatExempt or
  21      Pavement         Complete            City          $135,000        Rural        Local Road        Arterial                median                NegDec
                                                                                                                              2 lanes, informal
                                                                                                                              walking path, no
         Local Roads -                                                                                                        median, left turn         CatExempt or       State Traffic
  22      Pavement         Complete            City          $152,000      Suburban       Local Road        Arterial        pockets, one signal           NegDec             Manual
         Local Roads -                                                                                                    4 lanes, median, 31000        CatExempt or         ADA
  23      Pavement         Planning            City          $194,000        Urban        Local Road        Arterial     ADT, 30 mph, 5 signals           NegDec           compliance
                                                                                                                         2 lanes, median, 45 mph,
         Local Roads -                                                                                                      2 signals at ends, no       CatExempt or
  24      Pavement         Planning            City           $59,000        Urban        Local Road        Arterial      sidewalks or bike lanes         NegDec
         Local Roads -                                                                                                   4 lanes, median, 35 mph,       CatExempt or
  25      Pavement         Complete            City          $271,000        Urban        Local Road        Arterial        1 signal, sidewalks           NegDec
         Local Roads -                                                                                                      2 lanes, no median,         CatExempt or         ADA
  26      Pavement         Complete            City          $449,000      Suburban       Local Road        Arterial       40/45 mph, 2 signals           NegDec           compliance
         Local Roads -                                                                                                                                  CatExempt or
  27      Pavement         Complete            City          $598,000        Urban        Local Road        Arterial     4 lanes, median, 35 mph          NegDec
                                                                                                                          2 lanes, no median, 35
         Local Roads -                                                                                                     mph, street trees, no        CatExempt or         ADA            Neighborhood
  28      Pavement         Complete            City          $753,000        Urban        Local Road        Arterial               signals                NegDec           compliance         Meetings
                                                                                                                         2 lanes, parking on both
         Local Roads -                                                                                                      sides, bike lanes, no       CatExempt or         ADA
  29      Pavement         Complete            City          $709,430      Suburban       Local Road        Collector      medians, two signals           NegDec           compliance
                                                                                                                          2 lanes, street trees, 25
         Local Roads -                                                                                                    mph, no median, stop          CatExempt or
  30      Pavement         Planning            City          $203,000      Suburban       Local Road         Local                  signs                 NegDec
                                                                                                                           4 lanes, school at one
         Local Roads -                                                                                                   end and half residential,
  31      Pavement     In Construction         City          $297,000        Urban        Local Road        Arterial             sidewalks                 EIS/EIR                         public meetings
         Local Roads -                                                                                                      no sidewalks, one           CatExempt or
  32      Pavement         Complete            City           $75,000        Rural        Local Road        Arterial      crosswalk, 2 lane road          NegDec
         Local Roads -                                                                                                   two 12 foot lanes to two       CatExempt or
  33      Pavement         Complete            City                        Suburban       Local Road        Arterial          10 foot lanes               NegDec
         Local Roads -                                                                                                      4 lanes, sidewalks,         CatExempt or         ADA
  34       Pavement     In Construction       DOT                            Urban      State Highway       Arterial            crosswalks                NegDec           compliance      2 public meetings
         Mass Transit -
          Buildings &                                                                   Not a Roadway      None of the                                  CatExempt or         ADA
  35         Other      In Construction   Transit Agency                   Suburban         Project          above            Poles, Shelters             NegDec           compliance


