Sacramento City/County Bikeway Advisory Committee (SacBAC)

The SacBAC meetings, open to the public, are the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings start at 6:00 p.m.

Items may be put on the SacBAC agenda by contacting:

• Chair: Skip Amerine samerine@PE.CIWMB.ca.gov
• County Bicycle Coordinator, Ron Vicari, 874-6743
• City Bicycle Coordinator, Ed Cox , 808-8434

1. Advise staff and Council/Board on the implementation of bikeway facilities included in the Bikeway Master Plan, including establishing criteria and priorities for bikeway projects.

2. Assist in program development in areas of bicycle safety and education, registration, bicycle law enforcement, parking and security, improved bicycle/transit linkages, etc.

3. Review and discuss current bicycling issues and advise staff and Council/Board/Regional Transit, as needed, with respect to these issues.

4. Provide for public participation and involvement with respect to bikeway implementation, programs, and other bicycling matters addressed by the Committee.

5. Determine the need for periodic updates to the Bikeway Master Plan. Assist staff in preparation of the updates to the Council/Board for adoption.

6. Prepare periodic reports on the status of bikeway implementation, progress, and other bicycling matters addressed by the Committee during the reporting period. Submit the reports to the Council/Board at least annually.

7. Perform other services related to bicycling as directed by the Council/Board.

There are 12 SacBAC members, six appointed by the city and six by the county.

Below are the Vision and Goals that SacBAC has adopted:

VISION

Our vision is limited to being the best in California. The limits are there only because California is the place most familiar to us and because California has so many good locations for bicycling. Places such as Palo Alto, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz provide models and comparisons for how well we are doing . In some ways, limiting the vision to California may not be limiting at all, since being the best in California may be the same as being the best in the nation. The vision is broad, not tied to specifics in miles of bikeways, or number of cyclists, since over time, those specifics will change.

To allow for cooperation with surrounding cities and counties the vision includes the entire Sacramento region, and not just Sacramento city or county.

GOALS

1. Increase bicycle trips from 3% to 10% of all trips by 2010.

   This is intentionally a very ambitious goal. The 10% figure is comparable to the top commute mode shares for bicycling in college towns such as Eugene, OR, Gainesville, FL, and Madison, WI. Mode shares for these towns range from 8 to 11 percent. It is far less than the 25% share in Davis, CA or the 40% share in some Dutch and German cities, but much higher than any large metropolitan area in the U.S. It is a clear and significant number that reflects the seriousness of our intent. Reaching it will require improvements in many parts of the bicycling "infrastructure" such as bicycle facilities, education, and promotion.

   There are many good reasons for having such an ambitious goal for cycling. Increased levels of bicycling will save lives and increase life spans by improving air quality in one of the nation's worst areas for air pollution. It will reduce noise pollution and help relieve traffic congestion. It will increase the fitness of our citizenry, cutting the number of people lacking exercise, a health risk factor identified by the U.S. Surgeon General. In comparison to other transportation modes, the capital and maintenance costs are very low.

   The goal parallels, but exceeds the goal in the National Bicycling and Walking Study to double the percentage of total trips made by cyclists and pedestrians from 7.9% to 15.8%.

2. Reduce bicycle related injuries and fatalities by 10% by 2010.

   Safety is a major reason people do not ride. There is both a need to change peoples perceptions about safety and to decrease their actual danger. Unsafe cyclists often endanger other cyclists in addition to themselves.

   The goal is similar to the National Bicycling and Walking Study goal of reducing the number of cyclists and pedestrians injured and killed in traffic crashes by 10%. However, it includes all bicycle injuries and fatalities, not just those from traffic crashes.

   This goal should act as an impetus for improvements in education and enforcement and elimination of hazardous facilities.

3. Institutionalize bicycling as part of a balanced transportation system.

   Institutionalizing is not meant to apply only to government agencies. The desire is for the entire community to embrace cycling as means of transportation. Besides city, county, and regional government agencies this goal includes retail businesses, major employers, schools, and neighborhood groups.

   Institutionalization means that in addition to having designated bicycle coordinators in government agencies, agency staffs will be trained in and understand the needs of bicyclists. Institutionalizing will insure bicycling is considered from the beginning of project designs, be included in maintenance budgets, and be part of land use planning. Bicycle parking will be the norm, rather than the exception.

4. Make Sacramento a destination for recreational bicyclists.

   Sacramento already has one of the nation's premier bike paths in the Jedediah Smith National Recreation Trail along the American River. The trail contributes significantly to the quality of life in our area.

   Most cyclists are recreational cyclists. Improved bikeways, especially scenic off-street paths are appealing to them. Having more recreational cyclists will increase the pool of potential utilitarian cyclists.

   This goal can may help create major off-street projects such as the bike path in the Sacramento River Parkway and the American River, Natomas East Main Drainage Canal, Dry Creek loop. Major recreational routes, perhaps specially signed and mapped, can be significant attractions to the many Americans who bicycle. In addition, these paths can serve as attractive routes for commuter and utilitarian cyclists.

