HomeMy WebLinkAbout29- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BERN. . ADINO REQUEST F( I COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Review of Bicycle Facilities
Master Plan
DP-Qt: Planning & Building Services
Date: March 3, 1994 MCC meeting of 03/21/94.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
01/10/94 -- Continued to March 7, 1994.
03/07/94 -- Continued to March 21, 1994.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the resolution be adopted.
AL atu re
."•ontact person: Al Boughey Phone: 5357
supporting data attached: Yes Ward: Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
:ouncil Notes:
5-0262 Agenda Item No.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 21, 1994
REQUEST AND LOCATION
Adoption of the City of San Bernardino Bicycle Facilities Master Plan. This master plan will
affect the entire incorporated area of the City of San Bernardino, providing the basis for the
implementation of bike paths, trails and lanes.
BACKGROUND
The Mayor and Common Council determined that preparation of a Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
for the City of San Bernardino would be appropriate to implement General Plan goals.
The Plan includes an introduction to the terms involved with bikeways, goals and objectives of
the plan, and an outline of the phasing schedule. The Bicycle Facilities Master Plan was
undertaken in order to enhance the quality of life in the City, meet General Plan requirements,
conform to the trip reduction ordinance and to increase opportunities to receive federal, state and
local funding for bikeway improvements. For a more detailed discussion regarding the
background of this document refer to the Executive Summary Section of the Plan.
A task force was assembled to monitor the creation of this document. The Bicycle Facilities
Master Plan Task Force included representatives of the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department, Public Works Department, City Administrator's Office and the Planning
and Building Services Division.
The City has applied for a grant to receive funds from the Department of Transportation under
it's 1994 Bicycle Lane Account. This grant would help the City to actually construct bicycle
paths, routes and lanes within the City, as outlined in the master plan.
KEY POINTS
o The proposed Bicycle Facilities Master Plan implements the General Plan. General Plan
Policy 6.4.3 addresses accommodating the needs of bicyclists by developing a plan for
safe bicycle facilities.
o Implementation Program I6.21 also discusses the need for a Bicycle Master Plan and its
specifics.
o The proposed Bicycle Facilities Master Plan also implements General plan Policy 6.4,
which addresses the need to accommodate for alternative modes of transportation to the
Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
March 21, 1994
Page 2
automobile in the City, including non-motorized transportation (bicycle and pedestrian).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Adoption of the proposed Bicycle Facilities Master Plan is subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study was prepared and reviewed by the
Environmental Review Committee on January 20, 1994, which recommended the preparation
of a Negative Declaration. A 30 day public review period was entered on January 23, 1993 and
ended on February 23, 1994. Having no significant comments, the Environmental Review
Committee adopted the Negative Declaration and recommended approval of the Bicycle Facilities
Master Plan at its meeting of February 24, 1994.
CONEMMNTS RECEIVED
Comments were received from both the City of Redlands (Attachment B) and Caltrans
(Attachment C). The City of Redlands expressed concern regarding the relation of our proposed
bike routes to those of adjoining jurisdictions. In response to this comment the City of San
Bernardino explained that many of these proposed routes are in harmony with the Draft
Countywide Master Plan. The City of Redlands also explained that they have routes located on
San Bernardino Avenue, which our map did not show. In response the City of San Bernardino
revised their plan to show the adjoining routes on the map.
Another comment was received from Caltrans. Caltrans concerns centered around the City
obtaining encroachment permits if any work is done within the State highway right of way. This
comment was noted in the "Implementation" section of the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan.
These two comments represent all of the responses that the Department of Planning and Building
Services received over the 30 day public review period.
Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
March 21, 1994
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan.
Prepared by: Scott D. Donaghe, Assistant Planner
for Al Boughey, AICP, Director
Department of Planning and Building Services
Attachments: A - Initial Study
B - City of Redlands Comments
C - Caltrans Comments
D - Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
E - Resolution
I RESOLUTION NO.
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING THE BICYCLE
3 FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
4 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
5 SECTION 1. Recitals
6
(a) Whereas, the General Plan for the City of San Bernardino
7 was adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-
8 159 on June 2, 1989.
9 (b) Whereas an Initial Study was prepared on January 20,
10 1994 and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee who
11 determined that the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan would not have
12 a significant effect on the environment and therefore, recommended
13 that a Negative Declaration be adopted.