                                                                                                                 Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area           37
                                                                  Undesignated bike use shoulder
                                                                       with specific areas at
   19        Yes         No        Yes   No    No   Other Plan             intersections.             No        BAC                          Agency is proactive and positive for bike/ped planning
   20        No          No        Yes   Yes   No      None       bike lanes (5 feet), ADA ramps      Yes   Plann. Comm.
                                                    City/County                                              BAC, Town                     This is on the main road through town. The town supports
   21        No          No        No    Yes   No   Master Plan     bike lanes (5 feet) both sides    Yes      Council                             bike/ped facilities when funds are available
                                                                    Repainted bike lanes in both
                                                                        directions, repainted               City Council,
                                                                   crosswalks, repaint ped signal              Trans.
   22        No         Yes        No    No    No      None                  crosswalk                Yes   Subcommittee                    Town includes facilities where shown on Bikeway Plan.
                                                                   Marked Pedestrian Crossings,
   23        No         Yes        Yes   Yes   No      None                 ADA ramps                 No                                     Town has an active BAC and meets ADA requirements
                                                                     Overlay on only oneside of
                                                                  street. ADA ramps improved, 8
                                                                  foot shoulder, replace 2 existing                                       City does not have bike/ped plans. Replace what exists and
                                                                    crosswalks, sidewalks are on                                           upgrade if mandated. This city could do more and doesn't
                                                                  perpendicular streets not on this                                      consider these facilities during an overlay because funds aren't
   24        No          No        No    No    No      None                     street                No                                                         allocated to them.
                                                                      ADA ramps if necessary,
                                                                      replaced existing marked
   25        No          No        Yes   No    No      None                  crosswalks               No                                Pedway around city, bikeway map, making ADA improvements
                                                                                                              Transplan -                 Agency processing advocate opinions that vary depending on
                                                                                                               regional                  group. There are both rec. and commuting bikers. Figuring best
                                                                  Class III, 8 foot shoulder, ADA           transportation                 review of the many groups/users. Active bike/ped Planning
                                                    City/County      ramp, repainted existing                  planning                 Commissioner & so is manager - Manager thinks this helps when
   26        No         Yes        Yes   No    No   Master Plan              crosswalks               Yes     committee                                     planning these facilities.
                                                                   Only repainting crosswalks if
   27        No          No        No    No    No      None                    existing               No                                      City has PBAC. "Doing a good job, do what they can."
                                                                                                                                        Consider bicycle and pedestrian facilities whenever possible and
                                                                       New Crosswalk at T-                                               balancing two. Focusing more on ped facilities but it is difficult.
                                                                       intersection, narrower               Neigbhorhood                   Ped facilties slow traffic. Aging community that doesn't like
   28        No          No        No    No    No      None             appearance of street          Yes      Assoc.                                                   change
                                                                                                                                          Bikeway map in General Plan. Add bike improvements when
                                                                                                                                           rehabing. Missing side links included in plan. Des. standards
                                                    City/County    bikes lanes (5ft), apa ramps, 1                                        make sidewalks condition for new developments. Bike comm.
   29        No          No        No    Yes   No   Master Plan              crosswalk                No                                                            vocal, ped not
                                                                                                                                            Planning Director bikes everyday and aware of issues. Bike
                                                                   Existing bike lanes on 1 street                                      program linking city to lateral park & bike path. Annual sidewalk
                                                    City/County     repainted, other street NO.                                          improve. project upgrades sidewalks near schools. New projects
   30        Yes         No        No    No    No   Master Plan    ADA ramps where necessary          No                                   more than 27k must have sidewalks as condition of approval
                                                                                                               Traffic &
                                                                                                            Safety Comm.
                                                                                                             appointed by                  This project is to complete a gap in bike facilties. This PM
   31        No          No        Yes   Yes   No      None                Still in Design            Yes     city council                         implements bike plan. Need more funding.
                                                                                                                                        This was town $, other didn't go through. Not designated this bike
   32        No         Yes        No    No    No      None                one crosswalk              Yes                                     route so none were put in. existing crossing restriped.
                                                                                                                                           Going to council with proposal to add bike lanes for traffic
   33        No          No        Yes   Yes   No      None          bike lanes on both sides         No                                               calming on artierials…inexpensive.
                                                                    ADA compliance. Special                                   Bike
                                                                   request crosswalk striping in                             Advocate
   34        Yes         No        Yes   Yes   No      None               different cities            No                      Group
                                                                                                            Citizen Adv.
                                                                                                            Comm, VTA,
                                                                                                            MUNI, local                   Agency focuses bike/ped facilities near one mode more than
    35        No         No        NA    No    No   Other Plan              ADA ramps                 Yes       cities                                              others
*all counties have bicycle plans


