CITY STAFF

Meg Johnson Raymond F. Pfeifer Trina L. Reynolds David J. Spease Margaret Watson David Yatabe Kimland M. Yee Gary F. Ziegenfuss

Administrative Analyst II Transportation, Public Works Sergeant Police Department Typist Clerk II Water, Public Works Landscape Architect Parks & Community Development Typist Clerk II Parking, Public Works Assistant Engineer Associate Civil Engineer Transportation, Public Works Associate Planner Planning

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

COUNTY EXECUTIVE Robert (Bob) Smith

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Grantland Johnson Illa Collin Sandra Smoley Jim Streng C. Tobias (Toby) Johnson First District Second District Third District Fourth District Fifth District

COUNTY STAFF

Rodney Anderson Ann Baker Tom Boswell Ron Maertz Leighann Moffit Duong (Winn) Nguyen Ben Pugh Steve Tracy Chris Van Slyke Lois Woodruff

Sheriff's Department Planning Department California Highway Patrol Planning Department Planning Department Water Resources Department of Public Works Plan Coordinator Planning Department SMAQMD Parks Department

SACRAMENTO CITY -COUNTY BIKEWAY TASK FORCE

Mark Drake Jim Kirstein Pete Baldridge Rick Blunden Will Crozier Robert Grant Kent Link Judy Montgomery Susan Morris-Burns Tom Neumann Lois Weast Ron Wilburne

Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary

ACKNOW/BMP 7/15/91 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Sacramento City-County Bikeway Task Force is indebted to many public agencies and individuals who assisted in the preparation of the 2010 Bikeway Master Plan. In particular we would like to mention the following: County Planning Department - Cartographic Section County Parks Department - Planning Division & Maintenance Division All County Community Council Members County Dependent Park Districts Independent Park Districts City Planning and Community Development Department City Parks and Community Services Department All City Homeowners Associations All Other Individuals Who Attended Public Input Meetings Ray Onga Lin Toyama Tim Imai Jim Jester Carl Elan Mike Winter Surinder Singh Larry Robinson Virginia Hadley Linda Wessitsh County Planning County Planning County Planning County Planning County Planning County Planning County Planning SMAQMD County Planning County Transportation

T/CBKWYMASPLAN - 7/15/91 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE - COMPENDIUM A Summary B Recommendations CHAPTER TWO - PREFACE A Introduction B Bicycle History C Sacramento County Bicycle Nostalgia D Previous Bikeway Studies E Definitions 1 General Bicycle 2 Traffic Signal F Bikeway Master Plan Area G Demographic Background CHAPTER THREE - GOAL A The Bikeway Master Plan Goal 1 Coordination Objective a Needs and Issues b Policy c Program 2 Safety and Security Objective 3 Design Objective 4 Maintenance Objective 5 Aesthetics Objective 6 Implementation Objective CHAPTER FOUR - BICYCLING A Bicycling Environment B Bicycle Types C Frame Styles D Mountain Bicycling Program 1 Description 2 Introduction 3 Legislation 4 User Conflicts

CHAPTER FOUR CONTINUED 5 Design Standard 6 Guidelines for Multi-Use Trails 7 Multi-Use Trail Corridor 8 Conclusion CHAPTER FIVE - PLANNING A General Planning Criteria I. Introduction II. Role of Bikeway III. Decision to Develop Bikeways IV. Selection of Type of Facility B Specific Planning Criteria C Bikeways as a Transportation System Management Tool CHAPTER SIX - BICYCLE ACCIDENT HISTORY/SAFETY A Introduction B Accident History - National C Accident History - Other Jurisdictions D Accident History - Sacramento County E Current Accident Statistics - Sacramento County F Accident History - City of Sacramento G Bicycle Safety CHAPTER SEVEN - EDUCATION A Bicycle Education CHAPTER EIGHT - ENFORCEMENT A Bicycle Enforcement B Bicycle Theft C Bicycle Registration CHAPTER NINE - DESIGN STANDARDS A Philosophy B Application of Standards 1 General 2 Approvals 3 FHWA and AASHTO Standards and Policies 4 Mandatory and Advisory Standards a Mandatory Standards b Advisory Standards c Permissive Standards d Mandatory Procedural Requirements C Class I Bikeways (Bike Path) 1. Widths 2. Clearance to Obstructions

CHAPTER NINE - CONTINUED 3. Striping 4. Intersections with Highways 5. Separation between Paths and Highways 6. Paths in Medians 7. Design Speed 8. Horizontal Alignment and Superelevation 9. Stopping Sight Distance 10. Length of Crest, Vertical Curves 11. Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves 12. Grade 13. Structural Section 14. Drainage 15. Barrier Posts 16. Landscaping 17. Roundabouts (Traffic Circles) and Intersections 18. Stairway Ramps 19. Drainage Easement and/or Natural Stream Bikeways 20. Bikeway Capacity D Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) I. Introduction II. Widths III. Striping and Signing IV. Intersection Design Class III Bikeways (Bike Route) I. Introduction II. On-Street Bike Route Criteria III. Sidewalk Bikeway Criteria IV. Destination Signing of Bike Routes Multi-Use Recreational Trail System Miscellaneous Bikeway Criteria I. Bridges II. Surface Quality III. Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, and Driveways IV. At Grade Railroad Crossings and Cattle Guards V. Hazard Marking VI. Lighting

F G

CHAPTER TEN - UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES A Uniform Signs and Markings I. Introduction II. Maintenance III. Colors

CHAPTER TEN - CONTINUED IV. Class I (Bike Path) V. Class II (Bike Lanes) VI. Class III (Bike Routes) B Specific Traffic Control Devices 1 Signs a Application of Signs b Location and Position c Design d Regulatory Signs e Warning Signs f Guide Signs 2 Markings a Functions and Limitations b General Principles c Marking Patterns and Colors 3 Traffic/Bicycle Signals a Introduction b Summary c Bicycle Detection Currently in Use d Bicycle Detector Analyses e Combination Bicycle/Vehicle Systems f Bicycle Detector Location g Interim Bicycle Detection Improvement h Policy and Recommendation CHAPTER ELEVEN - USER SURVEY A City/County Bicycle Information Survey 1 Survey Background a Bicycle Count & Classification b Bicycle Usage c Bikeway Planning 2 Survey Methodology 3 Survey Results 4 Survey Conclusions B Clean Air Partnership, Public Opinion Survey

CHAPTER TWELVE - PARKING A Bikeway Parking and Amenities I. Introduction II. Bicycle Parking Benefits III. Bicycle Parking Principles IV. Planning Bicycle Parking and Signing

CHAPTER TWELVE CONTINUED B Class I Bicycle Parking Facility - (Highest Security) I. Inside the Building II. Lockers III. Check-in IV. Monitored Parking C Class II Bicycle Parking Facility (High Security) D Class III Bicycle Parking Facility (Medium Security) E Bicycle Parking and Regional Transit F Zoning Ordinance - Bicycle Parking - Sacramento County G Zoning Ordinance - Bicycle Parking - City of Sacramento H Zoning Ordinance - Shower and Locker Facilities - Sacramento County I Zoning Ordinance - Shower and Locker Facility - City of Sacramento CHAPTER THIRTEEN - COSTS A Bikeway Costs I. Class I II. Class II III. Class III B Bikeway Maintenance Costs I. Program Factors II. Assumptions III. Class I I & M Costs IV. Class II I & M Costs V. Class III I & M Costs VI. Composite Maintenance Factor VII. Program Cost Development Bikeway Program Costs 1 City On Street 2 City Off Street 3 City Bikeway Bridges 4 County On Street 5 County Off Street

CHAPTER FOURTEEN - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION A Introduction B Integrating Bicycle-Transit C Bicycle Transit Program D Bicycle Access to Transit Programs in Other Areas E Bicycles and Sacramento Regional Transit F Regional Transit/Bicycle Considerations

CHAPTER FIFTEEN - IMPLEMENTATION A Bikeway Funding Philosophy B Funding - Federal Sources 1 Urban Mass Transportation Act 2 Federal Aid Highway Program 3 Community Highway Safety Program C Funding - State Sources I. Proposition 116 II. Bicycle Lane Account III. Transportation Development Act IV. Propositions 108, 111 and Related Programs D Funding - Local Sources 1 Measure A Sales Tax 2 Motor Vehicle Registration Surcharge 3 Development Fees and Building Permits a Quimby Act b Facilities Benefit Assessment District c South Natomas Community Improvement Fund d County Roadway and Transit Development Fee 4 Bicycle Registration 5 Air Quality Attainment Plan E Bikeway Development Priorities F Bikeway Advisory Committee 1 Introduction 2 Need 3 Purpose 4 Composition 5 Selection of Members 6 Membership Appointment 7 Committee Operation 8 Citizen Participation 9 Recommendations CHAPTER SIXTEEN - INVENTORY A Inventory Introduction B Bikeway Studies C The 2010 BMP Inventory 1 Total Program and Cost Summary 2 Total Program Spreadsheets by Community 3 Five-Year Program Summary 4 Ten-Year Program Summary D Bikeway Mileage - 1976 BMP - 2010 BMP

CHAP1/BMP 7/16/91 CHAPTER ONE - COMPENDIUM A. SUMMARY: The 2010 City/County Bikeway Master Plan was developed to serve the recreational and transportation needs of the public. Use of the bicycle will reduce the amount of vehicle emissions and therefore improve air quality. Because there has been a 42.9 percent increase in population from 1977 to 1990, there is a need for alternative transportation such as the bicycle. A hobby horse with foot pedals was introduced in 1835 which was the forerunner of our modern bicycle. The earliest record of a bicycle (velocipede) in the Sacramento Valley was an article in an August 1880 edition of the Sacramento Bee about the Marysville District Attorney riding in Capitol Park. A cycling club called the Capital City Wheelmen was formed on June 25, 1886. Many cycling events occurred during the late 1880's between clubs and cities. Several studies and reports have been produced for Sacramento during the past 30 years which detail bicycling, hiking, and horseback riding facilities. These are detailed in Chapter 2-D. This Bikeway Master Plan includes all of Sacramento County which consists of 997 square miles and 3,887 miles of public roads. The cities of Folsom, Galt, and Isleton are included as conceptual plans only. The goal of the 2010 City/County Bikeway Master Plan is to develop a comprehensive plan which will meet the needs of all bicyclists. Bicycle travel can be enhanced by improved street maintenance and by upgrading existing roads used regularly by bicyclists. On new construction and major reconstruction projects, adequate width should be provided to permit the shared use by motorists and bicyclists. Bikeways are one element of an effort to improve bicycling safety and convenience. Off-street bikeways in exclusive corridors can be effective in providing new recreational opportunities and/or commuter routes. On-street bikeways can serve to enhance safety and convenience of both the motorist and bicyclist. Air quality and traffic congestion continue to be two of the major issues for the Sacramento region The Sher Bill (California Clean Air Act) mandates the Sacramento Region to reduce air pollutant emissions by an average of five percent annually. Most of the air pollution problems we are facing are caused by the use of automobiles.

Sacramento City/County is projected to have an additional 450,000 residents within the next 20 years. Rapid population growth will result in additional vehicles on the roads with the peak hour traffic volume doubling. The traditional method of expanding the existing roadway system to accommodate the increased traffic volumes is no longer the best solution, in light of air quality considerations. Steps must be taken to reduce automobile use and thus decrease the total number of auto trips. A solution to reduce the use of the automobile is to encourage alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, vanpooling, carpooling, bicycling, and walking. In an effort to improve air quality and mitigate traffic congestion, the City of Sacramento and County of Sacramento each have adopted two Trip Reduction Ordinances which require developers and employers to formulate trip reduction programs and transportation systems management plans. Bicycling is a component of TSM programs. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) has also identified bicycle safety, facilities, and enforcement as important transportation and indirect source control measures within its 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan. Improved bikeway design does not totally address the bicycle safety problem. There is a need for a strong bicycle safety/education and public awareness program. Much of the safety problem is an attitude problem. In approximately 70% of the bike/auto accidents the bicyclist is riding in violation of the vehicle code, and the major bicyclist infraction is riding the wrong way (facing rather than with traffic). Almost all bicycle/auto accidents are due to the bicyclist or motorist disobeying the law. Education would minimize the unintentional infractions and strict enforcement would limit both intentional and unintentional infractions. The bikeway development process seeks to provide a degree of mobility that is in balance with other values. Social, economic, and environmental effects must be considered fully along with technical issues in the development of transportation projects. Projects must be selected for implementation on the bases of benefits and community goals, plans, and values. These decisions should emphasize different transportation modes working together effectively. Highway design criteria and polices from the Caltrans Design Manual provide a guide to exercise sound judgement in applying standards to the design of projects. Design standards should equal or exceed the minimum given in the Manual. In addition to the standards of the Design Manual, the Caltrans Traffic Manual contains standards relating to signs, delineation, barrier systems, signals, and lighting. Bikeway signs and markings should be standardized to provide universal understanding by bicyclists and motorists alike. Bicycle signs and markings should be properly maintained to command respect from both the motorist and the bicyclist.

The Bikeway Task Force requested that a random sample survey be conducted to gather information about the bicycling public. A total of 10,000 survey forms were mailed and 1,039 questionnaire forms were returned. The return rate was 10.4% which is considered very good. This survey obtained three types of information: 1. 2. 3. Bicycle Count and Classification Bicycle Usage Bikeway Planning

The first item revealed that 95% of all residents own a bicycle. Fifty-three percent (53%) of the total bicycles are lightweight multispeeds and seventeen percent (17%) are mountain bikes. The second item detailed that 70% of the total residents participate in bicycling. Eighty percent (80%) of total bicycle trips are recreational/exercise with work trips contributing to twelve percent (12%) of total trips. The bikeway planning question found that the most important facility requested was more Class I Bike Paths. The two most important destinations were parks (1st) and schools (2nd). Also, we were pleasantly surprised to learn that 79% of the respondents knew where the designated bikeways were in their community. It was found that secure and convenient bicycle parking is a major factor which would encourage the use of bicycles. Bicycles left unattended are prone to vandalism and theft. Bicycle parking systems have been developed which offer adequate security, especially when the location is well lighted and highly visible. The cost per mile for each type of bikeway was developed as a joint effort between City/County Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments. A detailed analysis of this process is found in Chapter Thirteen. The factors used are: Class I (Bike Path) $100,000 (with exclusions) Class II (Bike Lane) $ 2,500 (without construction) Class III (Bike Route) $ 500 The composite maintenance cost for Class I (Bike Path) is $6,380 per mile per year, and for Classes II and III is $1,563 per mile per year.

The Bikeway Program costs are as follows: On-Street 5-Year Program City County $958,000 $3,057,000 10-Year Program $1,880,000 $5,854,000

Off-Street 5-Year Program City County $1,375,000 $237,000 10-Year Program $1,773,000 $554,000

An aggressive bicycle/transit program can enhance the movement of people throughout the metropolitan area. Bikes-on-bus and bikes-on-fixed-rail cars have met with great success in many areas. Being lightweight and compact, bicycles can be carried aboard buses or rail cars. By combining the best features of both modes, bike-on-rail/bus can provide a high quality metropolitan and intracity mobility without relying on the automobile. To provide a safe and convenient bikeway system implementation funding will be necessary. Some bikeway funding sources have evaporated, and new sources have been created. The City and County should seek to maximize the use of all funding sources to provide the bikeway plan as herein defined. A Bicycle Advisory Committee is recommended to assist with the implementation of the Master Plan. The 2010 bikeway inventory is detailed in Chapter Sixteen of Volume I and Appendices I and J of Volume II. Total mileage as proposed in this Master Plan is as follows: On-Street City County TOTAL 333.93 770.75 1,124.69 Off-Street 94.65 110.84 205.29

During the five-year program the Master Plan outlines the mileages as follows:

On-Street City County TOTAL 146.69 480.15 626.84

Off-Street 12.64 1.89 14.53

During the ten-year program the Master Plan outlines the mileage as follows: On-Street City County TOTAL 113.22 353.40 466.71 Off-Street 11.50 5.17 16.67

B.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That the City Council/Board of Supervisors accept 2010 City/County Bikeway Master Plan as presented with consideration to the following recommendations: a. From Chapter 4: (1) Request a feasibility study be conducted on the following recreational corridors to determine their suitability for multiuse trail systems: (a) (b) (c) b. Natomas East Main Drainage Canal Dry Creek Floodway Sacramento Northern Railroad Bike Path

From Chapter 6: (1) Request a staff report be prepared on the advisability of establishing a Bicycle Safety Program.

c.

From Chapter 7: (1) Request a staff report be prepared on the advisability of establishing a subcommittee to the Bicycle Advisory Committee which would focus on bicycling education programs.

d.

From Chapter 8: (1) Request a staff report be prepared on the advisability of establishing a bicycle law enforcement and registration program.

e.

From Chapter 12: (1) Request a feasibility study be conducted to fund and install additional bicycle parking facilities throughout the City/County.

f.

From Chapter 14: (1) Requested a staff report on the advisability of encouraging Regional Transit to implement new programs which would interface bicycling and public transit.

g.

From Chapter 15: (1) Request staff to investigate and prepare a report detailing all available funding sources to implement the Bicycle Master Plan. Take the necessary action to implement the Bicycle Advisory Committee.

(2)

CHAP2A 4/25/91 CHAPTER TWO A. INTRODUCTION FOR THE 2010 BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN: The Sacramento City/County Bikeway Master Plan is an effort to coordinate and develop a bikeway system that will benefit the recreational and transportation needs of the public. This plan also recognizes the use of the bicycle as an alternative form of transportation which will reduce the amount of vehicles emissions in this geographic area and contribute to an improvement in air quality. In addition, the provision of bikeways in Sacramento City and County increases the mobility of those people who rely upon bicycles for transportation because they cannot, or choose not, to own and operate a motor vehicle. The revised Bikeway Master Plan also reestablishes the inclusion of bicycles as a consideration in traffic planning and project funding. Previously, the bicycle was viewed largely in terms of recreation. Although the prior plan recognized it as an alternative form of transportation and cited it as a means to improve individual physical fitness, the 1977 plan concentrated on the bicycle for recreation purposes. Since the 1977 Sacramento Bikeway Master Plan was adopted, Sacramento's area population has increased and the needs and attitudes of the residents have changed. While the increase in population benefits the community in terms of cultural resources, commercial prosperity, and tax dollars for social programs and public improvements, the growth in population also brings associated problems. Increasing awareness by the public of environmental problems, such as decreasing air quality and diminishing natural resources, has and continues to subtly shape attitudes towards individual responsibility towards the environment, and conservation. Although the emissions from the combustion engine vehicle are not the sole source of Sacramento's air pollution, auto emissions contribute significantly to the amount of the region's critical pollutants. Furthermore, legislation has been enacted (federal, state, and local) mandating a reduction in the amount of air contaminant emissions. Increasing the use of the bicycle as an alternative form of transportation will reduce the amount of vehicle emissions and contribute to an improvement in air quality. Due to the combined growth of Sacramento City and County, there is a tremendous need for alternative transportation. From 1977 to 1990, Sacramento City and County has grown in population to a total of 1,026,800, a 42.9 percent increase. As the County has grown in its employment base and jobs/housing ratio, the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has also increased for commute and noncommute trips. While reliance upon the automobile has remained strong in the United States

for total trips traveled, many Western European nations are using alternative transportation for a significant portion of their total trips. It is interesting to note that Netherlands and Denmark use bicycles for 29.4 percent 20.0 percent, respectively, of their total trips. In comparison, the United States used bicycles for 0.7 percent of total trips (1978 data). Implementation measures of the Sacramento County Draft General Plan Circulation Element encourage the use of transportation alternatives and improving facilities for modes of transportation within employment, public activity, and other development which do not rely on the use of the automobile. The Land Use Element presents strategies for accommodating growth that include land use-transit linkage. This strategy describes a new form of development, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), that also benefits and promotes bicycle and use and access. This Bikeway Master Plan recognizes the use of the bicycle not only in terms of recreation, but also for its increasing prominence as an alternative transportation source. BICYCLE OWNERSHIP AND USE IN SELECTED COUNTRIES The Worldwatch Institute in Washington, DC recently produced an interesting paper on bicycles entitled "The Bicycle: Vehicle for a Small Planet". Selected statistics are shown below the Worldwatch Institute is an independent, nonprofit research organization created to analyze and to focus attention on global problems. BICYCLE AND AUTOMOBILES IN SELECTED COUNTIES (circa 1985) Country China1 India South Korea Egypt Mexico Netherlands Japan1 West Germany Argentina Bicycles (millions) 300.0 45.0 6.0 1.5 12.0 11.0 60.0 45.0 4.5 Autos (millions) 1.2 1.5 0.3 0.5 4.8 4.9 30.7 26.0 3.4 Cycle/Auto Ratio 250.0 30.0 20.0 3.0 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.3

Tanzania Australia1 United States1

1

0.5 6.8 103.0

0.5 7.1 139.0

1.0 1.0 0.7

1988

CYCLING AS A SHARE OF DAILY PASSENGER TRIPS FOR SELECTED CITIES City Tianjin Shenyang Groningen Beijing Delft Erlangen Odense Tokyo Moscow Delhi Copenhagen Basel Hannover Manhattan Perth Toronto London Sydney
1 2

Country China China Netherlands China Netherlands West Germany Denmark Japan Soviet Union India Denmark Switzerland West Germany United States Australia Canada England Australia

Percentage of Daily Trips 771 65 50 48 43 26 25 252 242 22 20 20 14 83 6 33 2 1

Share of non-walking trips Share cycling or walking to work 3 Vehicle trips (versus passenger trips)

BICYCLE USE: MORE PEOPLE RIDING FOR ALL REASONS The following estimates were developed by the Bicycle Institute of America, the bicycle industry's promotion organization, and provide a sense of the magnitude of various kinds of bicycle growth and trends. Of particular note is the increase in bicycle commuters, a trend expected to continue as more people discover bicycling as a way to circumvent urban traffic congestion.

BICYCLE USE IN 1989 U.S. Bicyclists Adults (Persons 16 and over) Children TOTALS In Millions 48 42 90 Percentage 53 47 100 Male/Female Ratio (%) 44 - 55 -

Category of Use Adults cycling regularly (average once a week) Bicycle commuters Adults cycling in competition (racing) All-terrain bike users Tourists/Vacationers on bikes Recreational event participants

1989 Level (In Millions) 23.0 3.2 0.20 11.0 1.1 2.7

Percentage Estimated Increase 1989-90 20 20 20 30 10 10

SUMMARY: 1983-1989 (in millions) 1983 Total U.S. Bicyclists Adults Riding Regularly Bicycle Commuters All-terrain Bike Users Tourists & Vacationers Event Participants Racing (in thousands) 72.0 10.0 1.5 0.2 0.5 N/A 40K .04 1984 75.0 11.0 1.6 0.5 0.55 1.0 75K .075 1985 78.0 12.0 1.8 1.1 0.60 1.2 100K .10 1986 82.0 14.0 2.0 2.6 0.75 1.5 120K .12 1987 85.0 17.0 2.2 5.0 0.85 1.8 50K .05 1988 88.0 20.0 2.7 7.5 1.0 2.4 180K .18 1989 90.0 23.0 3.2 11.0 1.1 2.7 200K 0.2

THE U.S. BICYCLE MARKET1 (Shipments in Millions of Units) Year 1960 1965 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
1

Domestic 2.6 4.6 5.0 6.6 8.8 10.1 10.1 5.6 6.4 7.5 7.5

Imports 1.1 1.0 1.9 2.3 5.1 5.1 4.0 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9

Total 3.7 5.6 6.9 8.9 13.9 15.2 14.1 7.3 8.1 9.4 9.4

SOURCE: Bicycle Manufaturers Association of America, 1990

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 (est.)

9.0 7.0 6.8 5.2 6.3 5.9 5.8 5.3 5.2 4.5 5.3 5.7

1.8 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.7 4.2 5.6 7.0 7.4 5.4 5.0 5.0

10.8 9.0 8.9 6.8 9.0 10.1 11.4 12.3 12.6 9.9 10.7 10.7

CHAP2B/BMP 5/16/91 B. BICYCLE HISTORY: The bicycle has evolved to its present form and popularity over an uneven, and sometimes unlikely course. First considered an expensive plaything of the elite in Europe, then an odd transportation vehicle viewed with skepticism if not hostility, virtually ignored for nearly seventy years following the invention of the automobile, and now rediscovered as a transportation alternative an healthy, recreational outlet accessible to and affordable for nearly everyone. The relationship of bike and car is an old and interesting one. Many of the people whom we associate with the development of the automobile--Henry Ford, Glen Olds, and George N. Pierce--were bicycle mechanics before they manufactured the cars bearing their names. Their transition from bikes to cars was, of course, momentous for the history of transportation as well as their personal careers. When these men turned their attention to motor vehicles, the bicycle--which appeared headed to replace the horse as the primary vehicle of personal transportation--was relegated to the background and finally even to the realm of a child's toy.2 The following table provides highlights of the bicycle's bumpy ride along its evolutionary trail.

BICYCLE HISTORY HIGHLIGHTS YEAR 1791 ITEM Wooden horse with two wheels introduced No front fork, not steerable, no drive mechanism 1816 Hobby Horse or Draisenne introduced Steerable, no drive mechanism 1821 1835 1861 1866 Rack and pinion added to Hobby Horse Foot pedal added to the front wheel of the Hobby Horse Manufacture of first pedal-driven bicycle Wire spoke wheels first appear Lewis Gompertz Kirkpatrick MacMillan Michaux Brothers Baron Karl von Draise NAME Comte de Sivrac

Bicycle History, 1972

1868 1869

Rubber Shod wheels first appear Early version of the Velocipede or Boneshaker introduced in U.S. Riding academies with indoor rinks spring up

1872 1873 1876 1878 1880 1884

Penny-Farthing or the Ordinary emerges in England with a five-foot wheel First Safety bicycle built and ridden Ordinaries imported to U.S. Ordinaries manufactured in Boston League of American Wheelmen formed First person to cross the U.S. on bicycle - Oakland, CA to Boston, MA Bicycles allowed on the Haddonfield NJ turnpike thomas Stevens H.J. Lawson Colonel Albert A. Pope Colonel Albert A. Pope

1885 1888

Safety bicycle with 28-inch wheels and brakes invented First pneumatic tire invented Governor of New York revokes all restrictions against bicycles

J.K. Stanley Dr. J.B. Dunlop

1894

First woman to tour the world First derailleur patented, 4 speeds

Annie Londonberry Linley and Biggs

1897 1898 1902 1942 1950's 1960's 1964 1970's

Two million bicycles manufactured in the U.S. in this year alone (One for every ten people) Coaster brakes added to the Safety Bicycle racing champion wins his first automobile race League of American Wheelmen folds Adults in the U.S. rediscover th bicycle as healthy, light recreation European 3-speed lightweights popularized in the U.S. League of American Wheelmen reactivated New biycle sales surpass new car sales 10-speeds popularized Joe Hart New Departure Company Barney Oldfield

1980's 1990's

Mountain biking popularized Bicycling returns as a viable transportation alternative

SACRAMENTO COUNTY BICYCLE NOSTALGIA FROM 1878 TO 1896 BY BEN PUGH

Sprung articulated bicycle proceeds with action of an inchworm, gait of a cantering horse when pedaled.

CHAP2-C/BMP 1/24/91 C. SACRAMENTO COUNTY BICYCLE NOSTALGIA: Since most urban dwellers prior to 1890 depended on streetcars and railroads for transportation, their trips and excursions were confined to those areas served by public transportation, and by operating schedules. It is no wonder, then, that the advent of the bicycle was received as a symbol of freedom. Working men bought bicycles to ride to work, while other acquired them for social, recreational, or health purposes. As one historian has noted: "no sport....attracted so many participants as bicycling;....it was recommended by physicians, and it helped to bring about more rational fashions for women." An early form of the bicycle, the velocipede, had been invented in Europe between 1855 and 1865. Popularly called "the boneshaker," it consisted of a high wooden wheel with iron tires in front, with a small wheel in the rear. The diameter of the front wheel was constantly enlarged to permit greater speed. The velocipede had been brought into the valley by 1878, when the Marysville District Attorney and an ex-constable raced along "D" Street for a one thousand dollar bet. The Sacramento Bee also noted in August 1880 that: A young man attracted considerable attention in Capitol Park last evening by his skillful management of a Columbia bicycle, such as is used by members of the eastern clubs. The high wheeled concern moved along noiselessly and smoothly and, when its rider so desired, with remarkable speed. It would seem that the bicycle might well answer the same purpose of a saddle horse, with this advantage - it costs nothing to feed it. The bicycle had become so popular in the eastern United States by 1880 that the League of American Wheelmen was organized in that year, with memberships confined to cycling clubs in various cities. Sacramento joined this organization on June 25, 1886, when the Capitol City Wheelmen were organized. The new cycling club had relatively few members and received only limited publicity in local newspapers until 1892. Most of its activities seemed to involve racing, which meant that only the select few joined the organization. The annual relay races between the Capitol City Wheelmen of Sacramento and the Oak Leaf Wheelmen of Stockton began on April 24, 1892, and, with the exception of 1895, were held every year until 1902. The first race consisted of a five-man relay team for each side, riding fifty-two miles and delivering that day's newspaper

to the opposing town. Sacramento won the race with a time of three hours, nine minutes, beating the Oak Leafs by eleven minutes. The next year, the race was extended to a round trip 104-mile run with both teams leaving Stockton at the same time and racing against each other. The Oak Leafs won this second race with a time of six hours, eight and a half minutes, besting the Sacramento team by twelve minutes. The Sacramento-Stockton relays aroused widespread interest and enthusiasm in both cities. The rapidly increasing number of bicycles in Sacramento had by 1892 produced new problems for the city. Cyclists complained that he city's sprinkling system left the streets either muddy or dry as dust, both of which hampered bicycle riding. "Reckless riding" complaints were voiced through the newspapers, and accidents did occur because bicycles could be ridden only on one side of the street. City officials finally passed an ordinance in December 1893 prohibiting the riding of bicycles on sidewalks and requiring wheelmen to carry a bell, horn, or lamp at night. It appeared that bicycling was declining when the Capitol City Wheelmen disbanded in 1894. Another club with the same name was organized on June 17, 1895. Interest in bicycling, which was represented by the club's revival in 1895, was also reflected in the fact that the Sacramento Record Union began a special column of cycling news in that same year. It contained such interesting information as the estimate that there were two thousand bicycles, costing $175,000, in Sacramento alone. It kept its readers informed of the latest developments, such as how to make a bicycle lamp or descriptions of the latest styles for lady bicycle riders. On the more practical side, it advocated the use of a "dog gun," filled with ammonia which, when discharged into the face of a pursuing canine, proved most discouraging. It even printed poetry, on occasions, such as: There is something captivating And upon my word, elating That is quite exhilarating In the merry cycling girl. The recreation and social aspects of the Capitol City Wheelmen were enough to make it a memorable and significant organization in the Sacramento of the 1890's. But there was another activity which was to be even more significant; that was it contribution to the emerging "Good Roads" movement in California. Bicycle riders were concerned about streets and roads from the very beginning, and frequently complained to city officials of rocks, stone, and bits of glass to be found on the streets. Roads in the county were even worse since they were too muddy for bicycling in the rainy season and too dusty for comfort in the dry season.

Faced with these unpleasant conditions, the Capitol City Wheelmen decided to do something about it. It voted on March 30, 1896, to build a bicycle cinder path to Folsom to provide a pleasant ride for its members. However, they first built an experimental path from 31st and J Streets to the levee near Brighton Junction, scraping off the stones and leveling it. When this path proved successful, plans for the wheelway to Folsom were launched. Each club member was assessed one dollar, and Sacramento merchants and citizens were solicited to raise a total of about nine hundred dollars. People who contributed were presented with an orange ribbon with the imprint "Patron of the Wheelway, C.C.W." Work began on the cinder path to Folsom, with the first section to Brighton Junction opened on April 12, 1896, when five hundred bicyclists rode the finished wheelway for the first time. The second section was completed to Alder Creek before funds began to run out, and the Wheelmen appealed to Folsom citizens to complete the path from Alder Creek to their city. Folsom merchants subscribed liberally to the project, thereby enabling the wheelway to be completed. The bicycle path was officially named the C. C. Wheelway (Capitol City Wheelway), rules were posted along its route, and the Board of Supervisors prohibited other vehicles from using it. Nevertheless, nearby farmers found the wheelway far superior to the adjacent muddy road in winter, especially between Brighton and Perkins, so that this portion had to be rebuilt with decomposed granite. Speedsters, of course, had to test the new path and try to beat the old record to Folsom of one hour and forty minutes. A new record of one hour and two minutes was established indicating the efficacy of the new road. The success of the Folsom wheelway prompted the building of other bicycle paths to other communities. The Galt Wheelway was completed on June 5, 1896, and the Stockton Wheelway, which extended from Sacramento to the county line, on June 22. Wheelways were also planned to Roseville or Rocklin with a branch going north to Lincoln and south to Folsom. This network would have provided an excellent, pleasant, and comfortable club run, but was never completed. Public demand for improved roads had reached such a point by 1896 that state officials began to think in terms of a state road system. Some have said that the Folsom wheelway was the first improved, smooth road in the state. It is certain that the Capitol City Wheelmen joined the "good Roads Movement," and that their enthusiasm contributed significantly to the fact that Sacramento County had some of the best roads in the state. The age of bicycling coincided with the 1890's, before the automobile made its appearance in the valley, but it was to continue for many years thereafter for a small segment of the population. The bicycle had introduced a new component in the

revolutionary changes which occurred between 1880 and 1910, for the auto was, in reality, only an extension of the idea of personal transportation. The revolution in transportation, when combined with that in communication, illumination and power, transformed the valley from the dim, gas lit horse and buggy Nineteenth Century into the brilliantly illuminated, fast moving Twentieth Century. Note: Information obtained from the following newspapers for Sacramento County Bicycle Nostalgia: Marysville Appeal, San Francisco Call, Sacramento Record Union, and from a research paper titled "The History of the Bicycle in Sacramento 1890-1897."

CHAP2-D/BMP 12/11/90 D. PREVIOUS BIKEWAY STUDIES 1. Several previous Bikeway Studies have been completed for the Sacramento area. It is desirable to be aware of these studies, their status, and their recommendations. a. The first Sacramento cycling club, Capitol City Wheelmen, was formed June 25, 1886. This organization voted on March 30, 1896, to build a cinder bike path to Folsom. When this path named the "Capitol City Wheelway" proved to be very successful, bike paths were built in both Galt and Stockton in 1896. During the late 1960's, a group of bicycling enthusiasts formed a bicycle advocacy called "Bikeway Action Committee". This Bicycle Action Committee published a document called "Bikeways, Sacramento Region". Their regional bikeway concept recommended that the local governments provide for recreational cycling, and provide safe bikeways for utilitarian transportation including commuting from residences to the downtown area and State offices. Regional nodes were outlined and it was suggested that transportation planning include bicycling. Also, the urban core concept was discussed and core pilot projects recommended. During February 1971, the County Department of Public Works completed a report titled "Bikeway for Transportation -Sacramento Region", which was an in-depth feasibility study of bike lanes in and along the county streets. On March 26, 1973, the County Board of Supervisors received a detailed report titled "Bikeway Development for Transportation and Recreation". The goal of this report was to provide a countywide transportation and recreation bikeway network within a ten-year period. It included design standards and projected costs to complete 276 miles of on-street bikeways. In December 1973, a Joint City/County Bikeway Task Force was established and charged with the responsibility of developing a master plan for bikeways within the boundaries of the City-County. In preparation for the first City/County Bikeway Master Plan, a separate report titled "Off-Street Bike Route Study" was completed in September 1974. The on-street bike route implementation process

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

is relatively simple to accomplish because it consists mainly of designating portions of existing roadway facilities for use by bicycles. On the other hand, the off-street routes are inherently much more complex with respect to all the factors of right-of-way, construction, maintenance, and law enforcement. It was decided to investigate twenty-three (23) potential off-street bike routes. Of these three (3) routes were not studied in depth. Of the remaining twenty (20) routes studies, seven (7) were assigned a high priority, five (5) were classified as medium priority, and eight (8) were stated as low priority. This report listed 80.4 miles of potential off-street bike paths. g. In January 1975, the City-County Bikeway Task Force presented the "Sacramento Bikeways Master Plan" the County Board of Supervisors and the City Council. This was the first comprehensive "Stand Alone" Bikeways Master Plan for the Sacramento Region. It contained design criteria, design standards; and discussed bicycle safety, parking, education, and enforcement. The plan listed 248.6 miles of on-street bikeway in the County and 162.1 miles of on-street bikeway in the City. In February 27, 1976, the City-County jointly submitted a proposal for the Sacramento Northern Railroad Bikeway to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This proposal was in compliance with the FHWA, Special Programs, Section 14, for a Bikeway Demonstration Program. This proposal was accepted and funded by the FHWA. A Class I Bike Path has been completed on 10.4 miles of the abandoned Sacramento Northern Railroad (SNRR) right-ofway. Several miles of additional bike path are being planned for this right-of-way. In March 1984, the County received a Bikeway Safety Evaluation Report from the consulting firm of Omni-Means Ltd. This was part of a California Traffic Safety Program funded by the FHWA, Office of Traffic Safety. The bikeway study is a part of a continuing effort by Sacramento County to provide a comprehensive bikeway system to meet the transportation and recreation needs of its bicycling community. The purpose of this bikeway study is to evaluate approximately 450 miles of roadway (or 900 single direction bike lane miles) on the existing and proposed bikeway system identified in the Sacramento County Bikeway Master Plan. The objectives of the study are to determine current deficiencies in the system and to prioritize improvement recommendations. On May 26, 1988, the County Board of Supervisors received the Trails and Bikeways Report from the Open Space Task Force. The

h.

i.

j.

Trails and Bikeway Committee of the Open Space Task Force met on a regular basis and their charge was to review Sacramento County County for open space areas which would be desirable as trail corridors. From this open space inventory the Committee then established a network of Class I Bike Trails and Equestrian/Hiking Trails. In summary, the report identifies and describes 83 miles of completed bike trails, 161 miles of proposed bike trails, 43 miles of completed equestrian/hiking trails, and 390 miles of proposed equestrian/hiking trails. k. In March 1989, the County Bikeway Coordinator completed a report titled "Bicycle Traffic Trends". (1) 1973-74 Bicycle Traffic Study. A comprehensive bicycle traffic study of 50 intersection locations concluded that bicycle traffic increased at an annual rate of 5.8% per year. During this period the national scene experienced a gasoline shortage and an explosion in bicycle sales. In all probability, bicycle traffic increased at a much higher rate during the early mid-1970's than at any time past or present. 1982-88 Bicycle Traffic Study. Bicycle traffic at three Class II bikeway intersections plus the Class I American River Bike Trail increased at an annual rate of 3.4% during the sixyear study period. We would anticipated that this rate would increase somewhat in future years.

(2)

CHAP2-E/BMP 4/19/91 E. DEFINITIONS 1. General Bicycle: a. b. AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official and including their publications. All-Terrain Bike (ATB) Trail - An unpaved trail winding through areas of natural beauty with only a minimum of grading required. Some brush removal may be advisable to offer an unobstructed path. This type of trail should have some short, steep grades to challenge the rider, however, level, wide trails would appeal to the majority of riders. The most satisfactory ATB trail is not shared with other users. Bicycle - A device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, gears, or pedals and having one or more wheels. Bicycle-Friendly - Used to describe man-made environments designed to accommodate bicycles and facilitate their use. Bicycle Institute of America (BIA) - An international, nonprofit organization promoting bicycle sales and use through increased media coverage. Bicycle Parking Cage - A steel or wood frame open structure with sides and top of chain link fence or expanded sheet steel to permit continual security inspection. The interior of the parking cage can accommodate Class II or Class III parking racks. A bicyclist must obtain a key to the entrance door. Bicycle Shower/Locker Facility - A shower/locker facility of sufficient size to accommodate both male and female employees who commute to work by bicycle. Bicyclist/Cyclist - Any bicycle operator Bike-Hiking - A new fast-growing recreation activity which involves using a mountain bike for "hiking." Trails and dirt "fire roads" are the most popular facilities. Bikeway - A facility that provides for bicycle travel.

c.

d. e.

f.

g.

h. i.

j.

k.

Century - A 100-mile bicycle ride. The term is also used for bicycle rides of 25 miles (quarter century) and 50 miles (half century). Class I (Bike trail or bike path) - A completely separated facility designated for the use of bicycles. The facility is separated from any street or highway by a physical space, berm, fence, or other barrier. Class II (Bike lane) - A lane within a street or roadway designed for the one-way use of bicycles. It is an on-street facility with signs, striped lane markings, and pavement legends. Class III (Bike Route) - Any on street right-of-way recommended for bicycle travel which provides for shared use with motor vehicles or pedestrian traffic. Class I Bicycle Parking Facility - An enclosed box with a locking door, typically called a bicycle locker, where a single bicyclist has access to the bicycle storage compartment. Class II Bicycle Parking Facility - A stationary bicycle rack designed to secure the frame and both wheels of the bicycle, where the bicyclist supplies only a padlock. Class III Bicycle Parking Facility - A stationary bicycle rack, typically a cement slab or vertical metal bar, where the bicyclist supplies a padlock and chain or cable to secure the bicycle to the stationary object. Clearance, Lateral - Width required for safe passage of a bicycle as measured in a horizontal plane. Clearance Vertical - Height necessary for the safe passage of a bicycle as measured in a vertical plane. Goal - An end toward which effort is directed; it is general and timeless. Grade Separation - Vertical isolation of travelways through use of a structure so that traffic crosses without interference. Guide Signs - A green standard bike route sign (G-93) is the basic device to advise the motorist to expect bicycles along a particular route. The G-93 bike route sign be placed at all route turns and after leaving main intersections.

l.

m.

n.

o.

p.

q.

r. s. t. u. v.

w.

Hiking, Jogging Trail - A facility with the same geometrical configuration as a Class 1 Bikeway; however, it may be surfaced with a non-hardening finish such as disintegrated granite or it may be unsurfaced. A surfaced hiking and jogging trail may be shared with bicycles. The facility is separated from motorized vehicles and cross-flow of traffic is minimized. League of American Wheelmen - (LAW--the initials L.A.W. are always pronounced individually). Founded in 1880, the LAW is a national organization of bicyclists and bicycle clubs. It promotes cyclists' rights, sponsors rallies, and provide members with touring information. Also called "the League." Longitudinal Striping - A 6-inch wide solid white line used to separate a bike lane from a motor vehicle lane. A 4-inch wide solid white line used where there is sufficient width to allow parking adjacent to a bike lane. MUTCD - Abbreviation for Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices approved by the Federal Highway Administration as a national standard for placement and selection of all traffic control devices on or adjacent to all highways open to public travel. aa. May - A PERMISSIVE condition. No requirement for application is intended. If a particular device is used under a "may" condition, however, its design shall follow the prescribed format. Multi-use Trail System - A trail corridor of sufficient width developed to accommodate touring/commuter bicycling, horseback riding, hiking, jogging, and all-terrain bikes with appropriate trail surfacing may be classified as a multi-use trail system. Needs and Issues - A statement which describes activities that should be improved or continued in order to achieve desirable levels of service. Issues are unresolved concerns which must be corrected to provide adequate service. Needs and issues are achieved or resolved by implementing specific policies and actions or programs. Objective - A result to be achieved by a stated point in time. It is capable of being quantified and realistically attained considering probable funding and political constraints. Objectives are successive levels of achievement in movement toward a goal, and should be tied to a time-specific period for implementation programs.

x.

y.

z.

bb.

cc.

dd.

ee. ff.

Off-Street - Includes all property outside the dedicated road right-of-way including both public and private ownership. On-Street - All street or road right-of-way including curb, utters, and sidewalk, also, in some cases may include a setback behind the back of sidewalk. Open Space - Any public or private undeveloped or predominately undeveloped land in Sacramento County which has value now or in the future (year 2000) for parks and recreation purposes, for conservation of land and other natural resources or for historic or scenic purposes. Pavement Legends - A standard pavement legend is the words "Bike Lane" supplemented by an arrow showing the direction of travel. The arrow is used in combination with the words at each location where a legend is painted. Pedestrian - Any person afoot or any cyclist having dismounted a bicycle and the proceeding to move the bicycle afoot. Policy - A direction statement that guides actions for use in determining present and future decisions. Program - A specific action, procedure, or technique that carries out plan policy. An implementation measure, standing alone, which dictates that an action will occur; the action may be measurable and time-specific. Recreation Cyclist - An individual(s) who uses a bicycle for the trip enjoyment itself. Ultimate destination is of secondary importance. Regulatory Signs - A black and white regulatory "Bike Lane" sign (R81) is used when positive control signing is needed in addition to the G-93 "Bike Route" sign to deter vehicle or other encroachments on bike lanes. Other regulatory signs may be needed relative to the interaction between motor vehicles and bicycles on roadways with bike lanes, particularly in the vicinity of intersections.

gg.

hh.

ii.

jj. kk.

ll.

mm.

nn.

Right-of-Way - The right of one vehicle or pedestrian to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian. Sag Wagon - A support vehicle that might accompany a race or tour to provide mechanical or personal assistance. Also called a "broom wagon" because such vehicles usually follow, or sweep, a race or tour. Separation - An intervening space or a physical barrier between the bike path and the roadway so that the bike path is not contiguous to the outer edge of the paved highway shoulder. Shall - A MANDATORY condition. Where certain requirements in the design or application of the device are described with the "shall" stipulation, it is mandatory that these requirements be met. Should - An ADVISORY condition. Where the word "should" is used, it is considered to be advisable usage, recommended, but not mandatory. Sight Distance - A measurement of the cyclist's visibility, unobstructed by traffic, along the normal travel path to the furthest point of the roadway surface. Skew Angle - Less than at right angle to a bikeway. Generally an oblique angle of 45 degrees or less. Traffic Volume - The given number of vehicles that pass a given point for a given amount of time (hour day, year). Utility Cyclist - An individual(s) who uses a bicycle primarily to reach a particular destination to purchase or deliver goods and services. Messengers are classified as utility cyclists.

oo.

pp.

qq.

rr.

ss.

tt. uu. vv.

ww. Warning Signs - A yellow bicycle crossing sign (W11-1) as established in the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is the standard warning sign for use in advance of a point where an officially designated bike path or bike trail crosses a roadway. 2. Traffic Signal: a. Actuation - The output from any type of detector to the controller unit.

b.

Amplifier, Detector - A device that is capable of intensifying the electrical energy produced by a sensor. A loop detector unit is commonly called an amplifier even though its electronic function is actually different. Area Detection - The continuous detection of vehicles over a length of roadway wherein the call is intended to be held as long as there is a vehicle in the detection area. Call - A registration of a demand for right-of-way by traffic at a controller unit. The call comes to the controller from a detector unit that is outputting an actuation. Cycle - A complete sequence of signal indications for all approaches for which there is a demand or call by traffic. Detector System - The complete sensing and indicating group consisting of the detector unit, transmission lines and sensor. Extension Time - Extra time resulting from detector actuations to allow safe passage of vehicles through an intersection. Inductance - That property of an electric circuit or of two (2) neighboring circuits whereby an electromotive force is generated in one circuit by a change of current in itself or in the other. The ratio of the electromotive force to the rate of change of the circuit. Loop Detector - A detector that senses a change in inductance of its inductive loop sensor caused by the passage of presence of a vehicle near the sensor. Magnetic Detector - A detector that senses changes in the earth's magnetic field caused by the movement of a vehicle near its sensor unit. Magnetometer - A detector that measures the difference in the level of the earth's magnetic forces caused by the passage or presence of a vehicle near its sensor. Pedestrian Detector - A detector, usually a push button, that is responsive to operation by or the presence of a pedestrian. Pedestrian Phase - A traffic phase allocated to pedestrian traffic either concurrently with a vehicle phase or exclusive of other phases.

c.

d.

e. f. g. h.

i.

j.

k.

l. m.

n. o. p. q.

Phase - A part of the cycle allocated to any traffic movements receiving the right-of-way. Phase Sequence - A predetermined order in which the phases of a cycle occur. Point Detection - The detection of vehicles as they pass a specific point on the roadway, also referred to as small area detection. Presence Loop Detector - An induction loop detector which is capable of detecting the presence of standing or moving vehicles within the effective area. Probe - The sensor form that is commonly used with a magnetometer type detector unit. Quadrupole - A loop configuration that is essentially two (2) loops with a common side. The wires are wound continuously in a figure eight (8) pattern so that current flow in the common side is in the same direction. The design improves sensitivity to small vehicles and reduces adjacent lane detection. (See Figure 6-9.) Sensitivity - The setting on the detector unit that determines the amount of inductance shift required to actuate the detector. High sensitivities require low inductance shifts. Sensor Unit - An electrical conductor ("loop") in the roadway designed such that the presence or passage of a vehicle causes a decrease in the inductance of the loop. Sonic Detector - A vehicle detector which emits high frequency sound energy and senses the reflection of that energy from a vehicle in its field. Ultrasonic Detector - A detector that senses the presence or passage of vehicles through its field of emitted ultrasonic energy.

r. s.

t.

u.

v.

w.

CHAP2F 4/25/91 F. BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN AREA: The area of this 2010 Sacramento City/County Bikeway Master Plan is Sacramento County including the incorporated cities of Sacramento, Folsom, Isleton, and Galt. Sacramento County consists of 997 square miles and 3,887 miles of public roads and streets. (See Chapter Two, Section G, "Demographics", for more details.)