14
(c) Whereas, the proposed Negative Declaration received a 30
15 day public review period from January 23, 1994 to February 23, 1994
16 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the
17 Environmental Review Committee and the Mayor and Common Council in
18 compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
19 local ordinances.
20 (d) Whereas, the Mayor and Common Council held a noticed
21 public hearing and fully reviewed and considered the proposed
22 Bicycle Facilities Master Plan and the Planning Division Staff
23 report on March 21, 1994.
24
(e) Whereas, The adoption of the Bicycle Facilities Master
25 Plan is deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the
26 City and is consistent with, and implements the goals, objectives
27
and policies of the existing General Plan.
28
1 SECTION 2. Environmental Determination
2 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor
3 and Common Council that a Negative Declaration be adopted for the
4 proposed Bicycle Facilities Master Plan and the Negative
5 Declaration of this proposed master plan is hereby ratified,
6 affirmed and adopted.
7 SECTION 3 . Findings
8 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
9 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT:
10 A. The proposed master plan is not in conflict with the goals,
11 objectives and policies of the General Plan.
12 B. The proposed master plan will not be detrimental to the public
13 interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
14 C• The proposed master plan will not impact the balance of land
15 uses within the City since it does not alter the current
16 balance of land uses.
17 SECTION 4. Adoption of Master Plan
18 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that:
19 A. The Bicycle Facilities Master Plan of the City of San
20 Bernardino is hereby adopted and its policies affect the
21 entire incorporated area of the City of San Bernardino.
22 B. The Bicycle Facilities Master Plan shall become effective
23 immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
24 SECTION 5. Notice of Determination
25 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of
26 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino
27 certifying the City's compliance with CEQA in adopting the Bicycle
28
2
1 Facilities Master Plan.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1 SOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE BICYCLE
ACILITIES MASTER PLAN
2
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
4 dopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
5 Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the
6 day of 1994, by the following
7 vote, to wit:
8 OUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENdr
9 EGRETE
10 LIN
11 iERNANDEZ
12 DBERHELMAN
13 EVLIN
14 POPE-LUDLAM
15 t4ILLER
16
17 CITY CLERK
18
19 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
20 day of , 1994.
21
22 TOM MINOR, MAYOR
23 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
24 Approved as to form
and legal content:
25
JAMES F. PENMAN,
26 ity Attorney
27
y: 4 Of
28
4
PRIDE
IN PROGRi
LINE m 5� I� �— it-�Ir�,l
II t�
TV
a t
_ 3 =
T Q Ea i
T t 5 J��gN
O➢ - --�..-
tin
WTi , --- - � u �fh➢ �L.t �` i
= �n r
^s3
µ �
"1 �� f.48� •.�1ta cis � __ � 'j., -_ �i ,J�-R�f _�� �.-� �- - - -�} -
ML
tyEL
FEBRUARY 23, 1994 FINAL DRAFT
SAN BERNARDINO
BICYCLE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
Prepared fur the
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Prepared by
THE BICYCLE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TASK FORCE
and
THE DIKE PARTNERSHIP, INC.
Landscape Architecture/Planning
SAN BERNARDINO
BICYCLE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
Prepared for the
CITY OF SAN BERNA"INO
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Prepared by
BICYCLE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TASK FORCE
and
THE DIKE PARTNERSHIP, INC.
Landscape Architecture / Planning
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Tom Minor, Mayor David Oberhelman, 4th Ward
Edward V. Negrete, 1st Ward Jerry Devlin, 5th Ward
F. J. Curlin, M.D., 2nd Ward Valerie Pope-Ludlam, 6th Ward
Ralph Hernandez, 3rd Ward Norine Miller, 7th Ward
Shauna Clark, City Administrator, City of San Bernardino
BICYCLE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TASK FORCE
Ogbonna Abarikwu, Associate Traffic Engineer, City of San Bernardino
Phil Arvizo, Executive Assistant to Council
Scott Donaghe, Assistant Planner
Peggy Ducey, Assistant to City Administrator
Mary Fifield, Transportation Programs Coordinator, City of San Bernardino
Mike Grubbs, Senior Civil Engineer, City of San Bernardino
Greg Gubman, Assistant Planner, City of San Bernardino
Jim Howell, Assistant Director of Public Services, City of San Bernardino
Jim Iken, Bicycle Coalition of San Bernardino County
Gary Jackson, Bicycle Coalition of San Bernardino County
John Kramer, Superintendent of Recreation
Lieutenant W.D. (Bill ) Smith
BICYCLE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN CONSULTANT
THE DIKE PARTNERSHIP
One Venture Suite 100
Irvine, California 92718
(714) 753-1779
P. Woodward Dike, Principal
James Dockstader, Project Landscape Architect
Tim White, Job Captain
BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The San Bernardino Bicycle Facilities Master Plan provides a framework for the planning
and implementation of bicycle programs and safe, convenient bikeway facilities for the
City. This document describes a wide variety of bikeway related recommendations and
... indicates implementation opportunities in terms of phasing and funding.