                                                                                                            Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area         38
4. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian
Checklist

4A. Planning and Programming Checklist

                         PENNDOT BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES CHECKLIST
                                          July 16, 2001


           Project________________________________________________________________
         SR___________________ Segment_________________        Offset__________________
        Team Members_________________________________________________
                ______________________________ Date ___________________________

          Item                               Considerations                     Check   Comments
1.Consistency with        Is the transportation facility included in or
Bicycle/Pedestrian        related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities
Planning Documents        identified in a master plan?
                         •    MPO/LDD bike/ped plan.
                         •    Local planning documents.
                         •    BicyclePA Routes.
                         •    Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
                          Will the transportation facility provide continuity
                          and linkages with existing or proposed
                          bicycle/pedestrian facilities?
                          Is the transportation facility included in or
                          related to a regional/local recreational plan?
                         •    Rails-to-Trails.
                         •    Greenways.
                         •    Local, State, National Parks.
2. Existing and Future    Do bicycle/pedestrian groups regularly use the
Usage                     transportation facility?
                         •    Bike clubs.
                         •    Bicycle commuters.
                         •    Hiking, walking, or running clubs.
                         •    Skateboarding or rollerblading groups.
                         •    Bicycle touring groups.
                         •    General tourism/sightseeing.
                         •    Does the existing transportation facility
                              provide the only convenient transportation
                              connection/linkage between land uses in the
                              local area or region?
                          Could the transportation facility have favorable
                          or unfavorable impacts upon the bike
                          tourism/economy of an area/region? Consider:
                         •    Local businesses
                         •    Chamber of Commerce.
                         •    Tourism Promotion Agencies.
Existing and Future       Are there physical or perceived impediments to
Usage (cont’d)            bicycle or pedestrian use of the transportation
                          facility?
                          Is there a higher than normal incidence of
                          bicycle/pedestrian crashes in the area?
3. Safety                Is the transportation facility in a high-density
                         land use area that has pedestrian/bike/motor
                         vehicle traffic?
                        Is there a high amount of crossing activity at
                        intersections?
                        •    Midblock
                        •    Night crossing activity
                        •    Adequate lighting
                         Would the transportation facility (and all users)
                         benefit from widened or improved shoulders or
                         improved markings (shoulders, crosswalks)?
4. Community and Land    Is the transportation facility in a city, town,
Use                      municipality or village?
                         Is the transportation facility within/near a
                         community or neighborhood?
                         Is the transportation facility the “main street” in
                         a community or town?
                         Could bicycle or pedestrian usage impact
                         economic development?
                         Are sidewalks needed in the area?
                        •    Presence of worn paths along the facility.
                        •    Adjacent land uses generate pedestrian
                             traffic.
                        •    Possible linkages/continuity with other
                             pedestrian facilities.
                         Is the transportation facility a link between
                         complementary land uses?
                        •    Residential and commercial.
                        •    Residential and business.
                         Is the transportation facility in close proximity to
                         hospitals or elderly care facilities, or the
                         residences or businesses of persons with
                         disabilities?
                         Is the transportation facility within or near
                         educational institutions?
                         Is the transportation facility in close proximity to
                         transit stops or multi-modal centers (including
                         airports, rail stations, intercity bus terminals,
                         and water ports)?
5. Transit               Is the transportation facility on a transit route?
                         Is the transportation facility near park-and-ride
                         lots?
                         Are there existing or proposed bicycle racks,
                         shelters or parking available? Are there bike
                         racks on buses?
6.Traffic Calming        Is the community considering traffic calming as a
                         possible solution to speeding and cut-through
                         traffic?




