Sacramento Area
Bicycle Advocates
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Bikeway Master Plan
The 2010 Sacramento County City/County Bikeway Master Plan was completed in August 1991. It consists of two volumes, the second volume being an appendix.The BMP was approved by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in 1993
The BMP was approved by the Sacramento City Council April 11, 1995.
The plan is very long and not yet available in electronic format. For that reason, what is given below in only the Table of Contents and the summary in the first chapter. If you wish to review the entire plan or a particular section, you can find a copy at any City/County library.(?)
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 Bike Program
1 Description
2 Introduction
3 Legislation
4 User Conflicts
5 Design Standard
6 Guidelines for Multi-Use Trails
7 Multi-Use Trail Corridor
8 Conclusion
CHAPTER FIVE - PLANNING
A General Planning Criteria
1 Introduction
2 Role of Bikeway
3 Decision to Develop Bikeways
4 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
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)
1 Introduction
2 Widths
3 Striping and Signing
4 Intersection Design
E Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes)
1 Introduction
2 On-Street Bike Route Criteria
3 Sidewalk Bikeway Criteria
4 Destination Signing of Bike Routes
F Multi-Use Recreational Trail System
G Miscellaneous Bikeway Criteria
1 Bridges
2 Surface Quality
3 Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, and Driveways
4 At Grade Railroad Crossings and Cattle Guards
5 Hazard Marking
6 Lighting
CHAPTER TEN - UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
A Uniform Signs and Markings
1 Introduction
2 Maintenance
3 Colors
4 Class I (Bike Path)
5 Class II (Bike Lanes)
6 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 Analysis
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 County and Classification
b Bicycle Usage
c Bikeway Planning
2 Survey Methodology
3 Survey Results
4 Survey Conclusions
CHAPTER TWELVE - PARKING
A Bikeway Parking and Amenities
1 Introduction
2 Bicycle Parking Benefits
3 Bicycle Parking Principles
4 Planning Bicycle Parking and Signing
B Class I Bicycle Parking Facility - (Highest Security)
1 Inside the Building
2 Lockers
3 Check-in
4 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 Facilities - City of Sacramento
CHAPTER THIRTEEN - COSTS
A Bikeway Costs
1 Class I
2 Class II
3 Class III
B Bikeway Maintenance Costs
1 Program Factors
2 Assumptions
3 Class I I & M Costs
4 Class II I & M Costs
5 Class III I & M Costs
6 Composite Maintenance Factor
7 Program Cost Development
C 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
1 Proposition 116
2 Bicycle Lane Account
3 Transportation Development Act
4 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 Summary
4 Ten-Year Summary
D Bikeway Mileage - 1976 BMP - 2010 BMP
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 we 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 bicyclists.
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 and 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 reduced 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 TDM 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 bicyclists is riding in violation of the vehicle code, and the major bicyclists 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 basis of benefits and community goals , plans, and values. These decisions should emphasize different transportation modes working together effectively.
Highway design criteria and policies from the Caltrans Design Manual provide a guide to exercise sound judgment 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:
- Bicycle Count and Classification
- Bicycle Usage
- Bikeway Planning
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 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 costs for Class I (Bike Path) is $6,380 per miles per year, and for Classes II and III is $1,563 per mile per year.
The Bikeway Program costs are as follows:
On-Street
- Year Program 10-Year Program
County $3,057,000 $5,854,000
Off-Street
- Year Program 10-Year Program
County $ 237,000 $ 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, bikes-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 1 and 3 of Volume II. Total mileage as proposed in this Master Plan is as follows:
On-Street Off-Street
City 333.93 94.45
County 790.76 110.84
TOTALS 1,124.69 205.29
During the five-year program the Master Plan outlines the mileages as follows:
On-Street Off-Street
City 146.69 12.64
County 480.15 1.89
TOTALS 626.84 14.53
During the ten-year program the Master Plan outlines the mileages as follows:
On-Street Off-Street
City 113.22 11.50
County 353.49 5.17
TOTALS 466.71 16.6