The major subject areas of the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan are summarized below.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Bikeways Facilities Master Plan is undertaken in order to 1) enhance the quality
of life in San Bernardino; 2) conform to City of San Bernardino General Plan
requirements; 3) conform to the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance enacted as a
requirement of the Air Quality Management Plan; 4) increase opportunities to
• receive federal, state and local funding for bikeway improvements.
«r Content of the Master Plan responds to requirements of the California Bikeways
Act.
2.0 EXISTING INFLUENCES
+w Currently, there are no existing bikeways in the City of San Bernardino. Despite
this absence of facilities, there are probably five to six hundred (5-600) bicycle
commuters in San Bernardino, a number consistent with the region's .6% bicycle
commute rate. The potential for increased bicycle commuting is high, with many
potential cyclists riding to the California State University at San Bernardino or to
the downtown area, where employment centers and transportation interface points
are concentrated.
Existing features such as parks, libraries, public buildings, commercial centers, and
schools are documented in the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan and noted as important
potential destinations for cyclists.
The Bicycle Facilities Master Plan addresses existing and future conditions with
respect to rail, bus, and Park N' Ride planning.
One public workshop and administration of a community survey were part of the
planning process. Sixty-five (65) questionnaires were completed by interested
individuals and utilized in this document. The Bicycle Facilities Master Plan Task
Force was involved throughout the process and consisted of City Staff and members
of the San Bernardino Bicycle Coalition.
BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN H
rr
3.0 GOALS
The Task Force identified two general goals upon which the Bicycle Master Plan' is based:
«. To promote bicycling as a safe, convenient, efficient alternative mode of
transportation meeting the needs of San Bernardino residents.
To achieve quantifiable increases in bicycle commuting in order to help meet
the City's trip reduction goals and as required by the Air Quality
., Management District.
ow Design Objectives are also provided, providing guidance in greater detail.
4.0 MASTER PLAN
Based on community input, goals of the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan, and State
�+ of California criteria, recommendations are made with respect to route selection,
bicycle parking, signage, transportation interface opportunities, and safety and
awareness programs.
Route selection is categorized by importance into three phases. Phase One, to be
implemented by 1996, consists of routes serving the University and establishment
of the Mountain View Avenue Bicycle Corridor. A route connecting the downtown
area with the rail station is proposed in conjunction with the future master plan for
the rail station area. Phases Two and Three consist of both on-street and off-street
(Class I) bikeways. The Class I bike paths will occur primarily along the many
drainage channels in the City.
Long and short term bicycle parking is described for both public and private
�., organizations. Development of adequate bicycle parking facilities is key to a
successful bicycle program. A downtown location for bicycle parking is proposed
to serve small and large employers as well as bus commuters who wish to commute
.. multimodally.
r A destination signage program is recommended to serve both bicycle commuters
-- and motorists. Directional signs will indicate locations of significant community
features such as the rail station, downtown, and the University.
Recommendations are made with respect to effective interface with bus and rail
transportation. Coordination with the historic rail station renovation effort will be
key.
rr
BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN iii
A.
Recommendations are made to implement safety and awareness programs. The City
should establish a staff person as the City Bicycle Coordinator, with duties ranging
from internal coordination on roadway projects to obtaining funding for new
bikeway improvements.
Promotion and marketing of alternative transportation will be very important in the
effort to reduce automobile trips in San Bernardino. It is recommended that the
City coordinate with the Air Quality Management District and with Commuter
Transportation Services to establish an Alternative Transportation Learning Center.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION
Recommendations are prioritized and probable construction costs are provided.
Potential funding sources are identified and discussed. This section will be a
working tool for scheduling and implementing bicycle improvements. Outside
funding is emphasized.