                              Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area   40
4B. Scoping Checklist
                                                  July 16, 2001

         Project____________________________________________________________________
        SR___________________     Segment_________________    Offset__________________
         Team Members_____________________________________________________________
          __________________________________________ Date __________________________


Right-of-Way Needs Diagram




 Sidewalks      Shoulder/           Lane(s)            Lane(s)           Shoulder/        Sidewalk
                Bike lane                                                 Bike lane
         Planter/Buffer Strips                Median                          Planter/Buffer Strips


                        Element                                  Number            Width Required            Total Width
                                                                 Required
Sidewalks
Buffer Strips
Shoulders
Lanes
Median
Total Right-of-Way Required

Pedestrian Facilities

         Item                                  Considerations                                  Check        Comments
  1.    Sidewalks           Appropriate width:
                            •   1.5 m – 2.1 m (5’-7’) for residential,
                                commercial, and industrial.
                            •   2.5 m (8’) minimum for high use areas/CBD.
                            •   2.1 m (7’) width for bridges.
                            •   0.6 m (2’) shy distance for vertical barriers.
                            •   1.2 m – 2.1m barrier separating traffic from
                                pedestrians on bridges.

                            Applicability of planter or buffer strips.
Sidewalks (cont’d)          Connectivity with other pedestrian facilities.
                            Proximity to transit bike/ped generators:
                                 •    Transit stops.
                                 •    Schools.
                                 •    Park & rides
                                 •    Nursing homes
                                 •    Offices
                                 •    Business environments
                                 •    Athletic fields
                                 •    Recreation facilities




                                  Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area   41
                     Observe pedestrian patterns for special needs such
                     as:
                     •    Midblock crossings.
                     •    Islands and refuges.
                     •    Night crossing activity.
                     ADA needs and concerns.
2. Signalized        Crosswalks provided and marked.
Intersections        Intersection bike/ped crash history reviewed.
                     Is there a dedicated pedestrian phase, if so how
                     long?
                     Crossing distance is minimized.
                     Ped heads and ped pushbuttons provided.
                     ADA needs and concerns.
3. Traffic Calming   Is the community considering traffic calming as a
                     means to curb speeding and cut-through traffic?




Bicycle Facilities

          Item                            Considerations                               Check        Comments
1. Bikelanes/Paved   Appropriate width of bike lane:
Shoulders            •   1.5m (5’) adjacent to curb.
                     •   1.8m (6’) standard
                     Connectivity with other facilities.
                     •         Bike lanes
                     •         shared use trails
                     •         trail heads/parking areas
                     Maximize width of shoulders and provide appropriate
                     markings as per AASHTO Green Book.
                     3 m (10’) vertical clearance from fixed obstructions
                     (excluding road signs).
                     Angle and smoothness of railroad crossings. Avoid
                     angles of incidence of <70 degrees or redesign
                     Bridge accesses provided/pinch points avoided.
                     Parking parallel or angled.
2. Signalized        Inventory existing bicycle facilities.
Intersections
                     Intersection bike/ped crash history reviewed.
                     Crossing distance is minimized.
                     Considerations for bikes making turns.
                     Bike detection.
                     Elevated push buttons
3. Traffic Calming   Is the community considering traffic calming as a
                     means to curb speeding and cut-through traffic?