TABLE OF PUBLIC STREET MILEAGE Sacramento County City of Sacramento City of Folsom City of Galt City of Isleton TOTAL 2,548 1,150 132 51 6 3,887

Sacramento City and County have combined their efforts to produce this Bikeway Master Plan which has been through the Environmental Review process. Resolutions adopting the plan are included. The Cities of Folsom, Galt, and Isleton are included as conceptual plans only, and have not been officially adopted by their respective governing bodies. Therefore, the mileage and locations of bikeways for these cities are for informational purposes only and do not constitute a commitment on their part.

CHAP2G 12/12/90 G. DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND 1. Introduction. The City/County Bikeway Master Plan describes a bikeway system that meets the needs of bicycling for both recreational and utilitarian uses. The purpose of the Bikeway Master Plan is to serve as a guide for the City/County within the next twenty years. The Plan takes into account the rapid growth of the City/County with respect to the goals and policies which guide actions and provide basis for program implementation The Plan is consistent with the existing needs of the community and the resources available. Sacramento City/County has experienced an increased interest in bicycling as a recreational activity and also as an alternative form of transportation. Not only is bicycling god for health, it is also an energy efficient alternative means of transportation which reduces traffic congestion, and improves air quality. In addition, the level topography and temperate climate of the Sacramento region is well suited for bicycling. The Master Plan focuses upon the anticipated growth in the community and its physical development in order to adequately address and provide the safety, convenience and needs of the bicyclist. The following section describes local demographics as a necessary background to bikeways system planning. 2. Scope of Plan. The County is located between the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and consists of 997 square miles. It is located 85 miles east of San Francisco and is comprised of relatively flat topography with rolling hills to the east. The four incorporated cites in the County are Isleton, Galt, Folsom, and the City of Sacramento. The major freeways accommodating the County are Interstate 5 and State Route 99, trending north-south, and Interstate 80 and U.S. 50 accommodating eastwest traffic. The County of Sacramento is bounded by eight adjacent counties: Sutter County, Placer County, El Dorado County, Amador County, Yolo County, Solano County, Contra Costa County, and San Joaquin County (see Figure 1). In the past 30 years, the area had experienced high population growth due to the rapidly expanding adjacent counties and current economic activities of the Sacramento area. The City of Sacramento was incorporated in 1849 and consisted of an area of only 4.5 square miles and a population size of 9,078. Today, Sacramento City encompasses 97 square miles; and as of January 1990, the Department of Finance estimated 346,000 people residing in Sacramento County whereas the County of Sacramento had a

population of 1,026,800. The downtown area is still considered to be the urban core for the metropolitan area in terms of both economical and cultural activities.

FIGURE 1: REGIONAL MAP OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY

3.

Historical Growth. The County and City of Sacramento have been experiencing steady population growth over the past several decades. Looking at the County population figures first, Sacramento County's population growth rate in the 1940's was only slightly higher compared to the rate experienced by the State of California. However, from 1950 to 1960, the County's growth rate exceeded the State's growth rate, by about 33 percent. Table 1 reflects the historical population growth comparison between Sacramento City, Sacramento County, and the State of California. In 1950, the population of Sacramento County amounted to 277,140 and by 1960, it had increased phenomenally to 502,778 an 81.4 percent increase over the past decade. The phenomenal increase in population experienced by the County of Sacramento in the 1950's could be directly attributed to the growth of the local aerospace industry (Aerojet-General, Douglas Aircraft, etc.); the expansion of the the three military installations (Mather AFB, McClellan AFB, and the Army Depot); and the increased demands and offerings of government services within Sacramento County. Although the population of the County further rose to 634,190 by 1970, its growth rate of 26.1 percent from 1960 to 1970 was slightly lower compared to the rate experienced by the State (27 percent). Sacramento County continued to experience steady population growth throughout the 1970's and 1980's. In 1980, the population of the County stood at 783,381 and is estimated to be slightly over 1,000,000 as of 1990.

TABLE 13 HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH COMPARISON CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1940 - 1980

City of Sacramento 10-Yr. Change

Sacramento County4 10-Yr. Change

California 10-Yr. Change

Year

Pop.

Pop.

Pop.

1940

105,958

170,333

6,907,387

1950

137,572

29.8

277,140

62.7

10,586,223

3.3

1960

191,667

39.2

502,778

81.4

15,717,204

48.5

1970

257,105

34.1

634,190

26.1

19,953,134

27.0

1980

275,741

7.2

783,381

23.5

23,667,902

18.6

The City of Sacramento also experienced a steady growth trend over the last few decades. It can be determined from Table 1, that the City's population grew from 137,572 in 1950 to 191,667 in 1960, reflecting a 29.8 percent increase. The population of the City further increased by 39.2 percent to 257,105 in 1970; and by 1980, its population totaled 275,741--an increase of 7.2 percent over the last decade. Perhaps the greatest factor that contributed to the steady population growth in Sacramento City can be traced to the
3 4

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census Includes incorporated and unincorporated areas of Sacramento County

annexation of several surrounding areas. Between the 1950's and 1960's, several communities within the County consolidated with the City of Sacramento thus increasing the size and population base of the City. It is noteworthy to mention that the City's share of total County population jumped from 38.1 percent in 1960 to 40.5 percent in 1970 but only to decrease to 35.2 percent in 1980. A similar trend of steady population growth was also achieved by the State of California. The State's population stood at 6,907,387 in 1940 and increased to 10,586,223 in 1950, resulting in a 53.3 percent growth rate. California continued to experience tremendous population growth during the 1950's. Its population increased by more than five million persons or 48.5 percent, rising from 10,586,223 in 1950 to 15,717,204 persons in 1960. California continued to witness population growth during the next two decades, but at a lower rate when compared to the growth experienced by the State during the 1940's and 1950's. The State's population grew by 27 percent from 1960 to 1970 and 18.6 percent from 1970 to 1980. 4. Population Projections. The California State Department of Finance estimates the most current population statistics for counties within the state by utilizing three separate techniques; the Ratio Correlation Method (regression), Administrative Records Method utilizing federal income tax returns, and a Composite Migration Method using drivers' licenses address changes. The population estimates for the County of Sacramento shown in Table 2 have been generated by using these techniques and the 1980 decennial census as the benchmark data of all estimates. The County's population is estimated to increase at a steady growth rate of about 2.2 to 3.4 percent annually from 1980 to 1990. The 1980 federal census records Sacramento County population of 783,381 whereas the Department of Finance estimates the population of the County to be at 1,026,800 as of January 1990. On the other hand, population estimates for cities within the state are conducted by the Department of Finance by utilizing the Housing Unit Method, where trends in terms of total housing units, average household size, group quarter population, new housing construction, etc., are examined. Using the 1980 population census as the benchmark data, the population estimate for the City of Sacramento can be seen in Table 2.

TABLE 25 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND SACRAMENTO COUNTY 1982 - 1990

City of Sacramento Population (as of 1-1) 2-Year % Change

Sacramento County6 Population (as of 1-1) 2-Year % Change

Year

1980

275,741

783,381

1982

288,600

4.7

818,600

4.5

1984

303,900

5.3

859,300

5.0

1986

317,900

4.6

901,300

4.9

1988

334,700

5.3

961,900

6.7

1990

346,600

3.6

1,026,800

6.7

Source: California Department of Finance, Population Research Unit Includes incorporated and unincorporated areas of Sacramento County

The City is estimated to have a steady growth rate, growing from 275,741 residents in 1980 to 346,600 residents as of January 1990. Also, the City's population is estimated to have an annual growth rate of around 1.8 to 2.7 percent, which is slightly lower when compared to the growth rate of the County. Based upon the population estimates generated by the Department of Finance, the future population projections for the County and City are further developed by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). Table 3 represents the population projections for Sacramento City, County of Sacramento, and the State of California. Note that the projections were conducted by utilizing the estimated 1988 population as the benchmark for all projections. Sacramento County is projected to have a population increase of 97,342 from 1990 to 1995 as the population is expected to increase from 1,006,685 in 1990 to 1,104,027 in 1995. Between 1995 to 2000, the population is further anticipated to increase by 97,822 from 1,104,027 to 1,201,849. Finally, Sacramento County is also subjected to have a population increase of 89,996 from 2000 to 2005 and an increase of 91,169 from 2005 to 2010. Overall, according to SACOG's projections, the population of Sacramento County is expected to increase by 421,118 from 1988 to 2010, which corresponds to a 43.8 percent growth rate.

CHAP3-A/BMP 4/11/91 CHAPTER THREE A. THE BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN GOAL To develop a comprehensive updated Sacramento City/County Bikeways Master Plan which will meet the needs of the bicyclists. 1. Coordination Objective. To develop and maintain a coordinated approach by City/County and other agencies to implement the plan as funding becomes available or as development occurs. a. Needs and Issues. (1) To continue to coordinate efforts by the city, county, and other agencies to implement and construct a bikeway system in accordance with the revised Bikeway Master Plan. The bikeway plan should contain enough detail to provide various city, county, and other agencies sufficient direction to implement bikeway facilities during the development of property, and to allocate funds during the preparation of capital improvement programs. Coordinate the location and availability of bicycle parking facilities between agencies.

(2)

(3) b. Policy (1)

Integrate efforts of planning, recreation, public works, and other departments of city and county government and other agencies that are involved in planning, construction or operational elements of the bikeway system.

c.

Program (1) Review the design of bikeways that provide a connection between different local jurisdictions in order to ensure they are developed in a compatible manner. Provide other jurisdictions and governmental agencies the opportunity to review and comment on development projects

(2)

that incorporate bikeways which connect with their systems including parking facilities. (3) 2. As bikeways are developed along drainage areas, ensure that they are contiguous between jurisdictions.

Safety and Security Objective. To achieve the highest possible level of safety and security for cyclists. a. Needs and Issues (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b. Policy (1) (2) c. Provide a network of safe and convenient bikeways. Promote law enforcement and educational awareness programs which would improve bicycling safety. Bikeways shall be designed according to standards which maximize the safety of bicyclists. Off-street bikeways require police protection to minimize criminal activity. Concentrate law enforcement at the locations of highest incidence of bicycle accidents. Bicyclists should be provided adequate traffic safety training with emphasis on bicycling rules of the road. Secure bicycle parking facilities should be available.

Program (1) (2) (3) (4) Design bikeways to provide safe and convenient access between the origin and destination points. Design safe linkages between bikeways and street crossings. Explore how additional police protection and enforcement of traffic laws can be provided. Within two years after adoption of the bikeway master plan, an educational program should be implemented.

(5) 3.

Design secures bicycle storage, which complies with the Class I, II, and III facilities as described herein.

Design Objective. To provide adequate design consideration for bicycle facilities in all development plans and programs. a. Needs and Issues (1) Given the adoption of new city and county land use plans to accommodate expected growth, bikeways should be designed to provide access to places of work, shopping, schools, mass transportation facilities, and recreation areas. Improve transitional access from on-street bikeways to offstreet bikeway systems and from local to regional bikeways. Additional on-street and off-street bikeways are needed. Bikeways should be constructed according to adopted design criteria. Bicycle storage and parking facilities are inadequate. Appropriate measures should be taken to provide secure onstreet and off-street bicycle parking and storage at work, shopping, schools, at mass transportation facilities, and recreational facilities.

(2) (3)

(4)

b.

Policy (1) Incorporate adequate street widths into street plans and developments to ensure a reasonable level of safety for bicyclists and motorists. Design on-street and off-street parking facilities for maximum security and, when possible, for protection from the elements. Provide adequate signing, and other traffic control measures in all bikeway design plans to insure a reasonably high level of safety for the bicyclist and motorist. Provide appropriate bicycle signing for parking and storage facilities.

(2)

(3)

(4) c.

Program

(1)

During the next revision of Street Standards, review the pavement width being provided to assure that sufficient space is available for bicyclists. During the first two fiscal years after the bikeway master plan is adopted, review the entire completed bikeway system and then modify it to meet current design standards. Review all new bikeway plans prior to construction for compliance with current design standards. Review new residential, nonresidential, recreational projects, and regional transit plans to assure that adequate/secure parking facilities and other bicycling amenities are available. When necessary to prevent trespassing and to protect adjacent property, trail corridors shall be fenced at the time the project is developed. Improve and expand existing parking and storage facilities.

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

(6) 4.

Maintenance Objective. To develop a comprehensive bikeway maintenance program. a. Needs and Issues (1) (2) (3) (4) b. Policy (1) (2) Promote and fund an effective maintenance program for bikeways and related facilities. Bikeway maintenance should provide a safe, clean, smooth riding surface. Due to funding constraints, bikeway maintenance, including sweeping and striping, is inadequate. Activities that require repaving in the bikeway need to be given additional attention. Bikeway maintenance for routes which extend into other jurisdictions should be coordinated. Adequate maintenance needs to be provided for bicycle parking, storage, and shower facilities.

c.

Program (1) Identify methods to finance an adequate bikeway maintenance program to include bicycle parking, storage and shower facilities. Establish a bikeways maintenance line item in the City and County budgets for the Public Works and Parks Departments. A bikeway sweeping schedule shall be of a frequency which will provide a clean riding surface. Roadside vegetation shall be trimmed at a frequency, which will yield unobstructed bikeways. Coordinate utilities to minimize pavement cuts after repaving of bikeways. The City and County shall develop a stringent pavement repair and inspection program to ensure a smooth riding surface along bikeways.

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Aesthetics Objective. To develop a bikeway system which incorporates aesthetics and the historical characteristics of the Sacramento area. a. Needs and Issues (1) Sacramento has many beautiful, natural areas as well as important historical sites, therefore, bikeways should be designed which will allow cyclists to experience the natural beauty and history of the Sacramento area.

b.

Policy (1) Bikeways should take full advantage of the beauty and natural features of the Sacramento area by blending with the terrain and topography.

c.

Program (1) (2) During review of development plans, recommend that scenic and open space areas include bikeways. When reviewing proposed bikeway plans, assure that they provide the most favorable and impressive approach to special scenic attractions.

(3)

When approving new bikeway plans, assure that they provide opportunities for bicyclists to experience natural beauty and human history.

6.

Implementation Objective. To take necessary actions to implement the preceding Sections 1 thru 5. a. Needs and Issues (1) New and innovative ways shall be explored to encourage government and private developers to share in the construction of bikeways. Community plans shall be modified as necessary to implement the revised Bikeway Master Plan. Bikeways can provide an alternative transportation mode that conserves energy, is non-polluting and reduces traffic congestion.

(2) (3)

b.

Policy (1) (2) (3) Actively support legislation, which will promote the policies of this plan. Require future developments to conform to the Bikeways Master Plan. Promote bicycling as a feasible transportation alternative which conserves energy, improves air quality, reduces traffic congestion, and improves public health. Develop new financing mechanisms to construct and maintain bikeways. At the time of new street construction, pavement overlays, or seal coat operations, all bikeways within the project limits as detailed in this master plan shall be implemented.

(4) (5)

c.

Program (1) Require the dedication of trail corridors and street rights-ofway as property is reviewed and approved for development.

(2)

Provide incentives to developers at the time of plan submission which would encourage the dedication and development of bikeway corridors with proposed subdivision/commercial plans. Review State legislative proposals as to their impact on existing and future bikeway program. Require that environmental impact reports and statements address bicycling and the corresponding air quality benefits.

(3) (4)

CHAP4A-BMP 5/9/91 CHAPTER FOUR - BICYCLING A. BICYCLING ENVIRONMENT: 1. Types of Bicycle Travel. How many commuter/recreational bicycle trips will be made in our City/County this year and how many will be made ten years from now? How much money should be spent to provide for such trips now and in ten years? Bicycle trips may be made to shopping areas, parks, schools, visiting, to work, or just for recreation/exercise. The survey conducted for this Master Plan indicates that there are 95 bicycles for every 100 city/county residents. Seventy (70) percent of the total City/County residents participate in bicycling. Eighty (80) percent of bicycle trips residents make are recreation/exercise, twelve (12) percent are work trips, and the remainder are shopping, school, etc. A comprehensive bikeway system is necessary to accommodate the existing bicycling demand and to encourage additional ridership. Without a continuous bikeway system providing connections between points of origin and destination within the metropolitan area, the utility of the bicycle will be severely limited. Competing with the automobile for street space is a major deterrent to increasing the percentage of bicyclists commuting to work. 2. Types of Cyclists. A substantial variation exists in the ages, physical capabilities and riding philosophies of cyclists currently active in Sacramento. This variation results in differences in both the level of expertise among riders and subsequently, the types of trips which they are willing to make. The planning, design, and implementation of the bikeway system must be predicated on a capability to serve a much of this varied population as possible. Bicyclists may be classified by trip purpose into three groups: neighborhood, commuter, and recreational cyclists. Each requires a different skill level and uses each type of facility to a different degree. Neighborhood cyclists include those individuals who use the bicycle for short trips within the immediate neighborhood to school, shopping areas, a friend's house, neighborhood parks or playgrounds, etc. Cycling skills required are generally low and local or collector streets usually provide adequate routes. The greatest number of neighborhood cyclists are schoolage children or young adults.

Commuter cyclists utilize the bicycle as their means of transport for a variety of trips (work, university, shopping, entertainment, etc.) which usually extend beyond the immediate neighborhood. Commuter cyclists require the highest level of cycling expertise since they sometimes must use arterial streets for travel, mixing with heavy auto traffic and negotiating hazardous intersections. Most commuter cyclists are from 18-40 years of age as commuter cycling requires the greatest degree of physical ability as well as skill. Recreation cyclists ride bicycles for enjoyment or exercise or to a recreational destination. Skill levels vary widely, from school-age children to families to touring cyclists. Facilities may overlap with neighborhood or commuter routes, but are often separate facilities developed primarily for recreational use, such as bike trails. When options are available, cyclists generally choose a route which provides the best balance of the following desirable characteristics: directness between the origin and destination points, minimal gradients to be negotiated, a high quality and well-maintained riding surface, lower volumes of motor vehicle traffic, adequate space for allowing faster traffic to safely bypass, and pleasant environmental riding surroundings.

For commuter purposes, the cyclist is most likely to place a significant amount of importance on the first three characteristics mentioned, because they directly affect the (human generated) energy requirements for making a trip by bicycle. Lower volumes of motor vehicle traffic and adequate space to allow faster traffic to safely bypass are desirable for commuter travel but may be sacrificed for speed and directness. These characteristics are necessary, however, for neighborhood and recreational cyclists. Pleasant environmental surrounding are only essential for recreational cyclists, but are desirable for all types of bicycling. Neighborhood and recreational cyclists are usually willing to change their routes for safety considerations, and are less willing than commuter cyclists to compete with automobile traffic, preferring instead to operate in specially designated bicycle facilities. Commuter cyclists, whose expertise is usually greater, prefer the most expeditious and direct route, and are therefore more willing to share space on the roadways with motor vehicles.

3.

Bikeway Facilities. The definition of what will comprise an adequate bikeway system for the City/County is open for debate. Distance between bikeways and types of facilities are important to formulate an acceptable answer. It is generally accepted that a grid system of bikeways spaced one mile apart would be ideal. In some cases, more closely spaced routes may serve residential areas. Outlying areas may see 1-1/2 to 2 mile spacing. All streets that serve as radial feeders to the central business district or major employment centers are prime candidates for inclusion as bikeways, regardless of distance between the feeders. Class I Bikeways (Bike Path) are the most popular type of facility. This is substantiated by the Master Plan bicycle survey. Because the availability of uninterrupted rights-of-way are limited, this type of facility is difficult to locate and expensive to build. Also, the position of bike paths may not serve large numbers of bicycle commuters. Prime locations for the bike paths are areas such as power line easements, utility easements, canal banks, river levees, drainage easement, abandoned railroad or highway rights-of-way, or regional community parks. Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) are for preferential use by bicycles and are established within the paved area of the roadway. Bike lanes are intended to promote an orderly flow of bicycle and vehicle traffic. This type of facility is established by using the appropriate striping, legends, and signs. Bike lanes will be located on arterial and collector streets as designated in the Bikeway Master Plan. Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes) are facilities shared with motor vehicle traffic. Bike routes must be of benefit to the bicyclist and offer a higher degree of service than adjacent streets. They provide for specific bicycle demand and may be used to connect discontinuous segments of bike lane streets. Also, bike routes are located on residential streets, and rural roads. If the pavement width is sufficient and traffic volume/speeds warrant, an edge line may be painted to further delineate the bike route. Bike routes are signed with the G-93 Bike Route marker, but no striping or legends are required..

3.

Bicycle Services. Services for the bicycle owner can take many forms, such as bicycle and bicycle accessories purchasing, riding techniques, effective cycling, safety training, bicycle club programs, repair services, classes for owner repairs/maintenance, employer incentives for commute bicycling, bicycle parking facilities, workplace shower facilities, and transit interface with bicyclists. When purchasing a bicycle for a child or adult, it should be assumed that the vehicle is not a toy. All states recognize that the bicycle is a vehicle and is subject to the rights and responsibilities as such. It is important that a bicycle

be the proper size to fit the intended rider. A bicycle which is larger than the rider can handle with ease is a hazard to all. Bicycle shops, safety centers, service organizations, bicycle clubs, etc., are good resources for assistance in sizing the bicycle to the rider. Bicycle riding techniques vary from the simple, for a child starting with balance to advanced effective cycling for adults choosing a bicycle as primary transportation. Parents must determine the responsibilities of bike riding for their offspring Is my child old enough to understand the responsibilities of riding in traffic? Also, parents must be willing to help their children learn how to safely ride in traffic, learn traffic laws, and what to do in the event of an accident. Some basic adult bike riding instruction is also beneficial such as always ride on the right side of the road, moving with the flow of traffic. For the serious adult rider, a very intensive course such as "Effective Cycling" is highly recommended. Bicycle clubs are an excellent source of training, camaraderie, organization of bike rides, equipment advice, vacation bike trips, etc. Bike club information can be found in bike shops and local newspapers. Most bike club events stress the importance of proper dress, especially the wearing of a helmet. An approved helmet is the single most important item for all bicyclists. Accidents can happen to the most careful. Road rash and broken bones are painful, but they heal. Head injuries can be permanent. Seventy-five (75) percent of all bicycle injuries and deaths involve head injuries. BIKE HELMETS DO SAVE LIVES! Services for the bicyclist are also discussed in more detail in the following chapters: Chapter Six Chapter Seven Chapter Eight Chapter Twelve Chapter Fourteen Safety Education Enforcement Parking Public Transportation

CHAP4B-D/BMP 4/11/91 B. TYPES OF BICYCLES Today's bicycles come in several models. They are built basically in two styles: the fat tire (balloon), and lightweight models. Each has a range of equipment to match your needs and your budget. 1. Fat Tire (Balloon). The single speed balloon tire bike, also called the "cruiser," usually weights 40-45 pounds with a 26-inch diameter wheel. The balloon tires are low pressure and give a smooth ride even over gravel roads. The padded seat absorbs shocks. This bike is primarily for short distance riding. It has coaster brakes, the best braking system for any young beginner. Motocross (BMX). Street versions of this type weight about 30 pounds; track versions weigh less. It has semi-highrise handlebars with a padded crossbar for added strength. The heavy duty frame will withstand rough riding, and the wheel rims often have large "mag style" spokes for strength. It has small 20-inch wheels with knobby tread tires for traction. Some models are equipped with hand or caliper brakes. All of them come with a rear coaster brake. Highrise. The high rise is not for beginners. High handlebars and a rear sitting position make it easy to fall off. They have a shorter wheelbase, smaller wheels and a long banana seat. They have coaster or caliper brakes and gears. They enable bicyclists to make quick turns and perform trick maneuvers. They weight about 35-40 pounds and are similar to the motocross. All-Terrain Bike (Mountain Bike). The all-terrain bike is a diamond frame multi-speed bicycle. The frame is light but strong. It is very durable and is usually equipped with knobby balloon tires, it was originally designed or off-road use. However, when equipped with "street" tires, it can make a useful, practical urban commuting bike. Lightweight. The lightweight bicycle is built for long-distance travel. It is light in weight with a range of gearing that allows you to ride up hills which otherwise you might walk with a single speed bike. It has narrow, highpressure tires and dropped or touring style handlebars. Tires are the clincher inner tube type. Most lightweight bicycles have derailleurs, a mechanism which changes the gears. There may be 5, 10, 12, 15, 18, or up to 21 gears on a multi-speed bike, depending on the number of chain wheels (front) and sprockets (rear).

2.

3.

4.

5.

The use of handbrakes on this bike and the potential for higher speeds makes it a bike for mature cyclists. 6. Sidewalk. This bicycle is for young beginners. It looks like a small single speed bike, usually with rear training wheels for extra stability. It must have coaster brakes to be safe. The better brands have wide inner tube tires rather than solid rubber tires. This model should be used only on sidewalks and other safe areas. Adult Triwheeler. The large tricycle design is useful for shopping, when equipped with a wire carrying basket between the two rear wheels. It often has front caliper brakes in addition to the usual rear coaster brake. Tandem. This is a bicycle built for two. These bicycles can be fun providing that you and your partner are experienced bicyclists. The two of you should agree when to press forward and when to hold back. At slow speeds, steering or turning this bicycle is difficult. Collapsible (Folding). The minibike and collapsible ten-speed models are for adults. Both types fold for easy storage. The minibike has a small frame and wheels, with gears like a lightweight. The collapsible ten-speed is a full-size lightweight. Road Racing. This type of bike is an ultra lightweight multi-speed bike with special gearing and lightweight components. It has high pressure tubular tires and a narrow unpadded racing seat. The design of racing bicycles requires a high level of handling skill.

7.

8.

9.

10.

C.

FRAME STYLES: 1. Open. The open frame is designed to allow the rider to get on and off easily. It is not as strong as other frame styles, and tends to flex as you ride, especially with heavy loads on the rear. It is good for learning to ride and for light use. Diamond. The diamond frame is the strongest type. The top tube provides a strong tie between front and rear, so the bicycle has less flex while moving. Mixte. The mixte frame is almost as strong as the diamond frame. This style is best for people who may feel unstable on a diamond frame, who are very short, or for women who often wear dresses when riding.

2.

3.

D.

MOUNTAIN BICYCLING PROGRAM:

1.

Description. ATBs have straight handlebars which provide a comfortable riding position and as many as 21 gears which assist in climbing steep grades. Since ATBs are equipped with strong frames and heavy duty brakes, they are suitable for off-road punishment. Some of the special equipment include sealed bearings to keep mud from damaging bearings, extra strong frames, wide "knobby" tire and heavy duty derailleurs. The ATB has increased rolling resistance due to the wide tires. The extra weight of the heavy duty components usually makes it weigh five to seven pounds more than a touring bike. By design the ATB is well suited to riding unimproved dirt trails and roads. However, it appears that ATBs are used extensively by commuters riding on paved paths and streets. Riding ATBs singularly or as an organized club on unimproved trails or roads is a legitimate recreational activity. Public agencies planning and providing recreational services have an obligation to include the ATB groups and their recreational requirements. These needs can best be served by providing separate unimproved trails which are not shared with hikers, equestrian, and touring bikes. However, with a serious educational program, bicyclists, hikers, and horseback riders could share the wider unsurfaced trails with a minimum of conflict. ATB trails require a small construction expenditure and may be accommodated within the same right-of-way as other recreational activities. All future planning and development review should encourage the establishment of multi-use trails whenever practical.

2.

Introduction. As public awareness of recreation and its positive impacts have increased, so have the various forms of recreation. Various recreational activities have been examined for their health value as well as for their impact on the environment. In particular, cycling has evolved into a multifaceted activity that includes mountain bikes. Mountain bicycling has evolved into a popular recreational activity. Cycling, in general, is associated with positive attributes. It is highly regarded as an excellent source of exercise as well as a viable alternative to the automobile. The benefits of cycling reflect the best aspects of the recreational experience such as improved heart/respiration function, the reduction of fossil fuels, and the improvement of air quality. While the reasons for cycling are inherently positive, increased use and popularity brings conflicts. Increased use of bicycles of all varieties has resulted in a corresponding increase on the demand for public facilities. This increased interest has created new challenges for the public lands managers.

3.

Legislation. Mountain bikes in their present commercial form are high-tech recreational cruisers capable of speeds up to 25 miles per hour on level terrain. Trails, roadless areas, and fire roads inaccessible to conventional bikes are readily reached by these bikes. Consequently, land managers are confronted with user groups in previously unused or little used areas of public lands. These bikes are trail oriented. Their use is linear and requires miles not acres. As such, various land managers have treated the problem differently. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have declared such bikes a "mechanical form of transport" under the Wilderness Act. This is also the determination of the State Park Service. Therefore, they are not allowed in designated wilderness areas or on National Park Service trails. However, the Forest Service is allowing use on some nonwilderness trails, and the Bureau of Land Management will entertain even cross-country biking in some nonwilderness areas (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1984). On January 1, 1989, the California State Park system adopted a mountain bike policy in which individual park superintendents may allow bikes on trails over 60 inches in width when basic criteria are met. Also, bikes may be allowed on more narrow State Park trails when, through the public hearing process, it is determined to be feasible. Local legislation specific to mountain bikes is scarce and always aimed at curbing problems rather than accommodating the new users of today. Anticipating user trends in recreation areas requires constant monitoring and information gathering. This is a difficult task for land managers already suffering from financial cutbacks.

4.

User Conflicts. For generations backcountry trails were accessible only to hikers and equestrians. The mountain bike has changed all that. Bicyclists, hikers, and horseback riders now share many of the same trails. Traditional users, however, see bicycle use as incompatible. Multiple use of trails by hikers, bikers, and equestrians can be emotionally disturbing and dangerous as well. Collisions are infrequent, but can be serious. They most commonly occur due to differences in traveling speed and the necessity to pass on narrow trail. Other conflicts arise simply from the lack of common courtesy. Attempts to regulate ATB use have met with limited success. Most cyclists are aware of the laws and abide by them. Mountain bike advocates have attempted to regulate themselves through organization such as ROMP (Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers) and NORBA (National Off-Road Bicycle Association).

Both organizations seek to educate members as to their rights and responsibilities in off-road settings. Members are encouraged to take an interest in trail maintenance and practice erosion-free cycling. Both wish to impress public land managers that trail riding can be introduced in recreational areas with minimal concern for safety and environmental disruption. Local cycling clubs, such as the Sacramento Rough Riders have volunteered to assist with trail construction and maintenance and also trail user education. 5. Design Standards. At the time this Bikeway Master Plan was being prepared, there were no widely accepted design standards for ATBs or Mountain Bike Trails. As this recreation activity evolves, major State and federal agencies will develop ATB Trail standards which will be generally acceptable to all public lands managers. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Bikeway Task Force that ATB Trail Standards be added to the Bikeway Master Plan as an amendment when they are formulated by other public agencies. Note: See Appendix B for a draft of "Mountain Bike Recreation and Trail Guidelines" as developed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 6. Guidelines for Multi-Use Trails. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Use existing firebreaks and service roads to the maximum extent feasible. Avoid designated horse trails to the maximum extent feasible. Avoid designated Nature Study Areas and Open Space Preserve Areas. Avoid levee crowns. Avoid crossing roadways and crossing the designated bicycle trail to the maximum extent feasible. Avoid areas narrower than an 8' tread and with less than a 12' clearance. Avoid steep grades and blind curves to the maximum extent feasible. Avoid the removal of vegetation to the maximum extent feasible.

i.

Avoid adverse impacts upon environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, riparian vegetation, habitat for rare plant and animal species, archaeological sites, etc.). Avoid or stringently minimize the potential for conflicts with other nearby facilities and activities, by considering fencing, tree screens, trail position within right-of-way, and other types of landscaping barriers.

j.

7.

Multi-Use Trail Corridors. A multi-use trail corridor is a recreational area of sufficient width which may be developed to accommodate touring/commuter bicycling, horseback riding, hiking, jogging, and allterrain bikes. These activities should be separated sufficiently to minimize user conflicts and constructed with appropriate trail surfacing materials. When planning multi-use trails, an important feature is the present and future "carrying capacity" of the corridor. The corridor type, i.e., narrow linear right-of-way, levees, or a wide floodplain, and the anticipated demand are features in determining the carrying capacity. Therefore, it is recommended that the following potential recreational corridors be studied to determine their suitability for multi-use trail systems.

8.

Corridor Descriptions: a. Natomas East Main Drainage Canal: (9.96 miles) Starting at the existing American River Bike Trail in the vicinity of Northgate Boulevard and Garden Highway, then northward to Elverta Road. Dry Creek Floodway: (5.30 miles) Starting at the confluence of Dry Creek and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal, then northeasterly crossing the SNRR bike path, through the Cherry Island Golf Course project, and through Gibson Ranch County Park terminating at the Placer County Line. Sacramento Northern Railroad Bike Path: (9.01 miles): Starting at "C" Street and 14th Avenue, then north to the termination of the existing path at "M" Street in Rio Linda, then north on the proposed SNRR bike path extension to the Placer County Line.

b.

c.

9.

Conclusion. The use of mountain bikes on public lands is a complex issue. Standards for trails, facility development, signing, and enforcement are essential to the development of ATB policy. Responsible user groups need to be involved in lobbying efforts and self-regulation.

CHAP5A-BMP - 4/11/91 CHAPTER FIVE - PLANNING A. GENERAL PLANNING CRITERIA 1. Introduction. Bicycle travel can be enhanced by improved maintenance and by upgrading existing roads used regularly by bicyclists, regardless of whether or not bikeways are designated. This effort requires increased attention to the right-hand portion of roadways where bicyclists are expected to ride. On new construction, and major reconstruction projects, adequate width should be provided to permit shared use by motorists and bicyclists. On resurfacing projects, the entire paved shoulder and traveled way shall be resurfaced. When adding lanes or turn pockets, a minimum 4-foot shoulder shall be provided.7 When placing a roadway edge stripe, sufficient room outside the stripe should be provided for bicyclists. When considering the restriping of roadways for more traffic lanes, the impact on bicycle travel should be assessed. These efforts, to preserve or improve an area for bicyclists to ride, can benefit motorists as well as bicyclists. 2. The Role of Bikeways. Bikeways are one element of an effort to improve bicycling safety and convenience - either to help accommodate motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on shared roadways, or to complement the road system to meet needs not adequately met by roads. Off-street bikeways in exclusive corridors can be effective in providing new recreational opportunities, or in some instances, desirable commuter routes. They can also be used to close gaps where barriers exist to bicycle travel (e.g., river crossing, railroads, freeways). On-street bikeways can serve to enhance safety and convenience, especially if other commitments are made in conjunction with establishment of bikeways, such as: elimination of parking or increasing roadway width, elimination of surface irregularities and roadway obstacles, frequent street sweeping, establishing intersection priority on the bike route street as compared with the majority of cross streets, and installation of bicyclesensitive loop detectors at signalized intersections. 3. The Decision to Develop Bikeways. The decision to develop bikeways should be made with the knowledge that bikeways are not the solution to all

California Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual, Fourth Edition, 1990.

bicycle-related problems. Many of the common problems are related to improper bicyclists and motorist behavior and can only be corrected through effective education and enforcement programs. The development of well-conceived bikeways can have a positive effect on bicyclist and motorist behavior. Conversely, poorly conceived bikeways can be counterproductive to education and enforcement programs. 4. Selection of the Type of Facility. The type of facility to select in meeting the bicycle need is dependent on many factors, but the following applications are the most common for each type. (a) Shared Roadway (No Bikeway Designation). Most bicycle travel now occurs on streets and highways without bikeway designations. This will probably be true in the future as well. In some instances, entire street systems may be fully adequate for safe and efficient bicycle travel, and signing and striping for bicycle use many be unnecessary. In other cases, routes may be unsuitable for bicycle travel, and it would be inappropriate to encourage additional bicycle travel by designating the routes as bikeways. Finally, routes may not be along high bicycle demand corridors, and it would be inappropriate to designate bikeways regardless of roadway conditions (e.g., on minor residential streets). Many rural highways are used by touring bicyclists for intercity and recreational travel. In most cases, it would be inappropriate to designate the highways as bikeways because of the limited use and the lack of continuity with other bike routes. However, the development and maintenance of 4-foot paved roadway shoulders with a standard 4-inch edgeline can significantly improve the safety and convenience for bicyclists and motorists along such routes. (b) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Generally, bike paths should be used to serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where wide right-of-way exits, permitting such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets. Bike paths should offer opportunities not provided by the road system. They can either provide a recreational opportunity, or in some instances, can serve as direct high-speed commute routes if cross flow by motor vehicles can be minimized. The most common applications are along rivers, ocean fronts, canals, utility right-of-way, abandoned railroad right-of-way, within college campuses, or within and between parks. There may also be situations where such facilities can be provided as part of planned

developments. Another common application of Class I facilities is to close gaps to bicycle travel caused by construction of freeways or because of the existence of natural barriers (rivers, mountains, etc). (c) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Bike lanes are established along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand and where there are distinct needs that can be served by them. The purpose should be to improve conditions for bicyclists in the corridors. Bike lanes are intended to delineate the right-of-way assigned to bicyclists and motorists and to provide for more predictable movements by each. But a more important reason for constructing bike lanes is to better accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for safe bicycling on existing streets. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of lanes, or prohibiting parking on given streets in order to delineate bike lanes. In addition, other things can be done on bike lane streets to improve the situation for bicyclists, that might not be possible on all streets (e.g., improvements to the surface, augmented sweeping programs, special signal facilities, etc). Generally, stripes alone will not measurably enhance bicycling. If bicycle travel is to be controlled by delineation, special efforts should be made to assure that high levels of service are provided with these lanes. (d) Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Bike routes are shared facilities which serve either to: (1) (2) Provide continuity to other bicycle facilities (usually Class II bikeways); or Designate preferred routes through high demand corridors.

As with bike lanes, designation of bike routes should indicate to bicyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes as compared with alternative routes. This means that responsible agencies have taken actions to assure that these routes are suitable as shared routes and will be maintained in a manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists. Normally, bike routes are shared with motor vehicles. The use of sidewalks as Class III bikeways is strongly discouraged.8
8

California Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual, Fourth Edition, 1990.

It is emphasized that the designation of bikeways as Class I, II, and III should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application. In selecting the proper facility, an overriding concern is to assure that the proposed facility will not encourage or require bicyclists or motorists to operate in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules of the road. An important consideration in selecting the type of facility is continuity. Alternating segments of Class I and Class II (or Class III) bikeways along a route are generally incompatible, as street crossing by bicyclists are required when the route changes character. Also, wrong-way bicycle travel will occur on the street beyond the ends of bike paths because of the inconvenience of having to cross the street. An exception to the undesirability of alternating from a Class II facility to Class III then back to Class II would be to maintain bikeway continuity on a long (several miles) segment of a major arterial. This could force the decision of whether or not to designate the arterial as a Class II bike lane street with the "exception" or not including the arterial in the bikeway program. It is reasonable to assume that existing major arterials and possibly an arterial after the completion of a construction widening project may have a short section which has substandard width to accommodate a Class II bikeway. At these locations where the constraints of right-of-way width are impractical to correct the CityCounty Bikeway Task Force requests that the Public Works Departments alternate the bikeway from Class II to Class III and then back to Class II and maintain arterial bikeway continuity. If this section of reduced right-of-way width does include curbs, gutter, and sidewalks, that every effort will be made for their installation to offer the bicyclists some additional refuge space. B. SPECIFIC PLANNING CRITERIA: The following planning criteria were used in the establishment of recommended bikeways and should be used in all future bikeway planning: 1. Establish safe bikeways and roadways for a bicycle transportation

network to connect residential areas with employment sites, schools, shopping center, mass transportation, recreation areas and other destination points. 2. 3. 4. Provide safe connections between on-street routes and off-street trails. Provide off-street routes to parks and schools where appropriate to enhance user safety. Establish, where appropriate, bikeways along existing trails, levees, railroads, streams, rivers, power lines and drainage canals for both recreational and commuter bicycling. Recognize private property rights and the safety of bicyclists when locating off-street bikeways. Establish whenever feasible recreational bikeways in scenic and open space areas taking into account terrain, human history, and scenic resources. Provide developed park sites along off-street trails wherever possible, or provide parking, restrooms and picnic facilities at appropriate points along the trail. Consider and encourage multiple use (bicycle-equestrian/hiking) trails where feasible. Consider travel time efficiency as a major factor for route planning of bikeways to be used primarily for commuting purposes. Provide secure covered parking facilities and shower/locker facilities at employment sites; provide bicycle-mass transportation transfer methods, and bicycle storage lockers along mass transportation routes. Coordinate routes with other local jurisdictions as well as regional and state systems. Provide on-street parking facilities at major activity areas when off street facilities cannot be accommodated due to existing constraints. Establish future bikeways in a manner consistent with adopted land use plans. Future land and transportation planning efforts should include the bicycle as a legitimate and desirable form of transportation.

5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

CHAP5C/BMP 4/11/91 C. BIKEWAYS AS A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT TOOL 1. Introduction. Air quality and traffic congestion continue to be two of the major issues for the Sacramento region. The U.S. Environment Protection Agency regulates six air contaminants and has declared the Sacramento region to be in violation of the ozone and carbon monoxide emissions standards. The enactment of the Sher Bill mandates the Sacramento region to reduce air pollutant emissions by an average of five percent annually. Most of the air pollution problems faced by the region are caused by the use of automobiles, where reactive organic gases are released from the combustion of petroleum fuels. The air quality and traffic congestion problems in the Sacramento area are not nearly as severe when compared to the problems faced by other regions, but there are strong indications that these problems could escalate if plans are not developed to prevent further deterioration. The topographical features of the Sacramento area definitely contributes to the continuing degradation of air quality within the region. The entrapment of pollution into the Sacramento Valley could result in Sacramento having greater air quality problems than those faced by the Los Angeles area. The second contributor to the deterioration of air quality and the increased traffic congestion is the rapid growth rate of the Sacramento region. Analysis of the Sacramento City/County demographic trends reveals that both jurisdictions are projected to experience significant increases in employment and population growth. Sacramento County is projected to have an additional 300,000 residents within the next twenty years whereas the population of Sacramento City is anticipated to increase by 150,000 within the same time span. Rapid population growth will result in additional vehicles on the roads; the existing peak-hour traffic volumes alone, are anticipated to be doubled within the next twenty years. The traditional method of constructing and expanding the existing roadway system as a means to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic volumes is no longer the best solution. Increasing construction and maintenance costs, as well as air quality impacts, have made this solution inappropriate. Steps must be undertaken to reduce automobile use and thus decrease the total number of auto trips. Reduction in such trips will result in the overall reduction of traffic congestion, air pollution, and energy consumption. Perhaps the most appropriate solution to reducing the use of automobiles is to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, vanpooling, carpooling, bicycling and walking. Advocating the use

of alternative commute modes may help a community to control air pollution and may also help the community to adapt to population growth without further deteriorating air quality. In an effort to improve air quality and mitigate traffic congestion, the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County have adopted two Trip Reduction Ordinances which require developers and employers to formulate trip reduction programs and transportation systems management plans. 2. Description of Existing Programs a. Sacramento County. Two separate Trip Reduction Ordinances were adopted by Sacramento County to mitigate the potential negative impacts of future growth, including increased air pollution, traffic congestion, energy consumption problems, and the increasing demand for major roadway system improvements. The first ordinance addresses the requirements of developers to construct physical facilities and the development of a transportation system management plan to support trip reduction activities while the second ordinance requires employers to develop programs encouraging employees to use alternative commute modes. (1) Employer Ordinance. The Employer Ordinance, established by Ordinance No. SCC 567 of the County Code, requires all firms which employ 100 or more persons at a single work site to encourage employee use of commute alternatives. (See Appendix H.) Employers under this category are required to provide five basic services which include: (a) (b) Providing all employees with the services of an onsite transportation service; Providing informational services to all employees on an annual basis and all new employees upon hiring, regarding the benefits of using alternative commute modes and the availability of alternatives modes including carpooling, vanpooling, public transit, bicycling, and walking to work; Providing a commuter matching service to all employees on an annual basis; Providing and administering a program of preferential parking for carpool and vanpool vehicles; and

(c) (d)

(e)

Providing a program monitoring method for the evaluation of program progress from year to year.

The Sacramento County Employer Ordinance is administered by the Sacramento County Air Pollution Control Division of the Environment Management Department (EMD). Presently, EMD is in the process of updating the ordinance. The existing ordinance will be replaced with one, and perhaps several, new rules that will further address the issue of improving air quality and reducing traffic congestion in Sacramento County. (2) Developer Ordinance. The Developer Ordinance, as outlined in the Sacramento County Zoning Code Section 330-140 through 150 (Ordinance No. SZC 89-0031), addresses the requirements for developers to install trip reduction facilities as a measure to encourage the use of commute alternatives. (See Appendix H.) New commercial/industrial developments employing 200 or more persons are required to construct physical trip reduction facilities which include: (a) (b) (c) (d) Passenger loading areas; Preferential parking spaces for carpool and vanpool vehicles; Shower and locker facilities for employees that commute by walking or bicycling; and Transit waiting shelters.

In addition, all new developments and major expansions of existing projects expected to employ 500 or more persons, are required to produce and implement a comprehensive transportation systems management plan. The Transportation System Management Plan is subjected to review through the County's existing development review process. The intent of the Plan is to reduce the number of future employee commute trips to the proposed work site and to encourage the use of alternative commute modes such as vanpooling, carpooling, bicycling, walking and public transit. Written information describing all trip reduction facilities such as passenger loading areas, preferential parking spaces, transit waiting shelters ,shower/locker facilities and an exhibit indicating the location of such

facilities should be included in the Plan. The Developer Ordinance is currently monitored by the County Planning Department. b. Sacramento City. In an effort to mitigate air pollution and traffic problems, the City of Sacramento has enacted two Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordinances - (1) Employer TSM, and (2) Developer TSM. The purpose of the TSM program is to promote more efficient use of existing transportation facilities including streets, highways, parking facilities, public transit and bikeways. The general intent of the Employer TSM and the Developer TSM program is to achieve a goal where 35 percent of all employee commute trips during peak hours are made by alternative commute modes. Peak-hour periods in this context were considered to fall between 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. (1) Employer TSM. The City of Sacramento adopted Ordinance No. 88-082, which established the Employer Transportation Systems Management program. (See Appendix H.) As a result, Chapter 77 was added to the Sacramento City Code to address the requirements of the TSM programs. All employers, either public or private, which employ 25 or more persons at one or more work sites within the City of Sacramento, must comply with TSM requirements. Major Employers and Minor Employers adhere to separate requirements as defined by the TSM Ordinance. Employers that employ 25 to 99 persons within the City of Sacramento are categorized as Minor Employers whereas employers with a total of 100 or more employees are recognized as Major Employers. Minor Employers are required to: (a) Provide information to all employees on the benefits of public transit ridesharing and bicycling as alternative modes for commuting to work. Such written information must be updated and publicized annually; Provide alternative commute mode information including transit information and ridesharing applications to all new employees; and Establish a Transportation Coordinator position. The role of the Coordinator includes working with other local private and public agencies to obtain and

(b)

(c)

distribute ridesharing and alternative transportation mode information. All Major Employers within the City of Sacramento are required to submit a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to the City Traffic Engineer to obtain a Transportation Management Certificate (TMC). The TMP must include TSM measures that will achieve a goal where 35 percent of employee commute trips during peak hours are made by alternative commute modes. Upon the approval of the TMP, the City Traffic Engineering Department will issue a TMC for a period of one year. The TMP must address the following: (d) Providing all employees including newly hired employees, with alternative commute mode information, ridesharing applications, information describing the benefits of using alternative commute modes and establishing a Transportation Coordinator position; Projecting the annual increase in peak period commute trips made by alternative commute modes; Preparing a status report on employees' commute mode characteristics; Listing additional TSM measures that will be undertaken to achieve the goal of 35 percent alternative commute modes trips; Providing a listing of all worksites by address and the number of employees at each worksite. A listing of specific TSM measures designated for each worksite must also be made available; and Coordinating the Employer TMP with the Developer TMPs.

(e) (f) (g)

(h)

(i) (2)

Developer TSM: The City of Sacramento Ordinance No. 88-083 enacted the Developer Transportation System Management program. The primary purpose of Ordinance No. 88-083 is to ensure that basic facilities and services are included prior to occupancy of the project that will encourage alternative commute mode goals. The adoption of this ordinance amended Section 6 of the City of

Sacramento Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requiring all developments employing 25 or more persons to comply to this TSM Ordinance. Compliance with the TSM ordinances is based upon the number of persons anticipated to be employed at the development site. Projects that will employ 25 to 99 persons are considered Minor Projects whereas projects that will employ 100 or more persons are designated as Major Projects. Any existing development undergoing expansion or structural changes will be categorized as an expansion project. The occupancy rate for an expansion project is then calculated to determine if the project is classified as a Minor or Major Project. Developers of a Minor Project are required to provide, at a minimum, facilities for posting and distributing alternative commute information. Information on the availability of transit service within the area and a listing of local ridesharing and transit agencies must be displayed. Pamphlets on carpool, vanpool, and bicycle facilities are also required to be available at these facilities. A TSM Registration Minor Project form must be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) must be prepared by all developers of Major Projects and submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The TMP must address measures that will encourage 35 percent of peak period trips be by alternative commute modes. The TMP must address the following requirements: (a) The provision of specific TSM measures such as preferential employee carpool and vanpool parking spaces, parking fees, transit passenger shelters, bus/light rail stations, transit operating and transit pass subsidies, subsidy for TSM capital improvements; buspool, carpool, and vanpool programs; shower and locker facilities; The establishment of a Transportation Coordinator position; Physical facilities for posting and distributing alternative commute information;

(b) (c)

(d)

Coordination with other local transit and ridesharing agencies to obtain and provide a continuous supply of transit information and ridesharing applications; and Completion of an Annual Status Report to monitor progress of TMP objectives. The report should contain employee commute modes characteristics, the projected increase in alternative commute mode, and the overall progress made towards achieving the 35 percent alternate commute mode goal.