Probable implementation costs for Phase One recommendations are approximately
$480,000.
Probable implementation costs for Phase Two recommendations are approximately
$2,400,000.
Probable implementation costs for Phase Three recommendations are approximately
$2,000,000.
w
a.
BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN iv
rr
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COORDINATION WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA viii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Regional and Local Setting 1-2
1.3 Standards and Definitions 1-3
1.4 Relationship to Other Plans 1-6
2. EXISTING INFLUENCES
2.1 Existing Bikeways and Related Facilities 2-1
2.2 Community Features 2-2
2.3 Local and Regional Long-Range Transportation Planning 2-3
2.4 Citizen and Community Involvement 2-4
2.5 Demand for Bicycle Facilities 2-6
2.6 Enforcement 2-8
3. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
4. MASTER PLAN
4.1 Route Selection 4-1
4.2 Bicycle Parking 4-13
4.3 Signs 4-17
4.4 Bicycle Detectors 4-18
4.5 Transportation Interface 4-18
4.6 Programs 4-20
4.7 Safety Issues 4-23
5. IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 Implementation Costs and Project Phasing 5-1
5.2 Funding Sources 5-5
BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN
6. CREDITS
6.1 Persons, Companies, and Agencies Contacted 6-1
6.2 Bibliography 6-2
7. APPENDIX
7.1 Caltrans Bikeway Planning and Design
7.2 San Bernardino Land Use Plan
7.3 Regional Bicycling Map
7.4 Community Questionnaire
7.5 Bikeway Accommodation Strategies
7.6 Bicycle Security Devices: A Guide to User-Compatible Devices
BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN vi
LIST OF TABLES PAGE NUMBER
Table 1 Bicycle Parking at Public Buildings 4-15
Table 2 Short Term Bicycle Parking Requirements 4-16
Table 3 Costs and Project Phasing 5-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Typical Section - Class I Bike Path 1-4
Figure 2 Typical Sections - Class II Bike Lanes 1-5
Figure 3 Regional Context 1-9
Figure 4 Community Features 2-9
Figure 5 Phase One Improvements 4-4
Figure 6 Phase Two Improvements 4-8
Figure 7 Phase Three Improvements 4-12
Appendix Typical Class I Sections
(Highway Design Manual, Page 1000-4)
Appendix Typical Class II Sections
(Highway Design Manual, Page 1000-11)
Appendix Typical Intersection Conditions
(Highway Design Manual, Pages 1000-14, 15)
Appendix Bike Lane Signs and Markings
(Highway Design Manual, Pages 1000-22, 23)
BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN vii
COORDINATION WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
The California Bikeways Act outlines elements which must be included in a Master Plan
submitted to the State for review. For convenience of review, the table below lists the
requirement and indicates the section in which the requirement is discussed.
ROUTE SELECTION Refer to Section 4, Part 4.1 "Route Selection"
LAND USE Refer to Section 1, Part 1.2 "Regional and
Local Setting" and Section 2, Part 2.2
"Community Features." A copy of the City's
Land Use Plan is included in the Appendix.
TRANSPORTATION INTERFACE Refer to Section 4, Part 4.5 "Transportation
Interface."
CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY Refer to Section 2, Part 2.4 "Citizen and
INVOLVEMENT Community Involvement."
FLEXIBILITY AND COORDINATION Refer to Section 2, Part 2.3 "Local and
WITH LONG RANGE Regional Long Range Transportation
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Planning."
LOCAL GOVERNMENT Refer to Section 1, Part 1.5 "Relationship to
INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING Other Plans" and all of Section 4.
PROVISION FOR REST FACILITIES Refer to Section 2, Part 2.1 "Existing Bikeways
and Related Facilities" and Section 4, Part 4.5
"Transportation Interface."
PROVISION FOR PARKING Refer to Section 2, Part 2.1 and Section 4,
FACILITIES Part 4.2 "Bicycle Parking."
BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN viii
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
This Bikeway Master Plan represents a significant step in the City's on-going effort to
provide safe, convenient, and efficient bikeway facilities for the residents of San
Bernardino. The City recognizes that bicycle commuting and recreational cycling can be
a beneficial, viable, and important component of the transportation system in San
Bernardino in terms of reductions in automobile congestion, commute stress, and consumer
costs and improvements to air quality, fitness, and resource efficiency.