                          Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area   42
  4C. Final Design Checklist
                                         July 16, 2001
         Project____________________________________________________________________
        SR___________________     Segment_________________    Offset__________________
         Team Members_____________________________________________________________
          __________________________________________ Date __________________________


Pedestrian Facilities

          Item                                Considerations                                 Check         Comments
1. Sidewalks and           Crosswalks are at least 3 m (10’) wide.
Signalized Intersections
                           Crosswalks are prominently marked using
                           continental style markings.
                           Pedestrian signals are provided.
                           Pushbuttons are provided and accessible.
                           Minimize crossing distance.
                           Maximize pedestrian visibility at crossings.
                           Coordination of turn phases with walk/don’t walk
                           signs.
                           Proper lighting type and placement.
2. ADA Requirements        Pushbuttons accessible.
                           Pushbutton height 1.0 m – 1.1m (3.5’-4.0’).
                           Large pushbuttons used.
                           1.5m (5’) recommended passage (sidewalks).
                           5% maximum grade recommended (sidewalks).
                           2% cross-slope maximum
                           Curb cuts include “truncated dome” texturing along
                           lower 24 inches.
                           2 curb cuts per corner at intersections.
                           Curb cuts flush with street surface 0.6 cm. (1/4”)
                           tolerance
                           Running slope of new curb cuts 1 in 12 max.
                           Longer signal cycles.
                           Audible crossing signals.
                           Level landings on perpendicular curb ramps.
                           Proper head/shoulder clearance for visually
                           impaired.
                           Coordinate utilities with ADA requirements.
                           Proper lighting.
                           Analyze landscaping growth potential for future
                           obstructions.
ADA Requirements           Any conflicts with minimal distance that should be
(cont’d)                   included in the project.
                           Coordinate and minimize signage conflicts.
3. Traffic Calming         Consider traffic calming as a means to improve
                           pedestrian and general traffic safety.




                                Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area   43
Bicycle Facilities

          Item                     Considerations                        Check                    Comments
1. Bikelanes/ Bikeways   Bicycle safe grates, RC-34, Sheet
                         3 of 9.

                          Manhole covers flush with
                          roadway surface.
                          Inlets flush with roadway
                          surface.
                          Rumble strips type and
                          placement.
                          Driveway aprons.
                          Conflicts eliminated with:
                         •    Turns at intersections.
                         •    Through movements.
                         •    Bicycle and pedestrian
                              conflicts.
                         •    Parked cars, angled vs.
                              parallel.
                         •    Driveway aprons.
2. Signage                3 m (10’) vertical clearance from
                          signs and structures.
                          “Share the Road Signs”.
                          “Wrong Way Signs”.
                          Lane stenciling.
                          Bike lane designation signs.
                          No parking signs.
                          Bike lane striped.
                          Transition from bike lane to
                          bikeway.
                          Consistent width on roadways,
                          bridges, and intersections.
                          Overlap bike lane/shoulder
                          stripe over pavement joints.
                          Meet or exceed AASHTO criteria.
3. Traffic Calming        Consider traffic calming as a
                          means to improve pedestrian and
                          general traffic safety.




                               Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area   44
Credits                                                Sue Lempert
                                                       Cities of San Mateo County
MTC COMMISSIONERS
                                                       Adrienne J. Tissier
Jon Rubin, Vice Chair                                  San Mateo County
San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee
                                                       Bijan Sartipi
John McLemore, Vice Chair                              State Business, Transportation and
Cities of Santa Clara County                           Housing Agency

Tom Ammiano                                            James P. Spering
City and County of San Francisco                       Solano County and Cities

Irma L. Anderson                                       PROJECT STAFF
Cities of Contra Costa County                          Doug Kimsey
                                                        Planning Director
Tom Azumbrado
U.S. Department of Housing and                         Matt Lasky
Urban Development                                      Project Manager

James T. Beall Jr.                                     Doug Johnson
Santa Clara County                                     Nancy Okasaki
                                                       Project Staff
Mark DeSaulnier
Contra Costa County

Bill Dodd
Napa County and Cities

Dorene M. Giacopini
U.S. Department of Transportation

Scott Haggerty
Alameda County

Anne Halsted
San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission

Steve Kinsey
Marin County and Cities




                          Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area   45
Understanding Routine Accommodations for Bicyclists and Pedestrians in the Bay Area   46

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:7/30/2011
language:English
pages:64