(e)

c.

Sacramento Region. In addition to the trip reduction ordinances adopted by the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has developed a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which is mandated by state and federal laws, to mitigate air pollution and traffic congestion problems. The RTP addresses the transportation needs of the region, proposes capital and operational improvement programs required in the planning period and recommends options to finance the proposed programs. The overall transportation goal of the 1990 RTP is: "To achieve an energy-efficient and safe, balanced, multimodal transportation system at the lowest reasonable cost. The system must serve the social and economic needs of the region, promote sound land use and protect existing and planned public facilities, and protect the environment from adverse conditions." Several policies are included in the RTP to encourage bicycle use as an alternate commute mode to reduce vehicle trips. Some of the recommended actions are as follows: (1) (2) Encourage all jurisdictions to develop and expand bicycle route systems to link with major network systems; Require new developments, public or private, to construct bicycle lanes and bicycle facilities (showers, lockers, bicycle parking); Require local jurisdictions to prepare and implement bicycle plans; and Encourage local jurisdictions to solicit information from bicycle commuters and organizations in determining the

(3) (4)

need to construct new facilities and improving existing facilities. 3. Bicycling As a Component of TSM Programs a. Physical Facilities. Bicycle usage among employees for home to work trips is a single component of the Transportation System Management program as a measure to reduce peak-hour, singleoccupant motor vehicle trips. Employers and developers may provide shower and locker facilities to encourage bicycle commuting among employees. Shower and locker facilities may be conveniently located near bicycle storage facilities. The availability of showers, lockers and bicycle storage facilities may encourage employees to change their commute habits and adopt the use of bicycle as an alternative commute mode. The construction of bikeways within the worksite and extending the bikeway paths to the existing bikeway networks may also be developed to encourage bicycle use. Assistance on the design and location of the bicycle paths could be solicited from local public agencies and bicycle organization. Programs to Encourage Bicycle Use. Developers and employers can play a significant role in promoting bicycling as an alternative commute mode through incentives that could be offered to employees who bicycle to work. Incentives may include: (1) (2) Establishing a cash rebate program to compensate employees who purchase bicycles for commuting; Offering various clinics and seminars for employees on bicycling to address issues of safety, repair and route selection; Creating the position of a on-site bicycle coordinator; Compensating all employees who bicycle to work with an annual fee as reimbursement for repairs and bicycle maintenance; Establishing a flexible work hour schedule for employees who bicycle to work. This will enable bicyclist to avoid the peak-hour rush and commute safely to work; Provide employees with free access to all showers, lockers and secure bicycle parking 24 hours per day, seven days per week;

b.

(3) (4)

(5)

(6)

(7) 4.

Compensating bicyclists equivalent to parking costs.

with

cash

reimbursements

Summary. The Sacramento region is currently facing major problems in terms of the degradation of air quality and increasing traffic congestion. In an effort to control air pollution and accommodate population growth without further deteriorating air quality, jurisdictions in the Sacramento region have adopted several trip reduction ordinances. The intent of these ordinances is to support alternate commute modes and reduce the number of auto trips. Since air pollutants in the Sacramento region are largely generated by auto emissions, reducing the number of auto trips will significantly decrease pollutant emissions within the region. The City of Sacramento and Sacramento County have adopted ordinances requiring employers and developers to initiate measures necessary to support alternative commute modes.

REFERENCES 1. 2. Trip Reduction Implementation Program, County of Sacramento, Planning and Community Development Department, February 1988 City of Sacramento Developer transportation Systems Management Handbook, City of Sacramento, Department of Public works and Department of Planning and Development, March 1989 Transportation Systems Management, Employers Guidelines, Public Works, City of Sacramento, July 1989. Department of

3. 4.

1990 Regional Transportation Plan, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, March 1990

CHAP6-BMP 4/23/91 CHAPTER SIX - BICYCLE ACCIDENT HISTORY/SAFETY A. INTRODUCTION: Improved bikeway design does not totally address the bicycle safety problem. Bicyclists relate stories of accidents or near-accidents involving errant motorists or by riding into an unexpected obstacle. Motorists complain of the carelessness and unpredictability of bicyclists darting out of driveways, swerving into traffic lanes, and riding the wrong way. There is a need for a strong bicycle safety/education and public awareness program. Even with an expanded and improved bikeway program, safety will not improve unless both the motorist and bicyclist know and respect the rules of the road, and these rules must be enforced. Much of the safety problem is an attitude problem. Many people continue to feel that the bicycle is still a child's toy. This attitude fosters the continuation of "looking the other way" and ignoring illegal and dangerous cycling and driving practices. Bicyclists riding the wrong way are the single largest factor in bike/vehicle accidents. It is probable that parents are teaching their children to ride facing traffic because they have been instructed that this is the safest approach to bicycling on the street system. Almost all bicycle/auto accidents are due to the bicyclists or motorists disobeying the law, either intentionally or out of ignorance. Education would minimize the unintentional infractions and strict enforcement limit both intentional and unintentional infractions. B. ACCIDENT HISTORY - NATIONAL: 1. Bicycle accidents occur primarily as a result of either the bicyclist or motor vehicle driver violating a specific traffic law. Bicycle riders in the age group under 21 years of age constitute a majority of those involved in both accidents and fatalities. The tabulation below does not indicate any specific trend in the total numbers of bicyclists injured in accidents with motor vehicles.

2.

BICYCLISTS INJURED IN CRASHES INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 19

9

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1987 (Based on police reports)

1983 1984 1985 1986

84,000 72,000 76,000 82,000

3. The following tabulation of bicyclist injuries would indicate a slight decline in the annual rate. BICYCLIST INJURIES TREATED IN EMERGENCY ROOMS 10 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 571,000 557,000 582,000 564,000 562,000 525,000

Reports show that only 10%-15% of injury-only accidents are reported suggesting that as many as 500,000 bicycle accidents require medical treatment each year.

Major Accident Types11 Fatal Bicycle ride-out (from driveway/alley) Bicycle ride-out (controlled intersection) Motorist drive-out Motorist overtaking Bicyclist unexpected turn/swerve Motorist unexpected turn Other 15.1% 12.0% 2.4% 37.8% 16.2% 2.4% 13.8% Non-fatal 13.9% 17.0% 19.0% 1.7% 14.2% 14.5% 11.2%

10

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Bicycle Accident Facts, Burden, Bicycle Form, Spring 1978 (includes details of cross study into bicycle accidents).

11

4.

The listing of Total Bicyclist Deaths does not indicate a strong trend, however, the percentage of bicyclist deaths involving persons 21 years and older for the period shown is increasing at an average annual rate of 7% per year. This is probably a result of the increasing numbers of adults riding bicycles.

TOTAL BICYCLIST DEATHS12 Year 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 *Includes sex unknown Male 730 714 759 782 748 720 700 684 732 789 826 781 Female 192 178 173 183 181 144 130 153 137 140 115 129 Total* 922 892 932 965 936 864 830 838 869 929 941 910

PERCENT OF ALL BICYCLIST DEATHS INVOLVING PERSONS 21 YEARS AND OLDER13 YEAR 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
12

PERCENT 22% 23% 27% 31% 32% 38% 32%

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1987. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1987.

13

1984 1985 1986 1987

37% 37% 38% 39%

5.

Relative Bicycle Safety: Consider the relative risk for a cyclist when traveling on different types of facilities:14 Accidents per Million Vehicle Miles 58 104 114 292 Relative Accident Rate 1 / 5.03 1 / 2.81 1 / 2.56 1 / 1.00

Type of Facility Low traffic bike route street Minor arterials Major arterials Bike trails

It is apparent from the above table that a bicyclist is 2.6 to 5.0 times more likely to have an accident on a bike trail when compared to cycling the same distance on the streets. A cyclist is safer than the average motorist when considering the accident rate per HOUR of exposure.15 This is because a bicyclist's accident rate per mile divided by the time it takes to travel a mile gives cycling a lower accident rate per hour than that of a motorist when the same division is performed. C. ACCIDENT HISTORY - OTHER JURISDICTIONS: 1. State of Oregon.16 Education and enforcement could significantly reduce bicycle/motor vehicle accidents. Of the 860 bicycle/motor vehicle accidents that took place in 1986, 45 percent took place at intersections while a lower but still significant 26 percent were a result of bicycles or motor vehicles

J.A. Kaplan, Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User, (Office of Highway Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC 20590), 1975
15

14

J.S. Allen, "How Dangerous is Bicycling?", Bicycling, (33 E. Minor St., Emmaus, PA 18049), March 1984 State of Oregon Bikeway Master Plan, 1988

16

entering or leaving the roadway at a mid-block location. Thirteen percent of the 1986 accidents resulted from wrong-way bicycle riding. Eight percent were caused by the cyclist or motorist turning or swerving. The other 8 percent of the accidents were caused by miscellaneous movements. 2. Township of Cranford, State of New Jersey. Cranford's community approach to bicycle safety had its beginnings in the traditional police/PTA bicycle safety assemblies in grade schools. They conducted bike safety rodeos, developed bike safety pamphlets and posters. These efforts stressed riding on the RIGHT side of the road, one person per bike, obeying traffic signs and signals, and using adequate lights/reflectors. The program was later expanded to include the entire community. The Police Department was funded with a line item for "bicycle safety education." The first 2-month bicycle safety alert was conducted during April and May 1974 with two themes. During the years 1975, 1976, 1978, and 1979, this program was duplicated with new themes. Overall it has been very successful in the improvement of bicycling safety. 3. Tempe, Arizona. Two-thirds of all bicycle/auto accidents (1970-71) occurred at intersections. Of these intersection accidents, only 8.5% occurred at local or residential intersections. Circumstances of Bicycle Accidents % of Bike/Auto Accidents Bicyclist on wrong side of street Hit by right-turning vehicle Hit by left-turning vehicle Hit head on Bicycle swerved or changed lanes into path of motor vehicle Bicyclist ran stop sign or red light Bicyclist darted from alley, sidewalk, or driveway into path of motor vehicle Motor vehicle did not yield right-of-way: When making left-hand turn When making right-hand turn When exiting from an alley 19.2 1.4 4.1 16.4 10.9 6.8 34.1 24.7 % Totals

9.6 1.4 4.1

To bicycle in a crosswalk Auto rear-ended bicyclist (going with direction of traffic) Miscellaneous

8.2 4.1 13.8

23.3 17.9 100.0

It can be seen that the bicyclist's riding on the wrong side of the street was the most common probable cause of accidents, contributing to almost onequarter of all bicycle motor vehicle accidents in Tempe. Of all citations issued to bicyclists involved in accidents, 53.8% were for riding on the wrong side of the street. D. ACCIDENT HISTORY - SACRAMENTO COUNTY: The total number of reported vehicle accidents in Sacramento County for 1967 was 4,965 and the total for 1987 was 11,142. Using 1967 as the base year, this yields an average annual increase of 6.2% per year. (See Appendix F.) The total number of reported bicycle accidents in Sacramento County for 1964 was 83 and the total for 1987 was 453. Using 1967 as the base year, this yields an average annual increase of 19.4% per year. (See Appendix F.) Therefore, the rate of increase for bicycle accidents is 13.2% larger than the rate of increase for vehicle accidents. (See Appendix F.) During 1967, bicycle accidents amounted to 1.77% of the total reported accidents in Sacramento County. In 1987, bicycle accidents represented 4.07% of the total reported accidents. Plotting all bicycle data and forcing a best fit linear regression line, the year 2000 yields a bicycle accident percentage of 5.55% of the total reported accidents. (See Appendix F.) E. CURRENT ACCIDENT STATISTICS - SACRAMENTO COUNTY: The following bicycle accident data was tabulated from California Highway Patrol reports as filed in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County. During 1988, 453 bicycle accidents were reported. Of that total 79% were caused by the bicyclist and 21% were vehicle driver caused accidents. Bicyclists riding on the wrong side of road was the primary factor in 39% of the reported accidents. (See Appendix F.)

Accidents by location are a follows: Signalized Intersections All-way Stop Intersections Other Intersections Midblock

15% 7% 30% 40%

55.4% of these accidents occurred on Bike Lane Streets For a breakdown of bicycle accidents by age group and gender, see Appendix F. F. ACCIDENT HISTORY - CITY OF SACRAMENTO: BICYCLE ACCIDENTS 1970 TO 1990 YEAR 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 INTERSECTION 138 147 159 197 151 164 139 158 118 107 117 142 136 152 188 209 183 177 % 56 68 58 66 55 59 56 61 57 59 57 58 54 54 60 56 52 52 SEGMENT 107 69 117 103 126 114 110 103 88 73 87 101 115 127 125 162 166 162 % 44 32 42 34 45 41 44 39 43 41 43 42 46 46 40 44 48 48 TOTAL 245 216 276 300 277 278 249 261 206 180 204 243 251 279 313 371 349 339

1989 SUMMARY TOTAL 1988 SACRAMENTO COUNTY

193 2,975

57 57 52

144 2,199

43 43 48

337 5,174

The total number of reported bicycle accidents in 1971 was 245 and the total for 1989 was 337. Using 1971 as the base year, this yields an average annual increase of 2% per year. The above tabulations indicate that intersection and mid-block bicycle accidents are the same in the City as in the County.

CHAP6G/BMP 7/16/91 G. BICYCLE SAFETY: 1. Introduction. Bicycle safety remains one of the major concerns in road transport today despite considerable progress made during the past few years. Perhaps as an outgrowth of the attitude that the bicycle is a child's toy and not a true vehicle, bicycles are perceived by some as a safety problem. Annually in the United State bicycle accidents result in roughly 250,000 injuries requiring hospital admission and more than 500,000 lesser injuries. The economic cost, including property damage, is not known but is considered to be significant. 2. Bicycle Safety Facts. a. Bicycle fatalities in the United States represent approximately 2-3% of the road toll and have remained fairly static nationwide in the past decade at about 900 per annum. Reported bicycle injuries are 4-5% of all reported road injuries. However, it is recognized that bicycle injuries are grossly underreported and bicyclists are 11-15% of all those hospitalized from vehicular accidents. Bicycle injuries have risen sharply over the past decade (approximately doubling), in both absolute numbers and as a fraction of all vehicular injuries. Most bicycle injuries (80% of hospitalizations) occur in bicycle-only accidents; however, the severity of injuries in the 20% of accidents involving motor vehicles is greater. A greater majority of serious non-fatal bicycle injuries for all age groups are caused by bicyclist error. While children bicyclists are usually legally at fault in bicycle/motor vehicle accidents, the opposite is true for adult bicycle accidents. Bicycle accidents occur everywhere--on bike paths, quiet streets, and minor and major arterials. However, accident locations tend to vary with the age of the bicyclist. Intersections are the predominate locations for bicycle/motor vehicle crashes (50-60%).

b.

c.

d.

e. f. g.

h.

i. j. k.

Rough and poorly maintained riding surfaces account for about 20% of all serious accidents. Head injuries are the predominate cause of deaths, accounting for approximately 85% of all cyclist fatalities. Bicyclist's visibility or conspicuity is of critical importance at all times, both night and day. Approximately 25% of all fatalities occur at night, dawn, or dusk and it is believed that a lack of bicycle lighting systems account for much of this. up to half of all bicycle/motor vehicle collisions may be caused through failure of the motorist failing to notice the cyclist or to accurately judge bicycle speed.

3.

Approaches to Bicycle Safety. There are basically two valid approaches to reducing the risk of bicycle accidents: a. The problem could be eliminated by banning all bicycle use. While this ignores the injury and social costs of any alternative mode, it certainly neglects the considerable community benefit of bicycle use. Thus, although this approach may reduce the number of bicycle accidents, overall the disbenefits of no bicycle usage will probably outweigh the benefits of accident reduction. Alternatively, the bicycle can be recognized as a worthy vehicle, and a concerted effort must be made to improve the safety of its use.

b. 4.

Benefits of Bicycle Safety. The following is a list of some of the benefits from a bicycle safety program: a. b. c. d. Reduce illegal and unsafe cyclists behavior and incompetent bicycle use. Encourage greater bicycle usage. Decrease in the number and severity of bicycle accidents. Save lives and reduce costs due to bicycle accidents.

5.

Bicycle Safety Plan (BSP). The major objective of a countywide BSP are to make bicycle use for all age groups as safe as that for motor vehicles, at least on a time-of-exposure basis; and to increase the usage of bicycles as a viable alternate form of transportation. The following is a delineation of the essential components of BSP.

a.

Information Requirements: (1) Data Gathering. The bicycling safety plan will need to be based on quantitative objective for safety. While the required comparison data for motor vehicle safety are readily available, similar bicycling data is not available. For example, it is recognized by law enforcement personnel that bicycling injuries are grossly under-reported in police statistics. It is therefore proposed that mortality and hospital morbidity data be the basis for assessing the number and severity of bicycling-related injuries. Evaluation. Many individual programs with a BSP will require data collection before and after to assess their success. The competent evaluation of new programs will be of crucial importance. Attitude Surveys. Effective BSP's must be placed in the context of the current position of public opinion. Crash statistics may identify a problem area, but if the general public does not perceive it as such, then the problem area cannot be effectively addressed.

(2)

(3)

b.

Engineering: (1) The Bicycle Safe Concept. The concept of bicycle-safe design is a convenient way to describe roads (and bike paths) which do not discriminate against the safety of bicyclists. The basis of bicycle-safe design is very simple and consists of three elements: (a) (b) (c) c. The provision and maintenance of smooth, hazard free riding surfaces, with most attention to bike lanes; Special provisions for bicyclists at intersections and existing squeeze points; and, Simple methods for achieving integration of bicycle traffic mid-block. side-by-side

Behavioral Programs. Analysis of available bicycle accident data indicates that the basic cause of most deaths and injuries appear to be directly related to hazardous riding techniques. As indicated in the table below, experience and training seem to be effective tools to minimize bicycle accidents. The data

indicates that untrained adult bicyclists have an injury rate approximately 70 percent that of children, while skilled cyclists belonging to the League of American Wheelman (LAW) which promote an "Effective Cycling" education program, have a relatively small number of accidents. Additionally, long distance bicycle tourists (Trans-America) also have a low level of accidents when accompanied by an experienced leader.

BICYCLE INJURY RATES IN THE USA17 Group Bikecentennial Tourists Members, League of American Wheelmen Untrained Adults Children Bicycle injuries per million miles 29 44 197 277

(1)

Education. The bicycle safety education program as described in Chapter Seven of this report should be fully implemented. Enforcement. Overall bicyclist compliance with basic road laws is abysmal. Illegal and unsafe behavior decreases the general social acceptability of bicycling. Therefore, the enforcement guidelines contained in Chapter Eight of this report should be fully implemented.

(2)

d.

Equipment: (1) Bicycles. Basic safety standards for bicycles sold are set forth by the State of California; however, enforcement of the standards is difficult due to inadequate funding. Bicycle Lights. A disproportionate number of bicycle fatalities18 and serious injuries occur at night, dawn, and dusk. Also, few bicyclists (15-30%) use the basic legally required lighting systems. The BSP should, therefore, place special emphasis on the problem of bicycle lighting by: (a) Encourage the manufacture of reliable, high quality bicycle lighting systems.

(2)

17

Table adopted from Allen (1984), data circa 1980

Mathieson, J.G. (1984), "Bicycle Safety, In People and Vehicles", Proceeding of the National Road Safety Symposium, Canberra, Canberra, October, pp. 1-41.

18

(b) (c) (3)

Develop a system to monitor the use of bicycle lighting systems. Work with law enforcement agencies to enforce the use of bicycle lights.

Helmets. Because of the predominance of head injuries in bicycle fatalities and non-fatal injuries, the use of helmets is probably the most important countermeasure available to limit the severity of bicycle accidents. It has been determined that bicycle safety helmets greatly decrease the severity of head injuries not only in experiments but also in actual bicycle accidents.19 However, by necessity, an extrapolation procedure was used to predict helmet effectiveness in preventing fatalities and serious injuries; therefore, additional analysis will be required to validate this assertion. The BSP should promote legislation that mandates the use of bicycle helmets.

(4)

Conspicuity. Bicyclists are often not seen by other road users which leads to accidents. To improve the visibility of bicyclists, the BSP should contain a program to raise the awareness of cyclists to the advantages of wearing bright reflectorized clothing and using other visibility enhancing products such as fluorescent orange T-shirts and vests and bicycle flags.

Dorsch, M.M., Woodward, A.J. and Somers, R.L. (1984), "Do Bicycle Safety Helmets Reduce the Severity of Head Injuries in real Crashes?", August, (NH & MRC Road Accidents Research Unit, University of Adelaide).

19

CHAP7/BMP 7/16/91 CHAPTER SEVEN - EDUCATION A. EDUCATION: Education plays an integral role in the success of a Bikeway Master Plan. Only through education of both the cyclists and the motorist can safe road-sharing be achieved. Parents, teachers, police officers, engineers, planners, community leaders, bicycle retailers/renters, and the media all play a vital role in education and must all have an appreciation of the rights and responsibilities of cyclist if they are to assist in the goal of safe and responsible cycling. Prime target groups for education include young children, school age children, adult cyclists, and motorists. In order to ensure that each target group is receiving sufficient applicable education, a sound education network is recommended. Instructor certification for on-road instruction, and the monitoring of in-class instruction being taught through Sacramento schools and community centers would achieve quality control and ensure a minimum level of competence. Children below the age of nine account for approximately 6 percent of all bicycle/motor vehicle accident injuries. Parents have the most influential role in the initial development of cycling skills for these children. School-age children and young adults between the ages of 9 and 20 account for over 62 percent of all bicycle accidents/injuries. Education of this target group should focus on traffic skills and learning the rules of the road. Approximately 40 percent of all reported auto/bicycle accidents involve a bicyclist riding the wrong way (against traffic). In order to ensure that students are receiving structured, consistent information, education of this age group should be incorporated into the school curriculum, including drivers education and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) license testing. Adult cyclists account for over 32 percent of all serious cyclist injuries. Adult cyclists must be made aware of the availability of bicycle courses and the need for special skill development required for cycling in traffic. Many motorists are unaware of proper bicycle passing procedures. Motorists must be educated on the rights and responsibilities of cyclists as well as on-road sharing techniques if safe road-sharing is to take place. B. PLANNING: Planning a motorist education program must concern itself with

certain guiding principles including: Cooperation and sharing of roads by cyclists and others. Facilitating the mobility of cyclists and other roadway users. Improving safety for cyclists and motorists. Obtaining full community support that streets and roads are for the use of all modes of transportation.

The objectives of a motorist education program should include: Improving motorists' behavior towards cyclists. Educating motorists that the bicycle is a legitimate vehicle and that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as other drivers.

Motivating motorists to be more alert, to be aware that a bicycle moves much slower than autos, and that at times, the bicycle driver may be unpredictable. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That the Bicycle Advisory Committee include a subcommittee which would be available to assist school systems, parks educational programs, law enforcement departments, and other public service organizations in bicycling education programs. That an informational brochure be made available for parents of children under the age of nine. This brochure can be distributed through schools, community centers, police, and retailers. That the Sacramento school districts work with the Bicycle Advisory Committee and involved agencies to introduce a basic bicycle safety course for children under nine years of age using adequately trained instructors. That the Sacramento school districts work with the Bicycle Advisory Committee and involved agencies including the Safety Center to introduce bicycle education as a part of the elementary school curriculum for grades K through 7. That the Sacramento school districts work with the Bicycle Advisory Committee and involved agencies to introduce in-class bicycle education into existing junior high and high school courses including driver education classes.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

That an adult cyclist brochure be made available for distribution through automobile associations, community centers, major employers, and bicycle retailers stressing the aspects of clean air, improved health, etc. That education providers including the community colleges and CSUS be encouraged to expand their present bicycle education program to include adult "effective cycling" courses at local community centers, campuses, etc. That a "Road-Sharing" brochure geared towards motorists be made available outlining the rights and responsibilities of the cyclist and motorist on the roadway. That the Department of Motor Vehicles add an extensive cycling component to their DMV Drivers License Examination and their DMV Drivers Handbook. That a county-wide "Share the Road" media campaign be introduced. The promotional material in this campaign should include posters, bumper stickers, TV and radio public service announcements, bicycle path/route maps, bike water bottles, etc. That a county-wide helmet campaign be implemented to reduce cyclists injuries, which may be conducted by public service organizations and include helmet vouchers and rebates form manufacturers. That, in conjunction with the new California Motorcycle Mandatory Helmet Law, future legislation be advocated to mandate helmet use by bicyclists.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. D.

ENCOURAGEMENT: The safe and proper use of bicycles is dependent on cyclist/motorist education and the success of all the proposed facilities and programs is dependent on increased usage. Cycling can be encouraged as follows: By improved and expanded bikeways. By improved shower and locker facilities. By improved safe/secure bicycle storage facilities. By promotional/informational programs. By intermodal transit links/facilities.

Promotional media campaigns need to accompany all bicycle safety campaigns. These promotional campaigns, much like the bicycle promotional campaigns and

materials developed by the American Lung Association, outline the substantial benefits cycling has for the individual, air quality, and society while at the same time encouraging the responsible use of the bicycle as both a transportation and recreational vehicle. To encourage safe and sane bicycle use is to encourage bicycle use!20

20.

Vancouver Comprehensive Bicycle Plan, Vancouver Engineering Department, Vancouver, Canada, July 1988. Bicycle Safety, J.G. Mathieson, Department of Transport, Canberra, 1984.

CHAP08A 7/16/91 CHAPTER EIGHT - ENFORCEMENT A. BICYCLE ENFORCEMENT: 1. Overview. The major problem areas of bicycle enforcement in Sacramento County are violations of traffic rules, bicycle theft, and vandalism. Enforcement of traffic rules has become a problem in many communities; studies indicate that perhaps as much as 70% of the motor vehicle/bicycle accidents are due to violations of the rules of the road by bicyclists. Furthermore, these studies indicate that a large portion of these accidents involve inexperienced bicycle riders under the age of 15. Rates of bicycle theft and vandalism are undetermined to date due to inadequate data. However, the incidents of both vandalism and theft are expected to be sufficiently high to discourage a significant number of bicyclists who would otherwise ride with greater frequency. 2. Enforcement Objective. To increase bicycle use and safety through the adoption and implementation of a comprehensive bicycle enforcement program. a. Needs and Issues: (1) Off-street bike paths (Class I Bikeways) should be supplied with adequate levels of security to minimize criminal activity and protect adjacent property. Enforcement activities should be concentrated at ocations of highest bicycle usage and incidence of accidents. Bicyclists should be provided adequate traffic safety training with emphasis on traffic laws and regulations governing bicyclists.

(2) (3)

b.

Policy: (1) To improve operator awareness of, and competence in, bicycle transportation through increased enforcement of existing traffic laws and regulations governing bicyclists. To increase law enforcement professionals' responsiveness to bicycle transportation.

(2)

(3) (4) c.

To provide uniform enforcement of traffic laws. To teach the traffic laws to all bicyclists.

Program Elements: (1) (2) Written guidelines and policies instructing officers how to handle various violations. Strong community support for the program and extensive media coverage emphasizing the benefits of the enforcement program. Clear direction for enforcement personnel in terms of hours to be committed to bicycle patrol or number of citations to be issued. A public education campaign and a warning program to precede the issuance of citations. Institute an in-service bicycle training for police officers and police academy courses on bicycling. These programs should provide police personnel with a thorough explanation of the rules of the road that affect bicyclists. This program should also encourage officers to ride bicycles in order to understand the operational problems cyclists encounter. Selective enforcement campaigns which allow officers to concentrate on the more hazardous violations and ignore nuisance violations which tend to create a negative public image for an enforcement campaign. Sufficient funding and staffing to allow for an on-going program rather than a one-time enforcement crackdown which has little long-term effect.21 A comprehensive bicyclist education/training program to be made available to all interested adults. Selective enforcement of traffic laws to improve bicyclists adherence to traffic laws.

(3)

(4) (5)

(6)

(7)

(8) (9)

Community Bicycle Programs, plrepared by the Bicycle Federation for he U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 1979.

21

(10) (11) 3.

Increased funding to implement a bicycle enforcement program. Establishment of a countywide bicycle registration program.

Law Enforcement Role in Bicycle Enforcement. Although a number of agencies are involved in the bicycle program, the enforcement component of the program is the responsibility of local law enforcement agencies. Support groups such as neighborhood watch and private security are a valuable component of bicycle program and should provide assistance to law enforcement. Caltrans, Regional Transit, employers, and developers should assure proper design and maintenance of bicycle lanes and facilities (i.e. outdoor lighting and secure bicycle lockers). Bicycle programs containing the full compliment of engineering, education, and encouragement, but lacking a strong law enforcement component, will likely have a low rate of behavior change. Bicycle law enforcement forms an all-important backbone of a community bicycle program; this is true from the first data gathering steps through educations, and the issuing of citations and warnings. Law enforcement officials, however, have many demands upon their time and resources. Therefore, any bicycle enforcement program must be carefully designed, training of key staff must be thorough, and allocation of enforcement personnel must be highly selective and prudent. The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) should encourage local law enforcement agencies to make a major commitment to bicycling enforcement. Once a commitment is made, a number of steps are recommended to assure program success. The most important of these steps are as follows: a. Enforcement Program Team. A select group of supervisory or program level officers throughout the County should meet on a regular basis at the program start up, and at least once per quarter thereafter. This team should include at least one training officer, and any special officers assigned to the program. Each person on this team should go through an extensive training program, to include instructions on how to select their program components. Community Network. An outside advisory group separate from the BAC should be formed and consist of at the minimum: bicyclists, members of the local safety committees, parent groups, educators, neighborhood watch groups, and the local media. This group should serve as advisors to the BAC on all bicycle enforcement concerns.

b.

c.

Public Awareness. Schools, TV, radio, and the print media should be made aware of any special programming to take place with bicycle law enforcement. A 60-to-90 day public awareness campaign focusing on schools, special events, bicycle shops, the bike-trail, and other public places should precede any increased bicycle law enforcement efforts. Warning Period. During the initial phase of any enhanced bicycle enforcement campaign, a heavy focus should be placed on warning violators. Heavy Initial Ticketing. Within 120 days of program start up and periodically thereafter all officers should, whenever, possible, be encouraged to accelerate enforcement. This can be especially effective if the heavy ticketing periods coincides with increased bicycling seasons (Spring, Summer, and return to school). Selected Enforcement. Officers should focus times of the day and areas where violations are likely. All traffic violators should be stopped and issued tickets. Locations and times should include but not be limited to the following: (1) Locations: (a) (b) Schools--especially at the start and closing of the school year and school day. Parks and bike trail--again, law enforcement should be concentrated during peak seasons, namely, Summer and Spring. Along heavily utilized bike routes.

d.

e.

f.

(c) (2) Times: (a)

During work and school peak commute hours, especially after school when other traffic has not yet peaked. Weekends, early weekday evenings, and other peak bicycling hours.

(b) g.

Bicycle Offense Report. A non-punitive system where a notice is issued to a violator an follow up action is taken should be established. In the case of juveniles, a parent or guardian should be advised by mail of the transgression, or in the case on an adult, a

further caution notice and bicycle education material should be mailed to the offender. B. BICYCLE REGISTRATION: 1. Background. The increase of bicycle theft has become an acute problem throughout California; it has been estimated that approximately 1,100 bicycles are stolen daily in California. This represents an annual cost of $50 million. This can be attributed to several reasons: a. The sales of multi-speed, mountain bicycles have experienced a tremendous growth. Almost three-fourths of the bicycles sold in 1990 were of the mountain bike type. Thieves are assisted by the popularity by mountain bikes, inadequate locks, and general carelessness of the owners. Recovery of stolen bicycles is difficult. Bicycles are unregistered and few bicycle owners can supply the police with the serial number of the bicycle when it is stolen.

b. c.

2.

Registration Program. Many states and local communities have instituted some sort of bicycle registration programs to deter bicycle thefts. Local registration programs have not met with a high degree of success. Three-quarters of the cities in California had bicycle registration programs prior to the mandatory statewide registration program. Many local programs were voluntary; the high thievery rates in these communities indicates that voluntary registration programs are not effective. Additionally, difficulties with locally administered registration programs include: a. Administration of bicycle registration programs vary from city to city, but generally when the responsibility for administration of a registration program is by local police departments, it tends to be very burdensome. Lack of uniformity and difficulties of interchange of information between police departments. Stolen bicycles can be easily transported across jurisdictional boundaries and sold in areas where the bicycle has not been identified as stolen property.

b. c.

The primary advantage of the statewide, state administered bicycle registration program is that it provides a uniform and centralized record keeping system that crosses jurisdictional boundaries.

The BAC should institute a permit program that can be integrated into the statewide program. The combination of local implementation and state record keeping is a compromise between a state and a locally administered program. Requiring bicycle dealers to register bikes at the time of sale is an alternative that should be considered. Under this program dealers would be held responsible for the registration of new and used bicycles. They would be required to periodically report registration, and submit a fee to the local agency that is chosen by the BAC to administer this program. There are many different techniques to register bicycles: a. b. c. d. Utilize decals with a owner identification number and a serial number identifying city of registration. Engraving the social security number of the owner or dealer into the frame of the bicycle. Engraving a registration number along with the FBI National Crime Information number which identifies the local enforcement agency. License plates issued at the time of purchase of all new bicycles.

CHAP09A-C 5/1/91 CHAPTER NINE - DESIGN STANDARDS A. PHILOSOPHY: The Bikeway Development process seeks to provide a degree of mobility that is in balance with other values. Social, economic, and environmental effects must be considered fully along with technical issues in the development of transportation projects so that final decisions are made in the best overall public interest, with attention to such considerations as: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Need for safe and efficient transportation; Attainment of community goals and objectives; Needs of low mobility and minority groups; Costs of eliminating or minimizing adverse effects on natural resources, environmental values, public services, aesthetic values, and community and individual integrity; Planning based on realistic financial estimates; and The cost, ease, and safety of maintaining whatever is built.

Proper consideration of these items requires that a facility be viewed from the different perspectives of the user, the nearby community, and larger statewide interest. For the user, efficient travel and safety are paramount concerns. At the same time, the community often is more concerned about local aesthetic, social, and economic impacts. The general population, however, tends to be interested in how successfully a project functions as part of the overall transportation system and how large a share of available capital resources it consumes. Therefore, individual projects must be selected for construction on the basis of both overall system benefits and community goals, plans, and values. Decisions must also emphasize different transportation modes working together effectively. The goal is to increase highway mobility and safety in a manner that is compatible with, or which enhances, adjacent community values and plans. B. APPLICATION OF STANDARDS: 1. General. The highway design criteria and policies from the Caltrans Design Manual provide a guide for the engineer to exercise sound judgment in

applying standards, consistent with the above Bikeway Development philosophy, in the design of projects. The design standards used for any project should equal or exceed the minimum given in the Manual to the maximum extent feasible, taking into account costs, traffic volumes, traffic and safety benefits, right-of-way, socioeconomic and environmental impacts, etc. The philosophy provides for use of lower standards when such use best satisfies the concerns of a given situation. Because design standards have evolved over many years, many existing highways do not conform fully with current standards. It is not intended that current manual standards be applied retroactively to all existing roads and highways such is neither warranted nor economically feasible. However, when warranted, upgrading of existing roadway features such as guardrail, lighting, superelevation, roadbed width, etc., should be considered, either as independent projects or as part of larger projects. In addition to the design standards in the Design manual, the Traffic Manual contains standards relating to signs, delineation barrier systems, signals, and lighting. 2. Approvals. To promote uniform practice on a statewide basis, design standards lower than mandatory standards indicated herein shall require approval from the Chief, Office of Project Planning and Design, California Department of Transportation. FHWA and AASHTO Standards and Policies. The standards in the Caltrans Design Manual generally conform to the standards and policies set forth in the AASHTO publication, "A policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" (1984) and "A Policy on Design Standards-Interstate System" (1988), together with other AASHTO and FHWA documents cited in 23 CFR CH. 1, Part 625, Appendix A. These two documents, plus a third AASHTO publication focused on creating safer roadsides. "Roadside Design Guide" (1988), contains most of the current AASHTO policies and standards, and are approved references to be used in conjunction with the manual. AASHTO policies and standards, which are established as nationwide standards, do not always satisfy California conditions. When standards differ, the instructions in the manual govern, except when necessary for FHWA project approval (Index 108.3, Coordination with the FHWA).

3.

4.

Mandatory and Advisory Standards. In the manual, design standards are ranked in order of importance in development of a safe bikeway system operating at selected levels of service commensurate with projected traffic volumes and highway classification. a. Mandatory Standards. Mandatory design standards are those considered most essential to achievement of overall design objectives. Many pertain to requirements of law or regulations such as those embodies in the FHWA's 13 controlling criteria (Index 108.3), bikeways (Chapter 1000), soundwalls (Chapter 1100), etc. Mandatory standards used the word "shall" and printed in Boldface type. Advisory Standards. Advisory design standards are important also, but allow greater flexibility in application to accommodate design constraints or be compatible with local conditions on resurfacing or rehabilitation projects. Advisory standards use the word "should" and are indicated by Underlining (See Table 82.3B). Permissive Standards. All standards other than mandatory or advisory, whether indicated by the use of "should" or "may", are permissive with no requirement for application intended. Mandatory Procedural Requirements. Required procedures and policies for which Caltrans is responsible, relating to project clearances, permits, licenses, required tests, documentation, value engineering, etc., are indicated by use of the word "must". Procedures and actions to be done by others (subject to notification by Caltrans), or statements of fact are indicated by the word "will".

b.

c.

d.

C.

CLASS I BIKEWAYS (BIKE PATH): Class I bikeways (bike paths) are facilities with exclusive right-of-way, with cross flows by motorists minimized. Section 2373 of the Streets and Highways Code describes Class I bikeways as serving "the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians". However, where experience has shown that if significant pedestrian use is anticipated, separate facilities for pedestrians are preferable to minimize conflicts. Sidewalk facilities are not considered Class I facilities because they are primarily intended to serve pedestrians, and generally cannot meet the design standards for Class I bikeways, and do not minimize motorist cross flows. By State law, motorized bicycles ("mopeds") are prohibited on bike paths unless authorized by ordinance or approval of the agency having jurisdiction over the path. Likewise, all motor vehicles are prohibited from bike paths. Signing can strengthen these prohibitions. 1. Widths. The minimum paved width for a two-way bike path shall be 8 feet. The minimum paved width for a one-way bike path shall be 5 feet. A minimum 2-foot wide graded area shall be provided adjacent to the pavement. (See Figure 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3.) A 3-foot graded area is recommended. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum required, the graded area may be reduced accordingly; however, the graded area is a desirable feature regardless of the paved width. Development of a one-way bike path should be undertaken only after careful consideration due to the problems of enforcing one-way operation.

Where heavy bicycle volumes are anticipated and/or significant pedestrian traffic is expected, the paved width of a two-way path should be greater than 8 feet, preferably 12 feet or more (Sacramento County Standard is 12 feet wide). Dual use by pedestrians and bicycles is undesirable, and the two should be separated wherever possible. To accommodate joggers, a 4 to 6foot unpaved shoulder should be provided. Another important factor to consider in determining the appropriate width is that bicyclists will tend to ride side by side on bike paths, necessitating more width for safe use. Experience has shown that paved paths less than 12 feet wide sometimes break up along the edge as a result of loads from maintenance vehicles. Where equestrians are expected, a separate facility should be provided. 2. Clearance to Obstructions. A minimum 2-foot horizontal clearance to obstructions shall be provided adjacent to the pavement. (See Figure 51.) A 3-foot clearance is recommended. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum required, the clearance may be reduced accordingly; however, an adequate clearance is desirable regardless of the paved width. (Note: The 2-foot minimum horizontal clearance is desirable on all Class I bicycle facilities.) If a wide path is paved contiguous with a continuous fixed object (e.g. block wall), a 4-inch white edge stripe, 1-foot from the fixed object, is recommended to minimize the likelihood of a bicyclist hitting it. The clear width on structures between railing shall be not less than 8 feet. It is desirable that the clear width of structures be equal to the minimum clear width of the path (i.e., 12 feet). (See Figure 5-17.) The vertical clearance to obstructions across the clear width of the path shall be a minimum of 8 feet. (See Figure 5-1.) 3. Striping. A yellow centerline stripe may be used to separate opposing directions of travel. A centerline stripe is particularly beneficial in the following circumstances: a. b. c. d. 4. Where there is heavy use; On curves with restricted sight distance; and, Where the path is unlighted and nighttime riding is expected. On bike paths wider than 8 feet.

Intersections with Highways. Intersections are a prime consideration in bike path design. If alternate locations for a bike path are available, the one with

the most favorable intersection conditions should be selected. Where motor vehicle cross traffic and bicycle traffic is heavy, grade separations are desirable to eliminate intersection conflicts. Where grade separations are not feasible, assignment of right-of-way by traffic signals should be considered. Where traffic is not heavy, stop or yield signs for bicyclists may suffice. When crossing an arterial street, the crossing should either occur at the pedestrian crossing, where motorists can be expected to stop, or at a location completely out of the influence of any intersection to permit adequate opportunity for bicyclists to see turning vehicles. When crossing at midblock locations, right of way should be assigned by devices such as yield signs, stop signs, or traffic signals which can be activated by bicyclists. Even when crossing within or adjacent to the pedestrian crossing, stop or yield signs for bicyclists should be placed to minimize potential for conflict resulting from turning autos. Where bike path signs are visible to approaching auto traffic, they should be shielded to avoid confusion. Bike Xing signs should be placed in advance of the crossing to alert motorists. Ramps should be installed in the curbs, to preserve the utility of the bike path. 5. Separation Between Bike Paths and Highways. A wide separation is recommended between bike paths and adjacent highways. (See Figure 5-1.) Bike paths closer than 5 feet from the edge of the traveled way shall include a physical barrier to prevent bicyclists from encroaching onto the highway. Suitable barrier could include chain link fences or dense shrubs. (Note: Refer to Section 5A2, "Clearance to Obstructions" and Section 5E1, "Bridges".) Low barriers (e.g., dikes, raised traffic bars) next to a highway are not recommended because bicyclists could fall over them and into oncoming automobile traffic. In instances where there is danger of motorists encroaching into the bike path, a positive barrier (e.g., concrete barrier, steel guardrailing) should be provided. Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not recommended. They should not be considered a substitute for the street, because many bicyclists will find it less convenient to ride on these types of facilities as compared with the streets, particularly for utility trips. Several public agencies have experimented with the construction of "Side Path Bikeways". These were usually located in rural areas and the side path bikeway paralleled an existing highway. In semi-rural areas where side streets intersected the highway frequently, these locations were the subject of an increased rate of car/bike accidents. Some lawmakers even passed ordinances, which required that bicyclists ride only on the side path. After loud protests from the cycling community and reviewing the car/bike accident records, these mandatory bicycle side path laws are being repealed.

6.

Bike Paths in the Median of Highways. As a general rule, bike paths in the median of highways are not recommended because they require movements contrary to normal rules of the road. Specific problems with such facilities include: a. b. c. d. e. Bicyclist right turns from the center of roadways are unnatural for bicyclists and confusing to motorists. Proper bicyclist movements through intersections with signals are unclear. Left-turning motorists must cross one direction of motor vehicle traffic and two directions of bicycle traffic, which increases conflicts. Where intersection are infrequent, bicyclists will enter or exit bike paths at midblock. Where medians are landscaped, visual relationships between bicyclists and motorists at intersections are impaired.

For the above reasons, bike paths in the median of highways should be considered only when the above problems can be avoided.

CHAP09C 4/26/91 7. Design Speed. The proper design speed for a bike path is dependent on the expected type of use and on the terrain. The minimum design speed for bike paths shall be 20 mph except as noted in the table below. Bike paths designed primarily for recreational purposes may use a maximum design speed of 15 MPH. However, this type of facility should be signed sufficiently to properly inform the users.

TYPE OF FACILITY Bike Paths with Multi-Use Recreational Trails Bike Path with Mopeds Prohibited Bike Paths with Mopeds Permitted Bike Paths on Long Downgrades (steeper than 4%, and longer than 500 ft.) 15 20 30 30

DESIGN SPEED (MPH)

Installation of "speed bumps" or other similar surface obstructions, intended to cause bicyclists to slow down in advance of intersections, shall not be used. These devices cannot compensate for improper design. (Note: See the following for speed controlling factors: Figure 5-5, "Stopping Sight Distance"; Figure 5-6, "Vertical Curve Sight Distance", Figure 5-4, "Curve Radii and Superelevation".) 8. Horizontal Alignment and Superelevation. Minimum recommended curve radii and superelevations for various design speeds are shown on Figure 5-4. When minimum curve radii are selected, increased pavement width on the inside of the curve is recommended to compensate for bicyclist lean. A straight 2% cross slope is recommended on tangent sections. Superelevations steeper than 2% should be avoided on bike paths expected to have adult tricycle traffic. (See Figure 5-4.) 9. Stopping Sight Distance. Figure 5-5 indicates the minimum stopping sight distances for various design speeds and grades. For two-way bike paths, the descending direction will control the design.

10. 11.

Length of Crest Vertical Curves. Figure 5-6 indicates the minimum lengths of crest vertical curves for varying design speeds. Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves. Figure 5-7 indicates the minimum clearances to line of sight obstructions for horizontal curves. The required lateral clearance is obtained by entering Figure 5-7 with the stopping sight distance from Figure 5-5 and the proposed horizontal curved radius. Grades. Bike paths generally attract less skilled bicyclists, so it is important to avoid steep grades in their design. Bicyclists not physically conditioned will be unable to negotiate long, steep uphill grades. Since novice bicyclists often ride poorly maintained bicycles, long downgrades can cause problems. For these reasons, bike paths with long, steep grades will generally receive very little use. The maximum grade rate recommended for bike paths is 5%. It is desirable that sustained grades be limited to 2% if a wide range of riders is to be accommodated. Steeper grades can be tolerated for short segments (e.g., up to about 500 feet). Where steeper grades are necessitated, the design speed should be increased and additional width should be provided for maneuverability. See Figures 5-5, 5-6, and 5-8.

12.

13.

Structural Section. The structural section of a bike path should be designed in the same manner as a highway, with consideration given to the quality of the basement soil and the anticipated loads the bikeway will experience. Principal loads will normally be from maintenance and emergency vehicles. Expansive soil should be given special consideration and will probably require a special structural section. See Figure 5-9. A minimum pavement thickness of 2 inches of asphalt concrete is recommended. (see Figure 5-9.) Type "A" or "B" asphalt concrete (as described in California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications), with 1/2-inch maximum aggregate and medium grading is recommended. Consideration should be given to increasing the asphalt content to provide increased pavement life. CONSIDERATION SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN TO STERILIZATION OF BASEMENT SOIL TO PRECLUDE POSSIBLE WEED GROWTH THROUGH THE PAVEMENT, INCLUDING THE UNPAVED SHOULDERS. Portland cement concrete construction is also suitable for bike path construction. Soil conditions, and flooding may indicate Portland cement concrete to be the most desirable construction material. Consider the use of fiber reinforced concrete to minimize/control cracking and to reduce the use of transverse joints. The cost of Portland cement concrete pavement may be twice that of asphalt.

14.

Drainage. For proper drainage, the surface of a bike path should have a cross slope of 2%. Sloping in one direction usually simplifies longitudinal drainage design and surface construction, and accordingly is the preferred practice. Ordinarily, surface drainage from the path will be adequately dissipated as it flows down the gently sloping shoulder. However, when a bike path is constructed on the side of a hill, a drainage ditch of suitable dimensions may be necessary on the uphill side to intercept the hillside drainage. Where necessary, catch basins with drains should be provided to carry intercepted water across the path. See Figure 5-3. Culverts or bridges are necessary where a bike path crosses a drainage channel.

15.

Barrier Posts. It may be necessary to install barrier posts at entrances to bike paths to prevent motor vehicles from entering. Also, when auto access is possible along a bike path, it may be necessary to install barrier posts at bridges or underpasses to discourage motor vehicle travel. Barrier post installations should be held to an absolute minimum. When locating such installations, care should be taken to assure that barriers are well marked and visible to bicyclists, day or night (i.e., install reflectors or reflectorized tape). It may be desirable to install flashers on fixed barrier posts when bike paths have sufficient night traffic. Striping a solid yellow envelope around the barriers is recommended (see Figure 5-10-1). Barriers should be painted red or yellow for visibility. If sight distance is limited, special advance warning signs or painted pavement warnings should be provided. Where more than one post is necessary, a 5foot spacing should be used to permit passage of bicycle-towed trailers, adult tricycles, and to assure adequate room for safe bicycle passage without dismounting. Barrier post installations should be designed so they are removable to permit entrance by emergency and service vehicles. Generally, barrier configurations that preclude entry by motorcycles present safety and convenience problems for bicyclists. Such devices should be used only where extreme problems are encountered. Note: See Figures 5-10-2, 3, and 4 for barrier details. For specific details see Sacramento County Standard Construction Specifications.

16.