   There are opportunities for increased promotion of recreational cycling by the Convention Center and chambers of commerce. While their promotion efforts will be aimed mostly at visitors and businesses interested in relocation, residents will also be reached. These organizations can become allies in improving bicycle facilities. Increased bicycle-oriented tourism will benefit bicycle businesses and all businesses serving tourists.

   Many recreational riders look for the more rural roads where development has not increased the traffic. Even on these rural roads there is a need for improvements in shoulder widths, pavement surfaces, elimination of some hazards.

   Having more people on bikes will encourage others to bicycle. More cyclists using trails in the downtown area may make the trails safer and more comfortable for others to use.

Interchange Policy

Sacramento City/County Bicycle Advisory Committee (SacBAC)
Approved 02/08/2000

Policy on New or Expanded Freeway Interchanges and Over-crossings

• All Freeway over-crossings / under-crossings and interchanges must address the needs of pedestrians and bicyclist and not present a barrier to safe and direct travel.

• When the statistics characterizing these facilities (motor vehicular- ATD counts, speeds, on- and off-ramps, lane designations and number of lanes) are increased in number or counts, the pedestrians and bicyclists using them are adversely affected. At some point, additions to or the expansion of the over-crossings /interchanges make these facilities unsafe, and they become a major barrier for pedestrian and bicycle travel.

• Pedestrians and Bicyclists expect and require the same level of service as other users of the roads, streets, and highways of each city, county and state.

The following points are generalizations we have learned from the Hazel Avenue/ Highway 50-interchange project and the Watt Avenue/American River Bridge Widening (which includes two freeway-style interchanges to Watt Avenue):

1. All new freeway over-crossings and under-crossings or interchange projects are required to meet the needs of pedestrians and bicyclist as part of the project or else

   additional and/or separate pedestrian and bicycle facilities meeting their needs are to be developed and constructed simultaneously with the project for motor vehicles. The pedestrian and bicycle facilities must not be separate projects and/or postponed to future dates. All new or expanded over-crossing and interchanges must include direct, functional, and safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

2. Bicycle facilities must be designed to accommodate utilitarian, recreational, family-group, and commuter cyclists and pedestrians of all skill levels. If they cannot be accommodated as part of the roadway design, such as was the case with the Hazel Avenue/Highway 50 interchange, then an alternative route around the barrier interchange must be designed and constructed as part of the project.

3. The Design and implementation of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities (projects) should make it possible and even desirable for people to bicycle or walk for short trips even though the trip may require crossing a freeway. People's perception of having a safe and desirable route is as important as the traffic engineering.

4. Bicycle and Pedestrian routes across freeways need to appear and feel safe for the bicyclist and pedestrian. We must use the old rule that it has to appear that way to a regular person (sane and reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances is how the US Supreme Court measures it) and not just be "technically safe" from the theoretical perspective of a registered professional traffic engineer.

5. Safe, convenient access for bicycles and pedestrians are needed for all Routes intersecting the freeway.

6. Convenient accesses on to and off of the overpass (in both directions) are needed at both ends, including continuous bicycle and pedestrian facilities from both approaches.

   Convenient access means free of barriers with sufficient turning radii on the corners, separation barriers, and with safe slopes for both bicyclists and pedestrians.

7. On low speed two-lane roads leading up to overpasses and bridges, a 6-8 foot Paved shoulder with bicycle lane symbols may be sufficient to encourage safe Bicycle use and to warn motorists to share the facility. Bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities on over-crossings or bridges should be 6-8 feet wide.

8. On high speed or multilane roads leading up to overpasses and bridges, barriers between the bicyclists/pedestrians and automobiles should be considered. They must be high enough too truly protect the non-motorized users: at least 3.5 feet high (like a Jersey barrier). This is particularly critical when the on- and off-ramps have multiple lanes or have speeds in excess of 30 mph.

9. On bridges and overpasses, the barriers between the bicyclists and the edge must be high enough to prevent them from falling off. These railings should be designed to be aesthetically pleasing and to not obstruct views (min. height 4.0 -4.5 feet). This is important for encouraging pedestrian and bicyclist travel as well as for personal safety (viewers from below could see an attack and report it to police/sheriff).

10. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are needed on both sides of the structure providing safe and convenient connections to the rest of the bikeway system and the general transportation system as a whole. Forcing bicyclists to travel against the direction of traffic should be avoided as unnatural, unsafe, counter-educational and in violation of the Vehicle Code.

11. Traffic signals should be designed to serve bicycles, pedestrians, and automobiles through the use of appropriate sensors and cycle times. An Example of this is the bicycle-activated advance warning flashers at on-and off-ramps to warn motorists of bicyclist's right-of-way to proceed straight.

12. Where a nearby alternative facility is used to divert bicyclists and pedestrians away from a large, high-speed freeway interchange (like the WattAvenue/Highway50 freeway-to-freeway interchange), the project should include appropriate signage to direct users to alternate route (the safer route).