Landscaping. The guidelines presented here are general design considerations applicable to bicycle paths. The function of a path as a commuter route, recreation route, or multi-purpose (and multi-user trail) will make some of the criteria more or less relevant. a. Alignment:

(1)

Paths should follow natural topography where possible to avoid monotony for the cyclist and to minimize the visual contrast between the path and its environment. On utility paths, the directness of the route should not, however, be compromised. The changing alignment of the path and its relationship with existing trees and other elements can be used to emphasize views, provide directional cues and generally give the cyclist a more pleasant and informative journey. The path alignment should not have cyclists looking directly into the rising or setting sun reducing their ability to see other cyclists and potential hazards.

(2)

(3)

b.

Plant Materials: (1) (2) Planting should provide protection from strong crosswinds. The location of planting groups should permit a clear view of the pathway ahead and particularly areas where pedestrians may cross or other cyclists may enter the path. Plantings should provide visual definition of the path alignment, intersection points, places of visual interest, or potential conflict. Planting styles and densities should be used to restrict entry to the path system to designated points rather than uncontrolled entry in places, which may create a hazard. Plant species should have a root structure which will not damage the path surface; plant species with this potential should be set back from the path. Plantings should be placed to provide shade for part of the day only, preferably afternoon. Moisture retention caused by permanent shade may soften the path surface. Afternoon shade allows the path to warm on cold mornings and provides protection during the warmest part of the day. Plantings should be used to filter direct sunlight that may have a blinding effect; e.g., where a path alignment is toward the setting sun.

(3)

(4)

5)

(6)

(7)

(8) (9)

When plantings overhang a path, the minimum overhead clearance of 8 feet must be maintained. PLANT SPECIES SHOULD NOT HAVE SPIKES, BE STICKY OR HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO INJURE CYCLISTS WHO MAY FALL OFF BICYCLES. Plants, which require pruning that results in hard pointed pruned branches, should not be used. Plants should be pruned to the International Society of Arboriculture Pruning Standards. Plants should not drop flowers or fruit which may cause the path to be slippery or thorns which puncture tires. Also, plants that have brittle branch characteristics should not be planted adjacent to paths. Planting setbacks should allow cyclists to carry out the occasional pathside repair. Plantings should be used to separate the path from visually undesirable or distracting elements such as drains, roads, industrial sites, etc. and to separate residential and private areas from the 'cyclethoroughfare'. Plantings should represent the indigenous natural character of the area through which the path passes or, alternatively, represent an existing and visually distinct cultural character which may include exotic species and manmade elements. Planting styles and species should correspond to the use of the path system. For example, commuter cyclists will be traveling at the highest speed, and be least conscious of views and their surroundings. Recreational cyclists will be very aware of their surroundings, more likely to be stopping to observe views or to rest and more likely to be in groups. Semi-arid and drought-tolerant plantings should be used to conserve water wherever possible. Drip systems and conventional irrigation systems should be designed to meet the plants water needs.

(10)

(11) (12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

c.

Rest Areas: (1) It may be appropriate on longer bike paths to introduce informational signs, seating and drink stations at intervals. These areas should be offset from the path so that stopping and dismounting maneuvers do not interrupt traffic on the

path. Secure bike parking should also be provided, particularly if the cyclists are likely to leave bicycles unattended to visit shops, viewpoints, toilets, etc. (2) Similar facilities should be provided at major entry points to the path system, for example, where carparking is provided for users of a recreational path.

d.

Environmental Quality: (1) Environmental Fit. The path should be consistent with and appear logical in the environment through which it passes. Both the form of the path and the materials used will contribute to this characteristic. Sense of Travel. The path landscape and alignment should visually enhance the sense of travel through an area; e.g. the design should be specifically tailored to different locations rather than stereotyped by the use of standard materials and design elements. Pleasantness. The path landscape and alignment should present to the user, through views or planting, the most attractive aspects of the environment through which it passes, and provide the most comfortable journey possible for the cyclist. Cycling should be made a pleasurable alternative to other transport modes. Utility. The alignment and access characteristics of the path should be such that the path is seen as a viable transport option which offers safe travel between points but with a higher standard of environmental quality and in many cases shorter travel times.

(2)

(3)

(4)

17.

SMALL Roundabouts (Traffic Circles) and Intersections. ROUNDABOUTS CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO CYCLING SAFETY BY REDUCING SPEEDS THROUGH INTERSECTIONS. (See Figure 5-11-2.) Stairway Ramps. These are sometimes known as Chinese Bicycle Ramps. On some occasions, access to or from a bicycle facility will be via an existing stairway where cost or physical constraints preclude its replacement with a rideable path. In such cases, ramps are required to allow bicycles to be wheeled rather than carried up and down the stairs. Ramps with a minimum width of 3 feet should be incorporated on both sides of the

18.

stairway with the surface of the ramp being flush with the lip of the stairs. The center of the stairway should be fitted with a handrail. A single ramp placed centrally is not desirable as some cyclists are likely to attempt to ride down it. (See Figure 5-12-1.) The minimum ramp width of 3 feet should be incorporated in both sides of the stairway. 19. Drainage Easement and/or Natural Stream Bikeway. The following items are comments from the County Water Resources Division regarding bikeways design standards when they are proposed to be constructed within County drainage easements and/or along County designated Natural Stream: a. Bikeway widths and shoulder widths along drainage channels and/or natural streams must be sufficient to prevent bicycle riders from falling into channels. We recommend minimum bikeway shoulder width to be at 5 feet and preferably 8 feet. (See Figure 5-12-2.) Structural sections for bikeways along drainage channels and/or natural streams must be designed to accommodate heavy maintenance vehicles. Minimum roadway width must be 13 feet in width. Channel cross slope must be 3:1 or flatter except on natural streams. (See Figure 5-12-4.) Low flow crossings on drainage channels and/or natural streams will be decided on individual basis. (See Figure 5-12-3.) Access ramp and gate can be allowed--warning system must be addressed if bikeway is designed to be submerged during high flow. Lockable gates are required. Bikeways located within an existing maintenance road must have prior approval from this office. The Water Resources Division reserves the right to approve or disapprove any and all proposed bikeways if they are found to interfere with the flow capacity of channels and/or may increase risk of flooding to areas upstream. Bikeway proposals within a County designated natural stream are subject to approval by the County Planning Department and other agencies such as the Department of Fish and Game, the Corp of Engineers (fill in floodplain), and the local park and recreation district. Use permits may be required.

b.

c. d. e.

f. g.

h.

20.

Bikeway Capacity. Bikeway capacity as a function of lane width as extrapolated from European sources is presented on Figure 5-8-3. The comparison with bikeway dimensional standards as presented on Figure 5-1 makes it apparent that once basic operating space requirements are met, the bikeway would have ample capacity for almost all situations. However, the designer should consult Figure 5-8-3 to insure adequate capacity in the vicinity of intense bicycle activity centers such as college campus areas or schools.

CHAP09D 4/25/91

D.

CLASS II BIKEWAYS (BIKE LANES): 1. Introduction. Class II bikeways (bike lanes) for preferential use by bicycles are established within the paved area of highways. Bike lane stripes are intended to promote an orderly flow of traffic, by establishing specific lines of demarcation between areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to be occupied by motor vehicles. This effect is supported by bike lane signs and pavement markings. Bike lane stripes can increase bicyclists' confidence that motorists will not stray into their path of travel if they remain within the bike lane. Likewise, with more certainty as to where bicyclists will be, passing motorists are less apt to swerve toward opposing traffic in making certain they will not hit bicyclists. Bike lanes shall be one-way facilities. Two-way bike lanes (or bike paths that are contiguous to the roadway) are not permitted; as such facilities have proved unsatisfactory. 2. Widths. Typical class II bikeway configurations are illustrated in Figures 513 and are described below: a. Figure 5-13-1(1) depicts bike lanes on an urban type curbed street where parking stalls (or continuous parking stripes) are marked. Bike lanes are located between the parking area and the traffic lanes. Minimum widths are as shown. Bike lanes shall not be placed between the parking area and the curb. Such facilities increase the conflict between the bicyclists and opening car doors and reduce visibility at intersections. Also, they prevent bicyclists from leaving the bike lane to turn left and cannot be effectively maintained.

b.

Figure 5-13-1(2) depicts bike lanes on an urban-type curbed street, where parking is permitted, but without parking stripe or stall marking. Bike lanes are established in conjunction with the parking areas. As indicated, 11 feet or 12 feet (depending on the type of curb) shall be the minimum width of the bike lane where parking is permitted. This type of lane is satisfactory where parking is not extensive and where turnover of parked cars is infrequent. However, if parking is substantial or turnover of parked cars is high, additional width is recommended.

c.

Figure 5-13-1(3) depicts bike lanes along the outer portions of an urban type curbed street, where parking is prohibited. This is generally the most desirable configuration for bike lanes, as it eliminates potential conflicts resulting from auto parking (e.g. opening car doors). Minimum widths shall be as shown. Both minimums shall be achieved. With a normal 2-foot gutter, the minimum bike lane width is to be 5 feet. The intent is to provide a minimum 4-foot wide bike lane, but with at least 3 feet between the traffic alone and the longitudinal joint at the concrete gutter, since the gutter reduces the effective width of the bike lane for two reasons: (1) (2) First, the longitudinal joint may not always be smooth, and may be difficult to ride along. Secondly, the gutter does not provide a suitable surface for bicycle travel.

Where gutters are wide (say, 4 feet), an additional 3 feet must be provided because bicyclists should not be expected to ride in the gutter. WHEREVER POSSIBLE, THE WIDTH OF BIKE LANES SHOULD BE INCREASED TO 6 OR 8 FEET TO PROVIDE FOR GREATER SAFETY. Eight-foot bike lanes can also serve as emergency parking areas for disabled vehicles. Striping bike lanes next to curbs where parking is prohibited only during certain hours shall be done only in conjunction with special signing to designate the hours bike lanes are to be effective. Since the Vehicle Code requires bicyclists to ride in bike lanes where provided (except under certain conditions), proper signing is necessary to inform bicyclists that they are required to ride in bike lanes only during the course of the parking prohibition. This type of bike lane should be considered only if the vast majority of

bicycle travel would occur during the hours of the parking prohibition, and only if there is a firm commitment to enforce the parking prohibition. Because of the obvious complications this type of bike lane is not encouraged for general application. d. Figure 5-13-1(4) depicts bike lanes on a highway without curbs and gutters. This location is in an undeveloped area where infrequent parking is handled off the pavement. This can be accomplished by supplementing the bike lane signing with R25 (park off pavement) signs, or R26 (no parking) signs. Minimum widths shall be as shown. ADDITIONAL WIDTH IS DESIRABLE, PARTICULARLY WHERE MOTOR VEHICLE SPEEDS EXCEED 40 MPH. The typical motor vehicle lane width next to a bike lane is 12 feet. There are situations where it may be necessary to reduce the width of motor vehicle lanes in order to stripe bike lanes. In determining the appropriateness of narrower motor vehicle lanes, consideration should be given to factors such as motor vehicle speeds, truck volumes, alignment, and sight distance. Where favorable conditions exist, motor vehicle lanes of 11 feet may be feasible. Bike lanes are not advisable on long, steep downgrades, where bicycle speeds greater than 30 mph are expected. As grades increase, downhill bicycle speeds will increase, which increases the problem of riding near the edge of the roadway. In such situations, bicycle speeds can approach those of motor vehicles, and experienced bicyclists will generally move into the motor vehicle lanes to increase sight distance and maneuverability. IF BIKE LANES ARE TO BE STRIPED, ADDITIONAL WIDTH SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMMODATE HIGHER BICYCLE SPEEDS. If the bike lanes are to be located on one-way streets, they should be placed on the right side of the street. Bike lanes on the left side would cause bicyclists and motorists to undertake crossing maneuvers in making left turns onto a two-way street. 3. Striping and Signing. Raised barriers (e.g., raised traffic bars and asphalt concrete dikes) or raised pavement markers shall not be used to delineate bike lanes. Raised barriers prevent motorists from merging into bike lanes before making right turns, as required by the Vehicle Code, and restrict the movement of bicyclists desiring to enter or exit bike lanes. They also impede routine maintenance. Raised pavement markers increase the difficulty for bicyclists when entering or exiting bike lanes, and discourage motorists from merging into bike lanes before making right turns.

BIKE LANE STRIPES SHOULD BE PLACED A CONSTANT DISTANCE FROM THE OUTSIDE MOTOR VEHICLE LANE. Bike lanes with parking permitted (11 feet to 13 feet between the bike lane line and the curb) should not be directed toward the curb at intersections or localized areas where parking is prohibited. Such a practice prevents bicyclists from following a straight course. Where transitions from one type of bike lane to another are necessary, smooth tapers should be provided. In situations where a frontage road parallels an arterial for substantial distances, it may be desirable to direct bicyclists to use the frontage road. As factors dictate, the frontage road may be striped as a Class II facility or signed as Class III Bike Route depending on widths, one-way or two-way auto travel, and parking provisions. This configuration is desirable on arterials when the widths of the traffic lanes are insufficient to accommodate Class II bike lanes and pavement widening is not feasible. Sacramento County has developed a "Bikes Use Frontage Road" (BUF) sign which may be used at these locations. (See Figure 6-17.) Also, It is desirable to place a 4-inch white stripe one foot from the edge of pavement on the arterial to emphasize that the bike lane has been discontinued and encourage the bicyclists to use the frontage road. See Chapter VI - "Uniform Signs, Markings, and Traffic Control Devices" for additional details. 4. Intersection Design. Most auto/bicycle accidents occur at intersections. For this reason, bikeway design at intersections should be accomplished in a manner that will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists, and will permit both to operate in accordance with the normal rules of the road. Figure 5-14 illustrates a typical intersection of multi-lane streets, with bike lanes on all approaches. Some common movements of motor vehicles and bicycles are shown. A prevalent type of accident involves straight-through bicycle traffic and right-turning motorists. Left-turning bicyclists also have problems, as the bike lane is on the right side of the street, and bicyclists have to cross the path of cars traveling in both directions. Some bicyclists are proficient enough to merge across one or more lanes of traffic, to use the inside lane or left-turn lane provided for motor vehicles. However, there are many who do not feel comfortable making this maneuver. They have the option of making a two-legged left turn by riding along a course similar to that followed by pedestrians, as shown in the diagram. Young children will often times prefer to dismount and change directions by walking their bike in the crosswalk.

At intersections where there is a bike lane and traffic-actuated signal, installation of bicycle-sensitive detectors within the bike lane is desirable. Push button detectors are not as satisfactory as those located in the pavement because the cyclist must stop to actuate the push button. It is also desirable that detectors in left-turn lanes be sensitive enough to detect bicycles. At intersections (without bike lanes) with significant bicycle use and a traffic-actuated signal, it is desirable to install detectors that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles. Figure 5-15 illustrates recommended striping patterns for bike lanes crossing a motorist right-turn-only lane. When confronted with such intersections, the bicyclists will have to merge with right-turning motorists. Since bicyclists are typically traveling at speeds less than motorists, they should signal and merge where there is a sufficient gap in right-turning traffic, rather than at any predetermined location. For this reason, it is recommended that either all delineation be dropped at the approach of the right-turn lane (or off-ramp), or that a single, dashed bike-lane line be extended at a flat angle across the right-turn lane. A pair of parallel lines (delineating a bike lane crossing) to channel the bike merge is not recommended, as bicyclists will be encouraged to cross at a predetermined location, rather than when there is a safe gap in right-turning traffic. Also, some bicyclists are apt to assume they have the right of way, and may not check for right-turning motor vehicle traffic. A dashed line across the right-turn-only lane is not recommended on extremely long lanes, or where there are double right-turn-only lanes. For these types of intersections, all striping should be dropped to permit judgment by the bicyclists to prevail. A "Bike Xing" W79 sign may be used to warn motorists of the potential for bicyclists crossing their path. At some intersections it may be necessary to end the bike lane because of inadequate pavement width, the impracticality of providing a bike phase at the intersection, or a lane designation that does not lend itself to the striping of a bike lane. Dropping the bike lane line 200 feet on the approach to an intersection rather than dashing the stripe is permissible according to Figure 6-1 from the Highway Design Manual. Where existing pavement width does not provide for continuing the bike lane through an intersection and the bicycle traffic signal cannot be justified or it is not desirable to provide a phase for bicycles and pedestrians, it would seem to be safer to remove the false sense of security for bicyclists by not continuing the dashed line up to the intersection. Sacramento County has adopted a signalized intersection policy that on Class II bike lane facilities the 6-inch wide white strip shall be dropped 200 feet from the intersection on

the approach side. ON STREETS WITH VERTICAL CURBS AND SIDEWALKS THE BIKE LANE STRIPE SHOULD BE DROPPED AT A DRIVEWAY OR CURB CUT. At signalized intersections when sufficient pavement width is not available on the far side of the intersection and pavement widening is not feasible, the 6-inch wide white stripe shall not be started until minimum bike lane widths can be established. See the "Uniform Signs, Markings, and Traffic Control Devices" section for a detailed explanation of the R81 sign series which has been designed for bike lane treatment at signalized intersections. Careful consideration must be given to bike lanes crossing on-off ramps and uncontrolled free right turns. The design of the bike lane at such a location will be dependent upon the geometrics of the intersection. Figures 5-16-1, 516-2, and 5-16-3 depict some typical ramp/bike lane crossings. 5. Drainage and Cross Slopes. The drainage designed into street and road sections will normally satisfy bike lanes requirements. It is recommended that all bike lane streets with improvements be "key cut" prior to overlays. This will maintain a flush joint at the interface of the edge of pavement and lip of gutter. MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE AFTER THE OVERLAY SHOULD NOT EXCEED FIVE PERCENT (5%). ALSO, ALL GRATES OR COVERS LOCATED WITHIN THE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT OF THE BIKE LANE SHOULD BE RAISED TO GRADE.

CHAP09E 5/1/91

E.

CLASS III BIKEWAYS (BIKE ROUTES): 1. Introduction. Class III bikeways (bike routes) are intended to provide continuity to the bikeway system. Bike routes are established along through routes not served by Class I or II bikeways, or to connect discontinuous segments of bikeway (normally bike lanes). Class III facilities are shared facilities, either with motor vehicles on the street, or with pedestrians on sidewalks, and in either case bicycle usage is secondary. Class III facilities are established by placing G93 Bike Route signs along roadways. Minimum widths for Class III bikeways are not presented, as the acceptable width is dependent on many factors, including the volume and character of vehicular traffic on the road, typical speeds, vertical and horizontal alignment, sight distance, and parking conditions. Since bicyclists are permitted on all highways (except prohibited freeways), the decision to sign the route should be based on the advisability of encouraging bicycle travel on the route and other factors listed below. 2. On-street Bike Route Criteria. To be of benefit to bicyclists, bike routes should offer a higher degree of service than alternative streets. Routes should be signed only if some of the following apply: a. b. c. They provide for through and direct travel in bicycle-demand corridors. Connect discontinuous segments of bike lanes. An effort has been made to adjust traffic control devices (stop signs, signals) to give greater priority to bicyclists, as compared with alternative streets. This could include placement of bicyclesensitive detectors on the right-hand portion of the road, where bicyclists are expected to ride.

d. e. f. 3.

Street parking has been removed or restricted in areas of critical width to provide improved safety. Surface imperfections or irregularities have been corrected (e.g., utility covers adjusted to grade, potholes filled, etc.) Maintenance of the route will be at higher standard than that of other comparable streets (e.g., more frequent street sweeping).

Sidewalk Bikeway Criteria. In general, the designated use of sidewalks (as a Class III bikeway) for bicycle travel is unsatisfactory. The California Vehicle Code prohibits bicycle riding on sidewalks (Section 21663) and bicycle riding on the left side of the roadway whether within the roadway or on the sidewalk (Section 21650). A review of accident reports indicates that the violation of these rules may have been a factor in many of the bicycle accidents in Sacramento County. The California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, Section 1000, "Bikeway Planning and Design," has the following discussion of sidewalk bikeways. "...the designated use of sidewalks for bicycle travel is unsatisfactory for the following reasons: a. Sidewalks tend to be used in both directions, despite any signing to the contrary. As such, bicyclists coming from the right may go unnoticed by motorists crossing these facilities at intersections and driveways. At approaches to intersections, parked cars interfere with the visual relationships between motorists and bicyclists. At driveways, property fences and shrubs, etc often impair sight distances. At intersections motorists are not looking for bicyclists (which are traveling at a higher speed than pedestrians) entering the crosswalk area, particularly when motorists are making a turn. Sidewalks are typically designed for pedestrian speeds and are not safe for higher speed use. Conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians traveling at low speeds (or exiting stores, parked cars, etc.) are common, as are conflicts with fixed objects (e.g., parking meters, utility poles, sign posts, bus benches, trees, hydrants, mail boxes, etc.). Also, bicyclists riding on the curb side of sidewalks

b.

c.

d.

may accidentally drop off the sidewalk into the path of motor vehicle traffic." It is important to recognize that the development of extremely wide sidewalks does not necessarily add to the safety of sidewalk bicycle travel, as wide sidewalks will encourage higher speed bicycle use and can increase potential for conflicts with motor vehicles at intersections, as well as with pedestrians and fixed objects. Sidewalk bikeways should be considered only under special circumstances, such as: (1) To provide bikeway continuity along high speed or heavily traveled roadways having inadequate space or bicyclists, and uninterrupted by driveways and intersections for long distances. On long, narrow bridges. In such cases, ramps should be installed at the sidewalk approaches. If approach bikeways are two-way, sidewalk facilities should also be two-way.

(2)

The following Ordinance amending the Sacramento County Code was adopted by the Sacramento Board of Supervisors in 1973: "10.16.180 BICYCLES ON SIDEWALKS. The director is authorized to designate sidewalks which may be used by bicyclists as a part of the county bike route system and shall identify such sidewalks with appropriate signs giving notice thereof." (SCC 139 2, 1973). Whenever sidewalk bikeways are established, a special effort should be made to remove unnecessary obstacles. Whenever bicyclists are directed from bike lanes to sidewalks, curb cuts should be flush with the street to assure that bicyclists are not subjected to problems associated with crossing a vertical lip at a flat angle. Also curb cuts at each intersection are necessary, as well as bikeway yield or stop signs at uncontrolled intersections. Curb cuts should be wide enough to accommodate adult tricycles and two-wheel bicycle trailers. Streets improved with rolled curbs do not require special curb cuts to accommodate the bicyclist. In residential areas, sidewalk riding by young children too inexperienced to ride in the street is common. With lower bicycle speeds and lower auto speeds, potential conflicts are somewhat lessened, but still exist. Nevertheless, this type of sidewalk bicycle use is accepted. BUT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO SIGN THESE FACILITIES AS BIKEWAYS. Bicyclists should not be

encouraged (through signing) to ride facilities that are not designed to accommodate bicycle travel. 4. Destination Signing of Bike Routes. For Bike Route signs to be more functional, supplemental plates may be placed beneath them when located along routes leading to high demand destinations (e.g., "To Downtown", "To State College", "To Bike Parking, etc. (See Chapter VI for typical signing.) There are instances where it is necessary to sign a route to direct bicyclists to a logical destination, but where the route does not offer any of the above listed bike route features. In such cases, the route should not be signed as a bike route; however, destination signing may be advisable. A typical application of destination signing would be where bicyclists are directed off a highway to bypass a section of freeway. Special signs would be placed to guide bicyclists to the next logical destination. The intent is to direct bicyclists in the same way as motorists would be directed if a highway detour was necessitated. F. MULTI-USE RECREATIONAL TRAIL SYSTEMS: In some instances, it may be appropriate for recreational agencies to develop multiuse recreational trail systems - for hikers, joggers, equestrians, bicyclists, etc. Many of these trails will not be paved and will not meet the standards for Class I bikeways. As such, these facilities should not be signed as bikeways. Rather, they should be designated as recreational trails (or similar designation), along with regulatory signing to restrict motor vehicles, as appropriate. If one of the recreational trails is to serve primarily bicycle travel, it should be developed in accordance with standards for Class I bikeways. When a trail corridor of sufficient width is developed to accommodate touring/commuter bicycling, horseback riding, hiking, jogging, and all-terrain bikes with appropriate trail surfacing it may be classified as a multi-use trail system. The ideal all-terrain bike (ATB) trail is natural or native soils (unpaved) winding through areas of natural beauty with only a minimum of grading required. Some brush removal may be advisable to offer an unobstructed path. This type of trail should have some short, steep grades to challenge the rider, however, level, wide trails would appeal to the majority of riders. The most satisfactory ATB trail is not shared with other users. (See Chapter III, Section D and Appendix B for additional mountain bike data.) G. MISCELLANEOUS BIKEWAY CRITERIA: The following are miscellaneous bikeway criteria which should be followed to the extent pertinent to Class I, II and III bikeways. Some, by their very nature, will not apply to all classes of bikeway. Many of the criteria are important to consider on

any highway where bicycle travel is expected, without regard to whether or not bikeways are established. 1. Bridges. Bikeways on highway bridges must be carefully coordinated with approach bikeways to make sure that all elements are compatible. For example, bicycle traffic bound in opposite directions is best accommodated by bike lanes on each side of a highway. In such cases, a two-way bike path on one side of a bridge would normally be inappropriate, as one direction of bicycle traffic would be required to cross the highway at grade twice to get to and from the bridge bike path. Because of the inconvenience, many bicyclists will be encouraged to ride on the wrong side of the highway beyond the bridge termini. a. The following criteria apply to a two-way bike path on one side of a highway bridge: (1) (2) The bikeway approach to the bridge should be by way of a separate two-way facility for the reason explained above. A physical separation, such as a chain link, fence or railing, shall be provided to offset the adverse effects of having bicycles traveling against motor vehicle traffic. The physical separation should be designed to minimize fixed end hazards to motor vehicles and if the bridge is an interchange structure, to minimize sight distance restrictions at ramp intersections. It is recommended that bikeway bridge railing or fences placed between traffic lanes and bikeways be at least 4.5 feet high to minimize the likelihood of bicyclists falling over the railings. Standard bridge railings which are lower than 4.5 feet can be retrofitted with lightweight upper railings or chain link fence suitable to restrain bicyclists. (See Figure 517.) (3) Separate highway overcrossing structures for bikeway traffic shall conform to Caltrans' standard pedestrian overcrossing design loading of 85 pounds per square foot. The minimum clear width shall be the paved width of the approach bikeway. If pedestrians are to use the structure, additional width is recommended. (See Figure 5-18.) Where it is necessary to continue a bicycle path onto a highway bridge, several alternatives should be considered in light of what the geometrics of the bridge will allow. (See Figure 5-18 for both new and retrofit conditions.)

(4)

(a)

One option is to carry the bicycle path across the bridge on one side. this should be done where: 1) 2) the bridge facility will connect to a bicycle path at both ends; sufficient width exists on the side of the bridge or can be obtained by widening or restriping lanes; and provisions are made to physically separate bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic as discussed above.

3)

(b)

A second option is to provide either wide curb-lanes or bicycle lanes over the bridge. This may be advisable where: 1) a one-way bicycle path becomes bicycle lanes at one end of the bridge which will allow the cyclist to cross in the same direction as motor vehicle flow; and sufficient width exists or can be obtained by widening or restriping. (See Figure 5-19.)

2) (5)

Figures 5-20 and 5-21 illustrate ways to continue a bicycle path under a new or existing bridge. Because of the large number of parameters involved in retrofitting bicycle facilities onto existing bridges, compromises in desirable design criteria are often inevitable. Therefore, the width to be provided is best determined by the designer, on a case-by-case basis, after thoroughly considering all the parameters. In some cases, an underpass will be the best way to carry a bicycle path under a highway. Figure 5-22 shows alternate underpass cross-sections for bicycle paths.

2.

Surface Quality. The surface to be used by bicyclists shall be smooth, free of potholes or irregularities, and the pavement edge uniform and level with adjacent terrain. For rideability on new construction, the finished surface of bikeways should not vary more than 0.02 foot from the lower edge of an 8foot long straight edge when laid on the surface in any direction.

Table 5-2 indicates the recommended bikeway surface tolerances for Class II and III bikeways developed on existing streets to minimize the potential for causing bicyclists to lose control of their bicycle. (Note: Stricter tolerances should be achieved on new bikeway construction.)

TABLE 5-2

Direction of Travel

Grooves(a)

Steps(b)

Parallel to travel

No more than 1/2" wide

No more than 3/8" wide

Perpendicular to travel

-------------------

No more than 3/4" high

(a)

Groove--A narrow slot in the surface that could catch a bicycle wheel, such as a gap between two concrete slabs. Step--A ridge in the pavement, such as that which might exist between the pavement and a concrete gutter or manhole cover; or that might exit between two pavement blankets when the top level does not extend to the edge of the roadway.

(b)

3.

Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, and Driveways. Drainage inlet grates, manhole covers, etc., on bikeways should be designed and installed in a manner that provides an adequate surface for bicyclists. They should be maintained flush with the surface when resurfacing. Drainage inlet grates on bikeways shall have openings narrow enough and short enough to assure bicycle tires will not drop into the grates (e.g., reticuline type), regardless of the direction of bicycle travel. Where it is not immediately feasible to replace existing grates with standard grates designed for bicycles, 1-inch x 1/4-inch steel cross straps should be welded to the grates at a paving of 6 inches to 8 inches on centers to reduce the size of the openings adequately. Corrective actions described above are recommended on all highways where bicycle travel is permitted, whether or not bikeways are designated.

Future driveway construction shall avoid construction of a vertical lip from the driveway to the gutter, as the lip may create a problem for bicyclists when entering from the edge of the roadway at a flat angle. If a lip is deemed necessary, the height should be limited to 1/2-inch. DRAINAGE GRATES ON BRIDGES WITH A BIKE PATH FACILITY SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE DEBRIS BUILDUP. If bridge drainage is routed through blockouts in the barrier and flows across the bike path, an excessive amount of trash will be deposited on the path. Frequent sweeping an mitigate this condition, however, separate drains for the bridge deck and the path are preferable. 4. At-Grade Railroad Crossings and Cattle Guards. Whenever it is necessary to cross railroad tracks with a bikeway, special care must b taken to assure that the safety of bicyclists is protected. The bikeway crossing should be at least as wide as the approaches of the bikeway. Railroad rails on abandoned lines should be removed at all bikeway crossings. Wherever possible, the crossing should be straight and at right angles to the rails. For on-street bikeways where a skew is unavoidable, the shoulder (or bike lane) should be widened, if possible, to permit bicyclists to cross at right angles (see Figure 5-23-1.) Where this is not possible, commercially available compressible flangeway filler can enhance bicyclist safety at track crossings for all types of bikeways. Also, rubberized railroad crossing treatments reduce bikeway/railroad crossing hazards. (See Figures 5-23-2 and 3.) If this is not possible, special construction and materials should be considered to keep the flangeway depth and width to a minimum. Pavement should be maintained so ridge build-up does not occur next to the rails. In some cases, timber plank crossings can be justified and can provide for a smoother crossings. where hazards to bicyclists cannot be avoided, appropriate signs should be installed to warn bicyclists of the danger. All railroad crossings are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). All new bike path railroad crossings must be approved by the CPUC. Necessary railroad protection will be determined based on a joint field review involving the applicant, the railroad company, and the CPUC. The presence of cattle guards along any roadway where bicyclists are expected should be clearly marked with adequate advance warning. 5. Hazard Markings. Vertical barriers and obstructions, such as abutments, piers, and other features causing bikeway constriction, should be clearly marked to gain the attention of approaching bicyclists. This treatment

should be used only where unavoidable, and is by no means a substitute for good bikeway design. An example of a hazard marking is shown in Figure 5-24. Signs, reflectors, diagonal black and yellow markings, or other treatments will be appropriate in other instances to alert bicyclists to potential hazards. 6. Lighting. Bikeway lighting should be considered long routes where nighttime riding is expected. This is particularly important for bike paths serving as commuter routes, such as paths leading to colleges. Adequate lighting is also important at bike path crossings of streets and for underpasses. Normally, on-street bikeways will be adequately lighted if street lights exist. Fixed-source lighting reduces conflicts along paths and at intersections. In addition, lighting allows the bicyclists to see the bicycle path direction, surface conditions and obstacles. Lighting should also be considered through underpasses of tunnels, and when nighttime security could be a problem. Depending on the location, average maintained horizontal illumination levels of 0.5 foot-candle (5 lux) to 2-foot candles (22 lux) should be considered. Where special security problems exist, higher illumination levels may be considered. Light standard (poles) should meet the recommended horizontal and vertical clearances. Luminaries and standards should be at a scale appropriate for a pedestrian or bicycle path.

REFERENCES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

California Highway Design Manual, Section 1000 Arizona Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines Austin Bikeway Design Manual State of Oregon Bicycle Master Plan Development of a City-Wide Bicycle Route Plan Camarillo Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines Victoria, Australia FHWA RD 74-56

CHAP10A&B/BMP 5/1/91

CHAPTER TEN - UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

A.

UNIFORM SIGNS, MARKINGS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 1. Introduction. Bikeway signs and markings should be standardized to provide universal comprehension or understanding by bicyclists and motorists alike. The State of California Traffic Control Devices Committee has developed standards which have been approved by the State Department of Transportation and recommended for use by cities and counties. Also, the Federal Highway Administration Manual on "Uniform Traffic Control Devices" contains a section dealing with bicycle facilities. Per Section 2376 of the Street and Highways Code, uniform signs, markings, and traffic control devices shall be used. As such this section is mandatory, except where permissive language is used. See the State Traffic Manual for detailed specifications. 2. Maintenance. Bicycle signs and markings should be properly maintained to command respect from both the motorist and the bicyclist. When installing signs and markings on bicycle facilities, care should be taken to maintain these devices. Colors. The use of colors for bicycle facility traffic control devices should conform to the color code for signs and markings. This in part is as follows: YELLOW--General Warning RED--Stop or prohibition BLUE--Service guidance GREEN--Indicated movements permitted, direction guidance BROWN--Public recreation and scenic guidance ORANGE--Construction and maintenance warning BLACK--Regulation

3.

WHITE--Regulation 4. Class I (Bike Path). An optional 4-inch yellow skip stripe maybe placed to separate opposing directions of travel. A 3-foot stripe with a 9-foot space is the recommended striping pattern, but may be revised, depending on the situation. Also, the 4-inch yellow solid stripe may be used to define the Bike Path centerline. (See Chapter V, Section A-3). Standard regulatory, warning, and guide signs used on highways may be used on bike paths, as appropriate (and may be scaled down in size). Special regulatory, warning, and guide signs may also be used to meet specific needs. White painted word (or symbol) warning markings on the pavement may be used as an effective means of alerting bicyclists to approaching hazards, such as sharp curves, barrier posts, etc. 5. Class II (Bike Lanes). Bike lanes require standard signing and pavement markings as shown on Figure 6-1. The R81 bike lane sign shall be placed at the beginning of all bike lanes, on the far side of every arterial street intersection, at all major changes in direction, and at maximum half-mile intervals. Bike lane pavement markings shall be placed on the far side of each intersection, and may be placed at other locations as desired. Note: This requirement is being considered for a modification to read that "markings shall be placed at the far side of each major intersection..." Raised pavement markers or other raised barriers shall not be used to delineate bike lanes. Also, thermoplastic paint shall not be used for pavement marking, as the paint surface is extremely slippery when wet. The G93 (D11-1) Bike Route sign may also be used along bike lanes, but its primary purpose should be to provide directional signing and destination signing where necessary. A proliferation of Bike Route signs along signed and striped bike lanes serves no useful purpose. Many signs on the roadway also will apply to bicyclists in bike lanes. Standard regulatory, warning, and guide signs used specifically in conjunction with bike lanes are shown in Chapter 4 of the State Traffic Manual. Presently, signing standards inform neither the bicyclists nor the motorist of an upcoming change of lane conditions at some types of intersection,

therefore, additional information/warning is needed. Figure 5-15 depicts several right turn only situations. Note: Sign numbers in parentheses refer to the Federal Highway Administration manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Other sign numbers refer to the California Department of Transportation, Traffic Manual.

In an effort to inform both the motorist and bicyclist of a forthcoming change in traffic conditions of the Class II Bikeway at specific intersections Sacramento County has devised a new R81 series signs. These signs are intended for use on bike lane streets at signalized intersections. (See Sign Section.)

6.

Class III (Bike Routes). Bike routes are shared routes and do not require pavement markings. IN SOME INSTANCES, A FOUR-INCH WHITE EDGE STRIPE SEPARATING THE TRAFFIC LANES FROM THE SHOULDER CAN BE HELPFUL IN PROVIDING FOR SAFER SHARED USE. This practice is particularly applicable on rural highways, and on major arterials in urban area where there is no vehicle parking. Bike routes are established through placement of the G93 (D11-1) Bike Route sign. Bike route signs are to be placed periodically along the route. At changes in direction, the bike route signs are supplemented by G33 (M7) directional arrows. Typical bike route signing is shown on Figure 6-2. The figure shows how destination signing, through application of a special plate, can make the Bike Route sign more functional for the bicyclist. This type of signing is recommended when a bike route leads to a high demand destination (e.g. downtown, college, bike parking, etc.). Many signs on the roadway also will apply to bicyclists. Standard warning and guide signs used specifically in conjunction with bike routes are shown in Chapter 4 of the State Traffic Manual.

B.

SPECIFIC TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 1. Signs: a. Application of Signs. Bicycle-use related signs on highways and bikeways serve three basic purposes: regulating bicycle usage, directing bicyclists along preestablished routes, and warning of unexpected conditions. Care should be taken not to install too many signs. A conservative use of regulatory and warning signs is recommended as these signs, if used to excess, tend to lose their effectiveness. The frequent display of guide signs, however, aids in keeping the bicyclist on the designated route and does not lessen their value. Some signs for the bicyclist can also serve the motorist and the pedestrian. Location and Position. Where signs are to serve both bicyclists and motorists, mounting heights and lateral placement shall be as specified. Figure 6-3 illustrates typical signing placement for bicycle trails. Overhead sign clearance on bicycle trails shall be a minimum of 8 feet. The clearance provided should also be adequate for the typical maintenance vehicles used on the bikeway. Where signs are for the exclusive use of bicyclists, care should be taken that they are located so that motorists are not confused by them.

b.

c.

Design. The design of signs for bicycle facilities should be identical to that for motor vehicle travel. Uniformity in design includes shape, color, symbols, wording, lettering, and illumination or reflectorization.

Standardization of these signs does not preclude further improvement by minor changes in the proportion of symbols, stroke width, and height of letter, or width of borders. However, all shapes and colors shall be as indicated, all symbols shall be unmistakably similar to those shown and (where a word message is applicable) the wording shall be as provided herein. The sign dimensions shown shall be considered standard for application on all types of bicycle facilities. Where signs are intended for exclusive bicycle use, smaller sign sizes from that specified may be used. All signs should be reflectorized for bicycle trails as well as for shared roadway and designated bicycle lane facilities. d. Regulatory Signs. Regulatory signs are to inform bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists of traffic laws or regulations and indicate the applicability of legal requirements that would not otherwise be apparent. Regulatory signs normally shall be erected at the point where the regulations apply. The sign message shall clearly indicate the requirements imposed by the regulations and shall be easily visible and legible to bicyclists and where appropriate, motorists and pedestrians. (1) Bicycle Prohibition Sign R95 (R5-6)--Figure 6-12. This sign is intended for use at the entrance to facilities, such as freeways, where bicycling is prohibited. Where pedestrians and motor-driven cycles are also prohibited from using these facilities, it may be more desirable to use the R44 (R5-10a) word message sign. In reduced size (18 x 18 inches), this sign may be used on sidewalks where bicycle riding is prohibited. (2) (3) Motor Vehicle Prohibition Sign R44A (R5-3)--Figure 6-15. This sign is intended for use at the entrance to a bicycle trail. Bicycle Restriction Signs R62C (R9-5 & 6)--Figure 6-15. This series of signs is intended for use where pedestrian facilities are being used for bicycle travel. They should be

erected off the edge of the sidewalk, near the crossing location, where bicyclists are expected to dismount and walk with pedestrians while crossing the street. The (R9-5) sign may be used where bicycles can cross the street only on the pedestrian walk signal indication. Note: See sign plates at end of chapter. The (R9-6) sign may be used where bicycles are required to cross or share a facility used by pedestrians and are required to yield to the pedestrians. (4) Designated Lane Signs (R3-16 & 17)--Figure 6-13. The(R316) sign should be used in advance of the beginning of a marked designated bicycle lane to call attention to the lane and to the possible presence of bicyclists. The (R3-16) and (R3-17) signs should be used only in conjunction with the Preferential Lane Symbol pavement marking and erected at periodic intervals along the designated bicycle lane and in the vicinity of locations where the preferential lane symbol is used (Section 6-B2C). Where appropriate, the message ENDS may be substituted for AHEAD on the (R3-16) sign and LEFT or CURB can be substituted for RIGHT on the (R3-17) sign. (5) Travelpath Restriction Signs (R9-7)--Figure 6-13. The (R97) sign is intended for use on facilities which are to be shared by pedestrians and bicycles on which a designated area is provided for each. Two of these signs may be erected backto-back with the symbols reversed for the opposite direction. STOP and YIELD Signs R1 and R1-2 (R-1-1,2)--Figure 612. STOP signs are intended for use on bicycle facilities where bicyclists are required to stop. Where conditions require bicyclists and not motorists to stop, care should be taken to place the sign so it is not readily visible to the motorist. YIELD signs are intended for use where the bicyclists can see approaching traffic and where bicyclist must yield the right of way to that traffic. The visibility of approaching traffic must be adequate to permit the bicyclist to stop or to take other measures to avoid that traffic.

(6)

For added emphasis STOP and YIELD signs in regular 30 x 30-inch and 36 x 36 x 36-inch sizes may be used. The smaller signs as shown are intended for use on bicycle trails where bicyclists are required to stop or yield the right of way. If the sign applies to motorists and bicyclists, then the size should be full dimensions. (7) No Parking/No Stopping Signs R26, R28 (R7-9, & 9a)-Figure 6-14. Where it is necessary to restrict parking, standing, or stopping in a designated bicycle lane, appropriate signs as may be used, or signs (R7-9) or (R7-9a) shall be used. Also the State sign series R26 and R28 may be used at these locations. Lane-Use Control Signs R-18 (R3-7,R4-4)--Figure 6-13. Where right turning motor vehicles must merge with bicycle traffic on designated bike lanes, the R-18 or (R4-4) signs may be used. The (R4-4) sign is intended to inform both the motorist and the bicyclist of this merging maneuver. Where a designated bicycle lane is provided near the stop line, an (R3-7) sign may be used to prevent motorists from crossing back over the bike lane. Bike Lane Sign R-81--Figure 6-16. The BIKE LANE sign R81 shall be placed at the beginning of each designated Bike Lane and along each Bike Lane at the far side of every arterial street intersection, at all major changes in direction, and at maximum one-half mile intervals. Bike Lane Sign R81A--Figure 6-16. The BEGIN BIKE LANE sign R81A may be used below the R81 to mark the beginning of the bike lane. Bike Lane Sign R81B--Figure 6-16. The END BIKE LANE sign R81B may be used below the R81 to mark the end of the bike lane. End Bike Lane-Use Sidewalk or Traffic Lane Sign R81C (Sacramento County)--Figure 6-18. At signalized intersections the END BIKE LANE--USE SIDEWALK OR TRAFFIC LANE sign R81C shall be installed prior to the termination of the bike lane stripe where the sidewalk is in place. The normal location is 200 feet from the intersection.

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

A driveway or a curb ramp should be available for the bicyclist to enter the sidewalk. (13) End Bike Lane-Use Traffic Lane Sign R81CT (Sacramento County)--Figure 6-18. At signalized intersections the END BIKE LANE--USE TRAFFIC LANE sign R81CT shall be installed prior to the termination of the bike lane stripe where there is no sidewalk. The normal location is 200 feet from the intersection. Bike Use Sidewalk or Traffic Lane Sign R81Ca (Sacramento County)--Figure 6-18. At signalized intersections the BIKE USE SIDEWALK OR TRAFFIC LANE sign R81Ca shall be installed at the far side of an intersection when sidewalk is in place and there is insufficient pavement width to start the bike lane stripe at the crosswalk or curb return. Bike Use Traffic Lane Sign R81Ta (Sacramento County)-Figure 6-18. At signalized intersections the BIKE USE TRAFFIC LANE sign R81Ta shall be installed at the far side of an intersection where there is no sidewalk and there is insufficient pavement width to start the bike lane at the crosswalk or curb return. End Bike Lane Sign EBL (Sacramento County)--Figure 6-17. The purpose of this sign is to notify the bicyclist that he may use the sidewalk as an extension of an on-street bike lane where there is insufficient roadway width to continue the bike lane on the street. This sign is placed where the bike lane terminates mid-block. Bikes May Use Sidewalk Sign BMUS (Sacramento County)-Figure 6-17. The purpose of this sign is to notify the bicyclist that the designated bikeway continues on the sidewalk. Bikes Use Frontage Road Sign BUF (Sacramento County)-Figure 6-17. The purpose of this sign is to notify the bicyclist that he should ride on the frontage road. This sign is placed only when there is insufficient pavement width to accommodate a designated bike lane within the main roadway.

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

e.

Warning Signs. Warning signs are used when it is deemed necessary to warn bicyclists or motorists of existing or potentially hazardous conditions on or adjacent to a highway or trail. The use of warning

signs should be kept to a minimum because the unnecessary use of them to warn of conditions which are apparent tends to breed disrespect for all signs. Warning signs specified cover most conditions that are likely to be met. If other warnings are needed, the signs shall be of standard shape and color for warning signs, and the legends shall be brief and easily understood. (1) Bicycle Crossing Sign W79 (W11-1)--Figure 6-23. The BICYCLE CROSSING sign is intended for use on highways in advance of a point where a bikeway crosses the roadway. It should be erected about 750 feet in advance of the crossing location in rural areas where speeds are high, and at a distance of about 250 feet in urban residential or business areas, where speeds are low. If the approach to an intersection is controlled by a traffic control signal, stop sign or yield sign, the W11-1 sign may not be needed. (2) (3) Xing Plate Sign W80--Figure 6-23. The XING plat should be used below the standard W79 sign. Hazardous Condition Sign (W8-10)--Figure 6-22. The HAZARDOUS CONDITION sign is intended for use where roadway or bicycle trail conditions are likely to cause a bicyclist to lose control of his bicycle. These conditions could include slippery pavement, slick bridge decking, rough or grooved pavement, or water or ice on the roadway. The (W8-10) sign may be used with a supplemental plaque describing the particular roadway or bicycle trail feature which might be of danger to the bicyclist such as SLIPPERY WHEN WET, STEEL DECK, ROUGH PAVEMENT, BRIDGE JOINT, or FORD. Turn and Curve Signs W1, W2, W3, W4, W5, W14--Figures 6-19 & 6-20. On bicycle trails where it is necessary to warn bicyclists of unexpected changes in path direction, appropriate turn or curve signs should be used. They should normally be installed no less than 50 feet in advance of the beginning of the change of alignment. Intersection Signs W7, W8, W9 (W2-1, 2, 3, 4, 5)--Figures 619 & 20. Intersection signs are intended for use as

(4)

(5)

appropriate to fit the prevailing geometric pattern on bike trails where connecting routes join and where no STOP or YIELD signs are required. They should be used wherever sight distance at the intersection is severely limited, and may be used for supplemental warning at intersections where STOP and YIELD signs are erected. (6) Other Warning Signs (W17, W28, W41, W34, W45, W47, W54--Figures 6-21 & 22. Other warning signs may be required on bicycle facilities to warn riders of unexpected conditions. The intended use of these signs generally is selfexplanatory. They should normally be installed no less than 50 feet in advance of the beginning of hazards. Where construction or maintenance activity is present on bicycle trail, appropriate signs should be used. f. Guide Signs. On highways where a bicyclist is sharing a lane with motor vehicles or is using an adjacent bikeway, the regular guide signing will serve both modes of travel. Where a designated bikeway exists, special bicycle route signing should be provided at decision points along the bikeway, including signs to inform cyclists of bicycle route direction changes and confirmatory signs to ensure that route direction has been accurately comprehended. Figure 6-4 shows an example of the signing for the junction of a bicycle trail with a highway. Figure 6-5 shows the signing and marking for the beginning and ending of designated bikeways. Guide signing should be repeated at regular intervals to ensure that bicyclists approaching from side streets know they are traveling on an officially designated bikeway. Similar guide signing should be used for shared lane bikeways with intermediate signs placed frequently enough to ensure that cyclists already on the bikeway do not stray from it and lose their way.

(1)

Bicycle Route Sign G93 (D11-1) Figure 6-24. This sign is intended for use where no unique designation of routes is desired. It

should be placed at intervals frequent enough to keep bicyclists informed of changes in route direction and to remind motorists of the presence of bicyclist (2) Bicycle Route Markers (M1-8, M1-9) Figure 6-24. Where it is desired to establish a unique identification (route designation for a state or local bicycle route, the standard Bike Route Marker (M1-8) should be used. The route marker (M1-8) shall contain a numerical designation and shall have a green background with at reflectorized white legend and border. Where a bicycle route extends for long distances in two or more states, it is desirable to establish a unique numerical designation for that route. A coordinated submittal by the affected states for assignment of route number designation should be sent to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol Street NW. Suite 225, Washington, DC 20001. The route marker (M1-9) shall contain the assigned numerical designation and have a black legend and border with a reflectorized white background. Bike route markers are intended for use on both shared facilities and on designated bikeways, as border. (3) Supplemental Plaques for Route Signs and Route Markers G93A, G93B, G33, G34, G35, G38, G44, G45 Figure 624. Where desired, supplemental plaques can be used with the G93 and (M1-8) signs to furnish additional information, such as directional changes in the route, and intermediate ramps range distance and destination information. The G93A and B and G33 through G45 signs may be mounted with the appropriate arrow sign G34 through G45, if used, should be placed below the route sign or route marker. These signs shall have a white arrow on a green background. Bicycle Parking Area Sign G93C (D4-3) Figure 6-24. The BICYCLE PARKING AREA sign may be used where it is desired to show the direction to a designated bicycle parking area within a parking facility or at other locations. The sign shall be a vertical rectangle of a standard size of 12 by 18 inches. It shall carry a standard bicycle symbol,

(4)

the work Parking, and an arrow. The legend and border shall be green on a reflectorized white background.

2. MARKINGS a. Functions and Limitations of Markings. Markings are important on roadways that have a designated bicycle lane. Marking indicated the separation of the lanes for motor vehicle and bicycles, assist the bicyclist by indicating assigned travel paths, and can provide advance information for turning and crossing General Principles. Although bicycle are generally not equipped with strong lighting equipment, the added visibility of reflectorized pavement markings is desirable even where there is exclusive use by bicyclists. Markings shall be relectorized on bicycle trails and on facilities used by both motor vehicles and bicycles. Recognized bikeway design guides should be used when laying out markings for a bicycle lane on a highway facility. Figures 6-6 through 6-8, show acceptable examples of the application of lines, word messages and symbols on designated bikeways with and without parking for motor vehicles. Marking Patterns and Colors. Where bicycle paths are of sufficient width to designate two minimum width lanes, a broken yellow lines may be used to separate the two directions of travel. Broken lines used on bicycle paths should have the normal 1 to 3 segment-to-gap ratio. To avoid having gaps excessively long, a nominal 3-foot segment with a 9-foot gap is recommended. (1) Word Messages and Symbols Applied to the Pavement. Where messages are to be applied on pavement, smaller size letters can be used on exclusive bike lanes than are used on regular highways. Where arrows are needed, halfsize layouts of the arrows can be used. Pavement Legends. The standard pavement legends shall be the words Bike Lane supplemented by an arrow showing the direction of travel. The letter should have a minimum height of four feet. The bicycle symbol may be used in place of Bike Lane. Consideration should be given to precut pavement legends in areas of higher traffic volumes.

b.

c.

(2)

Bike lane pavement markings shall be placed on the far side of each intersection, and may be placed at other locations as desired. Note: There is a movement in progress which would require bike lane pavement markings on the far side of major intersection only. (3) Striping. A six-inch wide solid white line shall be used to separate a Class II bike lane from a motor vehicle lane. Parking lines may be used to help keep parked vehicles from encroaching on the bike lane and discourage vehicle use of the right-hand area as a lane. Parking lines shall be 4-inch wide solid white lines. Bike lane stripping may begin at the end of the curb return or crosswalk. The stripe may end a t the curb line, crosswalk or stop bar of an intersecting street, depending upon existing traffic controls. The recommended taper length of a traffic lane, constructed in the direction of travel, is: Length of Taper = (speed limit) x (offset). The minimum bike lane line length is 75 feet. A 4-inch yellow skip or solid centerline may be used on Bike Path (Class I) facilities. Bike routes shared routes and do not require pavement markings. In some instances, a 4-inch wide edge stripe separating the traffic lanes from the shoulder can be helpful in providing for safer shared use. This practice is a particularly applicable on rural highways, and on major arterials in urban areas where there is no vehicle parking. At all signalized intersections in Sacramento Countys jurisdiction, the bike lane stripe shall be terminated approximately 200 feet from the stop bar on the approach lane. (4) Object Markings on Bicycle Trails. There may be hazardous objects located adjacent to bicycle trails and, if visible to the rider, can be avoided with little difficulty. Such objects can be marked with highly visible markings to make their identification by approaching riders more certain. Care should be taken to avoid having object markers become hazardous objects. Corners of object markers as well signs should be rounded to prevent their

becoming a hazard. All object markers should be designed using reflective materials or coatings. Where practical, markers such as those described in the Caltrans Traffic Manuel should be used. Where a storm drain hazard can not be eliminated, it may be made more visible to bicyclists by defining with a white marking applied as shown in Figure 5-24.

3. Traffic/Bicycle Signals a. Introduction. The City/County has expressed a desire to be responsive to the bicyclists needs. The following points summarize the primary concerns of the bicycle interests (not necessarily in order of importance): (1) Existing traffic signal systems should be made responsive to bicycle traffic in much the same manner as they are responsive to motor vehicles traffic. The City/County does not currently provide specific detection systems for bicycles except in rare instances. Efficiency of the traffic signal systems is very important; therefore, modifications to these systems should be made with accessibility to bicyclists and efficiency in mind. Changes in the traffic signal systems to enhance their usefulness by bicycles should not be made at the expense of the majority of road users Bicyclists suggested the following possible ways of achieving the equity that they desire: (a) (b) Make the traffic signals responsive to bicycle traffic. Mark the detectors at the intersections so that the bicyclists will now where to ride in order to activate the signal.

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

b.

Summary. The recommended detector types are State standard types already in existence. The key to successful bicycle detection

is to use the right type for a given location and to properly adjust the electronic sensitivity of the unit. A brief summary is: (1) On an interim basis, adjust the sensitivity of existing detectors and install pedestrian push buttons in certain cases. All new traffic signal systems designs should specifically address the need to service bicycle traffic and the means by which this is to be accomplished. Vehicle detectors should be designed so that they are sensitive enough to detect all traffic, including bicycles, and detectors for the exclusive use of bicycles should be installed in bike lane approaches to the intersections. Type D (modified quadrupole) and Type Q (quadrupole) (Figure 6-9) detector loops should be the standard configurations to be used alone or in combination with Type A loops. Through traffic lanes that are shared by motor vehicles and bicycles should use Type D (modified quadruplole) loops. Detectors at the stop line that are used for presence or calling purposes are considered to be shared detectors. Advance detectors on arterials will not be expected to be shared by bicyclists; therefore, Type A loops are recommended.

(2)

(3)

(4) Pedestrian push buttons should only be used in locations where it is not possible to reliably detect the presence of bicycle traffic or as an interim measure to ensure safe passage of bicycles until adequate detection systems can be installed. (5) Induction loops should be marked (Figure 6-10) at locations where the sensitivity is critical or where detections is not reliable achieved when the bicyclists ride in the approach lane in a position that is appropriate. c. Bicycle Detection Currently In Use. There are a number of jurisdictions, cities, counties, and states that employ strategies to either detect the presence of bicycles at traffic signals or provide some other means by which the bicyclists can effect the operation of the signal so that the right-of-way can be transferred to the approach that they are using. The more prominent ones are as follows:

(1)

Inductive Loop Detectors (Figure 6-9). Existing loop detectors and detector amplifiers are being used to detect bicycles in traffic lanes and in left turn only lanes. Although this is technically achievable and can be done quite reliably, it depends upon the proper design and location of the loop and proper placement of the bicycle on the loop detector. This requires some knowledge of the location of the detector and how it works by the bicyclist. As an example, a square loop, Caltrans Type A, should be ridden over about three (3) feet to the left or right of the center of the lane while a quadrupole detector (Type Q) should be ridden over in the center of the lane. Where there are bike lanes, detectors are being placed where the bicycle is expected to ride. The area to be detected is confined and reliable detection is achievable. Sometimes these detectors are marked with a symbol to give added guidance to the bicyclists.

(2)

Pedestrian Push Button (Figure 6-11). Pedestrian push buttons are currently being used by bicyclists in the Cities of Davis, Cupertino, Santa Cruz, Huntington Beach, and others. They are installed on the cross street facing the traffic or bike lanes for use by bicyclists desiring to cross the major street or in the left turn only lanes facing the bicyclists wishing to make left turns from those lanes. In general, the push button calls the pedestrian interval timing for the phase to be used. The advantage of this is that the bicyclist is guaranteed the same amount of this that the bicyclist is guaranteed the same amount of time that a pedestrian would get, provided, of course, that the button is used. The disadvantage is that most bicyclists require less time to cross than a pedestrian and some efficiency of operation is lost. bicyclists. The City of Sunnyvale uses a device they call a bicycle timer to provide minimum time for bicyclists that is greater than the vehicle minimum and shorter than the pedestrian interval. Their device is currently activated by push buttons and will respond to the bicyclists needs even when the signal is already timing the green interval of a phase. Pedestrian push buttons should be regarded as supplements to adequate detector systems, not replacements for them. Push buttons on the right side of the roadway should be

placed far enough in advance of the stop line so that the bicyclists desiring to go straight across can activate the signal and then move safely to the left of right turning vehicles. (3) Marking of Loop Detectors. Any detector marking scheme employed should be self evident, requiring no additional signing or information. It should be obvious to the bicyclists as well as the motorists, what the symbol stands for and should not be in conflict with or be confused with other standard pavement markings or legends. The symbol should be simple in design, easy to paint and repaint without blurring the image, and reasonably inexpensive. The symbol in Standard Alphabets of Highway Signs and Pavement Markings published by the U.S. Department of Transportation appears to meet the criteria for simplicity and clarity.

d.

Bicycle Detector Analyses. The most prevalent types of traffic signal detector systems are magnetic detectors, magnetometer detectors and inductive loop detectors. (1) Inductive Loop Detectors (Figure 6-9). Existing loop detectors and detector amplifiers are being used to detect bicycles in traffic lanes and in left turn only lanes. Although this is technically achievable and can be done quite reliably, it depends upon the proper design and location of the loop and proper placement of the bicycle on the loop detector. This requires some knowledge of the location of the detector and how it works by the bicyclist. As an example, a square loop, Caltrans Type A, should be ridden over about three (3) feet to the left or right of the center of the lane while a quadrupole detector (Type Q) should be ridden over in the center of the lane. Magetometer Detectors. Magetometer detectors will not perform as well as inductive loop detectors because the amplifiers are not as sensitive. All of the features of the inductive loop detector are available such as long, medium, and short-term presence and various sensitivity levels. These systems, in fact, have no real faults and only one (1) serious limitation. The area of detection is confined around the detector probe and the number of probes per amplifier channel is limited to two (2). In order to adequately cover a lane for detecting bicycles, Three (3) or four (4) probes should be used. This requires two (2)

(2)

amplifiers and additional probes to detect one (1) lane. At this point the magnetometer is not as cost effective as the inductive loop. There are special occasions where the magnetometer detector will be advantageous to use. Detection on top of or even underneath bridge structures are such locations. The magnetometer detectors should be considered for use in special situations where the inductive loop itself could cause structural problems or where reinforcing steel or steel beams might shield the effects of the inductance shift required to detect bicycles and/or vehicles. (3) Inductive Loops. The inductive loop detector is by far the most popular detection system. This system is being used to detect vehicles of all description from bicycles to the largest of trucks. There are three basic elements to inductive loop detectors systems: 1) the loop(s), 2) the lead-in cable, and 3) the detector amplifier. The basics of the system are that when any vehicle enters the area of influence of the air core inductor, it creates eddy currents. The eddy currents cause changes in the electrical properties of the loop. These changes are measured, and, if they are of a sufficient magnitude, the equipment creates the switch closure to activate the traffic signal controller. Loops come in all varieties of size, shape, and number of turns of wire. The number of turns and size of wire will determine the sensitivity of the loop and its ability to detect bicycles.

e.

Combination Bicycle/Vehicle System. The combination bicycle/vehicle detector system is one where a vehicle detector that was designed to accommodate motor vehicles is compromised at the amplifier through tuning to also detect bicycles. The price to be paid for this compromise is often adjacent lane detection. The sensitivity of the detector amplifier is tuned to the higher levels and the area in which motor vehicles can be detected spills into the adjacent lane. If the lane is for vehicles traveling in the same direction, then the consequences are fairly minimal. However, when the lane is a left turn only lane or a lane for traffic in the opposite direction, this causes the intersection to operate inefficiently. Bicycle Detector Location. Detectors for bicycles must be placed in a position on the roadway where bicyclists can be expect to ride. On streets with bike lanes this is really an easy task. The bike lane area can be covered adequately by a quadrupole detector that will sense the presence of any bicycle as long as it is ridden in the lane.

f.

The adjacent traffic lane will not respond to this detector s a result of the cut-off characteristics of the quadrupole loop. Placement of bicycle detectors in advance of an intersection is done in at least two (2) ways. The detector is placed in advance of the intersection in the same manner as the vehicle detector is placed. The distance from the stop line is determined by 1) approach speed, 2) reaction time, and 3) stopping distance. The distance of 50 feet + is based on an average approach speed for bicycles of 16 mph. This method is particularly useful on arterial approaches where the phase is usually recalled and vehicles approaching will usually be seeing a green signal. A similar system utilizes a detector placed in advance of the stop line and another detector placed at the stop line. When the bicycle is detected on the first loop, extension time is provided to hold the signal green until it reaches the second, or loop closest to the stop line. When the detection is made at the second loop, extension time is again provided to be sure that the bicyclist is far enough into the intersection to safely clear before the end of the clearance interval (yellow plus any all-red indication). Detectors on minor approaches to the intersection should be placed at the stop line in position where bicyclists are known to rid. In general, this will be near the right-hand edge of the roadway, except on one-way street. Where bicyclists desire to cross the major street there should be space enough between the detector and curb so that right turns by vehicles can be made on the right side of the bicyclist. This configuration is a prime candidate for detector locating marking. g. Interim Bicycle Detection Improvements. Interim measures are those things that can be done immediately and at a relatively small cost to improve the usability of traffic signals by bicyclists. Intersections should be prioritized and those serving the most bicyclists should be reviewed first. Traffic signals adjacent to all schools and other identified bicycle traffic generators will be high on the priority list. The order of work should be as follows. (1) (2) Adjust the existing detector amplifier to a higher sensitivity level. If this fails or causes other problems such as adjacent lane detection, adjust the minimum time on the phase and/or place that phase on recall. This is a temporary measure until (3) below can be done. Check the terminal blocks and loop splices. Test the loop and lead-in combination for:

(3) (4)

(a) (b) (c) (5) (6)

Initial loop frequency Stability of frequency Accuracy of frequency change

Install a new detector amplifier on the existing loop system. Mark the loop on the edge of a square detector and in the center of a quadrupole detector and in the center of a quadrupole detector with a symbol that represents a bicycle.

(7) Install pedestrian push buttons, with bicycle signs, facing the traffic side of the signal pole. h. Policy and Recommendations. The California Vehicle Code grants to the bicyclist all of the rights and privileges of a motor vehicle to operate upon the roadway. The bicyclist is subject to all of the duties and responsibilities of a motor vehicle in exchange for the rights and privileges. When a motor vehicle approaches a traffic signal, the driver has a reasonable expectation that within a certain amount of time the traffic signal will respond and the rightof-way will be transferred to that approach. The bicyclist, having been granted the rights of a motor vehicle, has the same expectations, which are also reasonable. The technical means by which these expectations are met need to be identical to those applied to motorists; however, they should be recognized and satisfied as a matter of policy. The policy of the City/County of Sacramento should be to make all traffic signals usable by bicyclists through the use of traffic detector systems or other devices that will detect the presence or passage of bicycles of the lightest variety. This policy should be implemented at the earliest possible date while having due regard for fiscal constraints. Interim measures should be implemented on existing traffic signal systems and maintained until such time as other required improvements can be made. All new traffic designs should specifically address the need to service bicycle traffic and the means by which this is to be accomplished. Vehicle detectors should be designed so that they

are sensitive enough to detect all traffic, including bicycles, and detectors for the exclusive use of bicycles should be installed in bike lane approaches to the intersections. The incremental cost of adding these features is so small as compared to the overall project costs that their addition should be design feature that satisfies policy. Type D (modified quadrupole) and Type Q (quadrupole) detector loops should be the standard configurations to be used alone or in combination with Type A loops. Bike lanes that require narrow areas of detection and sharp cut-off properties should have Type Q (quadrupole) loops. These loops should cover as much of the lane as possible. The edges of the loop should be installed one (1) foot to the right of the bike lane and six (6) inches from the gutter lip. Pedestrians push buttons should only be used by bicyclists in locations where it is not possible to reliably detect the presence of bicycle traffic or as an interim measure to ensure safe passage of bicycles until adequate detection systems can be installed. Inductive loops should be marked at locations where the sensitivity is critical or where detection is not reliably achieved when the bicyclists rides in the approach lane in a position that is appropriate. Bicyclists auxiliary timing devices should be considered in special cases such as crossing very wide arterials where long minimum times are deter mental to efficiency. They should be connected to the inductive loop detector amplifiers or to pedestrian style push buttons.

CHAP11A/BMP 4/15/91 CHAPTER ELEVEN - USER SURVEY A. CITY/COUNTY BICYCLE INFORMATION SURVEY 1. Survey Background. During the spring of 1988 the Bikeway Task Force discussed the desirability of conducting a Bicycle Information Survey to include the City/County population. Also, the City Council and the County Supervisors had mandated that the Bikeway Task Force conduct the Bikeway Master Plan revision utilizing to the greatest extent possible, citizen input. It was decided to obtain three basic types of bicycle information: a. Bicycle Count and Classification. We wanted to know what percentage of the population in this area owned bicycles. Also, this was an opportunity to determine the types of bicycles in use. Bicycle Usage. The Task Force believed it was important to collect data about the age and sex of our bicycle ridership. In conjunction we ask what types of bike trips were generated and the estimated average monthly bicycle mileage traveled. Bikeway Planning. The Bikeway planning section consisted of 10 questions. Question 1 dealt with seven items to be ranked in the importance of where to ride a bicycle. Question 2 asked the rider to rank in the order of importance what locations bikeways should serve. Questions 3 thru 10 were answered yes or no and dealt with items supporting bicycling.

b.

c.

2.

Survey Methodology a. Who to Survey. It was decided a random sample mailout survey would best serve the needs. We wanted a survey to reach a crosssection of the total population. How to Conduct the Survey. The County mails utility bills to about 190,000 customers during an eight-week cycle. Approximately oneeighth of the total bills are mailed each week. One thousand Bicycle Information Survey Questionnaires were inserted into each weekly utility billing cycle for a total mailout of 8,000 survey forms. The City mailed out a total of 2,000 survey forms to a random sample of addresses at one time.

b.

c.

Developing the Questions. Questions were developed to fit the predetermined format. Also, the Staff had decided the survey answers must be such that they could be tabulated on a computer spreadsheet. The Questionnaire. Three general groups of questions were developed and placed in boxes on the questionnaire. We attempted to make it attractive and added pictures of bicycle types for clarification. A draft was circulated to staff members for review and comment. This served as the field test and was an important step. (See Appendix E for a sample of the Questionnaire.) Data Collection. City/County survey forms were coded such that the week of mailing could be easily identified and from that information we could tell the general areas of response. All data was tabulated by the week of mailing. We made the decision to sum all data and therefore mask the variation of the responses by geographic areas. All survey forms were printed with our mailing address using a prepaid permit number. The responder was to fill out the form and drop it into the mail. It is desirable to make the response as simple and easy as possible.

d.

e.

3.

SURVEY RESULTS: a. General. The City mailed 2,000 survey forms and 178 forms were returned for a return rate of 8.9 percent. The County mailed 8,000 survey forms and 861 forms were returned for a return rate of 10.8 percent. The composite return rate for the City/County Bicycle Survey was 10.4 percent. This rate is considered very good by the experts in the field of surveys. Section A, Bicycle Count and Classification. (See Appendix E for Data Sheets.) The total of 1,039 survey forms which were received from residents included those which did not own bicycles as well as those with bicycles. We attempted to obtain a valid cross section of the total population of the City/County, however, the probability exists that the bicycle owner/serious rider would be more inclined to answer and return the Survey than those with some disdain for bicyclists. No attempt was made to analyze this disparity. The tabulation indicates that 95 percent of the people in the City/County own a bicycle. In fact, one survey was returned with two people in the household and indicating ownership of 68 bicycles. Further investigation revealed that he was a collector and restorer of

b.

old bicycles. Many of the returned surveys from serious bicyclists indicated that they owned two or more bicycles per person. Table 2 of the Demographics Section indicates the City/County population to 1,026,800 which would project a current total bicycle ownership of 975,460. The year 2010 estimated population form Table 3 is 1,388,000 which would increase the total bicycle ownership to 1,313,800. c. Section B, Total Bicycle Usage. (See Appendix E for Data Sheets.) Again, it is important to emphasize that the tabulated data includes all responders including those who do not own bicycles. Also some responders make very few short trips on a monthly average. We had one respondent that claimed to ride an average of more than 3,000 miles per month, and several who averaged 1,000 miles per month. The survey summary indicates that the total City/County residents averaged 15 bicycle trips per month which equals 63.8 miles per month. This yields a bicycle mileage for each person in the City/County of 766 miles per year. Even though this seems to be excessively high, we assume it is correct for those who returned the survey forms. Section C1, Bikeway Planning. (See Appendix E for Data Sheets.) This question consisted of seven factors which determine where people would prefer to ride bicycles, and the respondent was to rank them in order of importance. Question C1a C1b C1c C1d C1e C1f C1g e. Factor No "On-street" Parking Least Auto Traffic Bike Path, No Autos Painted Bike Lanes Best Maintained Bikeway Shortest Route Trees and Shade Ranking Not important Very important Most important Important Important Least important Not important 6th 2nd 1st 3rd 4th 7th 5th

d.

Section C2, Bikeway Planning. (See Appendix E for Data Sheets.) This question included five destinations for bicycle trips, and the respondent was to rank them in order of importance. Question C2a C2b C2c C2d Destination Schools Shopping Work Parks Ranking Important Important Most important Very important 3rd 4th 1st

C2e f.

Library

Least important

5th

Section C3-10, Bikeway Planning. (See Appendix E for Data Sheets.) These questions were developed to sample public support for various bicycle programs. Response Question % Yes % No 21 7 8 19 38 46 56 52

(3) Do you know where designated bikeways 79 are in your community? (4) Would you support a program which would improve bicycle safety? (5) Would you support a bicycle safety program in classrooms? (6) Support increased law enforcement to reduce bicycle accidents? (7) Would you support mandatory bicycle registration? (8) Would you increase bike trips if secure storage was available? (9) Would you increase bike trips if RT would transport your bike? (10) Would you increase bike trips to work it secure storage was available? 4. Survey Conclusions a. 93 92 81 62 54 44 48

Section A - Bicycle Count. As reported, 95 percent of all residents of the City/County own a bicycle. There are 2.97 persons per household (Table 4 of the Demographics Section lists 2.51 persons per household in 1990). Fiftythree percent of the total bicycles owned are lightweight multispeeds, followed by 17 percent mountain bikes. The rate of bicycle ownership as reported is very high which indicates that Sacramento City/County is a very attractive bicycling community from the standpoint of weather and terrain. Therefore, it is very desirable to improve and expand upon the quantity, quality, and safety of our bikeway system.

b.

Section B - Bicycle Usage. Of the total 3,084 survey respondents, 2,168 people are bicycle riders, which indicate that approximately 70 percent of the total City/County residents participate in bicycling. The matrix of 52 percent males and 48 percent females is evenly divided. Approximately 80 percent of the total bicycle trips are recreational/exercise with work trips contributing 12 percent of the total bicycle trips. Section C1 - Bikeway Planning. By far the most important facility as requested by the bicycling community was additional Class I Bike Paths. Unfortunately, Class I facilities are the most expensive to build and the most difficult to secure satisfactory locations for construction. The Bikeway Master Plan Revision will attempt to recommend Class I bikeways at all feasible locations. The designation of bikeway streets with lower traffic volumes was also very high on the desirability list. Section C2 - Bikeway Planning. The most important destinations for bicyclists were Parks (1st) and Schools (2nd). Therefore, the Bikeway Master Plan Revision will emphasize bikeways, which serve these destinations. Section C3-10 - Bikeway Planning. We were pleasantly surprised to learn that 79 percent of the respondents knew where the designated bikeways were in their community. The improvement of bicycle safety is supported by 93 percent of the respondents. This Bikeway Master Plan revision will deal with improving safety for the bicycling public. It appears that 81 percent of the public would support increased law enforcement in an attempt to reduce bicycle accidents. A special program to achieve this end will be included in the bikeway master plan revision. Questions 7 thru 10 did not develop a definite mandate from the respondents.

c.

d.

e.

B. AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY CLEANER AIR PARTNERSHIP: 1. Survey Background. Between January 23, 1989, and February 16, 1989, JD Franz Research conducted 1,208 interviews in Sacramento County on public attitudes toward air quality and transportation. The survey was designed and implemented by the Cleaner Air Partnership of Sacramento in conjunction with JD Franz Research, for the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Management. The purpose of the survey was to set a baseline for future public education programs on smog and transportation habits in the Sacramento area.

The sample for the survey was selected through a computer-generated random digit dialing method to ensure random selection. It is a large sample, and this sample size has a margin of error of 2.8 percent for a dichotomous variable exhibiting a 50-50 distribution. The margin of error for a dichotomous variable with a 90-10 distribution is 1.7 percent. The City and County subsamples have margins of error of less than five percent (5%) for 50-50 and 90-10 distributions. Of the 1,208 residents actually interviewed, 1,106 owned and operated a vehicle. These 1,106 residents were asked a battery of questions about their beliefs regarding air quality and their own transportation habits. Highlights of the public opinion survey as related to bicycling are included in this preliminary report. 2. Highlights of the Cleaner Air Partnership Public Opinion Survey on Air Quality and Transportation Habits: a. b. c. Over 80% of Sacramento residents believe smog is a serious problem that causes people in Sacramento to have trouble breathing on smoggy days. Over 95% recognized that cars, trucks, and vans are a part of the smog problem; with 42% identifying them as the major cause. However, only a third (34%) of Sacramento's residents believe they will personally have to change something they do in order for the Sacramento area to have clean air.

3.

Beliefs About Clean Transportation a. The Cleaner Air Partnership is asking Sacramentans to help clean up the air by driving less--32% of those with cars believe they will have to drive less to help clean up the air. Drivers picked the following ways to reduce smog as most convenient: 31% - buy a vehicle that uses a different fuel 21% - carpool or van pool 19% - take bus or light rail 12% - bicycle 12% - Walk 5% - none of the above, depends, don't know, other c. Fifty-three percent (53%) of the drivers say they could choose not to drive their car at least some of the time. -Instead of the car, 40% would walk, 21% would ride a bike, 17% would take transit, and 13% would carpool Regarding safety, drivers gave: (1) Good marks to carpools (78% said it is safe to car or vanpool);

b.

d.

(2) Good marks to public transit (73% said it was safe to use public transportation; (3) Lower marks to walking (59% said it is safe; 35% said safe to walk to work; and (4) Lower marks to bicycling (33% said it is safe and 25% said safe to bike to work. 4. Use of Cleaner Transportation a. b. In the last year, 48% of Sacramento's drivers have used a bicycle at least once, while 28% ride at least three times a month. Of worker commuting to work who do have a car, the usual way to get to work is: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) c. 75% drive alone 15% carpool/vanpool 2% bus/light rail 2% bike 2% walk 4% other/depends

Of workers commuting to work who do have a car, at least once in the last years: (1) (2) (3) (4) 9% have taken the bus to work 5% have taken light rail to work 21% have carpooled to work 12% have bicycled to work

d.

Almost two-thirds of Sacramento area residents own bikes.

OPINSUR retyped 6-11-93 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY Total Percent 47.60 52.40 City Percent 46.90 53.10 County Percent 48.40 51.60

Frequency 1. Used a bicycle in the past year? Yes No Total Used a bicycle to get to work? Yes No Total Used a bicycle for how many round trips? None Less than monthly Once Twice Three to seven Eight to seventeen Twenty to seventy-five Total 515 568 1,083 125 958 1,083 561 142 27 49 130 104 65 1,078

2.

11.50 88.50

14.30 85.70

8.90 91.10

3.

52.00 13.10 2.50 4.50 12.00 9.60 6.00

4. What most likely to do instead of driving (First Mention) None mentioned Walk Ride Bike Carpool Take bus, public transit Visit/shop less often Get ride from friend Stay home Consolidate trips Other Don't know Total 5. Five things people could do in the future to reduce smog--which is most convenient? Taking the bus or lgiht rail Walking Bicycling Car or vanpooling Buying vehicle that uses different fuel It depends on.... Rejects all alternatives Other Total

3 228 122 74 96 3 11 13 8 12 5 575

0.50 39.70 21.20 12.90 16.70 0.50 1.90 2.30 1.40 2.10 0.90

40.90 21.90 12.00 19.30 1.50 0.70 1.10 1.80 -

39.90 20.30 13.50 14.20 1.00 2.40 3.70 1.70 2.30 -

208 131 125 224 340 3 45 6 1,082

19.20 12.10 11.50 20.70 31.40 0.30 4.20 0.60

24.70 10.40 12.30 20.00 28.00 0.40 3.50

15.00 13.60 21.20 34.10 0.20 0.20 4.70 0.50

6.

How do you usually commute? Drive alone Ride motorcycle Carpool/vanpool Bus/light rail Ride a bicycle Walk It really depends/no pattern Other Total Is it safe to ride bike to work? Not Not very Safe N/A or Don't know Total Is it safe to walk to work? Not Not very Safe N/A or don't know Total Is it safe to travel by bike? (other than work) Not Not very Safe N/A or Don't know Total Is it safe to travel by walking? (other than work) Not Not very Safe N/A or Don't know Is it safe for cihld to ride bike? Not Not very Safe N/A or don't know Total Is it safe for child to walk? Not Not very Safe N/A or don't know Total Do you have a bicycle? Yes No Don't know Total

479 5 94 14 11 13 7 13 636

75.30 0.80 14.80 2.20 1.70 2.00 1.10 2.00

73.40 14.20 2.50 1.80 3.90 1.40 1.80

76.70 1.40 15.20 1.70 1.70 0.60 0.90 1.40

7.

244 177 161 54 636

38.40 27.80 25.30 8.50

33.00 28.40 31.20 7.40

43.10 27.30 20.40 89.00

8.

178 118 222 118 636

28.00 18.60 34.90 18.60

24.10 16.30 42.90 16.70

31.30 20.70 28.20 19.50

9.

215 436 359 73 1,083

19.90 40.30 33.10 6.70

17.80 38.30 37.00 6.80

21.10 41.90 30.30 6.60

10.

114 294 638 37

10.50 27.10 58.90 3.40

9.70 27.10 60.60 2.60

11.30 27.40 57.40 3.90

11.

96 144 116 31 387

24.80 37.20 30.00 0.80

24.30 37.10 31.40 7.10

24.80 37.40 29.30 8.50

12.

87 107 163 30 387

22.50 27.60 42.10 7.80

24.30 27.90 39.30 8.60

21.50 27.60 43.90 6.90

13.

771 434 1 1,206

63.90 36.00 0.10

62.30 37.70 -

65.20 34.60 0.10

14.

Live in the City? City Balance of county Total Highest grade completed Refused Graduate degree Some graduate school College degree (4 year) Some college Special/technical training High school graduate Some high school 8th grade or less No schooling Total Racial or Ethnic background? Refused Caucasian/white Black Hispanic/Mexican-American Asian-American American Indian Filipino Other Total Total Annual Income Refused Under $15,000 $15,000-$29,999 $30,000-$44,999 $45,000 or more Don't know Total

515 682 1,197 12 67 51 195 375 22 375 77 29 1 1,204

42.80 56.60

100.00 -

100

15.

1.00 5.60 4.20 16.20 31.10 1.80 31.10 6.40 2.40 0.10

26.00 32.10 41.90

26.50 34.20 39.30

16.

18 953 70 78 47 17 3 18 1,204

1.50 79.20 5.80 6.50 3.90 1.40 0.20 1.50

1.90 70.70 9.10 8.90 5.60 1.60 0.20 1.90

0.40 86.20 3.40 4.70 2.60 1.20 0.30 1.20

17.

94 178 304 256 335 37 1,204

7.80 14.80 25.20 21.30 27.80 3.10

8.30 18.30 27.00 21.20 21.40 3.90

6.50 12.30 24.20 21.60 33.00

18.

Sex Male Female Total 572 634 1,206 47.40 52.60 48.30 51.70 46.60 53.40

CHAP12 4/19/91 CHAPTER TWELVE - PARKING A. BICYCLE PARKING & AMENITIES 1. Introduction. Secure and convenient bicycle parking is a major factor which would encourage the use of bicycles. This is of particular concern to the commuter that must leave the bicycle for an extended length of time such as 8 to 10 hours while they are at work. Prior to leaving for work a bicycle commuter must feel confident that a secure parking space will be available for his or her bicycle. Also, the cyclist must feel confident that the bicycle will be where it was left, available for the return trip. Many people with bicycles would use them more if additional secure bicycle parking were available. Bicycles left unattended are prone to vandalism and theft. Bicycle components such as handle bars, computers, seats, pedals, brakes and derailleurs are as likely to be stolen as the bicycle itself. Bicycle parking systems have been developed which offer adequate security, especially when location is in a well lighted, visible area. Bike racks of the type which allow the front and rear wheels of the bicycle, as well as the frame, to be secured to them should be available. The racks should be anchored to the paved or concrete surface on which they are located. Racks of this type should be provided at key locations along bike paths and bike lanes as well as adjacent to: Work places Public buildings Schools Shopping centers, regional and neighborhood Parks Theaters Churches Hospitals Convenience stores Business parks 2. Bicycle Parking Benefits: a. To encourage bicycling, thereby reducing traffic congestion, noise, air pollution, and energy consumption.

b. c. d.

To reduce bicycle and bicycle component thefts and vandalism. To reduce sidewalk hazards for pedestrians caused by improperly parked bicycles on sidewalks. To prevent damage to brakes, wheels, and derailleurs (which could occur from improper parking), thereby reducing potential traffic hazards.

e. To provide secure accommodations for user's locking devices. 3. Bicycle Parking Principles: a. Since bicycles are small and relatively easy to steal, bicycle parking should be located in highly visible locations. Locate bicycle parking within view of windows, parking fee collection booths, parking security guards or in areas of high pedestrian traffic. It is in the public interest to encourage bicycle use. Bicyclists should receive priority parking locations. Bicycles should be able to be parked closer to one's destination than cars. Put parking near the building entrance that bicyclists will be using, not behind the building. Bicycle parking should look like bicycle parking and be identified with a sign. The parking facilities should be easy to understand and use, and especially for low racks, be easily visible to pedestrians to avoid accidents. Keep bike parking out of the way of pedestrians. Don't put bike parking next to car parking without adequate protection. Physically separating bicycle parking from car parking protects bicycles and bike racks from damage by cars. The most preferred bike parking is protected from the weather. Users of bicycle parking facilities should not be charged a fee where automobile parking is free. When a fee is charged, the amount should be significantly less than the cost of the car parking. Generally, it is appropriate to charge for bicycle lockers and for attended racks. This charge should be such that it encourages bicycle use.

b.

c.

d. e.

f. g.

4.

Planning Bicycle Parking and Signing:

a.

Determine the type of bicycle parking users at each location. (1) (2) (3) Adult office employees with expensive bicycles will require a very high degree of parking security. School-age children with inexpensive bicycles may be satisfied with "wheel bender" racks in a fenced enclosure. Short-term shoppers may have a wide variety of bicycles requiring both high and medium security storage facilities. Racks should accommodate U-Locks. The level of security required will depend upon the type of bicycle rider being served. The number of bicycle parking spaces required may be somewhat of a guess. An informal survey of potential users may be of assistance. Allow space to move around parked bikes. Also, plan for expansion of the parking area. The zoning ordinances included in this chapter stipulate bicycle parking requirements for new construction. Bike parking facilities can cost anywhere from $30 per bike space to $300 per space. Budget bike parking funds to furnish adequate facilities for the type of and quantity demand anticipated. Some modest parking fees may be acceptable for Class I parking facilities. Proper signing is very important to direct bicycle riders to parking facilities. Key locations on public streets as well as the parking facility should be signed with standard bike parking signs. Also, post special parking instructions and names of persons to contact to use the facility. The BIKE PARKING sign (G93C) should be used to identify bicycle parking at Park and Ride lots and should be used at other bicycle parking facilities. The sign is to be placed at or near the parking area where the sign can be easily seen by traffic on the adjacent street.

(4) (5)

(6)

(7)

B.

CLASS I BICYCLE PARKING FACILITY (HIGHEST SECURITY): Class I parking protects against theft of the entire bicycle, its components and accessories, and protects the bicycle from inclement weather, including wind-driven rain.

1.

Inside a Building. A bicyclist may take the bicycle inside the building where it can be constantly observed. A locked room to which access is restricted to no more than six or eight owners of bicycles parked within is another option. Class II or Class III bicycle parking should be provided within such a shared facility.

2.

Bicycle Parking Cage. This is normally a steel or wood frame open structure with sides and top of chain link fence or expanded sheet steel to permit continual security inspection. The interior of the parking cage can accommodate Class II or Class III parking racks. A bicyclist must obtain a key to the entrance door. If the cage is not inside a building, it should have a solid roof to protect bicycles from the weather. Lockers. A locker is fully-enclosed space accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle. This type of facility is useful where the bicycle is left unattended for an extended period of time such as at transit stops, multifamily housing units, schools and colleges, activity centers, employment centers, theaters, and public buildings. Check-in. With a check-in parking system, the bicycle is delivered to and left with attendant(s) with provision for identifying the owner of the bicycle. The stored bicycles are accessible only to the attendant(s). (A multi-level, computer-operated bicycle parking garage in Kasukabe, Japan, has the capacity to store 1,556 bicycles on twelve shelves. A robot crane parks the bicycle, which is later retrieved when the owner inserts a previously issued card.) NOTE: The current (1989) County Code describes only the locker as a Class I bicycle parking facility.

3.

4.

C.

CLASS II BICYCLE PARKING FACILITY (HIGH SECURITY): Class II parking consists of a stationary rack that secures the frame and both wheels of the bicycle. The bicyclist need only provide a padlock. The padlock is further protected by an enclosure to prevent it from being cut. The rack should support the bicycle firmly and in a stable position. This support may be provided at both wheels and the frame, or the bicycle may be locked to a chain while leaning on its kickstand or a post or wall. To permit easy access to the bicycle locking device, rack installations should allow 18 inches minimum between two bicycles, and 24 inches between pairs. A one-foot distance is also necessary between the rack locking mechanism and abutting walls,

fences, posts, or other objects. An aisle three feet wide or more should be provided to permit bicycles to enter and leave the parking facility. D. CLASS III BICYCLE PARKING FACILITY (MEDIUM SECURITY): This class provides a stationary object upon which a bicycle frame and both wheels may be secured with a user-provided 6-foot cable or chain and lock. An "O" ring welded to a steel post is an example of a Class III bicycle parking. Class III parking should meet the support and clearance requirements described for Class II. E. BICYCLE PARKING AND REGIONAL TRANSIT: Combining bicycles with transit can enhance transit ridership. Class I bicycle parking facilities should be provided at major bus and rail stops. Provisions for carrying bicycles should be provided on transit vehicles when feasible. The door-todoor convenience of the bicycle with bicycle conveyance on transit vehicles provides a practical means of traversing longer distances than most people are willing to travel by bicycle alone. Bike racks have been attached to buses in some cities, and in many locations bicycles are permitted on board buses as well as on trains. Airlines exhibit a wide range of bicycle acceptance. Regional Transit is in the process of implementing a program, which will issue bicycle permits. With this permit bicycles will be allowed on RT vehicles and trains with some limitations during peak hours. Bicycle lockers are presently owned and operated by RT at some rail stops. Current demand exceeds the availability of lockers at major light rail stations. Therefore, it would be advantageous for both RT and the bicyclists if more lockers were provided and those at underutilized locations be relocated. A reasonable but sufficient rental fee should be charged which would encourage serious commuters to use the facilities or bike/RT commuting. Also, additional advertising and bike locker maintenance is essential for a successful program. F. ZONING ORDINANCE - BICYCLE PARKING: CHAPTER 30, ARTICLE 6, SACRAMENTO COUNTY ZONING CODE: 1. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements. a. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided as follows:

BIKESPACE/15 4/15/91

BICYCLE SPACES FOR

USE Commercial office & service Uses not otherwise Listed EMPLOYEES 1 bicycle space for every 25 vehicle spaces required 1 bicycle spaces for every 50 vehicle spaces required 1 bicycle space for every 25 vehicle spaces required PATRONS OR VISIOTRS 1 bicycle space for every 33 vehicle Spaces required 0

BICYCLE PARKING FACILITYCLASS

EMPLOYEES Class 1 lockers, Or Class II racks in an enclosed to a minimum height of 6 feet and lockable Class 1 lockers, Or Class II racks in an area enclosed
to a minimum height

PATRONS OR VISIOTRS Class II racks

Dinner restaurants cocktail lounges

N/A

of 6 feet and lockable 0 Class 1 lockers or Class II racks in an enclosed lockable area N/A

Industrial

b. c.

In no case shall there be fewer than two employee bicycle spaces and two patron or visitor spaces unless specifically exempt. Where the application of the above table results in the requirement for a fraction of a bicycle parking space, such a space need not be provided unless the fraction exceeds fifty (50) percent. Where the application of the above table results in the requirement of fewer than six employee spaces, Class II racks need not be placed within an enclosed lockable area.

d.

2.

Design Standards. Bicycle parking facilities shall be installed in a manner, which allows adequate spacing for access to the bicycle and the locking device when the facilities are occupied. General space allowances shall include a two (2) foot width and a six (6) foot length per bicycle and a five (5) foot maneuvering space behind the bicycle. The facilities shall be located on hard, dust-free surfaces, preferably asphalt or concrete slabs. Variances. Variances from bicycle parking requirements may be heard pursuant to the provisions set forth in Title I, Chapter 10, Articles 1 and 2 of this Code. Factors to be considered during variance hearings include: the location of the site with respect to the urban area, the nature and hours of operation of the proposed use, the accessibility of the site by bicycle at the present and in the future.

3.

G.

ZONING ORDINANCE - BICYCLE PARKING, SECTION 6 - CITY OF SACRAMENTO: 1. Off-street Parking Regulations: a. Minimum Dimensions - Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking facilities shall be installed in a manner which allows adequate spacing for access to the bicycle and the locking device when the facilities are occupied. Space allowances shall include a two (2) foot width and a six (6) foot length per bicycle and a five (5) foot maneuvering space behind the bicycle. The facilities shall be located on hard dust-free surfaces, such as asphalt or concrete slabs.

2.

Special Requirements (Amended Ordinance 81-061): a. Central Business District. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6-A of this Ordinance, the following off-street parking regulations governing the number of required vehicle parking spaces and bicycle

parking facilities shall apply in the C-3 Central Business District Zone. (1) Office Uses: Subject to the provisions of Section 6-D-1-c, required off-street vehicle parking and bicycle parking facilities for office uses in the C-3 zone shall be provided as follows: (a) Bicycle Parking: The minimum number of required off-street bicycle parking facilities within the Central Business District shall be as follows: [1] Office: One bicycle parking facility is required for every ten (10) off-street vehicle parking spaces, both on-site and off-site required after any vehicle parking reduction measures are approved. Fifty percent (50%) of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be Class I. The remaining facilities may be Class I, Class II or Class III. Hotel and Motel: One bicycle parking facility is required for every fifty (50) off-street vehicle parking spaces, both on-site and offsite, required after any vehicle parking reduction measures are approved. Fifty percent (50%) of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be Class I. The remaining facilities may be Class I, Class II, or Class III. Apartments: One bicycle parking facility is required for every twenty-five (25) off-street vehicle parking spaces required, both on-site and off-site. Fifty percent (50%) of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be Class I. The remaining facilities may be Class I, Class II, or Class III. Developments which provide an individual enclosed garage for each unit are exempt from this requirement. (Ordinance No. 83-041, April 5, 1983).

[2]

[3]

3.

Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements (Ordinance No. 83-041, April 5, 1983:

a.

Except as provided in Section 6D-1-B-(5) of this Ordinance, the following minimum off-street bicycle parking facilities shall be required for all new or expanded developments. (1) Office: One bicycle parking facility is required for every fifteen (15) off-street vehicle parking spaces required. Fifty (50) percent of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be Class I. The remaining facilities may be Class I, Class II, or Class III. Medical Clinic or Office: One bicycle parking facility is required for every thirty (30) off-street vehicle parking spaces required. Fifty (50) percent of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be Class I. The remaining facilities may be Class I, Class II, or Class III. Hospitals: One bicycle parking facility is required for every fifty (50) off-street vehicle parking spaces required. Twentyfive (25) percent of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be Class I. The remaining facilities may be Class I, Class II, or Class III. Commercial: One bicycle parking facility is required for every twenty-five (25) off-street vehicle parking spaces required. Twenty-five (25) percent of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be Class I. The remaining facilities may be Class I, Class II, or Class III. Restaurant: One bicycle parking facility is required for every fifty (50) off-street vehicle parking spaces required. Twentyfive (25) percent of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be Class I. The remaining facilities may be Class I, Class II, or Class III. Hotel and Motel: One bicycle parking facility is required for every fifty (50) off-street vehicle parking spaces required. Twenty-five (25) percent of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be Class I. The remaining facilities may be Class I, Class II, or Class III. Industrial: One bicycle parking facility is required for every twenty-five (25) off-street vehicle parking spaces required. Fifty (50) percent of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be Class I. The remaining facilities may be Class I, Class II, or Class III.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Apartments: One bicycle parking facility is required for every ten (10) off-street vehicle parking spaces required. Fifty (50) percent of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be Class I. The remaining facilities may be Class I, Class II, or Class III.

H.

ZONING ORDINANCE - SHOWER AND LOCKER FACILITIES, CHAPTER 30, ARTICLE 7, SACRAMENTO COUNTY: 1. Shower and Locker Facilities. All major development projects shall provide shower and locker facilities for use by employees or tenants who commute to the site by bicycle or walking. Such facilities shall be clearly indicated on all development/improvement plans. The use of such facilities shall be provided at no cost to the user, except that at any development where a fee is charged for employee parking, the use of shower and locker facilities may be assessed at a charge not to exceed one-half the charge for employee parking. One shower and eight lockers shall be provided for each 200 employees or fraction thereof, based on the equivalent development size data in Section 330-142. The design and/or management of the shower and locker facilities shall provide for access by both male and female employees.

I.

ZONING ORDINANCE - SHOWER AND LOCKER FACILITIES, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH E, TRIP REDUCTION REGULATIONS - CITY OF SACRAMENTO: 1. Shower and Lockers: The applicant may provide shower and locker facilities for the workers of the development to encourage bicycle commuting. The applicant shall specify the number of and location of such facilities and whether user fees will be imposed.

J.

ZONING ORDINANCE - PARKING REDUCTIONS, CHAPTER 30, ARTICLE 1, SACRAMENTO COUNTY: 1. Parking Reductions: A proponent of an office, commercial or industrial project may provide alternative facilities or programs which serve to reduce parking demand in return for a reduction in vehicle parking requirements. Vehicle parking requirements may be reduced in accordance with the following provisions: a. Shower/Locker Facilities: Developments with 100 or more employees may reduce their parking requirement by providing shower and clothing locker facilities for bicycle commuting employees. Maximum reduction: 2 percent of required parking.

b.

Secure Bicycle Parking: Developments which provide additional secure bicycle parking facilities over-and-above the minimum requirement may reduce their parking requirement by one (1) vehicle space for every three (3) additional bicycle spaces provided. Maximum reduction: 2 percent of required parking.

CHAP13A/BMP 7/15/91 CHAPTER THIRTEEN - COSTS A. 1. BIKEWAY COSTS: Class I (Bike Path): a. Abbreviated standards used for developing the cost per mile: (1) Widths: (a) (b) (c) (d) (2) Minimum: Recommended: Minimum: Recommended: 2-way path 8 feet 2-way path 12 feet 2-foot wide graded shoulder 3-foot wide graded shoulder

Clearance: (a) Minimum: 2-foot horizontal clearance (b) Recommended: 3-foot horizontal clearance (c) Vertical clearance - minimum 8 feet

(3)

Striping & Signing: (a) (b) (c) (d) Optional yellow centerline, 3-foot stripe, 9-foot skip 4-inch edge stripe 1 foot from continuous fixed object Appropriate signs, i.e. yield, stop, and signals; speed, crossing Painted legends may be used.

(4)

Structural Section: (a) 2-inch minimum asphaltic concrete, with a high asphalt content (b) Aggregate base as necessary (c) Soil Sterilization of basement soil

(5)

Drainage: (a) Minimum 2% cross slope (b) Ditch as necessary (c) Culverts and catch basins as necessary

b.

The BMP Class I Bike Path construction cost per mile is $100,000 and the implementation cost per mile is $960 per mile. These cost factors were

jointly developed by the City/County Public Works Departments, the County Parks Department, and the City Parks and Recreation Department. Because bike path construction is a complicated and highly variable operation, it is impossible to develop uniform cost per mile for estimating purposes to cover all situations. Therefore, the following cost elements are specifically excluded: (1) (2) (3) (4) 2. Real Estate Fencing Structures Landscaping

Class II (Bike Lane): a. Abbreviated standards used for developing the cost per mile: (1) Widths: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (2) Bike lane with parking - 5 feet Combination bike lane and parking - 12 feet/vertical curb Combination bike lane and parking - 11 feet/rolled curb Minimum bike lane with improvements - 3 feet measured from lip of gutter Minimum bike lane without improvements-4 feet measured from edge of pavement

Striping: (a) (b) (c) Bike lane 6-inch solid white stripe Parking - 4-inch solid white stripe Bike lane pavement markings - far side of each intersection (Some Public Works Departments place at major arterials only.)

(3)

Signing:

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

G93 Bike Route signs at major arterials and change of directions Supplemental plaques, i.e., directional arrows, destination information, and G93A or G93B Bicycle Parking (G93C) as appropriate R81 Bike Lane Signs, far side of arterial intersection and all signalized intersections Warning signs as appropriate

b.

The BMP Class II Bike Lane implementation cost per mile is $2,500. The City/County Public Works Departments developed this cost factor jointly. The cost factor does not include the removal of obstructions, pavement repairs/patching, or pavement widening to accommodate bike lane installation. Current County Street Standards provide sufficient pavement width for Class II Bike Lanes on all new construction. Also, reconstruction projects are providing the additional pavement width as required for Bike Lanes. This additional road pavement is being provided without being charged to a special bikeway funding account. Therefore, for purposes of the Bikeway Master Plan cost projections it is assumed the same practice will continue.

3. a.

Class III (Bike Route): Abbreviated standards used for developing the cost per mile: (1) Widths: (a) Minimum width not defined, a shared facility with motor vehicles on the street or with peds on the sidewalk (sidewalks not recommended). Minimum widths are dependent upon volume and type of traffic, typical speeds, vertical and horizontal alignment, sight distance, and parking.

(b)

(2)

Striping: (a) (b) Shared routes do not require pavement markings. A 4-inch white edge stripe between the traffic lanes and the shoulder may be used: 1) on rural highways, and 2) major arterials with no parking.

(3)

Signing: (a) Bike routes are established by placing G93 Bike Route signs periodically along the route and at changes in direction supplemented by G33 arrows and G93A and B signs, as required.

(b) b.

Other standard warning and guide signs may be used in conjunction with bike routes.

The BMP Class III Bike Route implementation cost per mile is $500. This cost factor was developed jointly by the City/County Public Works Departments. All specific details as discussed in the Section 2 - Bike Lanes of this chapter also apply to bike routes.

B. 1.

BIKEWAY MAINTENANCE COSTS: Maintenance Program Factors. Bikeways serve to enhance bicycle safety and convenience when a maintenance program is implemented that include: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. Frequent sweeping Elimination of roadway obstacles Repairing edge breakup Repairing damaged curb and gutter Mowing of adjacent areas Fall leaf removal Elimination of surface irregularities Pavement slurry sealing Asphalt concrete overlays Trimming roadside plantings Selective herbicide treatments Drainage improvements Fence repair Gate and barrier

Develop the maintenance cost per mile for the following: Class I Class II Class II 2. Primary Task and Secondary Task Primary Task and Secondary Task Primary Task and Secondary Task

For purposes of Bikeway Master Plan cost projections, the following assumptions have been made: a. b. c. All costs are at today's dollar values--no inflation escalation factors are included. That the five-year and ten-year programs will be implemented on a uniform pro rata mileage basis. That the signing, striping, and painting renewal costs will be applied to the entire in service mileage at one-half cost for a two-year renewal frequency and one-third cost for a three-year renewal frequency.

CL1COSTS 7-15-91 3. Class I Bikeway Implementation and Maintenance Cost Worksheet22 a. Construction Cost per mile (excluding major structures, right-of-way, and fencing) b. Implementation Striping, signing, painted legends Cost per mile 3 years, etc.) Cost per mile per year in service c. Primary Maintenance Sweeping, breakup, repair, mowing, leaf removal, etc. Cost per mile per year d. Secondary Maintenance Surface repair, trailside trimming, herbicide treatment, drainage, fence/barrier repairs Cost per mile per year e. Ranger Patrol Cost per mile per year f. Total Maintenance Cost Per Mile Per Year $ 1,900* $ 6,380* $ 1,500* $ 2,500* $ 480* $ 960 $100,000

22

Costs prepared by Rick Carunchio

CL2COSTS 7-15-91

4.

Class II Bikeway Implementation and Maintenance Cost Worksheet23 a. Implementation (excluding major construction) Striping, signing, painted legends Cost per C/L mile Renewal frequency (i.e. 2 years, 3 years, etc.) Cost per mile per year in-service $ 2,500 3 years $ 830*

b.

Primary Maintenance Break-up repair, mowing, leaf removal Cost per C/L mile per year Sweeping, weekly, per C/L mile Sweeping, monthly per C/L mile Sweeping, (40 times) per year, per C/L Mile Sweeping, (10 times) per year, per C/L Mile Weekly (30%) ($35) (52 weeks) Monthly (70%) ($40) (12 months) $ $ $ 100 35 40

$ 1,400 $ $ $ 400 546* 336*

c.

Secondary Maintenance Surface repair, trimming roadside plantings, herbicide treatment Cost per C/L mile per year $ 200*

d.

Total Maintenance Cost Per Mile Per Year

$ 1,912*

23

Costs prepared by Augie Bodhaine and Larry Beaver

CL3COSTS 7-15-91

5.

Class III Bikeway Implementation and Maintenance Cost Worksheet24 a. Implementation (excluding construction) Striping (optional), signing, painted legends Cost per C/L mile without stripe Renewal frequency (i.e. 2 years 3 years, etc.) Cost per mile per year in-service $ 500 3 years $ 167*

b.

Primary Maintenance Break-up repair, mowing, leaf removal Cost per C/L mile per year Sweeping, weekly, per C/L mile Sweeping, monthly per C/L mile Sweeping, (6 times) per year, per C/L Mile Monthly (70%) $40 (12) Bi-monthly (30%) $40 (6) $ 75* $ 40 $ 480 $240 $ 336* $ 72*

c.

Secondary Maintenance Surface repair, trimming, herbicide treatment Cost per C/L mile per year $ 100* $750*

d.

Total Maintenance Cost Per Mile Per Year

24

Costs prepared by Augie Bodhaine and Larry Beaver

6. Develop a composite on-street per mile per year maintenance cost factor. A summary of several community areas including the five-year program plus the ten-year program yields Class II mileage is 69.91% of total on-street and Class III is 30.09% of total on-street mileage. Composite maintenance cost factor: Class II Class III On-Street Maintenance (cost per mile per year) 7. The five and ten-year program costs were developed as follows: a. Each bikeway segment cost as listed on the community spreadsheet is the product of the class unit price and the respective segment mileage. Note that a segment may be listed as Class III during the five-year period and upgraded to Class II during the ten-year period. Therefore, the total program costs listed by community are the actual projections by bikeway class and not a composite average. b. The on-street program cost per period (five year or ten year) is the total period cost less the off-street mileage times the construction factor of $100,000 per mile. This calculation yields the period implementation cost. For purposes of cost projection, it is assumed that the total program period mileage and cost would be accomplished on a pro rata basis. Therefore, the implementation cost per year for a period (five year or 10 year) is uniform for the entire program. The annual maintenance cost is the product of the on-street composite factor ($1,563 per year per mile) times the number of miles of bikeway in service at the end of the year. ($1,912) (70%) ($ 750) (30%) = = $1,338 225 $1,563

c.

d.

City of Sacramento
Year On street 5 year program Total of 146.69 miles - 29.34 miles per year 5 Yr Miles Implementation Maintenance
$54,117 $54,117 $54,117 $54,117 $54,117 $270,585 $45,855 $91,711 $137,566 $183,421 $229,276 $687,829

Yearly Total
$99,972 $145,828 $191,683 $237,538 $283,393 $958,414

1 29.34 2 58.68 3 88.01 4 117.35 5 149.69 5 YEAR TOTAL

Year
6 7 8 9 10

On street 10 year program Total of 113.22 miles - 22.64 miles per year 10 Yr 5 Yr Miles Miles Total miles Impl. Maint
22.64 45.29 67.93 90.58 113.22 10 YEAR TOTAL 146.69 146.69 146.69 146.69 146.69 169.33 191.98 214.62 237.27 259.91 $40,498 $40,498 $40,498 $40,498 $40,498 $202,490 $264,669 $300,062 $335,454 $370,847 $406,239 $1,677,271

Yearly Total
$305,167 $340,560 $375,952 $411,345 $446,737 $1,879,761

5/10 YEAR TOTALS

$473,075

$2,365,100

$2,838,175

City of Sacramento
Year Off street 5 year program Total of 12.64 miles - 2.53 miles per year 5 Yr Miles Implementation Maintenance
$226,520 $226,520 $226,520 $226,520 $226,520 $1,132,600 $16,129 $32,257 $48,386 $64,515 $80,643 $241,930

Yearly Total
$242,649 $258,777 $274,906 $291,035 $307,163 $1,374,530

1 2.53 2 5.06 3 7.58 4 10.11 5 12.64 5 YEAR TOTAL

Year
6 7 8 9 10

Off street 10 year program Total of 11.50 miles - 2.30 miles per year 10 Yr 5 Yr Miles Miles Total miles Impl. Maint
2.30 4.60 6.90 9.20 11.50 10 YEAR TOTAL 12.64 12.64 12.64 12.64 12.64 14.94 17.24 19.54 21.84 24.14 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 $1,150,000 $95,317 $109,991 $124,665 $139,339 $154,013 $623,326

Yearly Total
$325,317 $339,991 $354,665 $369,339 $384,013 $1,773,326

5/10 YEAR TOTALS

$2,282,600

$865,256

$3,147,856

North Natomas Area Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridges

CROSSING 1. Northgate Boulevard South of Elkhorn Boulevard 2. East Drainage Canal South of Elkhorn Boulevard 3. East Commerce Way South of North Loop Road 4. Interstate 80 East side of Natomas Main Drainage Canal 5. Truxel Road West side of East Drainage Canal 6. North Market Boulevard West side of East Drainage Canal 7. Del Paso Boulevard East at Drainage Canal 8. Northgate Boulevard North side of C-1 Canal 9. East Drainage Canal North side of C-1 Canal 10. Interstate 80 Between Truxel Raod and WAPA easement TOTAL COST $ 280,000 $ 150,000 $ 320,000 $ 400,000 $ 340,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 150,000 $ 400,000 $2,880,000

KY2-12.L

South Natomas Area Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridges

CROSSING 1. Unnamed Canal south of Rosin Boulevard At WAPA easement 2. Unnamed Canal south of Rosin Boulevard At Rio Largo Way 3. Unnamed Canal south of Rosin Boulevard At Rio Rosa Way 4. Unnamed Canal south of Rosin Boulevard At Bridgeford Drive 5. Unnamed Canal at south of I-8At bike trail east of Truxel Road 6. Natomas Main Canal South of I-80 7. Natomas Main Canal North of West El Camino 8. West El Camino East side of Natomas Main Canal 9. San Juan Road At WAPA easement 10. West El Camino Avenue At WAPA easement TOTAL COST $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 $1,240,000

KY2-12.L

Pocket Area Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridges

CROSSING 1. Pocket Canal (main branch) At Charter Pointe to Tidewater Court 2. Pocket Canal (northwesterly branch) At Seymour Park to Flowerwood Way 3. Pocket Canal (main branch) At Portigiesse Community park to Hidden Cove Circle TOTAL COST $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 105,000

KY2-1.2L

County of Sacramento
Year On street 5 year program Total of 480.15 miles - 96.03 miles per year 5 Yr Miles Implementation Maintenance
$161,043 $161,043 $161,043 $161,043 $161,043 $805,215 $150,095 $300,190 $450,285 $600,380 $750,474 $2,251,424

Yearly Total
$311,138 $461,233 $611,328 $761,423 $911,517 $3,056,639

1 96.03 2 192.06 3 288.09 4 384.12 5 480.15 5 YEAR TOTAL

Year
6 7 8 9 10

On street 10 year program Total of 353.49 miles - 70.70 miles per year 10 Yr 5 Yr Miles Miles Total miles Impl. Maint
70.70 141.40 212.09 282.79 353.49 10 YEAR TOTAL 480.15 480.15 480.15 480.15 480.15 550.85 621.55 692.24 762.94 833.64 $88,761 $88,761 $88,761 $88,761 $88,761 $443,805 $860,975 $971,476 $1,081,977 $1,192,478 $1,302,979 $5,409,885

Yearly Total
$949,736 $1,060,237 $1,170,738 $1,281,239 $1,391,740 $5,853,690

5/10 YEAR TOTALS

$1,249,020

$7,661,309

$8,910,329

County of Sacramento
Year 5 Yr Miles
0 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89

Off street 5 year program Total of 1.89 miles Implementation Maintenance

$0 $189,000 $0 $0 $0 $189,000 $0 $12,058 $12,058 $12,058 $12,058 $48,232

Yearly Total
$0 $201,058 $12,058 $12,058 $12,058 $237,232

1 2 3 4 5 5 YEAR TOTAL

Year
6 7 8 9 10

10 Yr Miles
0.00 5.17 5.17 5.17 5.17 10 YEAR TOTAL

Off street 10 year program Total of 5.17 miles 5 Yr Miles Total miles Impl.
1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 7.06 7.06 7.06 7.06 $0 $361,900 $0 $0 $0 $361,900

Maint
$12,058 $45,043 $45,043 $45,043 $45,043 $192,230

Yearly Total
$12,058 $406,943 $45,043 $45,043 $45,043 $554,130

5/10 YEAR TOTALS

$550,900

$240,462

$791,362

CHAP14A 7/16/91

CHAPTER FOURTEEN - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION A. INTRODUCTION:

1. Background. In the early part of this century there was no need for transit agencies to plan for access to their service. People had no option other than walking to their streetcars or trains. Perhaps they transferred to another streetcar or tram, but eventually they left the system and walked to their destination. Transit was simple, cheap, and convenient and nearly everyone used it, thus accepting a single standard of service for their fare. Transit systems of today, however, operate in a considerably more complex and diverse environment. Although integrating bicycles and transit is problematic, it is possible that transit systems could increase ridership by accommodating bicycles and providing bicycle facilities such as lockers.

B.

INTEGRATING BICYCLE-TRANSIT:
This section contains policies that will aid in the integration of bicycles and transit in Sacramento County. The benefits of integrating bicycles and transit are also described.

1.

Policies: a. b. To develop bicycle-transit facilities in areas which integrate land use and transit linkages. To provide bicycle-transit facilities in new and existing pedestrian and transit friendly developments.

2.

The following is a list of some of the benefits derived from the implementation of an integrated bicycle-transit program: a. b. c. d. Environmental benefits, such as reducing traffic congestion, noise, air pollution, and energy consumption. Cost effectiveness through better utilizing the current transit fleet. More widespread transit use in new and growing metropolitan areas. Holding down transit costs by increasing transit ridership, saving energy, reducing air pollution, traffic congestion, and preparing for future oil supply interruptions.

C.

BICYCLE-TRANSIT PROGRAMS:
The following is a brief discussion of the methodology for integrating the bicycle and public transit. Additionally, common technologies that have been applied to achieve the integration of bicycles and both rail and bus modes of public transportation are described. Sacramento Regional Transit efforts to accommodate bicycles are discussed at length in Section E of this chapter.

1.

Bike-On-Rail. Being lightweight and compact, bicycles can be readily carried aboard fixed rail cars. By combining the best features of both modes, bike-on-rail service can provide high quality metropolitan and intracity mobility without relying on petroleum-fueled transportation. While fixed rails offer fast and efficient transportation between limited origins and destinations, bicycles provide extensive access and egress opportunities which are not subject to the limits of local fixed rail service. There are basically two methods for accommodating bicycles on fixed-rail vehicles: a. The most common and cost effective bike-on-rail technology permits bicycles to be stored inside the passenger compartment of fixed-rail cars. b. A much more problematic technology relies on bicycle racks mounted on the front or rear of fixed-rail cars. Since commercially manufactured racks are not available, transit agencies choosing to utilize rail mounted racks must custom design and manufacture their own racks; furthermore, these agencies must modify their train schedules to allow adequate time for loading and unloading bicycles. As part of a comprehensive dual-mode system involving bicycles and rail and bus modes, a bike-on-rail program can play an important part. Secure bicycle parking at fixed rail boarding points enables more convenient access to local transit routes. However, unless bicycles can be carried on-board fixed rail, only frequently made egress trips can be accommodated by bicycles.

2.

Bike-on-Bus. Bike-on-bus, a relatively new concept, has taken several forms as transit agencies experimented with different technologies. More than a dozen transit agencies throughout the United States have adopted varying types of bikeon-bus programs since the early 1970's. However, most offer only limited service on one or two routes. There are basically four existing methods for accommodating bicycles on buses: a. The most common technology relies on bicycle racks placed on the outside rear of buses. Commercially available rear-mounted racks holding up to six bicycles are available.

b.

Front-mounted racks, accommodating up to three bicycles, are available commercially, but since most transit agencies have found these racks inadequate, most design and custom build their own custom front racks. Bicycle trailers towed behind mini-buses are feasible. Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (SBMTD) is the only agency that has utilized this technology in the United States. From 1979 to 1981 SBMTD used bicycle trailers in routes that serve colleges, the University of California;, routes where large buses were not feasible and bicycle ownership and use were high.

c.

d.

The simplest and most cost effective bike-on-bus technology permits bicycles to be stored inside the passenger compartments of buses. Bike-on-bus services are functionally similar to bike-on-rail programs, but often operate in much lower density corridors than rail transportation, thus expanding a bus route's access to transit deficient areas. Bike-on-bus programs can attract many passengers who would not otherwise be able to use public transit, particularly in suburban areas where minimal transit service exists.

D.

BICYCLE ACCESS TO TRANSIT PROGRAMS IN OTHER AREAS:

This section describes the successful bike-on-bus program that has been implemented in San Diego and the bike-on-rail program implemented in the San Francisco Bay Area. These programs generally feature secure parking facilities at transit stations, accommodation of bicycle carriers on transit vehicles, or a combination of the two.

1.

One of the most successful and The San Diego Transit (SDT) Program. progressive bike-on-bus programs in the United States began as a demonstration project by SDT and CALTRANS in 1976.25 The project was initially conducted to determine the feasibility and operational compatibility of attaching bicycle racks to city transit buses. The racks were attached to the outside rear of four transit buses, which operated on Route 9 between the San Diego CBD and the City of Coronado via the Coronado Bridge, which had no provisions for bicycle traffic. In fiscal year 1977, SDT added similar service on two additional routes, serving major shopping centers, the University of California at San Diego, and the

CALTRANS Distrit 11, Transit Bus-Bicycle Rack Demonstration Project, Multi Model Planning, San Diego, 1977
25

University of Pacific Beach. By 1981, SDT operated three routes with 16 racks accommodating buses in daily service to a substantial portion of San Diego's recreational areas. At present, 50 buses serving three routes are equipped to carry racks; there are 16 racks in daily use with three spares available. Correspondingly, the number of bicycles carried has grown from approximately 31,700 in fiscal year 1981 to approximately 43,000 in fiscal year 1990. SDT believes that the majority of the passengers currently using the bicycle rack system would not be riding the bus if the rack service were not available. 2. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Program - In 1975, the BART system began to allow bicycles to board its vehicles on a permit only basis during non peak hours; this program has grown to be the most utilized bike-on-rail program in the United States. By July 1980, more than 9,000 bike-on-rail permits had been issued. Strong community support and excellent safety record of the program prompted BART to relax restrictions on dual-mode travel in 1980. Permits were made available through the mail and bike-on-rail service was extended to peak period travel in the non-peak direction between most rail stations. By July 1989, more than 45,000 permits had been issued by BART. Denver Regional Transit (RTD) - Employees of RTD have access to six mountain bikes which give its workers an alternative to driving a car or even taking a bus. Buses are not the only answer to reducing our air pollution problem. Employees are encouraged to use the bicycles to travel between the agency's downtown office to the nearby District Operations Center. Also, employees can check out a bicycle for a leisurely lunch-hour ride or to complete errands in the downtown area. A helmet, tire patch kit, pump, and water bottle are included when an employee checks out a bike.

3.

E.

BICYCLES AND SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT (RT):

In the first quarter of 1990, Regional Transit initiated a three-month trial bicycle program. This program was initiated to show the general public that Regional Transit was committed to serve all aspects of the transit market in its service area. After the trial period, Regional Transit established its current bicycle program. To a great extent Regional Transit's bicycle-transit program is based on the BART program (Section D.2 of this chapter). However, the Regional Transit program applies to both fixed rail and bus modes of public transportation. Similar to the BART program, the Regional Transit program is a permit program. The following is an overview of the Regional Transit bicycle regulation program:

1.

Only passengers with a valid Regional Transit bicycle permit are allowed to board the Regional Transit system with a bicycle, both bus and light rail modes.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Bicycle permits must be displayed when boarding buses and upon request from Regional Transit employees when on board light rail vehicles. Boarding on both light rail and buses are limited to off-peak hours Monday through Friday and all day on weekends and holidays. One (1) bicycle is permitted on board a bus at any one time and must be stored at the rear of the bus. Two (2) bicycles are permitted on board light rail cars at any one time. Bicycles must be stored at the rear of the cars. Only bicycles that are not muddy or greasy are allowed on board buses and light rail cars. Bicycles longer than eighty (80) inches or higher than forty-eight (48) inches are prohibited in buses and light rail cars. Due to passenger loads or limited seating aboard buses and light rail cars, bicycles can be restricted from being transported at any time. As of May 1991, Regional Transit had sold approximately 600 bicycle permits. However, Regional Transit has no indication of actual use since bicycle boardings are not monitored. Quantifying increased ridership as a result of Regional Transit's bicycle program cannot be confirmed, but Regional Transit believes this program has increased ridership. The future of the Regional Transit bicycle program is uncertain. Regional Transit is committed to its current program and does not anticipate major modifications or expansion in the near future. However, Regional Transit anticipates that within five to ten years the feasibility of installing front or rear bicycle racks on buses will be investigated. Additionally, no major purchases of bicycle facilities are planned in the next five years; rather, Regional Transit anticipates the purchase of a limited number of bicycle racks until expansion of their light rail starter line occurs.

F.

REGIONAL TRANSIT/BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS:

Regional Transit has made an effort to facilitate bicycle access to its system, however, there has been little information or experience available to guide Regional Transit's efforts. Regional Transit's initial bicycle program is a good beginning, and RT should continue to expand and enhance its program efforts. In order to avoid the trial-and-error approach that other transit agencies experienced as they attempted to expand and implement their bicycle programs, Regional Transit should consider the following:

1.

Selection of Bike-Ride Transit Stops. All existing and future light rail stations should be provided with secure bicycle parking, regardless of their locations. Suburban rail stations are expected to have the greatest demand, particularly for bicycle parking. For CBD and suburban rail stations with substantial employment centers, secure overnight storage should be provided to enhance egress trips. Bicycle lockers or storage areas at major bus stops, multimodal stations, and future light rail stations in outlying areas are important for providing access to nearby areas, particularly where other public transportation is minimal or nonexistent. The highest priority should be placed on developing bike-and-ride services in areas with the greatest demand potential. For both light rail and bus modes demand is expected to be higher where the following exists: a. High densities exist within one-half (1/2) to three (3) miles from transit nodes and little or no feeder bus service is provided to that bus stop or rail station. Where express service or frequent local service is provided from bus stops or rail stations to locations more than five miles from point of loading. In areas where attractive cycling environments exist with flat terrain and safe access. Substantial employment is located one-half (1/2) to three (3) miles from transit stops with little or no feeder bus service provided from a given bus stop or rail station. Inadequate supply of automobile parking at bus stops or rail stations. Major transfer points that support frequent service to the CBD or where cross town lines exist. Substantial populations who may be inclined to bicycle exist (e.g., students and young professionals).

b. c. d.

e. f. g.

h. i. 2.

In new and existing transit friendly developments, i.e., pedestrian-oriented and transit-oriented developments. At existing and future automobile park-and-ride lots.

Bicycle Parking Locations: Parking facilities should be placed as close as possible to the transit nodes, but should not impede pedestrian flows or operations at rail stations and bus stops. Bicycle parking is best located on both sides of light rail stations where passengers board from outside platforms rather than a central platform. This minimizes delays for bike-and-ride patrons and reduces potential difficulties of bicycles being wheeled across track crossings provided for pedestrian traffic. Where dual outside platforms are found and parking can be provided on one side of the rail station and should be placed on the side most used by commuters. At bus stops, parking facilities should be placed adjacent to transit shelters on public right-of-ways, if possible. Nearby parking lots at convenience stores or other retail establishments may also offer excellent opportunities for bicycle parking facilities. Equipment Selection. The level of security required for bicycle parking is dependent on the severity of theft and vandalism in the area. In areas with high crime and/or vandalism rates, only bicycle lockers or guarded parking facilities utilizing security personnel are feasible; secure unguarded racks are prone to vandalism or theft. Guarded parking or a combination of bicycle racks and lockers are desirable for most other light rail stations and bus stop locations where significant bike-and-ride activity or potential exists. Improved Bicycle Access - Although secure parking is the most important element in the bicycle-transit access system, Regional Transit should coordinate with local governments to encourage bicycle access routes. Barriers and bicycle safety hazards in the areas surrounding bus stops and rail stations should be identified and improvement measures should be taken when possible. Expanded Bikes-on-Transit Program -- The greatest potential to expand Regional Transit's market penetration through their bike program exists in low density suburban and rural areas where service is offered to only a small portion of all origins and destinations. In these areas, where bike-buses offer fast and moderately frequent service over long routes, automobile users can be diverted to the Regional Transit system. a. Regional Transit should evaluate its service to identify the most appropriate routes in suburban and rural areas for initiation of a peak hour bike-on-bus service. When passenger loads are sufficiently low during peak hours, Regional Transit should allow bicycles to be carried on board buses. If it is determined that bicycles cannot be accommodated during peak hour, Regional Transit should offer either front or rear bicycle racks on routes that service these areas.

3.

4.

5.

b.

Secure bicycle parking should always be available along bike-bus routes in suburban and rural areas to serve passengers who need a bicycle only for transit access or egress. Significant bike-bus ridership potential exists on express bus service. To facilitate bicycle utilization and meet peak hour demands for bike-bus service, Regional Transit should, whenever feasible, install front or rear mounted bicycle racks on express buses. Although use of bicycle racks for transit access during peak hour service would expand the effective service area of public transportation, the use of racks for peak hour transit egress multiplies the level of transit accessibility in suburban and rural areas.

6.

Expanded Marketing and Promotion -- To attract more bicyclists to its system, Regional Transit should initiate an extensive marketing campaign. Concentrating initial program and marketing in locations where substantial demand exists maximizes the likelihood of campaign success. Regional Transit has not aggressively promoted bicycle use to reach public transportation. However, marketing must play a significant role in its bicycle program. Bicyclists represent a large market segment that Regional Transit could attract as new riders. Information and marketing should be located at all light rail stations, park-andride lots, outside and inside transit vehicles, at local bicycle and recreational equipment shops, and on transit schedules and promotional literature. These materials would be useful in diverting existing transit users from automobile to bicycle access. However, these measures may not attract a sufficient number of new transit riders to the Regional Transit system. Additional strategies for attracting non-transit riding cyclists to public transit that can be utilized include: a. b. c. d. e. f. Advertising in community newspapers and bicycle club newsletters. Distributing leaflets in bicycle shops and in neighborhoods within the bicycle access service area of bus stops and rail stations. Supply posters to be displayed around Sacramento. Hold transit-bicycle fairs in order to attract media attention. Turn any major new bicycling parking program or facility opening into community-level media events. Incorporate bicycling program material into all monthly passes.

7.

Future Research and Demonstrations. Integrating bicycles and public transit in Sacramento had been constrained by many factors, including the lack of information, analysis, and evaluation of linkage strategies. Although advances in the Regional Transit bicycle program have occurred in the past year, many measures have yet to be tried, or if tried, inadequately evaluated. Given the promise shown by the experience to date, there is an immediate need for Regional Transit to undertake additional research and demonstration projects related to bicycle-transit linkage. There is a general need for more research on transit access. Several specific areas where new research efforts could be very productive include the following: a. Research and evaluation of factors affecting bike-and-ride demand in the Sacramento area, particularly the effects of local crime rates, the price of bicycle parking, different parking technologies, and improvements in access to route conditions. Research and evaluation of the potential for rentals of folding bicycles for peak hour light rail and bus egress. Research and evaluation of the best marketing techniques for Regional Transit bike program and bike-and-ride promotions. Research and demonstration of guarded bicycle parking facilities at light rail stations, high activity bus stops, and major park-and-ride lots with substantial bicycle parking demand. Research and demonstration of rental bicycle facilities at light rail stations and multi modal centers near major suburban employment centers and near major tourist and recreational activity stations. Research and evaluation of the effects of a comprehensive bicycle-transit integration action program in the Sacramento area, involving both light rail and/ or bus service. Such a program would include major investments in bicycling parking facilities at light rail and/ or bus stops, implementation at widespread stations, selected improvements in rail station access conditions, and multifaceted marketing programs directed to various market segments.

b. c. d.

e.

f.

CHAP15 7/16/91

CHAPTER FIFTEEN - IMPLEMENTATION A. BIKEWAY FUNDING PHILOSOPHY:

Funding for bikeway facilities has become increasingly more difficult over the years. As federal, state, and local governments continue to face increasing demand for services as revenue sources decline, funding for bikeways will likely be more difficult to obtain. However, as Sacramento's residents continue to experience increasing traffic congestion, resulting in losses of time and money, and decreasing air quality, alternatives to the single occupant vehicle must be provided. To assist Sacramento in meeting State and Federal clean air standards and reducing traffic congestion, the bicycle needs to be viewed as a viable, nonpolluting form of transportation. This viability is enhanced by Sacramento's relatively flat topography, good climate, and for many of its residents, a reasonable commuting distance. The implementation of the Bikeway Master Plan (BMP) will require the cooperation of all relevant public agencies and interested private individuals and organizations to encourage the use of bicycling for recreation and commuting, including: 1. Cooperate with Regional Transit to improve the bike-public transportation link, by providing bicycle storage facilities at bus stops and light rail stations, bike racks at the rear of buses, and allowing an increasing number of bicycles to be carried on public transportation. Work with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District to implement the Transportation Control Measures, which include bikeways and related facilities, listed in the 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan. Cooperate with local Public Works and Planning Departments to ensure that bikeways are included in appropriate private and public projects. Work with local Parks and Recreation Agencies to ensure funding for Class I bike paths as designated in the Master Plan. In order to provide a safe and convenient bikeway system, funding will be focused on construction (including striping and signage), maintenance, education, enforcement, parking, and inter-modal transfers. As some bikeway funding sources have evaporated, new sources have been created. The City and County of Sacramento shall seek to maximize the use of all funding sources to provide a high quality bikeway system, including:

2.

3. 4.

B.

FUNDING, FEDERAL SOURCES:

1. Urban Mass Transportation Act (UMTA): UMTA funds, available locally through Regional Transit, are available to improve the bicycle-transit link. These funds, which require a minimum 10% local match, could be used for bicycle lockers at bus and light rail stops, as well as bike racks for transporting bikes on light rail and buses. Federal Aid Highway Program: This program provides $45 million nationwide, with a maximum of $4.5 million per state, for roadway projects. Any projects considered for this source of funds must be in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program's list of projects. In California the program is administered by Caltrans, which in the past has favored using the funds for road projects rather than bikeway projects. Community Highway Safety Program: Administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), these funds are available for programs designed to reduce highway accidents, injuries and deaths. Bicycle safety programs associated with certain NHTSA categories, such as occupant safety, and the FHWA program of roadway safety could qualify for funding consideration.

2.

3.

C.
1.

FUNDING, STATE SOURCES:

Proposition 116: This bond measure, approved by California voters in June, 1990 provides $4 million statewide for each of the next five years for a total statewide expenditure of $20 million. The California Transportation Commission, based upon an annual application cycle, administers the competitive grant program. Funding priority will be given to those projects that improve the safety and convenience for bicycle commuting, with a maximum of $1 million for an individual project. The Bicycle Lane Account (BLA): The BLA, administered by Caltrans, is also based upon a competitive grant program. This account provides $360,000 per year statewide with a maximum of $90,000 per project and has a 10% local match requirement. Transportation Development Act (TDA): TDA funds, based on one-quarter cent of the State's 6% sales tax are administered by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). The City and County of Sacramento have designated these funds for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For fiscal year 1991-92,

2.

3.

approximately $216,000 will be available to the City of Sacramento, and about $370,000 to the County of Sacramento for such facilities. 4. Propositions 108, 111 and Related Programs: Monies generated for road projects, including increases authorized as part of Propositions 108 and 111, can provide both an indirect and direct source of bikeway funding. Efforts will be made to improve the share of this funding source for bikeways and related facilities and ensure that any road projects funded by these monies include bikeways as designated in the Bikeway Master Plan. Related programs include the StateLocal Partnership Program and the Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) Program. In addition, Propositions 108 and 111 included a ten year, $100 million Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation grant program for which bikeways and bike facilities may qualify on a competitive basis.

D.
1.

FUNDING, LOCAL SOURCES:

Measure A Sales Tax. Local voters approved this one-half percent sales tax increase in November 1988 to improve the local transportation system. It is estimated that approximately $6 million will be available annually for the local transportation system, one-third for transit improvements and two-thirds for road improvements. The Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) has final approval over funding and can approve additional projects. The STA currently has allocated $80,000 per year for City bikeway projects. In order to improve the bikeway system at a minimum of cost, bikeways designated on the Master Plan should be included in any new construction, widening, or resurfacing of roadways eligible for Measure A funds. Ten County projects were initially approved by voters as part of Measure A, and two additional projects have been approved by the STA: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. Watt Avenue - north of Center Joint High School. Rio Linda Blvd. - M Street to Elverta Road. llinois Avenue - Sunset Avenue to Sailor Bar Van Alstine Avenue - Fair Oaks Blvd. to California Avenue. Hollister Avenue - Grant Avenue to Fair Oaks Blvd. Grant Avenue - Marshall Avenue to Hollister Avenue. Marshall Avenue - Stanley Avenue to Grant Avenue. Wachtel Way - Oak Avenue to Old Auburn Road. Elk Grove-Florin Road - Along Elk Grove Park. Stevenson Avenue - Hwy 99 to Power Inn Road.

Additional projects approved by the STA subsequent to passage of Measure A: k. l. Pershing Avenue - Kenneth Avenue to Hazel Avenue. Q street - Rio Linda Blvd. to 16th Street.

It is anticipated that additional projects will be programmed for funding by the STA, once the Bikeway Master Plan is adopted. 2. Motor Vehicle Registration Surcharge: Approved by the County Board of Supervisors in August 1989, these funds are available to carry out the activities of the SMAQMD. Activities include implementing the Transportation Control Programs such as Bicycle Facilities Improvements, Bicycle Safety Enforcement, and Commuter Education Programs. Funding for all Transportation Control Programs, based on a surcharge per vehicle registered in Sacramento County, will be $665,000 for fiscal year 1992-93. 3. Development Fees and Building Permits: Several such sources of funding have been identified for possible use for the construction of bikeways and related facilities: a. Quimby Act: This act requires land developers to dedicate land for parks and recreation facilities, or pay in-lieu fees. The in-lieu fees must be used to improve the recreational facilities for the subdivision from which the fees were derived or for the purchase of park sites, and could be used for bike paths. b. Facilities Benefit Assessment District (FBA): FBA funds are generated by new development within the FBA district boundaries, as adopted by the Sacramento City Council. An assessment is levied per dwelling unit for residential development and a per square foot assessment fee is charged for non-residential development. The City of Sacramento adopted the first FBA district, for South Natomas, in April 1990. The projects to be funded through the FBA were defined at the time the FBA was adopted and an expenditure plan for those projects must be approved by the City Council annually. The South Natomas FBA District has programmed $108,000 for bikeway projects for fiscal year 1992-93. c. South Natomas Community Improvement Fund (SNCIF): This fund derives its revenue from building permit surcharges levied on certain commercial developments in the South Natomas area and is subject to agreements between the City of Sacramento and developers. The Sacramento City Council requires that two-thirds of the total funds be used to mitigate traffic problems and for public safety capital projects. The funding available for community enhancements has been fully committed in previous years, but no projects are currently scheduled. When revenue is received from the South Natomas FBA, SNCIF revenue will be used in conjunction with FBA revenue. Because SNCIF funds are dependent on commercial development, the level of funding is uncertain. d. County Roadway and Transit Development Fee: These are also collected via the building permit process and are designated for road improvements

needed to mitigate the increased traffic generated by new development. These funds are likely to be used for road widening and traffic signals, and could include bikeways, as designated in the Master Plan, and bicycle sensitive traffic detectors, as appropriate. 4. Bicycle Registration: The City and County of Sacramento should pass ordinances requiring all bicycles in the City and County of Sacramento to be registered. This program would assist local law enforcement agencies with bicycle theft recovery and provide a source of revenue for local agencies for bikeways, bike facilities, and bicycle safety education programs. 5. Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP): Revenue collected from the proposed Air Quality Permit and mitigation programs by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District should be available to implement the Transportation Control Measures listed in the AQAP, including bikeways and related facilities.

E.
1.

BIKEWAY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES:

The bikeway system as defined in this 1976 Bikeway Master Plan was partially implemented during the mid-1970's to the then existing bikeway standards. Remnants of the old system still exist and they do not meet the current State bikeway standards. Therefore, it was determined prudent to bring those streets up to current standards during the initial two to three years of the five-year program. During the process of roadway asphaltic overlays or slurry seals, all existing lane striping is obliterated, which is the ideal time to shift lane lines to better accommodate all traffic including bicycles. The scope of the Bikeway Master Plan does not include a projection of the overlay programs. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Public Works Departments to be cognizant of the newly adopted Class II bikeways and implement them in an efficient and timely manner, i.e., reposition lane lines if necessary to optimize the flow of all types of traffic. All new major and minor arterials are being recommended as Class II Bikeway streets. Therefore it would be appropriate for the initial signing and striping to include the Class II Bike Lane signs and markings. The on-street bikeways as defined herein by the five and ten-year programs have been uniformly distributed by population densities/demand. Also, segments are added progressively to maintain bikeway continuity. Off-street bike paths are difficult to schedule for implementation because funding is unpredictable. Within the City jurisdiction when a community has an adopted development plan, all bike paths are included in the plans are also listed in the five/ten-year programs. It is assumed that these

2.

3.

4.

5.

facilities will be funded by conditions of development approval, formulation of special districts, or grants. 6. County off-street bike paths are funded by conditions of approval, grants, etc. However, for the greatest part are not detailed on adopted community. The scope of the Bikeway Master Plan did not include indepth studies of communities to determine a time frame for implementation. Therefore, the total mileage of bike paths as listed in the five/ten-year programs is only 75 of the Bikeway master Plan off-street mileage. A majority of the Class I mileage falls within the jurisdiction of the County Parks Department and they will obtain funding for construction projects.

CHAP15F 7/16/91

F.
1.

THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Introduction. A common characteristic of communities across the nation that have successful bicycle plans is the existence of specialized committees of knowledgeable bicycling advocates. These committees advise agencies having the ability to implement bicycling programs and bicycling improvements of policies and opportunities to improve the bicycling environment in their locality. Creation of a Joint City/County Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) in our area, in accordance with the guidelines described in this chapter, is recommended to improve the success of our bicycle plan. Coordination of bicycle plan components and the participation of citizens in developing, adopting, and implementing the bicycle plan will greatly enhance the success of the bicycle plan. For example, bicycle law enforcement programs can reinforce educational programs if the enforcement program is coordinated with the content of the educational program, and follows the educational program. Both programs will depend upon citizen/community support to meet their maximum potential. Other advantages of effective coordination are ensuring that state-of-the-art bicycling programs and capital improvements are implemented, and that duplication of effort is minimized. Citizen involvement in plan development and adoption will improve community support of the program and make it more responsive to local needs. The forum for these essential ingredients of a bicycle plan is the BAC. The BAC must take a leading role in coordination of existing bicycling programs, in identifying and providing impetus for new programs, and in securing public input and participation in developing the plan. Although these three activities are not the only responsibility of a BAC, they indicate the central role of the committee in evolving an effective bicycle plan, and plan implementation.

2.

Need. The reasons for the formation of the BAC are discussed as follows: (a) Comprehensive Effort - The comprehensive effort required in developing the bicycle element of the urban area transportation plan which addresses the Four E's, requires a broader group of disciplines than those available to the Community Planning Advisory Council (CPAC). Thus, a special group is required. Coordination - The coordination required to develop the bicycle program and then to implement it, can best be achieved through team work established by selecting a BAC as described in the following section.

(b)

(c) (d)

Implementation Group - The BAC provides an implementing group which will take an active role in monitoring and overseeing the success of the recommended program. Citizen Involvement - The specialized citizen involvement that the BAC can bring to bear is key to acceptance and success of the plan, recommended facilities and the program. Proven Success - The BAC has proven a successful form and operating body in the Florida Department of Transportation work, in Gainesville, Lee County and Pinellas County; also in Dallas, Texas and in Eugene, Oregon.

(e)

3.

Purpose. The purposes of a BAC are three-fold: (a) (b) (c) to ensure that a bicycle plan which is responsive to the needs of the community is developed and maintained to reflect current needs to recommend policies to appropriate agencies and advise them of opportunities which will improve the bicycling environment to advocate the implementation of programs which will accomplish the adopted bicycle plan.

Because these three purposes require the BAC to influence the policy-making and executive processes (i.e., education, engineering, law enforcement, and publicity) the BAC should be created as an independent committee by resolution of (and fall under the organizational structure of) the City and County. The creation of a BAC is anticipated to guide the development of a bicycle plan suited to the needs of the individual jurisdictions, advise the local government, and advocate implementation of the plan at the local level. 4. Composition. The size of the BAC should be carefully considered. In areas with several governmental jurisdictions, it may be easy to enlist many members; however, large committees can become overly burdensome for decision-making and administration and also may not be able to sustain adequate interest and involvement from all members. Too small a committee can result in inadequate representation of the community and technical disciplines, an overburdening of work on a few individuals and a limited scope of the bicycle plan. Committees of eight to twelve members seem to work well. Up to five individuals who are knowledgeable about and interested in, promoting bicycling in the community should form the core of the BAC. Citizens members on the committee can be more aware of specialized community needs than government staff because of their involvement in special interest organizations.

Because of their interest in and experience with bicycling, they can also be very effective in liaison with non-technical groups (governing boards, parent-teacher association, chambers of commerce, etc.) to generate public support for bicycle programs. These members can be solicited from the following:
Bicycle Clubs School Parent-teacher Associations Safety Associations The Media Service Associations The General Public Business Organizations Bicycle Shops Bicycle Commuters Civic Associations Environmental Groups

Professional and technical government staff members should alsobe included on the BAC. These members are necessary because the BAC will be providing advice and policy recommendations regarding expenditure of public funds and regarding public safety and liability. They can also ensure that bicycle policies are implemented in their own locality and be an advocate for bicycles within a local government. These members would typically represent the following disciplines:
Law enforcement Education Transportation Planning Parks and/or Recreation Legal Media Safety

5.

Selection of Members. The preceding section indicated the potential representation that should be considered in developing the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Representation is secondary to obtaining the "right" people for the job. Following is a listing of the key characteristics or attributes of potential BAC members: (a) (b) (c) is well-known and respected in the community has experience in working with small groups is willing to be an active participant in the development and implementation of the bicycle plan

These characteristics are important since the actual development and implementation of the comprehensive bicycle plan will be greatly delayed unless BAC members actively work with the City/County staff in identifying and reacting to community needs, and then building community support for the recommendations of the bicycle plan. Further, BAC members have a major role in advising communities in developing and implementing bicycle-related

programs. Since the Bicycle Advisory Committee may ultimately advise jurisdictions, both city and county, it is necessary that it maintain a maximum degree of credibility. This can be accomplished by including members with local name recognition and a sincere interest in serving on the committee in an active role. In order to obtain these important individuals, it will be necessary to "hand pick" them. This may be a significant task in and of itself. It is likely that some of the initial inventory efforts associated with identifying existing bicycling activities and programs will assist in identifying potential BAC members. This process includes personal and telephone contact of key individuals and organizations which are involved in bicycle-related programs and activities. It is anticipated that this inventory will generate a pool of interested volunteers for the BAC. At the same time, input will be provided from citizens and technical individuals alike, relating to bicycle program and facility needs in the community. In selecting representatives from various organizations, it is important to remember that a key criteria in selection is the ability to implement or affect the implementation of the bicycle plan. 6. Membership Appointment. Members should be formally appointed to the BAC by the City Council and Board of Supervisors. Staff should undertake the identification of potential BAC members, screen them for membership, and then recommend members to the Council and Board. Some existing BAC's have reported that stringent meeting attendance policies have improved the level of participation in the BAC. These policies typically require the expulsion of members if they miss a prescribed number of BAC meetings with no excuses. Reappointment to the BAC requires another endorsement. Staggered terms of membership on the BAC should be considered a must to provide continuity on the committee as new members are appointed. The Bicycle Coordinators should be BAC members. Their roles are to initially set up the BAC by locating potential members, and piloting the resolution creating the BAC through the Council and Board. Their key functions are to provide staff support to the BAC, including the securing of meeting facilities, handling correspondence, and other administrative tasks. However, they will also be repositories of state-of-the-art bicycle program information, and will guide the BAC through developing the bicycle plan implementation. It may be necessary for them to instruct local government staffs or citizen volunteers in specific data collection or analysis tasks, or make courtesy presentations related to bicycling. Their roles in establishing continuity in the bicycle planning process is invaluable. 7. Committee Operation. It may fall to the Bicycle Staff to chair the Bicycle Advisory Committee or the chairman may be selected by the BAC itself. Regardless, someone will need to be very familiar with the appropriate skills of small group management. The activities of the BAC will vary, depending on the

actual needs of the community and the composition of the BAC. It will be necessary to hold regular meetings to facilitate the development of the various aspects of the bicycle program and, once adopted, to enhance its implementation. BAC members should have regular assignments related to their specific area of expertise or interest. These could include research, data collection, local community coordination and liaison, citizen involvement, etc. 8. Citizen Participation. Generating public support for the bicycle plan is critical to its success. Implementation of the plan is more certain if an identifiable segment of the population feels the plan is "theirs" and will advocate it before the adopting board. The best way to create a feeling of pride in the plan is to involve citizens in its development and adoption. The citizen members of the BAC provide continuing citizen participation: however, other specialized opportunities for citizen participation will be possible. To develop implementation of the bicycle plan, the BAC's and Bicycle Coordination will have to rely on the assistance of bicyclists. Recommendations. Upon adoption of the revised Bikeway Master Plan that the City Council and Board of Supervisors shall appoint a Bicycle Advisory Committee to accomplish the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Pursue the orderly implementation of the adopted plan Review and advise as to the context of the annual and five year bicycle improvement programs Meet not less than bimonthly to discuss current bikeway matters Biannually make recommendations for the update of the City/County Bikeway Master Plan Annually prepare and submit a report to the appointing agencies summarizing meeting topics and the bikeway implementation progress.

9.

CHAP16/BMP 7/18/91

CHAPTER SIXTEEN - INVENTORY A. BIKEWAYS INVENTORY:

Volume I of the Bikeway Master Plan contains bikeway segments of each street listed by community, a summary of the total program, and a summary of the five-year and 10-year programs. Spreadsheet details of the five-year and 10-year programs are listed in Volume II of the Bikeway Master Plan.

B.

BIKEWAYS STUDIES:
As the City and County continue to grow, the opportunity for new bikeway facilities will emerge which are not evident at the time this Bikeway Master Plan was formulated. It is therefore suggested that the appropriate lead agency request a feasibility study be undertaken on the proposed bikeway facility.

7/18/91 MILEAGE AND COST SUMMARY

COMMUNITY AIRPORT/MEADOWVIEW ARDEN/ARCADE CARMICHAEL CITURS HEIGHTS COLLEGE GREENS CONSUMNES DELTA DOWNTOWN ELK GROVE FAIR OAKS FRANKLIN/LAGUNA GREENHAVEN LANDPARK McKINLEY PARK NORTH HIGHLANDS/FOOTHILL FARMS NORTH NATOMAS-CITY NORTH NATOMAS-COUNTY NORTH SACRAMENTO ORANGEVALE POCKET RANCHO CORDOVA RIO LINDA - ELVERTA SOUTHEAST SOUTH NATOMAS SOUTH SACRAMENTO TAHOE PARK VINEYARD TOTAL

CITY MILES ON STREET OFF STREET 33.14 2.99 0.00 0.00 12.67 0.00 0.00 21.24 0.00 0.00 0.95 25.11 31.08 16.62 1.08 31.42 0.55 41.65 0.00 14.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.79 48.40 24.00 0.00 333.93 0.53 3.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.52 6.39 2.25 2.58 19.44 0.89 23.72 0.00 9.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.99 2.27 0.00 0.00 94.45

COUNTY MILES ON STREET OFF STREET 0.00 59.37 38.29 47.42 0.33 60.80 63.55 0.00 42.17 21.75 38.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.28 4.43 32.00 0.00 39.75 0.00 88.14 33.02 60.60 0.00 46.02 0.63 57.96 790.76 0.00 4.88 1.51 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.47 3.70 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.92 11.83 0.00 2.42 0.00 22.65 18.04 0.00 0.00 5.64 0.00 17.30 11084.00

CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS 16765 7475 0 0 11410 0 0 24890 0 0 0 146825 12780 11400 0 8325 0 429385 0 494940 0 0 0 155775 66925 16290 0 1,403,185 22175 0 0 0 12400 0 0 18690 0 0 0 17520 15275 10135 0 5825 0 496340 0 494940 0 0 0 330095 103345 10630 0 1,352,490

COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS 0 109465 74800 60495 165 3775 6650 0 69005 33280 17700 0 0 0 113615 4585 22510 0 48915 0 294425 36455 7850 0 75435 315 14775 994,215 0 30525 18410 50975 825 28275 25000 0 12575 11005 5200 0 0 0 26180 4675 6210 0 33435 0 54200 383775 22450 0 43225 1575 47190 805,705

BIKEWAY INVENTORY AIRPORT/MEADOWVIEW #24 MILEAGE CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST- WEST ON STREET

CITY

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

69TH AVE. 34TH AVE. 47TH AVE. 56TH AVE. 57TH AVE. 60TH AVE. 65TH AVE. 68TH AVE. GARDENDALE RD. MATSON DR. MEADOWVIEW RD. FERRAN AVE. MONARCH AVE. JOHN STILL STONECREST AVE. 504 CONSUMNES RIVER FERRAN AVE. FLORIN RD.

CANDLEWOOD WAY TO SYLVIA WAY 24TH ST. TO HELEN WAY 24TH ST. TO W.P.R.R. CHORLEY PARK TO HOGAN DR. 21ST ST. TO HOGAN DR. AMHERST ST. TO 20TH ST. AMHERST ST. TO JOHN BIDWELL SCHOOL AMHERST ST. TO 24TH ST. 24TH ST. TO 29TH ST. SYLVIA WAY TO 24TH ST. FREEPORT RD. TO W.P.R.R. . AMHERST ST. TO 22ND ST. 19TH ST. TO MANORSIDE DR. 24TH ST TO AMHERST FREEPORT BLVD. TO CONSUMNES RIVER STONECREST AVE. TO 24TH ST. STONECREST AVE. TO WPRR 22ND ST. TO MANORSIDE DR. FREEPORT BLVD. TO WPRR TOTAL

0.13 0.50 0.40 0.18 0.19 0.60 0.36 1.36 0.30 1.03 2.07 0.62 0.14 0.80 1.53 0.53 1.23 0.25 1.86 14.08 0.00

III III II III III III III COM II III III COM II III III II

II

II II II III

III III II III III III III II III III II III III II II II II III II

65 250 1000 90 95 300 180 3400 150 515 5175 310 70 2000 0 0 0 125 0 13725

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3825 1325 3075 0 0 8225

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET DETROIT BLVD. 29TH ST. 24TH ST. HOGAN DR. 21ST ST. SYLVIA WAY AMHERST ST. CANDLEWOOD WAY MANORSIDE DR. 19TH ST. 22ND ST. 502 24TH ST. HELEN WAY NORMANY WAY 501 503 24TH ST. TO MEADOVVVIEW RD. MEADOWVIEW RD. TO GARDENDALE RD. DETROIT BLVD. TO DRAINAGE CANAL 57TH AVE. TO 24TH ST. MEADOWVIEW RD. TO 57TH AVE. MATSON DR. TO 69TH AVE. 19TH ST. TO 60TH ST. AMHERST ST. TO 69TH AVE. MONARCH AVE. TO FERRAN AVE. AMHERST ST. TO FERRAN AVE. JOHN STILL DR. TO MEADOWVIEW RD. JOHN STILL DR. TO 503 FRUITRIDGE RD. TO DRAINAGE CANAL 34TH AVE. TO FRUITRIDGE RD. 34TH AVE. TO 34TH AVE. FREEPORT BLVD. TO 501 502 TO 502 TOTAL 1.75 0.66 3.83 1.04 1.17 0.14 1.88 0.14 0.12 0.41 0.28 0.43 3.67 0.19 0.05 1.31 1.99 19.06 0.00 II III II III III III III III III III III COM III III II III II III III III III III III III III II II III III II II 0 330 0 520 585 70 940 70 60 205 140 0 0 95 25 0 0 3040 4375 0 9575 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07/18/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY AIRPORT #24 MILEAGE CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST OFF STREET

CITY

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

DRAINAGE CANAL

FREEPORT BLVD. TO 34TH AVE.

0.53

TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET NONE TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

0.53

0.00

0.00 33.14 0.53

0.00 0.00 0.00

0 16765 0

0 22115 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

07/18/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY ARDEN - ARCADE #10 MILEAGE CO. STATUS CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

CITY

5 YRS

ULTI

AUBURN BLVD. EDISON WY. ENGLE RD. WHITNEY AVE. MARCONI AVE. EL CAMINO AVE. MARYAL AVE. ALTA ARDEN EXWY. ARDEN WY. HURLEY WY. NORTHROP AVE. SIERRA BLVD. F.O.B. AMERICAN RIVER DR. AMERICAN RIVER DR. CAMPUS COMMON DR. McCLAREN DR.

HOWE AVE. TO WATT AVE. HOWE AVE. TO CYPRESS AVE. EASTERN AVE. TO WALNUT AVE. MORSE AVE. TO WALNUT AVE. I-80 TO WALNUT AVE. ETHAN WY. TO WALNUT AVE. WATT AVE. TO EL CAMINO AVE. ETHAN WY. TO WATT AVE. MORSE AVE. TO MC CLAREN DR. ETHAN WY. TO WATT AVE. HOWE AVE. TO WATT AVE. MUNROE ST. TO MORSE AVE. UNIVERSITY AVE. TO WALNUT AVE. COMMON DR. TO SAC. CITY LIMIT SAC. CITY LIMIT TO HOOTON CT. UNIVERSITY AVE. TO AMERICAN RIVER D HOOTON CT. TO ARDEN WAY TOTAL

1.94 3.73 0.98 2.46 3.94 3.99 1.06 2.04 3.14 1.97 1.24 0.53 4.33 0.52 3.64 0.38 0.49 0.90 35.48

96%

III II II II II

II

II 80% 21% 43% COM 49% COM COM COM COM

II II II II II II II II II II II

II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1300 0 950 0 2250

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

970 9325 2450 0 9850 9975 0 5100 7850 0 3100 0 10825 0 9100 0 1225 69770

4850 0 0 6150 0 0 2650 0 0 4925 0 1325 0 0 0 0 0 19900

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET ETHAN WY. HOWE AVE. BELL ST. FULTON AVE. UNIVERSITY AVE. MUNROE ST. MUNROE ST. MILLS RD. MORSE AVE. WATT AVE. LA SIERRA DR. NORRIS AVE. WILHAGGIN DR. EASTERN AVE. SAVERIEN DR JACOB LN. KINGSFORD DR. HURLEY WY. TO EL CAMINO AVE. HURLEY WY TO BUSINESS 80 NORTHROP AVE. TO AUBURN AVE. EDISON AVE. TO HAGGIN OAKS PARK HOWE AVE. TO AMERICAN RIVER DR. AMERICAN RIVER DR. TO CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT TO FULTON AVE. AMERICAN RIVER DR. TO F.O.B. F.O.B. TO AUBURN BLVD. MID/O AMERICAN RIVER TO AUBURN BLVD LA BEA WY. TO ARDEN WY. EDISON AVE. TO AUBURN BLVD. AMERICAN RIVER DR. TO F.O.B. F.O.B. TO EDISON AVE. AMERICAN RIVER DR. TO F.O.B. AMERICAN RIVER DR. TO F.O.B. AMERCIAN RIVER DR.TO ARDEN WY. TOTAL 1.02 2.45 3.06 0.11 1.89 0.20 0.38 0.42 4.03 4.82 1.73 0.52 0.40 3.58 0.30 0.38 0.69 2.09 23.89 III II II II II II II 94% 45% COM COM COM EDG II III II II II II II II II II II II II III II II II II II II II II II II II II II 0 0 0 0 4725 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 510 6125 7650 0 0 0 950 0 10075 2410 0 1300 0 8950 0 0 1725 39695 2550 0 0 0 0 0 0 1050 0 0 4325 0 1000 0 750 950 0 10625

91% 32% COM COM

07/18/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY ARDEN - ARCADE #10 MILEAGE CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST OFF STREET

CITY

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

S. DEL PASO BIKE TR. AMER. RIV. BIKE TR. AMER. RIV. BIKE TR.

S. DEL PASO PK. NORTHROP AVE. TO CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT TO ARDEN WY. TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET NONE TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

1.09 2.26 4.88 3.35 4.88

COM COM COM

I I I

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0.00 2.99 3.35

0.00 59.37 4.88

0 7475 0

0 0 0

0 109465 0

0 30525 0

07/18/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY CARMICHAEL #9 MILEAGE CO. STATUS CLASS 10 IRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

CITY

5 YRS

ULTI

SUTTER AVE. LANDIS AVE. ST. JAMES DR. WINDING WY. JAN DR. LINCOLN AVE. CYPRESS AVE. ENGLE RD. GRANT AVE. WHITNEY AVE. STANLEY AVE. MARCONI AVE. PALM DR. TARSHES DR. EL CAMINO AVE. VAN ALSTINE AVE. OAK AVE.

FAIR OAKS BLVD. TO HOLLISTER FAIR OAKS BLVD. TO MARSHALL AVE. CRESTVIEW DR. TO DEWEY DR. WALNUT AVE. TO SAN JUAN AVE. MANZANITA AVE. TO CRESTVIEW DR. MANZANlTA AVE. TO SAN JUAN AVE. WALNUT AVE. TO MANZANITA AVE. WALNUT AVE. TO F.O.B. SUE PAM DR. TO HOLLISTER AVE. WALNUT AVE. TO SUE PAM DR. F.O.B. TO MARSHALL AVE. WALNUT AVE. TO F.O.B. F.O.B. TO SCENIC HEIGHTS CALIFORNIA AVE. TO HOFFMAN PK. WALNUT AVE. TO F.O.B. F.O.B. TO CALIFORNIA AVE. F.O.B. TO CALIFORNIA AVE. TOTAL 0.00

1.10 1.00 0.58 3.20 1.21 1.90 0.91 0.91 1.21 0.68 0.94 0.89 0.92 0.15 0.89 0.33 0.35 17.17

10%

II III II II II II II II III II II II II II II II

COM COM COM COM 13% COM COM COM 50% COM COM

II II

II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 375 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 8000 0 4750 2275 2275 605 0 2350 2225 2300 0 2225 825 875 29080

2750 500 1450 0 3025 0 0 0 3025 1700 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12450

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET WALNUT AVE. GARFIELD AVE. CARMELO DR. SHELFIELD AVE. SUE PAM DR. MANZANITA AVE. F.O.B. CRESTVIEW DR. SCHUYLER DR. CALIFORNIA AVE. DEWEY DR. MARSHALL AVE. SAN LORENZO WY. STOLLWOOD DR. HOLLISTER AVE. F.O.B. TO WINDING WY. F.O.B. TO MADISON AVE. ARDEN WY. TO SHELFIELD DR. CARMELO DR. TO F.O.B. WHITNEY AVE. TO GRANT AVE. F.O.B. TO MADISON AVE. ARDEN WY. TO SAN JUAN AVE. JAN DR. TO SCHUYLER DR. CRESTVIEW DR. TO MADISON AVE. OAK AVE. TO JAN DR. WINDING WY. TO MADISON AVE. STANLEY AVE. TO LINCOLN AVE. TARSHES DR. TO PALM DR. LINCOLN AVE. TO WINDING WY. GRANT AVE. TO LINCOLN AVE. TOTAL 0.00 3.35 3.86 0.38 0.51 0.09 1.67 5.23 0.37 0.35 2.48 0.97 1.26 0.34 0.68 0.68 22.22 COM COM II II III III II II II II II COM COM II II III II III II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8375 9650 0 0 0 4175 13075 0 0 6200 2425 630 850 0 340 45720 0 0 190 255 225 0 0 925 875 0 0 3150 0 340 0 5960

COM COM 34%

II III

07/18/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY CARMICHAEL #9 MILEAGE CO. STATUS CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST OFF STREET NONE TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET

CITY

5 YRS

ULTI

0.00

0.00

TARSHES DR.

INSIDE THE HOFFMAN PK. TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.51 1.51 39.39 1.51

COM

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 74800 0

0 0 18410 0

07/18/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY CITRUS HEIGHTS #6 MILEAGE CO. STATUS CLASS 10 YRS ULTI CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

CITY

5 YRS

TWIN OAKS AVE. ROLLINGWOOD BLVD. ANTELOPE RD. OLIVINE AVE. WOODMORE OAK DR. GREENBACK LN. FARMGATE WY. LINDA SUE WY. COYLE AVE. MADISON AVE.

AUBURN BLVD. TO OLD AUBURN BLVD. ANTELOPE RD. TO AUBURN BLVD. ROSEVILLE RD. TO OLD AUBURN BLVD. OAK AVE. TO WACHTEL WY. SUNRISE BLVD. TO KENNETH AVE. SUNRISE BLVD. TO F.O.B. GARFIELD AVE. TO F.O.B. MARIPOSA AVE. TO BIRDCAGE ST. DEWEY DR. TO MADISON AVE. MANZANITA AVE. TO DEWEY DR. GARFIELD AVE. TO F.O.B. TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET

2.18 0.98 3.18 0.68 0.98 0.45 3.79 0.52 0.83 0.96 4.09 0.00 18.64

40% 80% COM COM 13%

III II

II II II

II II III

II II II II

II

II II II II II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1090 0 7950 0 2450 1125 1895 0 0 0 10225 24735

5450 2450 0 1700 0 0 9475 1300 2075 2400 0 24850

MANZANITA AVE. LICHEN DR. BUTTERNUT DR. DEWEY DR. VAN MAREN LN. PURSLANE WY. GARDEN GATE DR. CARRIAGE DR. LAUPPE LN. SAN JUAN AVE. SYLVAN RD. AUBURN BLVD. MARIPOSA AVE. PRIMROSE DR. SUNRISE BLVD. FAIR OAKS BLVD. WACHTEL WY. AUBURN BLVD. OLD AUBURN BLVD.

MADISON AVE. TO AUBURN BLVD. ANTELOPE RD. TO BUTTERNUT RD. LICHEN DR. TO ROSEVILLE RD. MADISON AVE. TO GREENBACK LN. GREENBACK LN. TO PURSLANE WY. VAN MAREN LN. TO GARDEN GATE DR. PURSLANE WY. TO ANTELOPE RD. AUBURN BLVD. TO LAUPPE LN. CARRIAGE DR. TO ANTELOPE RD. MADISON AVE. TO SYLVAN RD. SAN JUAN AVE. TO AUBURN BLVD. SYLVAN RD. TO PLACER CO. MADISON AVE. TO TWIN OAKS AVE. MADISON AVE. TO FARMGATE WY. MADISON AVE. TO PLACER CO. MADISON AVE. TO OLD AUBURN RD. OAK AVE. TO OLD AUBURN RD. GARFIELD AVE.TO OLD AUBURN RD. AUBURN BLVD. TO PLACER CO. TOTAL

0.86 0.41 0.91 0.98 1.89 0.12 0.08 0.77 0.25 1.18 0.91 1.82 3.86 0.62 3.86 3.02 1.08 3.11 3.05 0 28.78

COM

II II II

COM COM

II II II II II II II II III III III II II III II II III

20% 50% COM COM EDG 42% 37% COM 75%

II

II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2150 0 0 2450 4725 300 200 0 0 2950 2275 0 1930 0 1930 7550 0 7775 1525 35760

0 1025 2275 0 0 0 0 1925 625 0 0 910 0 1550 9650 0 540 0 7625 26125

TEMPO PARK

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET SUNRISE BLVD. TO WACHEL WY. TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0.00 2.51 2.51 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60495 0 0 0 50975 0

0.00 47.42 0.00 2.51

07/18/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY COLLEGE GREENS #17 STREET LOCATION EAST- WEST ON STREET LA RIVIERA DR. CITADEL WAY FOREST DR. WISSEMANN DR. FOLSOM BLVD. JACKSON RD. BELVEDERE RD. KIEFER BLVD. KIEFER BLVD. HOWE AVE. TO WATT AVE. THOMAS JEFFERSON SCH. TO NOTRE DAME NOTRE DAME DR. TO OKI PARK OKI PARK TO FOLSOM BLVD. HOWE AVE. TO SAC. CITY LIMIT FOLSOM BLVD. TO SAC. CITY LIMIT POWER INN RD. TO FLORIN-PERKINS RD. FLORIN-PERKINS RD. TO CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT TO S. WATT AVE. TOTAL 1.61 . 0.06 0.31 0.81 1.74 0.76 1.00 0.75 0.33 7.04 0.33 COM III III III II II II II III II II II III III III II II II II II 0 30 155 405 4350 0 0 1875 0 6815 4025 0 0 0 0 1900 2500 0 0 8425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 825 825 CITY MILEAGE CO. STATUS 5 YRS CLASS CITY COST 10 YRS ULTI 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

COM 93%

POWER INN RD. HOWE AVE. NOTRE DAME DR. JULLIARD DR. OCCIDENTAL DR. FLORIN-PERKINS RD. NOTRE DAME

FRUITRIDGE RD. TO FOLSOM BLVD. FOLSOM BLVD. TO AMERICAN RIVER JULLIARD DR. TO CITADEL WAY FOLSOM BLVD. TO NOTRE DAME DR. JULLIARD DR. TO LA RIVIERA DR. FRUITRIDGE RD. TO FOLSOM BLVD. FOLSOM BLVD. TO JULLIARD DR. TOTAL EAST - WEST OFF STREET

1.59 0.77 0.26 0.28 0.91 1.48 0.34 5.63 0.00

60% III III III II III

II

85%

II II III III III II III

0 0 130 140 455 3700 170 4595

3975 0 0 0 0 0 0 3975

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NONE TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET NONE TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0.00 12.67 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 11410 0

0 0 12400 0

0 0 165 0

0 0 825 0

07/18/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY COSUMNES #21 MILEAGE CLASS CITY COST COUNTY COST CO. STATUS 5 YRS 10 YRS ULTI 5 YRS 10 YRS 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

CITY

GREEN RD. TAVERNOR RD. BLAKE RD. MEISS RD. JACKSON HWY. JACKSON HWY. JACKSON HWY. WHITE ROCK RD.

WILTON RD. - DILLARD RD. ALTA MESA RD. - DILLARD RD. COLONY RD. - ALTA MESA RD. DILLARD RD. - JACKSOR HWY. GRANT LINE RD. - STONEHOUSE RD. COSUMNES RD. - RANCHO MURIETA COMM. AMADOR CO. - RANCHO MURIETA COMM. L PRAIRIE CITY RD. - EL DORADO CO. TOTAL

2.40 5.50 0.75 2.90 6.50 0.45 1.65 3.85 0 24.00

III III

III II III

II II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1125 0 0 1125

1200 2750 0 0 3250 0 825 0 8025

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET RILEY RD. COSUMNES RD. COLONY RD. ALTA MESA RD. CLAY STATION RD. WILTON RD. DILLARD RD. GRANT LINE RD. SCOTT RD. SCOTT RD. STONEHOUSE RD. SOUTHEAST COMM. LINE - DILLARD RD. DILLARD RD. - WILTON RD. BLAKE RD. - GREEN RD. BLAKE RD. - DILLARD RD. LAGUNA CREEK - DILLARD RD. COSUMNES RD. - COSUMNES RIVER RILEY RD. - JACKSON HWY. JACKSON HWY. - DOUGLAS RD. LATROBE RD. - WHITE ROCK RD. WHITE ROCK RD. - FOLSOM CITY LIMITS JACKSON HWY. - LATROBE RD. TOTAL EAST - WEST OFF STREET NONE 0 0 0 0 1.25 1.20 2.00 2.30 3.55 0.35 11.50 4.50 7.70 1.25 1.20 0.00 36.80 III III III III II III III II II II II II II II II II II II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1775 875 0 0 0 0 0 2650 625 600 1000 1150 8875 0 5750 2250 0 0 0 20250

III II

TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET NONE TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

0.00

0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 3775 0

0 0 28275 0

0.00 60.80 0.00 0.00

07/18/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY DELTA #32 MILEAGE CLASS CITY COST COUNTY COST CO. STATUS 5 YRS 10 YRS ULTI 5 YRS 10 YRS 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

CITY

LAMBERT RD. TWIN CITIES RD. WALNUT GROVE RD. HWY 12

HWY. 160 - I5 RIVER RD. - I5 RIVER RD. - SAN JOAQUIN CO. SOLANA CO. - SAN JOAQUIN CO. TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET

5.00 6.05 1.45 6.05 0.00 18.55

III III II

II II II II 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 6650

0 3025 3625 0 2500

2500 0 0 0

RIVER RD.

SAN JOAQUIN CO. - CITY LIMIT TOTAL EAST - WEST OFF STREET

45.00 0.00 45.00

III

III

0 0

0 0

0 0

22500 22500

NONE

TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET NONE TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

0.00

0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 6650 0

0 0 25000 0

0.00 63.55 0.00 0.00

07/18/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY #13 MILEAGE CLASS CITY COST COUNTY COST CITY CO. STATUS 5 YRS 10 YRS ULTI 5 YRS 10 YRS 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

RICHARDS BLVD. VINE ST. N. B ST. N. B ST. N. B ST. E ST. E ST. E ST. K ST. CAPITOL MALL CAPITOL AVE. T ST. V ST. V ST. V ST. BROADWAY RICHARDS BLVD.

JIBOOM ST. - DOS RIOS BLVD N. 10TH ST. - DOS RIOS BLVD. DOS RIOS BLVD. - 14TH ST. 14TH ST. - N. 16TH ST. N. 16TH ST. - 18TH ST. 7TH ST. - 15TH ST. 15 TH ST. - 20TH ST. 20TH ST. - 30TH ST. 14TH ST. - 30TH ST. SAC. RIVER - 10TH ST. 15TH ST. - 28TH ST. 3RD ST. - 30TH ST. 5TH ST. - 6TH ST. 8TH ST. - 17TH ST. 17TH ST. - 28TH ST. FRONT ST. - MUIR WAY DOS RIOS BLVD. TO I-80 TOTAL

1.36 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.59 0.35 0.73 1.20 0.74 0.96 2.04 0.10 0.75 0.80 0.59 1.60 12.38 0

8%

II II II III II II III II II III II II II II III II

COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM

II II II III II II III II II II II II II II III II II

3400 0 375 75 325 1475 175 1825 0 370 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 10420

0 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 3000 0 0 5100 250 1875 400 1475 0 12450

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET FRONT ST. FRONT ST. 3RD ST. 5TH ST. 6TH ST. 8TH ST. N. 10TH ST. DOS RIOS BLVD. 11TH ST. 14TH ST. 14TH ST. 17TH ST. 20TH ST. 24TH ST. 28TH ST. BROADWAY - R ST. R ST. - 2ND ST. BROADWAY - FRONT ST. BROADWAY - T ST. V ST. - T ST. V ST. - T ST. RICHARDS BLVD. - VINE ST. N. B ST. - VINE ST. BROADWAY - N ST. L ST. - N ST. B ST. - N. B ST. V ST. - T ST. T ST. - E ST. BROADWAY - E ST. V ST. - C ST. TOTAL 07/18/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY #13 MILEAGE CLASS CITY COST COUNTY COST CITY CO. STATUS 5 YRS 10 YRS ULTI 5 YRS 10 YRS 5 YRS 10 YRS 0.57 0.44 0.70 0.37 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.45 0.86 0.78 0.14 0.14 1.20 1.20 1.50 8.86 0.00 COM COM II III II II II II II II 10% COM COM COM II III III II II II II III II II II II II II II II III III II II II 1425 220 0 925 0 0 0 0 2150 0 0 0 3000 3000 3750 14470 0 0 1750 0 350 350 575 1125 0 1950 70 70 0 0 0 6240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

COM

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST OFF STREET

S.P.R.R. BIKE TR. N ST.

JIBOOM ST - E ST. 3RD ST. - 14TH ST. TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET

0.76 1.01 1.77 0.00

COM

I I

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

S.N.R.R. SAC RIVER BIKE TR.

N B ST. - AMERICAN RIVER I ST. - TICORNIA PARK TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

0.38 0.95 1.33 0.00 21.24 0.00 3.10 0.00

COM COM

I I

0 0 0 24890 0

0 0 0 18690 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

07/18/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY ELK GROVE #28 MILEAGE CLASS CITY COST COUNTY COST CITY CO. STATUS 5 YRS 10 YRS ULTI 5 YRS 10 YRS 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

SHELDON RD. BOND RD. ELK GROVE BLVD.

HWY 99 - GRANT LINE RD. HWY 99 - GRANT LINE RD. HWY 99 - GRANT LINE RD. TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET

5.83 4.55 3.41 0.00 13.79

II II II

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 34475

STOCKTON BLVD. ELK GROVE-FLORIN RD. WATERMAN RD. BRADSHAW RD. EXCELSIOR RD. GRANT LINE RD. WILTON RD.

GRANT LINE RD. - CALVINE RD. STOCKTON BLVD. - CALVINE RD. GRANT LINE RD. - CALVINE RD. GRANT LINE RD. - CALVINE RD. SHELDON RD. - CALVINE RD. HWY 99 - CALVINE RD. GRANT LINE RD. - COSUMNES RIVER TOTAL

5.89 4.53 4.83 3.64 1.00 6.99 1.50 0.00 28.38

II II III III III III

II III

II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 14725 0 11325 0 2415 0 1820 0 0 0 3495 0 750 0 34530

0 0 12075 0 500 0 0 12575

EAST - WEST OFF STREET WHITEHOUSE CREEK LAGUNA CREEK HWY 99 TO UNION HOUSE CREEK HWY 99 - GRANT LINE RD. TOTAL 0.00 1.42 7.12 8.54 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET UNION HOUSE CREEK LAGUNA CREEK LAGUNA CREEK TO CALVINE RD. LAGUNA CREEK - CALVINE RD. TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0.00 2.26 1.67 3.93 42.17 12.47 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12575 0

0 69005 0 0

07/18/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY FAIR OAKS #8

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

MILEAGE CLASS CITY COST COUNTY COST CITY CO. STATUS 5 YRS 10 YRS ULTI 5 YRS 10 YRS 5 YRS 10 YRS

CALIFORNIA AVE. WINDING WY. SUNSET AVE. F.O.B.

F.O.B. TO TEMESCAL ST. SAN JUAN AVE. TO HAZEL AVE. SAN JUAN AVE. TO MAIN AVE. SAN JUAN AVE. TO SUNRISE BLVD. TOTAL 0.00

0.09 3.82 4.43 1.10 9.44

35% COM COM

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET SAN JUAN AVE. BANNISTER AVE. PENNSYLVAINA AVE. RIVER DR. SUNRISE BLVD. F.O.B. BRIDGE ST. CHICAGO AVE. KENNETH AVE. HAZEL AVE. PHOENIX FIELD TEMESCAL ST. MAIN AVE. PHOENIX PARK RD. F.O.B. TO MADISON AVE. AMERICAN RIVER TO F.O.B. RIVER DR. TO F.O.B. AMERICAN RIVER TO PENN. AVE. FAIR OAKS BLVD. TO MADISON AVE. SUNRISE BLVD. TO MADISON AVE. F.O.B. TO RAVINA CT. WINDING WY. TO MADISON AVE. WINDING WY. TO MADISON AVE. AMERICAN RIVER TO MADISON AVE. SUNSET AVE. TO MADISON AVE. BRIDGE ST. TO MAIN AVE. TEMESCAL ST. TO F.O.B. SUNSET AVE. TO PARKWAY TOTAL 1.82 0.23 0.13 0.15 2.05 2.00 0.29 1.02 1.29 1.89 0.77 0.16 0.07 0.44 0.00 12.31 COM COM COM COM 60% 63% II II III III III II II III II III III III II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4550 575 65 75 1025 5000 725 0 645 4725 0 80 35 0 0 0 0 0 5125 0 0 510 3225 0 1925 0 0 220 11005

II

COM COM

III II II

0 17500

EAST - WEST OFF STREET BIKE TRAIL BANNISTER AVE. TO RIVER DR. TOTAL 1.33 COM 0.00 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET CHICAGO AVE. N/O LAKE NATOMA PHOENIX PARK TRAIL BETWEEN ON STREET PROPOSED HAZEL AVE. TO DREDGER WY. PHOENIX PARK TO AMER. RIVER TRAIL TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0.16 2.21 COM 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11005 0

0 33280 0 0

07/18/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY FRANKLIN-LAGUNA #27 & #31 MILEAGE CLASS CITY COST COUNTY COST CO. STATUS 5 YRS 10 YRS ULTI 5 YRS 10 YRS 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

CITY

TWIN CITIES RD. LAMBERT RD. KAMMERER RD. REG. SANIT. BUFFER ELK GROVE BLVD.

I-5 - COSUMNES RIVER I-5 BRUCEVILLE RD. BRUCEVILLE RD. - HWY. 99 24TH ST. TO W.P.R.R. FRANKLIN BLVD. - HWY. 99 TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET

4.50 2.75 3.30 0.95 3.40 0.95 13.95

III

II

II III III II II

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

2250 0 0 0 8500

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 10750

FRANKLIN BLVD. BRUCEVILLE RD.

SAN JOAQUIN CO. - SAC CITY LIMIT TWIN CITIES RD. - SAC CITY LIMIT TOTAL EAST - WEST OFF STREET

13.90 10.40 0.00 24.30

III III

II II

0 0 0

0 0 0

6950 0 6950

0 5200 5200

WHITEHOUSE CREEK

LAGUNA CREEK TO US-99 TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET 0.00

0.97 0.97

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

NONE TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY GREENHAVEN #25 0.00 0.00

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 5200 0

0.95 38.25 0.00 0.97

0 17700 0 0

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

CITY

MILEAGE CLASS CITY COST COUNTY COST CO. STATUS 5 YRS 10 YRS ULTI 5 YRS 10 YRS 5 YRS 10 YRS

35TH AVE. 43RD AVE. BLAIR AVE. 56TH AVE. RIVERSIDE BLVD. PARK RIVIERA WAY POCKET RD. GLORIA DR. GLORIA DR. FLORIN RD. PARK RIVIERA WAY PARK RIVIERA WAY

RIVERSIDE BLVD. TO FREEPORT BLVD. GREENHAVEN DR. TO S.P.R.R. S.P.R.R. TO FREEPORT BLVD. HAVENHURST DR. TO S. LAND PARK DR. POCKET RD. TO GREENHAVEN DR. POCKET RD. TO RIVERSIDE BLVD. RIVERSIDE BLVD. TO PARK RIVIERA DR. POCKET CANAL TO GREENHAVEN DR. GREENHAVEN DR. TO 35TH AVE. GREENHAVEN DR. TO FREEPORT BLVD. POCKET RD. TO RIVERSIDE BLVD. GLORIA DR. TO RIVERSIDE BLVD. TOTAL

1.42 1.33 0.25 0.48 2.13 0.37 0.89 2.35 2.46 1.14 0.19 0.28 13.29 0.00

II II II III COM COM COM II II II III II II COM

II II II III II II II II III II II II

3550 0 0 0 0 925 0 5875 1230 0 475 0

0 3225 625 240 0 0 2225 0 0 2850 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET FLORIN RD. HAVENSIDE DR. GREENHAVEN DR. HAVENHURST DR. S. LAND PARK DR. 13TH ST. CLIPPER WAY RIVERSIDE BLVD. 13TH ST. S. LAND PARK DR. RIVERSIDE BLVD. TO GREENHAVEN DR. POCKET CANAL TO RIVERSIDE BLVD. FLORIN RD. TO RIVERSIDE BLVD. GREENHAVEN DR. TO GREENHAVEN DR. FLORIN RD TO 14TH ST. S. LAND PARK RD. TO 35TH ST. SAC RIVER TO RIVERSIDE BLVD. 100'S 35TH AVE TO SEAMAS S. LAND PARK RD. TO 35TH ST. 14TH ST. TO FRUITRIDGE RD. TOTAL 1.67 1.83 1.56 0.61 0.64 2.18 0.15 0.28 1.00 1.90 11.82 0.00 COM COM COM III III II COM II II II II II II III III II III II II II 0 0 0 0 320 0 0 700 0 4750 5770 0 0 0 305 0 5450 0 0 2500 0 8255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EAST - WEST OFF STREET DRAINAGE CANAL ZACHARIAS PARK SWAN RIVER CT. TO HAVENSIDE DR. SAC RIVER TO RIVERSIDE BLVD. TOTAL 1.29 0.19 1.48 0.00 I I 129000 I 0 129000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET FRANK SEYMOUR PARK S.P.R.R. SAC RIVER BIKE TR. SAC RIVER BIKE TR. RIVERSIDE BLVD. TO FLORIN RD. FRUITRIDGE RD. TO FLORIN RD. CLIPPER WAY TO ALSTAN CT. CLIPPER WAY TO 600'S OF 35TH AVE. TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 07/19/91 2.10 2.13 2.70 0.11 7.04 25.11 8.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 COM I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 17825 129000 0 0 0 0 0 17520 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

COM

BIKEWAY INVENTORY LAND PARK #15 MILEAGE CLASS CITY COST COUNTY COST CITY CO. STATUS 5 YRS 10 YRS ULTI 5 YRS 10 YRS 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

5TH AVE. 9TH AVE. 12TH AVE. BYPASS 21ST. AVE. 26TH AVE. 2ND AVE. VALLEJO WAY 7TH AVE. SUTTERVILLE RD. 13TH AVE. SUTTERVILLE RD. 20TH AVE. 22ND AVE. 21ST AVE. WENTWORTH AVE. SHIELAH WAY HARTE WAY IRVIN WAY 26TH AVE. 27TH AVE. 27TH AVE. 28TH AVE. NEVIS CT. SEAMAS AVE. FRUITRIDGE RD. 8TH AVE. 2ND AVE. 13TH AVE. 12TH AVE. 11TH AVE. VALLEJO WAY 3RD AVE. 27TH AVE.

FRANKLIN BLVD. - MARTIN LUTHER KING 32ND ST. TO MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. FRANKLIN BLVD. TO MARTIN LUTHER KING FRANKLIN BLVD. TO MARTIN LUTHER KING 27TH AVE. TO MARTIN LUTHER KING RIVERSIDE BLVD. TO FRANKLIN BLVD. 5TH ST. TO 17TH ST. 24TH ST. TO FRANKLIN BLVD. FREEPORT BLVD TO FRANKLIN BLVD. LAND PARK DR. TO FREEPORT BLVD. SAC. RIVER TO FREEPORT BLVD. FREEPORT BLVD. TO 23RD ST. 23RD ST. TO 24TH ST. ARLINGTON AVE. TO FRANKLIN BLVD. MONTEREY WAY TO FREEPORT BLVD. FREEPORT BLVD. TO JOAQUIN WAY JOAQUIN WAY TO IRVIN WAY HARLE WAY TO 24TH ST. 24TH ST. TO FRANKLIN BLVD. DEL RIO RD. TO MONTEREY DR. ELMAR WAY TO NOONAN DR. KARBET WAY ELMER WAY SOUTH LAND PARK DR. TO DEL RIO RD. PIEDMONT TO SOUTH LAND PARK DR. SOUTH LAND PARK DR. TO 24TH ST. FRANKLIN BLVD. TO 33RD ST. ALHAMBRA BLVD. TO FRANKLIN BLVD. LAND PARK TO FREEPORT BLVD. FREEPORT BLVD. TO 23RD ST. RIVERSIDE BLVD. TO 18TH ST. 17TH ST. TO FREEPORT BLVD. ALHAMBRA BLVD. TO 32ND ST. FRANKLIN BLVD. TO HWY 99 TOTAL

0.56 0.43 0.59 0.46 0.33 1.38 0.98 0.33 0.96 0.48 1.10 0.37 0.30 0.27 0.35 0.18 0.16 0.34 0.53 0.19 0.18 0.09 0.19 0.89 1.50 0.19 0.13 0.53 0.17 0.70 0.30 0.05 0.18 15.39 0.00

COM

III III III III III III III III III

COM

III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III

COM

COM

III III

III III II III III III III III II III II III III III III III III III III III III III III II II III III III III III III III III

280 215 0 0 0 690 490 165 0 240 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 265 95 90 45 0 0 0 95 65 265 0 0 0 25 90 3265

0 0 0 230 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 0 135 175 90 80 170 0 0 0 0 95 445 750 0 0 0 85 350 150 0 0 3105

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY LAND PARK #15 MILEAGE CLASS CITY COST COUNTY COST CITY CO. STATUS 5 YRS 10 YRS ULTI 5 YRS 10 YRS 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET

34TH ST. 37TH ST. 33RD ST. ALHAMBRA BLVD. 32ND ST. RAMP WAY 5TH ST. MUIR WAY MUIR WAY RIVERSIDE BLVD. KARBET WAY ELMER WAY SAN MATEO WAY SOUTHLAND PARK DR. SOUTHLAND PARK DR. DEL RIO DR. MONTERY WAY 17TH ST. FREEPORT BLVD. 21ST ST. 24TH ST. EAST PACIFIC AVE. 24TH ST. 24TH ST. 18TH ST. FREEPORT BLVD. ARLINGTON AVE.

21ST AVE. TO 12TH AVE. BYPASS 12TH AVE. BYPASS TO 9TH AVE. 12TH AVE. BYPASS TO 5TH AVE. BROADWAY TO 3RD. AVE. 3RD AVE. TO 5TH ST. BIKE TRAIL TO MILLER PARK VALLEJO WAY TO BROADWAY VALLEJO WAY TO McCLATCHY WAY McCLATCHY WAY TO BROADWAY SEAMAS AVE. TO BROADWAY SEAMAS AVE. TO 25TH AVE. KARBET WAY TO 27TH AVE. RIVERSIDE BLVD. TO S.P.R.R. FRUITRIDGE RD. TO SUTTERVILLE RD. 11TH AVE. TO 2ND AVE. NEVIS CT. TO SUTTERVILLE RD. 27TH AVE. TO WENTWORTH AVE. C.K. McCLATHCY H.S. TO VALLEJO WAY FRUITRIDGE RD. TO SUTTERVILLE RD. 20TH AVE. TO SUTTERVILLE RD. SUTTERVILLE RD. TO BROADWAY WILMINGTON AVE. TO SUTTERVILLE RD. FRUITRIDGE RD. TO 22ND AVE. 22ND AVE. TO CITY COLLEGE 11TH AVE. TO 13TH AVE. VALLEJO WAY TO SUTTERVILLE RD. 21ST AVE. TO WILMINGTON AVE. TOTAL EAST - WEST OFF STREET

0.50 0.19 0.56 0.28 0.36 0.14 0.57 0.24 0.35 3.22 0.62 0.24 0.14 1.18 0.89 0.97 0.18 0.12 0.94 0.23 1.32 0.15 0.48 0.47 0.13 0.95 0.27 15.69 0.00

III COM COM COM III III III III III II III II II III III III III II III III III II III III III II II III III III

COM COM COM

COM

COM

COM

III III III III III III II III II II III III III III II III III III II III III III II II III II III

0 95 0 140 180 70 1425 120 875 0 0 0 0 590 2225 0 0 60 2350 115 660 0 0 0 0 475 135 9515

250 0 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 8050 310 120 70 0 0 485 90 0 0 0 0 75 1200 1175 65 0 0 12170

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NONE TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET SAC. CITY COLLEGE LAND PARK DR. S.P.R.R. UPRR (EAST) UPRR YARD SAC. RIVER LEVEE SAC. RIVER LEVEE SUTTERVILLE RD. TO 12TH AVE. SUTTERVILLE RD. TO 11TH AVE. FRUITRIDGE RD. TO SAN MATEO WAY VALLEJO WAY TO CITY COLLEGE 10TH AVE. TO CITY COLLEGE RAMP WAY TO CAPTAINS TABLE RD. CAPTAINS TABLE RD TO 600' S/O 35TH TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 07/19/91 0.29 0.53 1.27 0.66 0.23 2.03 1.38 6.39 0.00 31.08 0.00 6.39 0.00 I I I I I I I 0.00 0.00

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

COM

COM COM

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12780 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15275 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BIKEWAY INVENTORY McKINLEY PARK #14 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

C ST. ELVAS AVE. McKINLEY BLVD. H ST. J ST. GRANADA ST. M ST. N ST. FOLSOM BLVD. FOLSOM BLVD. FOLSOM BLVD. FOLSOM BLVD. COLLEGE TOWN DR. LA RIVIERA DR.

33RD ST. - ELVAS AVE. C ST. - F ST. 30TH ST. - ELVAS AVE. 30TH ST. - 55TH ST. 55TH ST. - CARLSON DR. 30TH ST. - 35TH ST. 35TH ST. - ELVAS AVE. 33RD ST. - 34TH ST. 30TH ST. - 35TH ST. 35TH ST. - 47TH ST. 47TH ST. - 65TH ST. 65TH ST. - POWER INN RD. CSUS - LA RIVERA DR. COLLEGE TOWN DR. - HOWE AVE. TOTAL

0.52 1.32 1.18 1.75 0.46 0.28 2.02 0.05 0.37 0.91 1.21 1.06 0.44 0.19 11.76 0.00

COM COM 15% COM COM COM COM

II II II III III III III III II III II II II

COM COM COM COM COM

II II II II II III III III II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 230 140 0 25 185 2275 605 2650 0 0 6110

1300 3300 2950 0 0 0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 1100 475 10135

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET 55TH ST. 58TH ST. 59TH ST. HORNET DR. ALHAMBRA BLVD. 33RD ST. 33RD ST. 34TH ST. 34TH ST. 35TH ST. 39TH ST. 48TH ST. 51TH ST. FOLSOM BLVD. - ELVAS AVE. FOLSOM BLVD. - J ST. S.P.R.R. - FOLSOM BLVD. FOLSOM BLVD. - COLLEGE TOWN DR. R ST. - C ST. H ST. - N ST. McKINLEY BLVD. - C ST. McKINLEY BLVD. - C ST. N ST. TO STOCKTON BLVD. M ST. TO GRANADA ST. S.P.R.R. - FOLSOM BLVD. S.P.R.R. - FOLSOM BLVD. S.P.R.R. - FOLSOM BLVD. TOTAL EAST - WEST OFF STREET AMER. R BIKE TRAIL CAMPUS TRAIL J ST. - RIVER PARK CSUS - HOWE AVE. TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET NONE TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0.00 16.62 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11400 0 0 10135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.19 2.06 2.25 0.00 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.60 0.46 0.15 0.25 1.18 0.74 0.16 0.14 0.38 0.07 0.28 0.24 0.21 4.86 0.00 COM III III III II II III III III III III III III III III III III II II III III III III III III III III 300 230 75 625 2950 370 80 70 190 35 140 120 105 5290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

COM COM COM COM COM COM

COM

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY NORTH HIGHLANDS/FOOTHILL FARMS #5

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

MILEAGE CITY CO.

STATUS

5 YRS

CLASS 10 YRS

ULTI

CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

ELVERTA RD. N. LOOP BLVD. U ST. ANTELOPE RD. Q ST. AIRBASE DR. MADISON AVE. LONGVIEW DR. WINDING WY. ELKHORN BLVD. DON JULIO BLVD. CYPRESS AVE. MYRTLE AVE. ORANGE GROVE. AVE.

28TH ST. TO DON JULIO BLVD. ELVERTA RD. TO DON JULIO BLVD. 28TH TO WATT AVE. WATT AVE. TO ROSEVILLE RD. 28TH ST. TO WATT AVE. WATT AVE. TO MADISON AVE. ROSEVILLE RD. TO GARFIELD AVE. ROSEVILLE RD. TO WATT AVE. AUBURN BLVD. TO WALNUT AVE. 28TH ST. TO GARFIELD WATT AVE. TO PLACER CO. EDISON AVE. TO WALNUT AVE. I-80 TO HEMLOCK ST. AUBURN BLVD. TO COLLEGE OAK DR. TOTAL

3.33 1.76 0.94 3.20 0.95 0.34 2.27 1.08 1.27 4.02 4.72 0.52 1.33 0.53 1.08 25.18

13%

24% EDG

II II III II II II II II II II II II

II III

COM COM 69% COM COM 25%

II II II II II II II II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8325 4400 470 8000 0 850 5675 0 3175 10050 11800 1300 3325 1325 58695

0 0 2350 0 475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2825

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET WATT AVE. LARCHMONT DR. WALEGRA RD. ANTELOPE N. RD. DIABLO DR. ROSEVILLE RD. HILLSDALE BLVD. AUBURN BLVD. COLLEGE OAK DR. HEMLOCK ST. GARFIELD AVE. PASADENA AVE. AUBURN BLVD. TO PLACER CO. WALEGRA RD. TO WATT AVE. HILLSDALE BLVD. TO PLACER CO. ANTELOPE RD. TO PLACER CO. ELKHORN BLVD. TO ROSEVILLE RD. LONGVIEW DR. TO PLACER CO. MADISON AVE. TO ELKHORN BLVD. WATT AVE. TO GARFIELD AVE. WINDING WY. TO MADISON AVE. MYRTLE AVE. TO AUBURN BLVD. MADISON AVE. TO GREENBACK LN. CYPRESS AVE. TO WINDING WY. 6.49 1.67 3.86 1.36 0.91 7.64 2.30 3.33 1.12 0.77 1.42 0.23 25% 43% III II III II 84% COM COM COM COM COM II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3245 0 9650 0 0 19100 5750 8325 2800 1925 3550 575 16225 4175 0 680 2275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL

0.00

31.10

54920

23355

EAST - WEST OFF STREET DEL PASO PARK ROSEVILLE RD. TO AUBURN BLVD. TOTAL 2.58 2.58 0.00 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET NONE TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0.00 1.08 2.58 0.00 56.28 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113615 0 0 0 26180 0

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY NORTH NATOMAS - CITY #2 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

DEL PASO RD. DEL PASO RD. DEL PASO RD. N. LOOP RD. SAN JUAN RD. MIDWAY RD. N. MARKET RD. N. MARKET RD. S. LOOP RD. S. LOOP RD. E. LOOP RD.

POWER LN. TO W. SAC CITY LIMIT E. SAC CITY LIMIT TO E. LEVEE RD. W. SAC CITY LIMIT TO E. CITY LIMIT I - 5 TO E. LOOP RD. GARDEN HWY. TO I - 80 GARDEN HWY. TO E. COMMERCE WAY E. COMMERCE WAY TO W. CITY LIMIT W. CITY LIMIT TO NORTHGATE BLVD. GARDEN HWY. TO W. CITY LIMIT W. CITY LIMIT TO MARKET BLVD. MARKET BLVD. TO N. LOOP RD. TOTAL

1.42 0.45 2.33 2.79 2.49 2.36 1.00 1.46 1.10 2.25 2.00 15.22 4.43

6%

III III II

II II II

II II

II II II II II II II II II II II

0 0 5825 0 0 0 2500 0 0 0 0 8325

0 0 5825 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5825

710 225 0 0 0 0 0 3650 0 0 0 4585

3550 1125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4675

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET E. COMMERCE WAY TRUXEL RD. NORTHGATE BLVD. W. COMMERCE WAY EL CENTRO RD. SAN JUAN BLVD. TO ELKHORN BLVD. I-80 TO N. LOOP RD I-80 TO ELKHORN BLVD. SAN JUAN RD. TO EL CENTRO RD. I-80 TO DEL PASO RD. TOTAL 4.45 2.90 3.58 2.16 3.11 16.20 0.00 II II II II II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8%

EAST - WEST OFF STREET SAN JUAN CANAL DEL PASO CANAL DEL PASO CANAL REGIONAL PK CONNEC ELKHORN CORP CANAL ELKHORN CORP CANAL SAN JUAN CANAL C - 1 CANAL C - 1 CANAL GARDEN HWY. TO W. DRAIN GARDEN HWY. TO I-5 I-5 TO W. CITY LIMITS I-5 TO E. DRAINAGE AND LOOP EL CENTRO RD. TO CITY LIMITS W. DRAIN TO E. DRAIN W. DRAIN TO E. DRAIN E. DRAIN TO W. CITY LIMIT W. CITY LIMIT TO NORTHGATE BLVD. TOTAL 1.33 2.27 0.66 2.97 2.33 0.38 1.70 0.90 0.89 10.83 2.60 I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY NORTH NATOMAS - CITY #2 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

GARDEN HWY. ELKHORN CORP CANAL E. DRAINAGE CANAL W. DRAIN E. DRAINAGE CANAL

I-80 TO POWER INN RD. N. LOOP ROAD TO ELKHORN BLVD. SAN JUAN CANAL TO ELKHORN BLVD. I-80 TO DEL PASO RD. NEIGHBORHOOD PK TO REGIONAL PARK N. CITY LIMITS TO I-80

4.32 1.26 3.50 3.85 0.76 1.02

I I I I I I

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

8.61 31.42 19.44

4.32 4.32 6.92

0 8325 0

0 5825 0

0 4585 0

0 4675 0

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY NORTH NATOMAS - COUNTY #1 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

ELVERTA RD. ELKHORN BLVD. N. BAYOU WY. BAYOU WY. N. LOOP ROAD

GARDEN HWY. TO E. LEVEE RD. AIRPORT BLVD. TO E. LEVEE RD. GARDEN HWY. TO POWER LINE RD. AIRPORT BLVD. TO POWER LINE RD. DEL PASO RD. TO I-80 TOTAL

6.36 5.94 1.82 0.92 0.55 0.55 15.04

78% 58%

III III III III

II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

3180 2970 0 460 0 6610

0 0 0 0 0 910

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET GARDEN HWY. POWER LINE RD. EL CENTRO RD. AIRPORT BLVD. N BAYOU RD. TO SUTTER COUNTY DEL PASO RD. TO SUTTER CO. ELKHORN BLVD. TO SUTTER CO. BAYOU RD. TO AIRPORT BLVD. TOTAL EAST - WEST OFF STREET DRAINAGE CANAL DRAINAGE CANAL W. BRANCH CANAL W. BRANCH CANAL GARDEN HWY TO SUTTER COUNTY LINE POWER LN TO EL CENTRO RD. POWER LN TO W. CITY LIMIT W. CITY LIMITS TO N. LOOP ROAD TOTAL 1.17 2.21 1.33 0.89 0.89 4.71 I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 4.99 5.61 3.48 2.88 16.96 III III EDG EDG II II II II II II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 7200 15900 2495 2805 0 0 5300

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET GARDEN HWY W. DRAIN W. DRAINAGE CANAL POWER LINE RD TO N BAYOU ROAD DEL PASO RD. TO W. BRANCH CANAL ELKHORN BLVD. TO ELVERTA RD. TOTAL 4.41 0.53 2.18 0.00 7.12 I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

0.55 0.89

32.00 11.83

0 0

0 0

22510 0

6210 0

STATUS NOTE: EDG MEANS THE STREET HAS BEEN EDGELINED. % MEANS THE STREET HAS BEEN PARTIALLY EDGELINED. COM MEANS THE STREET WAS ESTABLISHED AS A BIKEWAY TO 1976 STANDARDS.

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY NORTH SACRAMENTO #4 & #11 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

ASCOT AVE. CLAIRE AVE. MAIN AVE. MAIN AVE. BELL AVE. MORRISON AVE. GRAND AVE. SILVER EAGLE RD. HAYES AVE. CARROLL AVE. FAIRBANKS AVE. ARCADE BLVD. DEL PASO BLVD. SOUTH AVE. ACACIA AVE. ELEANOR AVE GLENROSE AVE. LAMPASAS AVE. EL CAMINO AVE. EL CAMINO AVE. DIXIEANNE AVE. ARDEN WAY WOODLAKE DR. SOUTHGATE RD. LEISURE LN. EL CAMINO AVE. SILICA AVE. BOWLING GREEN DR. KEITH WAY FEE DR. RESPONSE RD. HERITAGE LN. EXPOSITION BLVD.

DRY CREEK TO RALEY BLVD. SULLY ST. TO MAFB WPRR TO RIO LINDA BLVD. RIO LINDA BLVD. TO RALEY BLVD. BOLLENBACHER AVE. TO WINTERS ST. WESTERN AVE. TO RIO LINDA BLVD. RIO LINDA BLVD. TO WINTERS ST. W.P.R.R. TO NORWOOD AVE. NORWOOD AVE. TO ALTOS AVE. NORWOOD AVE. TO ALTOS AVE. WESTERN AVE. TO NORWOOD AVE. RIO LINDA BLVD. TO DEL PASO BLVD. ARCADE BLVD. TO DAYTON ST. PINELL AVE. TO DAYTON ST. ALTOS AVE. TO ARCADE BLVD. CARL JOHNSON PARK TO DEL PASO BLVD. LEXINGTON ST. TO DEL PASO BLVD. EDGEWATER RD. TO NORWOOD AVE. W.P.R.R. TO GROVE AVE. I-80 TO GROVE AVE. BEAUMONT ST. TO LEXINGTON ST. ACOMA ST. TO DEL PASO BLVD. CANTERBURY RD. TO ROYAL OAKS DR. CANTERBURY RD. TO ROYAL OAKS DR. CANTERBURY RD. TO ROYAL OAKS DR. I-80 TO CITY LIMIT RAY ST. TO ALBATROSS WAY KEITH LN. TO RAY ST. BOWLING GREEN DR. TO CITY LIMIT TRIBUTE RD. TO BLUMEN FIELD DR. EXPOSITION BLVD. TO CHALLENGE WAY EXPOSITION BLVD. TO ARDEN WAY HWY 160 TO CITY LIMIT TOTAL

0.47 1.86 1.42 0.96 3.07 1.18 1.85 0.73 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.93 0.75 0.09 0.05 1.28 0.09 0.26 0.38 1.91 0.40 0.40 0.51 0.50 0.67 0.44 0.07 0.36 0.38 0.63 0.80 0.45 1.67 26.16 0.00

III II II II 51% II II III III III II II III III III COM COM III III III II III III III III III III COM II II II

COM 64%

III II II II II II II II II III II II II II III III III III III II III II III III III II II III III II II II II

0 0 3550 0 0 0 4625 1825 0 0 0 0 1875 0 0 0 0 130 190 0 200 0 255 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20575

235 4650 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 250 300 2325 0 0 25 640 45 0 0 0 0 1000 0 0 335 0 35 180 190 0 2000 1125 4175 17760

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY NORTH SACRAMENTO #4 & #11 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

RIO LINDA BLVD. KELTON WAY WESTERN AVE. NORWOOD AVE. SULLY ST. TRIBUTE RD. DRY CREEK RD. MARYSVILLE BLVD. RALEY BLVD. PINELL ST. WESTERN AVE. WESTERN AVE. CANTERBURY RD. CANTERBURY RD. GROVE AVE. NORWOOD AVE. ROYAL OAKS DR. BEAUMONT ST. BRANCH ST. LEXINGTON ST. AUBURN BLVD. ROSEVILLE RD. HARVARD ST. RAY ST. ALBATROSS WAY CHALLENGE WAY

ARCADE BLVD. TO ACACIA AVE. CARL HANSEN PARK TO MAIN AVE. MORRISON AVE. TO SOUTH AVE. MAIN ST. TO SOUTH AVE. CARL HANSEN PARK TO MAIN AVE. 160 TO I-80 BELL AVE. TO ASCOT AVE. ARCADE BLVD. TO NORTH AVE. ASCOT AVE TO NORTH AVE. BELL AVE. TO SOUTH AVE. FORD AVE. TO FAIRBANKS AVE. SOUTH AVE. TO FORD AVE. WOODLAKE DR. TO HWY 160 ARDEN WAY TO WOODLAKE DR. LAMPASAS AVE. TO ARDEN WAY SOUTH AVE. TO LAMPASAS AVE. ARDEN WAY TO 160 EL CAMINO AVE. TO ARDEN WAY ARCADE AVE. TO ELEANOR AVE. GLENROSE AVE. TO DIXIEANNE AVE. MARCONI AVE. TO EL CAMINO AVE. CONNIE DR. TO MARCONI AVE. EL CAMINO AVE. TO FEE DR. SILICA WAY TO BOWLING GREEN DR. EL CAMINO AVE. TO SILICA WAY RESPONSE RD. TO EXPOSITION BLVD. TOTAL

0.19 0.24 0.35 1.52 0.47 0.52 1.47 1.07 1.88 0.71 0.20 0.31 0.34 0.08 1.01 1.35 0.43 0.36 0.57 0.40 0.98 0.16 0.53 0.12 0.14 0.09 15.49 0.00

II II III II II COM II III III III III III II III 70% 60% II II III III III COM COM COM III III II

II II II II II II II II II II II II III II II II II III III III II II II III II II

0 600 0 3800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 200 0 3375 0 180 285 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 8810

475 0 175 0 1175 0 3675 535 0 355 100 155 0 0 505 0 1075 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 70 225 8580

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY NORTH SACRAMENTO #4 & #11 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST OFF STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

N. ARCADE CREEK S. ARCADE CREEK DEL PASO PARK CARL HANS PK/DRY CREEK DEL PASO PARK

WPRR TO MARYSVILLE BLVD. WPRR TO MARYSVILLE BLVD. EDGE OF MAP TO I-80 WPRR TO RIO LINDA BLVD. ROSEVILLE RD. TO FULTON AVE. TOTAL

2.22 2.22 0.70 1.79 1.75 8.68 0.00

COM

I I I I I

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET CANTERBURY RD. NATOMAS E. MAIN DR. E NATOMAS E. MAIN DR. E SAC NORTHERN RR SAC NORTHERN RR 160 TO AMERICAN RIVER PKWY ASCOT AVE. TO AMERICAN RIVER PKWY CARL HANSEN PK TO SAC NORTHERN RR LATHROP WAY TO SOUTH AVE ASCOT AVE. TO SOUTH AVE. TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0.30 4.70 3.70 3.84 2.50 15.04 41.65 23.72 0 0.00 0.00 I I I COM COM I I I I I 30000 0 370000 0 0 400000 29385 400000 0 470000 0 0 0 470000 26340 470000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY ORANGEVALE #7 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

CHERRY AVE. GOLDEN GATE AVE. OAK AVE. WOODMORE OAK DR. CENTRAL AVE. ORANGEVALE AVE. GREENBACK LN. PERSHING AVE. MADISON AVE. SKYRIDGE DR. BLUE OAK DR. WINDING OAK DR.

HAZEL AVE. TO MOUTAIN AVE. MOUNTAIN AVE. TO CARDWELL AVE. KENNETH AVE. TO FOLSOM CITY LIMIT F.O.B. TO CENTRAL AVE. WOODMORE OAK DR. TO SANTA JUANITA MAIN AVE. TO GREENBACK LN. F.O.B. TO MADISON AVE. KENNETH AVE. TO MADISON AVE. F.O.B. TO GREENBACK LN. PERSHING AVE. TO MADISON AVE. MADISON AVE. TO MAIN AVE. MADISON AVE. TO MAIN AVE. TOTAL 0.00

1.24 0.24 2.79 0.74 3.26 0.53 4.01 1.98 3.98 0.48 0.62 1.11 20.98

III III COM COM COM 34% 16% EDG EDG II II II III III II III III III

II II II II II II

II II II II II II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 6975 1850 8150 265 2005 0 9950 240 310 555 30300

620 120 0 0 0 1325 10025 4950 0 1200 1550 2775 22565

STREET

LOCATION NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET

MILEAGE CITY CO.

STATUS

5 YRS

CLASS 10 YRS

ULTI

CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

SANTA JUANITA AVE. BARTON RD. ILLINOIS AVE. HICKORY AVE. KENNETH AVE. HAZEL AVE. CHESTNUT AVE. MAIN AVE. MOUNTAIN AVE. LAKE NATOMA DR. CARDWELL AVE. GRAINITE AVE.

CENTRAL AVE. TO BARTON RD. SANTA JUANITA TO PLACER CO. MADISON AVE. TO GREENBACK LN. GREENBACK LN. TO OAK AVE. MADISON AVE. TO OAK AVE. MADISON AVE. TO PLACER CO. PERSHING AVE. TO OAK AVE. SUNSET AVE. TO OAK AVE. OAK AVE. TO CHERRY AVE. MAIN AVE. TO MADISON AVE. OAK AVE. TO GOLDEN GATE AVE. OAK AVE. TO CHERRY AVE. TOTAL 0.00

2.20 0.01 1.00 1.52 2.48 3.63 2.00 3.32 0.70 0.76 0.45 0.70 18.77

85% COM COM

III II II

III III III III II III III III III III

II II II II II II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1240 9075 0 8300 0 0 0 0 18615

1100 5 500 760 6200 0 1000 0 350 380 225 350 10870

EAST - WEST OFF STREET C-B-C TRAIL WACHTEL WY. TO OAK AVE. TOTAL 0.00 1.27 1.27 I 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET N/O LAKE NATOMA DREDGER WY. TO CITY LIMIT TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 39.75 2.42 COM I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48915 0 0 0 33435 0

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY S. POCKET #26 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

GLORIA DR. HAVENSIDE DR. LITTLE RIVER WAY SOUTH LAND PARK DR. RUSH RIVER DR. POCKET RD. BRANWOOD WAY SOUTH LAND PARK DR. GRAND RIVER DR.

DRAINAGE CANAL TO RIVERGATE WAY DRAINAGE CANAL TO EL MECERO POCKET RD. TO RUSH RIVER DR. WINDBRIDGE DR. TO I-5 GLORIA DR. TO GREENHAVEN DR. BAY RIVER WAY TO FREEPORT BLVD. GOLDEN OAK WAY TO ALMA VISTA WAY I-5 TO FLORIN RD. SLEEPY RIVER WAY TO EL DOURO DR. TOTAL

0.56 0.28 0.57 0.07 1.61 3.38 0.15 0.55 0.34 7.51 0.00

II II II II II II III III III

II II II II II II III III III

1400 700 0 175 0 8450 0 275 0 11000

0 0 1425 0 4025 0 75 0 170 5695

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET FREEPORT BLVD. WINDBRIDGE DR. GREENHAVEN DR. SLEEPY RIVER DR. DURFEE WAY GOLDEN OAKS DR. GREENHAVEN DR. FLOWERWOOD WAY HIDDEN COVE CIR. ALMA VISTA WAY FLORIN RD. TO SAC. CITY LIMIT POCKET RD. TO GREENHAVEN DR. GRAND RIVER DR. TO FLORIN RD. SAC. RIVER TO GRAND RIVER DR. WINDBRIDGE DR. TO DRAINAGE CANAL BRANWOOD AVE. TO S. LAND PARK DR. POCKET RD. TO GRAND RIVER DR. D. CANAL TO WINDBRIDGE RUSH RIVER TO D. CANAL POCKET RD. TO BRANWOOD AVE. TOTAL 2.04 1.34 1.47 0.12 0.33 0.32 0.21 0.27 0.25 0.38 6.73 0.00 II II II II III III III III III III II II II II III III III III III III 5100 0 3675 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 8940 0 3350 0 300 0 160 105 135 125 190 4365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EAST - WEST OFF STREET DRAINAGE CANAL SAC. RIVER SAC. RIVER - GREENHAVEN DR. ALSTAN CT. - S. CITY LIMIT TOTAL 3.00 4.45 7.45 0.00 I I I I 0 445000 300000 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET S.P.R.R. SEYMOUR PARK FLORIN RD. - CITY LIMIT FLORIN RD. TO D. CANAL TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 1.67 0.30 1.97 14.24 9.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 I I 0 30000 30000 19940 475000 0 0 0 10060 300000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY RANCHO CORDOVA #18, #19, AND #20 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

TRADE CENTER DR. MERCANTILE DR. INTERNATIONAL DR. SALMON FALLS DR. LA RIVIERA DR. LINDA RIO DR. MIRA DEL RIO DR. FOLSOM BLVD. BUTTERFIELD WAY ROSEMONT DR. GOETHE RD. KIEFER BLVD. GOLD COUNTRY BLVD. GOLD EXPRESS DR. AMBASSADOR DR. COLOMA RD. ZINFANDEL DR. MIRA DEL RIO DR. FOLSOM BLVD. WHITE ROCK RD. WHITE ROCK SOUTH RD ROCKINGHAM DR. LINCOLN VILLAGE DR. OLD PLACERVILLE RD. FOLSOM BLVD. WHITE ROCK RD.

KILGORE RD. TO MERCANTILE DR. TRADE CENTER DR. TO FOLSOM BLVD. MATHER FIELD RD. TO KILGORE RD. LA RIVIERA DR. - US-50 WATT AVE. - FOLSOM BLVD. LA RIVIERA DR. - MIRA DEL RIO DR. FOLSOM BLVD. - EDGE OF MAP WATT AVE. - EDGE OF MAP MAYHEW RD. - LINDA RIO DR. KIEFER BLVD. - MAYHEW RD. MAYHEW RD. - BRADSHAW RD. CITY LIMIT - BRADSHAW RD. SUNRISE BLVD. - EDGE OF MAP SUNRISE BLVD. - GOLD RUSH DR GOETHE PARK - YUKON RIVER WAY FOLSOM BLVD. - GOLD COUNTRY BLVD. MATHER AFB. - SUNRISE BLVD. EDGE OF MAP - ROD BEAUDY DR. EDGE OF MAP - EDGE OF MAP FOLSOM BLVD. - MILLS PARK RD. ROCKINGHAM DR. - EDGE OF MAP OLD PLACERVILLE RD. - WHITE ROCK SO BRADSHAW RD. - ROUTIERS RD. BRADSHAW RD. - ROCKINGHAM DR. EDGE OF MAP - FOLSOM CITY LIMIT EDGE OF MAP - PRAIRIE CITY RD. TOTAL 0.00

0.99 0.53 1.97 0.55 1.12 1.43 1.38 2.67 0.68 1.08 0.53 2.95 2.06 0.42 1.83 4.63 3.48 0.93 6.92 0.68 4.17 0.52 1.08 2.42 3.92 6.18 55.12

III III COM COM III II II II II II II II II II II III II II II II II II II III II II II II III

II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 985 1375 2800 0 0 6675 0 0 0 7375 5150 0 915 11575 0 0 17300 0 2085 1300 0 6050 9800 3090 76475

495 265 0 0 0 3575 3450 0 1700 2700 1325 0 0 1050 4575 0 8700 2325 0 1700 0 0 2700 0 0 0 34560

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY RANCHO CORDOVA #18, #19, AND #20 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

CAPITAL CENTER DR. KILGORE RD. MANLOVE RD. MANLOVE RD. SOUTH WATT AVE. WATT AVE. THORNHILL DR. HUNTSMAN DR. MICRON AVE. BRANCH CENTER RD. MAYHEW RD. SUNRISE BLVD. GOLD RUSH DR. TRINITY RIVER DR. BRIDLEWOOD DR. EL MANTO DR. McGREGOR DR. CORDOVA LN. MILLS PARK DR. CHASE DR. MATHER FIELD RD. ROUTIERS RD. ROD BEAUDRY RD. BRADSHAW RD. HAZEL AVE. PRAIRE CITY RD. GRANT LINE RD.

INTERNATIONAL DR. TO WHITE ROCK RD. INTERNATIONAL DR. TO FOLSOM BLVD. FOLSOM BLVD. TO US-50 HWY 16 TO KIEFER BLVD. FOLSOM BLVD. - KIEFER BLVD. FOLSOM BLVD. - AMERICN RIVER HWY 16 - KIEFER BLVD. MAYHEW RD. - KIEFER BLVD. MAYHEW RD. - BRADSHAW RD. KIEFER BLVD. - GOETHE RD. KIEFER BLVD. - FOLSOM BLVD. KIEFER BLVD. TO COLMA RD. GOLD COUNTRY BLVD. - COLOMA RD. COLOMA RD. - SUNRISE BLVD. COLOMA RD. - ZINFANDEL DR. COLOMA RD. - AMBASSADOR RD. FOLSOM BLVD. - AMBASSADOR RD. COLOMA RD. - ZINFANDEL DR. FOLSOM BLVD. - WHITE ROCK RD. GOETHE PARK - COLOMA RD. FOLSOM BLVD. - MATHER AFB FOLSOM BLVD. - OLD PLACERVILLE RD. GOETHE PARK - FOLSOM BLVD. FOLSOM BLVD. - JACKSON RD. AMERICAN RIVER - FOLSOM BLVD. HWY 50 - WHITE ROCK RD. DOUGLAS BLVD. - WHITE ROCK RD. TOTAL 0.00

0.55 1.36 0.35 0.59 0.43 1.08 0.75 1.12 0.75 0.78 1.00 6.80 0.55 0.54 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.42 0.48 0.58 1.36 1.50 0.75 3.25 0.76 2.17 2.85 33.02

III III II II II II II II II II II III II II II II II II II II II II II III II III III

II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 875 1475 1075 2700 0 0 0 1950 2500 0 0 0 0 625 3750 0 0 1450 3400 3750 1875 1625 1900 0 0 28950

275 680 0 0 0 0 1875 2800 1875 0 0 3400 1375 1350 1250 0 0 1050 1200 0 0 0 0 0 0 1085 1425 19640

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY RANCHO CORDOVA #18, #19, AND #20 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST OFF STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

AM. RIVER BIKE TR. FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL AM. RIVER BIKE TR.

EDGE OF MAP - FOLSOM CITY LIMIT EDGE OF MAP - HAZEL AVE. GOETHE PARK - EDGE OF MAP TOTAL 0.00

3.26 1.50 7.67 12.43

COM COM COM

I I I

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET CITRUS ROAD FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL FOLSOM BLVD. TO AMERICAN RIVER EDGE OF MAP - KIEFER BLVD. TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 8.33 10.22 88.14 22.65 I COM I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189000 0 189000 105425 189000 0 0 0 54200 0

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY RIO LINDA - ELVERTA #3 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

ELVERTA RD. Q ST. M ST. ASCOT RD. ELKHORN BLVD. OAK LANE O ST. CURVED BRIDGE RD. ASCOT RD.

E. LEVEE RD TO 28TH ST. MARYSVILLE BLVD. TO 28TH ST. MARYSVILLE BLVD. TO OAK LN. W. 6TH ST. TO 4TH ST. E. LEVEE TO 28TH ST. M ST. TO 10TH ST. 10TH ST. TO DRY CREEK RD. OAK LANE TO DRY CREEK RD. DRY CREEK RD. TO 16TH ST. TOTAL 0.00

5.15 4.42 1.63 1.04 4.67 0.18 0.27 0.38 0.5 18.24

19%

III II

II III III

COM

EDG

II III III II III

II II

II II II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2575 0 4075 0 11675 90 135 950 250 19750

12875 2210 0 520 0 450 675 0 0 16730

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET W. 16TH ST. MARYSVILLE BLVD. DRY CREEK RD. 16TH ST. 28TH ST. RIO LINDA BLVD. 16TH ST. 10TH ST. 4TH ST. ASCOT RD. TO ELKHORN BLVD. RIO LINDA BLVD. TO Q ST. CITY LIMITS TO Q ST. Q ST. TO PLACER CO. ELKHORN BLVD. TO ELVERTA RD. CITY LIMITS TO ELVERTA RD. CITY LIMITS TO ELKHORN BLVD. N ST. TO O ST. ASCOT RD. TO MARYSVILLE BLVD. TOTAL 0.00 1.04 2.18 2.11 2.42 1.68 3.52 1.46 0.12 0.25 14.78 III III III III III II II III II II II II II II II II II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1090 1055 1210 840 8800 3650 60 0 16705 520 0 0 0 4200 0 0 300 125 5145

II

82%

II III

EAST - WEST OFF STREET NONE TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET POWER LINE NATOMS E. MAIN DRA SAC N. RAILROAD DRY CREEK DRY CREEK Q ST. TO PLACER COUNTY CITY LIMIT TO SUTTER CO. CITY LIMIT TO PLACER COM ELKHORN BLVD. TO PLACER CO. CITY LIMIT TO SAC. N. RAILROAD TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.24 5.33 5.17 4.63 0.67 18.04 33.02 18.04 I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36455 0 0 0 361900 0 0 361900 21875 361900

30%

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY SOUTHEAST #29 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

TWIN CITIES RD. TWIN CITIES RD. ORR RD. BOESSOW RD. NEW HOPE RD.

COSUMNES RIVER - FRONTAGE RD. MARENGO RD. - AMADOR CO. CHRISTENSON RD. - GALT CITY LIMIT GALT CITY LIMIT - ALTA MESA RD. SAN JOAQUIN CO. - GALT CITY LIMIT TOTAL 0.00

3.00 16.05 0.70 2.95 5.00 27.70

III III III III III

II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

1500 0 350 0 0 1850

0 8025 0 1475 2500 12000

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET CHRISTENSON RD. McKENZIE RD. RILEY RD. CHEROKEE LN. COLONY RD. ALTA VISTA RD CLAY STATION RD. NEW HOPE RD. - TWIN CITIES RD. TWIN CITIES RD. - ARNO RD. ARNO RD. - COSUMNES COMM. LINE BOESSOW RD. - TWIN CITIES RD. ALTA MESA RD. - BLAKE RD. SAN JOAQUIN CO. - BLAKE RD. SAN JOAQUIN CO. - LAGUNA CREEK TOTAL 0.00 2.80 2.05 1.60 2.45 5.05 9.75 9.20 32.90 III III III III III III III II II II II II II II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1400 0 0 0 0 0 4600 6000 0 1025 800 1225 2525 4875 0 10450

EAST - WEST OFF STREET NONE TOTAL 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET NONE TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0 0.00 0.00 0 60.60 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7850 0 0 0 22450 0

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY SOUTH NATOMAS #12 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

ROSIN BLVD. PEBBLEWOOD DR. BANNON CREEK DR. BREWERTON DR. W. EL CAMINO AVE. RD. 111 CAPITAL PARK DR. MILLCREEK DR. RIVER PLAZA DR. GARDEN HIGHWAY ARDEN-GARDEN CONNECTOR SAN JUAN RD. W EL CAMINO AVE

TRUXEL RD. TO GRANT UNION HS AZEVEDO DR. TO W.A.P.A. EASEMENT AZEVEDO DR. TO TRUXEL RD. TRUXEL RD. TO ERIN DR. EL CENTRO RD. TO NORTHGATE GARDEN HWY. TO ORCHARD LN. NATOMAS PARK DR. TO MILL CREEK DR. CAPITAL PARK DR. TO TRUXEL RD. W EL CAMINO TO GATEWAY OAKS DR. I-80 TO NORTHGATE BLVD. NORTHGATE BLVD. TO NATOMAS E.M.D. I-80 TO NATOMAS E.M.D. NORTHGATE BLVD. TO E. MAIN DRAIN TOTAL

1.46 1.42 0.43 0.49 3.61 1.23 0.09 0.19 1.27 4.09 0.52 2.23 0.44 17.47 0.00

II III III III 33% II II III III II 48% 2% COM II III

II III III III II II III III II II II II II

3650 0 0 245 0 0 0 0 3175 0 0 5575 220 12865

0 710 215 0 9025 3075 45 95 0 0 0 0 0 13165

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET NATOMAS PARK DR. RIVER PLAZA DR. GATEWAY OAKS DR. AZEVEDO DR. MIRAMONTE DR. FUNSTON DR, TRUXEL RD. STONESCREEK DR. MENDEL WY. ERIN DR. BRIDGEFORD DR. NORTHGATE BLVD. MILLER RD. GARDEN HWY. TO W. EL CAMINO AVE. ORCHARD LN. TO W. EL CAMINO AVE. GARDEN HWY. TO W. EL CAMINO AVE. W. EL CAMINO AVE. TO SAN JUAN AVE. URBANA WY. TO SAN JUAN AVE. PEBBLEWOOD DR. TO URBANA WY. GARDEN HWY. TO I-80 W. EL CAMINO AVE. TO PEBBLEWOOD DR. BREWERTON DR. TO PEBBLEWOOD DR. W. EL CAMINO AVE. TO BREWERTON DR. PEBBLEWOOD DR. TO GRANT UNION HS GARDEN HWY. TO I-80 GARDEN HWY. TO I-80 TOTAL 0.57 0.25 2.14 1.10 0.22 0.18 1.76 0.66 0.46 0.16 0.90 2.46 0.46 11.32 0.00 COM 51% COM II II II III III II III III III III II II II II II III III II III III III III II II 1425 625 5350 0 0 0 0 0 230 80 450 6150 0 14310 0 0 0 0 110 90 4400 330 0 0 0 0 0 4930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

78%

65%

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY SOUTH NATOMAS #12 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST OFF STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

GARDEN HWY RIVERVIEW OAKS A TRAIL DISCOVERY PARK

I-5 TO I-80 M. DRAINAGE CANAL TO PARK SAN JUAN AVE. TO W.A.PA. EASEMENT I-5 TO NORTHGATE BLVD. TOTAL

2.18 0.33 1.28 2.48 6.27 0.00

COM

I I I I

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET MAIN DRAINAGE WS MAIN DRAINAGE ES BANNON SLOUGH W.A.PA. EASEMENT GARDEN HWY. TO I-80 GARDEN HWY TO I-80 GARDEN HWY. TO SAN JUAN RD. GARDEN HWY. TO ROSIN CT. TOTAL 1.13 1.14 1.46 1.99 5.72 0.00 I 90% I I I I I I I 0 114000 14600 0 128600 113000 0 0 199000 312000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

28.79 11.99

0.00 0.00

27175 128600

18095 312000

0 0

0 0

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY SOUTH SACRAMENTO #23 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

PERRY AVE. FRUITRIDGE RD. FRUITRIDGE RD. 41ST AVE. LEMON HILL AVE. LEMON HILL AVE. 47TH AVE. ELDER CREEK RD. 49TH AVE. CUNY AVE. TURNBRIDGE DR. LeDONNE DR. 53RD AVE. RIZA AVE. 53RD AVE. 53RD AVE. FLORIN RD. FLORIN RD. 66TH AVE. LINDALE DR. LOUCRETA DR. A PARKWAY EAST PARKWAY GERBER RD. MACK RD. ELSIE AVE. CALVINE RD. SHELDON RD. COSUMNES RIVER BLVD. VALLEY HI DR. TANGERINE AVE. BROOKFIELD DR. WINDHAM DR. BAMFORD DR. EHRHARDT AVE. CALVINE RD. DEERHILL DR. ARMADALE WAY VALLEY HI DR. 23RD AVE.

44TH ST. TO STOCKTON BLVD. MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. TO CITY LIMIT E. CITY LIMIT TO ELK GROVE-FLORIN RD. SACRAMENTO BLVD. TO 44TH ST. 44TH ST. TO CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT TO POWER INN RD. W.P.R.R. TO CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT TO ELK GROVE-FLORIN RD. SACRAMENTO BLVD. TO 42ND ST. 42ND ST. TO BOWLING DR. FRANKLIN BLVD. TO LeDONNE DR. TURNBRIDGE DR. TO 53RD ST. LeDONNE DR. TO RIZA AVE. CITY LIMIT TO STOCKTON BLVD. 65TH ST. EXWY TO CITY LIMIT 75TH ST. TO POWER INN RD. W.P.R.R. TO CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT TO ELK CREEK-FLORIN RD. 55TH ST. TO STOCKTON BLVD. STOCKTON BLVD. TO PALMER HOUSE DR. PALMER HOUSE DR. TO POWER INN RD. FRANKLIN BLVD. TO EAST PARKWAY FRANKLIN BLVD. TO FLORIN RD. STOCKTON BLVD. TO ELK GROVE-FLORIN W.P.R.R. TO STOCKTON BLVD. STOCKTON BLVD. TO ELK GROVE-FLORIN STOCKTON BLVD. TO ELK GROVE-FLORIN CITY LIMIT TO STOCKTON BLVD. W.P.R.R. TO CALVINE RD. MACK RD. TO FRANKLIN BLVD. MACK RD. TO LA MANCHA WAY MACK RD. TO TANGERINE AVE. VALLEY HI DR. TO BRUCEVILLE RD. CENTER PKWY TO VALLEY HI DR. CENTER PKWY TO FRANKLIN BLVD. FRANKLIN BLVD. TO BRUCEVILLE RD. FARNELL WAY TO DEER CREEK DR. DEER LAKE DR. TO FARNELL WAY DEER LAKE DR. TO FRANKLIN BLVD. MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. TO 44TH ST. TOTAL

0.58 1.08 3.98 0.52 0.74 1.76 2.09 3.56 0.36 0.06 0.55 0.17 0.74 0.17 0.30 0.53 0.70 4.68 0.76 0.70 0.32 0.46 1.40 2.73 2.80 2.52 1.94 0.94 3.40 1.76 1.20 1.04 0.51 0.43 1.14 1.55 0.04 0.16 0.51 0.55 25.79 23.64 COM 83% 90%

II II II II II II II II II II II II II III II III II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II III III II III III III III

II II II II II II II II II II II II II III II III II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II III III II II II II II

0 0 9950 0 0 4400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7000 0 0 0 0 0 3000 2600 0 0 0 3875 0 0 0 0 32575

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8900 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 4400 0 0 1275 215 570 0 20 80 255 275 24840

1450 2700 0 1300 1850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 4400 0 0 1275 215 570 0 20 80 255 275 48425

0 0 0 0 0 0 5225 0 900 150 1375 425 1850 0 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10675

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY SOUTH SACRAMENTO #23 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

ELK GROVE-FLORIN RD. ELK GROVE-FLORIN RD. FLORIN-PERKINS FLORIN-PERKINS POWER INN RD. POWER INN RD. LOGAN ST. SOMIS WAY SUN RIVER DR. BRIGGS DR. PALMER HOUSE DR. BRUCEVILLE RD. 65TH EXWY 65TH EXWY STOCKTON BLVD. STOCKTON BLVD. STEINER DR. NORTH PARKWAY SIXTH PARKWAY 55TH ST. SAMPSON BLVD. 44TH ST. 42ND ST. BOWLING DR. CENTER PARKWAY CENTER PARKWAY MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. FRANKLIN BLVD. FRANKLIN BLVD. FRANKLIN BLVD. CENTER PARKWAY LA MANCHA WAY CARLIN AVE. DEER CREEK DR. FARNELL WAY DEER LAKE DR. GRANDSTAFF DR. 44TH ST.

CITY LIMIT TO FRUITRIDGE RD. CALVINE RD. TO CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT TO FRUITRIDGE RD. GERBER RD. TO CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT TO FRUITRIDGE RD. CALVINE RD. TO CITY LIMIT ELDER CREEK RD. TO LEMON HLL AVE. SUN RIVER DR. TO ELDER CREEK RD. 53RD ST. TO SOMIS WAY FLORIN RD. TO 53RD AVE. GERBER RD. TO FLORIN RD. VALLEY HI DR. TO SHELDON AVE. CITY LIMIT TO FRUITRIDGE RD. STOCKTON BLVD. TO CITY LIMIT PATTERSON WAY TO 14TH AVE. SHELDON RD. TO PATTERSON WAY NORTH PARKWAY TO 47TH AVE. SIXTH PARKWAY TO STEINER DR. FLORIN RD. TO SKY PARKWAY 66TH AVE. TO FLORIN RD. 47TH AVE. TO LEMON HILL AVE. CITY LIMIT TO 23RD AVE. CURY AVE. TO 49TH ST. FLORIN RD. TO CURY AVE. A PARKWAY TO CITY LIMIT BRUCEVILLE RD. TO CITY LIMIT FRANKLIN BLVD. TO CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT TO FRUITRIDGE RD. CITY LIMIT TO CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT TO CITY LIMIT CALVINE RD. TO BRUCEVILLE RD. TANGERINE AVE. TO MACK RD. EHRHARDT AVE. TO JACINTO RD. MACK RD. TO DEER HILL DR. ARMDALE WAY TO DEER HILL DR. ARMDALE WAY TO VALLEY HI DR. BAMFORD DR. TO LEIMBACK SCHOOL 23RD AVE. TO PERRY AVE. TOTAL

1.71 3.43 1.36 1.32 1.76 3.26 0.39 0.08 0.38 0.55 1.00 2.33 1.39 0.38 2.62 4.83 0.67 0.13 0.30 0.25 0.36 0.47 0.14 0.61 0.76 2.64 1.53 0.50 3.05 2.39 1.08 0.57 1.04 0.20 0.14 0.32 0.95 0.10 22.61 22.38 COM COM

II II II II II II III III III II II II II II III II II II II II II II II II

II II II II II III II II II

II

III III III III III

II II II II II II III III III II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II III III III III III

4275 0 0 0 4400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6600 0 1250 7625 0 2700 1425 2600 0 0 0 0 0 34350

0 0 3400 0 0 0 195 40 190 0 0 5825 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 70 160 475 50 10505

0 8575 0 0 0 8150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 950 0 2415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1900 0 3825 0 0 1195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27010

0 0 0 3300 0 0 0 0 0 1375 2500 0 0 0 0 12075 1675 325 750 625 900 1175 350 1525 0 0 0 0 0 5975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32550

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY SOUTH SACRAMENTO #23 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST OFF STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

MEADOWHAVEN BT LEMAS RD. LAGUNA CREEK LAGUNA CREEK

POWER INN RD. TO VINTAGE PARK ? TO ELK GROVE-FLORIN RD. FRANKLIN BLVD. TO CITY LIMITS STOCKTON BLVD. TO CITY LIMITS TOTAL

3.20 1.53 1.59 0.91 1.59 5.64 COM

I I I I

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET TOWER EASEMENT SOUTH CITY LIMITS TO CENTER PKWY TOTAL 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.00 0 0 68000 68000 0 0 0 0

TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

48.40 2.27

46.02 5.64

66925 0

35345 68000

75435 0

43225 0

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY TAHOE PARK #16 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

T ST. T ST. 8TH AVE. 11TH AVE. 23RD AVE. PERRY AVE. PERRY AVE. 21ST AVE. 14TH AVE. 8TH AVE. V ST. 2ND AVE. VANDENBURG DR.

ALHAMBRA BLVD. TO STOCKTON BLVD. STOCKTON BLVD. TO 59TH ST. 60TH ST. TO 61ST ST. 58TH ST. TO 60TH ST. MARTIN LUTHER KING TO 44TH ST. 44TH ST. TO CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT TO STOCKTON BLVD. STOCKTON BLVD. TO 79TH ST. STOCKTON BLVD. TO POWER INN RD. STOCKTON BLVD. TO MARTIN LUTHER KING 48TH ST. TO 51ST ST. STOCKTON BLVD. TO 49TH ST. 73RD ST. TO STANDISH RD. TOTAL

0.43 1.47 0.05 0.45 0.47 0.16 0.36 1.78 2.20 0.66 0.25 0.38 0.17 8.20 0.63

COM COM

III II III III III III III II

II II

COM

III III III II III

III II III III II II III II II III III II III

215 0 25 225 0 0 180 4450 0 0 125 950 0 6170

0 3675 0 0 0 0 0 0 1100 330 0 0 85 5190

0 0 0 235 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 315

0 0 0 1175 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1575

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BLVD. 2ND AVE. 34TH ST. 44TH ST. 39TH ST. STOCKTON BLVD. 51ST ST. 58TH ST. 59TH ST. 60TH ST. 61ST ST. 62ND ST. 65TH ST. EXWY. 73RD ST. LOWELL ST. STANDISH RD. 25TH AVE. 79TH ST. BROADWAY BROADWAY 42ND ST. STOCKTON BLVD. 48TH ST. 48TH ST. POWER INN RD. FRUITRIDGE RD. TO BROADWAY BROADWAY TO STOCKTON BLVD. BROADWAY TO T ST. 23RD AVE. TO 8TH AVE. T ST. TO S.P.R.R. FRUITRIDGE RD. TO BROADWAY V ST. TO S.P.R.R. 21ST AVE. TO 11TH AVE. BROADWAY TO S.P.R.R. 8TH AVE. TO BROADWAY 8TH AVE. TO 11TH AVE. FRUITRIDGE RD. TO 21ST AVE. FRUITRIDGE RD. TO 14TH AVE. VANDENBERG DR. TO 21ST AVE. FRUITRIDGE RD. TO STANDISH AVE. LOWELL ST. TO 25TH AVE. STANDISH RD. TO 79TH ST. 25TH AVE. TO 21ST AVE. ALHAMBRA BLVD. TO STOCKTON BLVD. STOCKTON BLVD. TO 60TH ST. 2ND AVE. TO 8TH AVE. BROADWAY TO T ST. V ST. TO SPRR V ST. TO BROADWAY FRUITRIDGE RD TO S.P.R.R. TOTAL 1.52 0.76 0.52 0.85 0.16 1.60 0.31 0.68 0.56 0.14 0.35 0.47 0.69 0.28 0.14 0.13 0.20 0.15 1.36 1.00 0.43 1.10 0.31 0.57 1.52 15.80 0.00 COM II III II III III III III III III III III II III III III III III II III II III III II III III III III III III II III III III III III II II III III III II II 3800 380 1300 425 80 0 155 0 280 0 0 0 1725 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 550 0 1425 0 10120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 340 0 70 175 235 0 140 70 65 100 75 0 0 215 0 155 0 3800 5440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

III III III II 67% II

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY TAHOE PARK #16 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST OFF STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

NONE

TOTAL

0.00

0.00

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET NONE TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0

TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

24.00 0.00

0.63 0.00

16290 0

10630 0

315 0

1575 0

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY VINEYARD #22 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

JACKSON RD. FRUITRIDGE RD. ELDER CREEK RD. FLORIN RD. GERBER RD. CALVINE RD. KIEFER BLVD.

ELK GROVE-FLORIN - GRANT LINE RD. ELK GROVE-FLORIN - MAYHEW RD. ELK GROVE-FLORIN - EXCELSIOR RD. ELK GROVE-FLORIN - EAGLES NEST RD. ELK GROVE-FLORIN - EXCELSIOR RD. ELK GROVE-FLORIN - GRANT LINE RD. BRADSHAW - SUNRISE BLVD. TOTAL 0.00

8.60 1.50 4.23 6.10 4.00 5.20 5.30 34.93

III III

II III III III II

III

II II II II II II II

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4300 750 0 0 0 2600 0 7650

21500 0 2115 3050 2000 13000 0 41665

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET ELK GROVE-FLORIN RD BRADSHAW RD. EXCELSIOR RD. EAGLES NEST RD. SUNRISE BLVD. GRANT LINE RD. MAYHEW RD. FRUITRIDGE RD. - JACKSON RD. CALVINE RD. - JACKSON RD. CALVINE RD. - KIEFER BLVD. GRANT LINE RD. - JACKSON RD. GRANT LINE RD. - KIEFER BLVD. CALVINE RD. - JACKSON RD. FRUITRIDGE RD. - JACKSON RD. TOTAL 0.00 1.00 5.45 6.05 2.73 2.80 4.60 0.40 23.03 III III II III III III III II II II II II II II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 2725 0 0 1400 2300 200 7125 2500 0 3025 0 0 0 0 5525

EAST - WEST OFF STREET VINTAGE PARK BT LAGUNA CREEK ELK GROVE-FLORIN RD. TO BRADSHAW RD. ELK GROVE-FLORIN RD. TO FOLSOM SOUTH CAN TOTAL 0.00 2.50 12.00 14.50 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL GRANT LINE RD. - KIEFER BLVD. TOTAL TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET 0 0.00 0.00 2.80 0 57.96 17.30 COM I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14775 0 0 0 47190 0

07/19/91 BIKEWAY INVENTORY GALT #30 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

TWIN CITIES RD. ELM RD. C ST. NEW HOPE RD. F ST.

FRONTAGE RD. - MARENGO RD. W. CITY LIMIT - LINCOLN WAY LINCOLN WAY - E. CITY LIMIT W. CITY LIMIT - FIRST ST. FIRST ST. - LINCOLN WAY TOTAL

1.71 1.06 1.06 0.44 0.45 4.72 0.00

III II II II II

II

II II II II II

855 2650 2650 1100 1125 8380

4275 0 0 0 0 4275

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET E. FRONTAGE RD. FRONTAGE RD. N. LINCOLN WAY LINCOLN WAY CARILLION BLVD. AMADOR AVE. TO WINN DR. TWIN CITIES RD. - PRINGLE AVE. ELM AVE. - PRINGLE AVE. ELM AVE. - SAN JOAQUIN AVE. TWIN CITIES RD. - CRYSTAL WAY TOTAL 0.83 1.67 0.39 1.67 3.11 7.67 0.00 II II II II II II II II II II 2075 4175 975 4175 7775 19175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EAST - WEST OFF STREET ? EMERALD VISTA DR. MARENGO RD. TOTAL NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET NONE TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.65 1.65 0.00 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

12.39 1.65

0.00 0.00

27555 0

4275 0

0 0

0 0

07/19/91

BIKEWAY INVENTORY FOLSOM #33 MILEAGE CITY CO. CLASS 10 YRS CITY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS COUNTY COST 5 YRS 10 YRS

STREET

LOCATION EAST - WEST ON STREET

STATUS

5 YRS

ULTI

OAK AVE. PKWY. NORTH GREENBACK LN. NOTAMA ST. CLARKVILLES RD. OAK AVE. PKWY. SOUTH E. BIDWELL ST. BLUE RAVINE NATOMA REGION

CITY LIMIT - AUBURN RD. CITYL LIMIT - RILEY ST. FOLSOM BLVD. - EL DORADO CO. E. BIDWELL ST. - EL DORADO CO. NATOMA ST. - E. BIDWELL ST. COLAMA ST. - HWY 50 FOLSOM BLVD. - NATOMA ST. FOLSOM BLVD. - BLUE RAVINE RD. TOTAL

1.20 0.75 4.65 2.10 2.55 4.00 5.60 0.80 21.65 0.00

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH ON STREET AMERICAN RIVER CYN. OAK AVE. AUBURN RD. FOLSOM BLVD. RILEY ST. COLAMA ST. SIBLEY ST. DAM RD. UCO264 UCO262 OAK AVE. PKWY. N. - GREENBACK LN. BALDWIN DAM RD. - FOLSOM BLVD. GREENBACK LN. - PLACER CO. RILEY ST. - CITY LIMIT GREENBACK LN. - COLAMA ST. RILEY ST. - E. BIDWELL ST. NATOMA ST. - WILLOW CREEK NATOMA ST. - OAK AVE. PKWY. SOUTH NATOMA ST. - UC0262 UC0264 - CLARKSVILE RD. TOTAL 1.75 0.55 2.25 3.25 0.68 0.10 1.05 1.00 0.70 2.03 13.36 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EAST - WEST OFF STREET W. AM. RIVER BIKE TR. WILLOW CREEK HUMBERG CREEK CITY LIMIT - PLACER CO. FOLSOM BLVD. - EL DORADO CO. WILLOW CREEK - WILLOW CREEK B. TR. TOTAL 3.05 6.45 2.70 12.20 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH - SOUTH OFF STREET BALDWIN RESERVIOR B. TR. E. AM. RIVER B. TR. OAK AVE. PKWY. NORTH - PLACER CO. CITY LIMIT - NATOMA ST. TOTAL 1.53 5.08 6.61 0.00 0 0 0 0

TOTAL ON STREET TOTAL OFF STREET

35.01 18.81

0.00 0.00

07/19/91

07/18/91

MILEAGE AND COST SUMMARY - 5 YEAR PROGRAM

CITY MILES ON OFF STREET STREET 15.01 2.99 0.00 0.00 6.94 0.00 0.00 11.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.61 14.56 9.20 0.00 3.33 0.00 14.73 0.00 8.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.83 26.77 10.74 0.00 146.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.64 COUNTY MILES ON OFF STREET STREET 0.00 50.01 32.44 37.59 0.33 4.35 7.50 0.00 41.17 19.52 21.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.39 3.33 19.58 0.00 26.95 0.00 56.09 26.27 15.70 0.00 35.95 0.63 29.55 480.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 CITY COST 5 YRS 16765 7475 0 0 11410 0 0 24890 0 0 0 146825 12780 11400 0 8325 0 429385 0 494940 0 0 0 155775 66925 16290 0 1,403,185 10 YRS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COUNTY COST 5 YRS 0 109465 74800 60495 165 3775 6650 0 69005 33280 17700 0 0 0 113615 4585 22510 0 48915 0 294425 36455 7850 0 75435 315 14775 994,215 10 YRS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

COMMUITY AIRPORT/MEADOWVIEW ARDEN/ARCADE CARMICHAEL CITRUS HEIGHTS COLLEGE GREENS CONSUMNES DELTA DOWNTOWN ELK GROVE FAIR OAKS FRANKLIN/LAGUNA GREENHAVEN LANDPARK McKINLEY PARK NORTH HIGHLANDS/FOOTHILLS FARMS NORTH NATOMAS-CITY NORTH NATOMAS-COUNTY NORTH SACRAMENTO ORANGEVALE POCKET RANCHO CORDOVA RIO LINDA-ELVERTA SOUTHEAST SOUTH NATOMAS SOUTH SACRAMENTO TAHOE PARK VINEYARD TOTAL

07/18/91

MILEAGE AND COST SUMMARY - 10 YEAR PROGRAM

CITY MILES ON OFF STREET STREET 8.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.96 0.00 0.00 8.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.88 13.87 5.67 0.00 2.33 0.00 17.64 0.00 5.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.79 19.01 9.30 0.00 113.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.70 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.12 0.68 0.00 0.00 11.50 COUNTY MILES ON OFF STREET STREET 0.00 12.21 9.42 22.71 0.33 42.35 50.00 0.00 5.83 5.57 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.32 1.87 12.42 0.00 22.03 0.00 33.88 14.15 44.90 0.00 17.29 0.63 35.18 353.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.17 CITY COST 5 YRS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 YRS 22175 0 0 0 12400 0 0 18690 0 0 0 17520 15275 10135 0 5825 0 496340 0 310060 0 0 0 330095 103345 10630 0 0 COUNTY COST 5 YRS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,352,490 10 YRS 0 30525 18410 50975 825 28275 25000 0 12575 11005 5200 0 0 0 26180 4675 6210 0 33435 0 54200 383775 22450 0 43225 1575 47190 805,705

COMMUITY AIRPORT/MEADOWVIEW ARDEN/ARCADE CARMICHAEL CITRUS HEIGHTS COLLEGE GREENS CONSUMNES DELTA DOWNTOWN ELK GROVE FAIR OAKS FRANKLIN/LAGUNA GREENHAVEN LANDPARK McKINLEY PARK NORTH HIGHLANDS/FOOTHILLS FARMS NORTH NATOMAS-CITY NORTH NATOMAS-COUNTY NORTH SACRAMENTO ORANGEVALE POCKET RANCHO CORDOVA RIO LINDA-ELVERTA SOUTHEAST SOUTH NATOMAS SOUTH SACRAMENTO TAHOE PARK VINEYARD TOTAL

BIKEWAY MILEAGE SACRAMENTO COUNTY 1976 On-Street Off-Street 441.6 135.0 1990 790.8 110.8 Change +349.2 -24.2 % Change +79 -18

CITY OF SACRAMENTO 1976 On-Street Off-Street 167.3 67.2 1990 333.9 94.5 Change +166.6 +27.3 % Change +100 +41

CITY/COUNTY TOTALS 1976 On-Street Off-Street 608.9 202.2 1990 1,124.7 205.3 Change +515.8 +3.1 % Change +85 +2