Bicycle facilities represent one of many elements which contribute to an effective bikeway
system. Also important are elements such as educational programs, enforcement of traffic
laws, and commuter incentives. These are addressed in this Master Plan in addition to the
discussion of facilities.
The scope of this plan responds to the provisions of the California Bikeways Act, which
describes specific requirements to be included in a master plan submitted to the state. This
plan includes specific recommendations for the time period up to the year 2002 in order
to relate to the Regional Transportation Management Plan, and general long term
recommendations for subsequent years. An update prior to the year 2002 may be necessary
dependant upon new legislation, changes in existing conditions, and/or effectiveness of
implementation strategies.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Development of a Bikeway Master Plan is an appropriate undertaking for several
reasons:
As set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, the City
shall "accommodate the needs of bicyclists by developing a plan for safe
bicycle facilities...".
The City may submit its bikeway master plan to the state for approval.
Upon approval, the City becomes eligible to apply for funding from the
state's Bicycle Lane Account. In order to receive funding, Master Plans
must be less than two years old.
Development of a Master Plan and improvements to bicycle facilities will
help meet trip reduction goals for the City. Bicycle improvements are
included in the list of Transportation Congestion Management Core Actions
outlined in the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance, enacted in December of
1993.
A master plan will aid in the improvement of the City's bikeway facilities.
INTRODUCTION 1-1
According to the California Bicycle Transportation Act (SB 1095, effective
January 1, 1994), "Bicycle transportation can be an important, low-cost
strategy to reduce reliance on the single-passenger automobile and can
contribute to a reduction in air pollution and traffic congestion."
As proven in many areas, bicycle commuting can drastically increase with
the implementation of bicycle programs.
1.2 REGIONAL AND LOCAL SETTING
Please refer to Figure 1 for an illustration of regional context. The following
description of the City of San Bernardino is from the City's Comprehensive Master
Plan of Parks, Recreation and Open Space:
"The City of San Bernardino is located approximately sixty miles east of the City
of Los Angeles, at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. Neighboring cities
include Rialto to the west, Colton to the southwest, Loma Linda to the south and
Redlands and Highland to the southeast and east, respectively. The northern limit
of the City is defined by an irregular line which approximates the boundary of the
San Bernardino National Forest. To the northwest, the City extends into the
unincorporated Devore community. The Cajon Creek Wash and the Santa Ana
River approximate the City boundaries to the west/southwest and southeast.
As the governmental center for the County of San Bernardino, the City of San
Bernardino is the focus of much regional as well as local activity. Historically, the
communities within the County were linked along Foothill Boulevard (Historic
Route 66), Baseline and Highland Avenues. Today, Interstate 10 and Interstate 215
provide major regional access. Recently, State Route 30 was upgraded and
extended further east through the City and south to a junction with Interstate 10.
The backdrop of the San Bernardino Mountains and the Santa Ana River contribute
to the physical character of the City. The flood control basins which stretch from
the mountains to the river provide significant open space within the City. Remnants
of historic citrus and olive groves are still found; the backdrop of East Highlands
Ranch and other large citrus preserves are also visible from many sections of San
Bernardino."
The Comprehensive Master Plan of Parks, Recreation and Open Space also
describes population characteristics of San Bernardino, indicating that the City's
population in 1992 was approximately 172,000 persons and anticipating a population
of more than 191,000 in the year 2,000. Most areas of the City will experience a
high rate of population growth, but especially the northwest portion and beyond.
Key features of the community are discussed in Section 2.2, "Community Features."
INTRODUCTION 1-2
.'..
:r. ::::r:::::::::::
e'
,.
u!f .
i ....................................................................................................................................
3 ....................................................................................................................................
e aan Hd•n: . i
....Rt .....'.Palk.'. I
9
.... ................................................................... ....... .. .
. :.....'. .:.'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'. .'.'.fa '.'.'.'.'.'. '.'.'.'.':.'.'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. .'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':'.'.'.'.'.'.'.::. .'....'.'...•.'.'.'.'.'.':
...' ..':.....
b
........................... ...
Calif is
,:
p n� it
tat L� vers
Y
ggan
B..,wrdino
t
1s )
4 Q w ' ..'.'.'.'.':.' . ..'..-::...'.'.':.':` NAMNAL FDRET '''
Pak : :
3
3
b
:. :.i..::.'.'::':'::':':':':'::::'::.'..'.':':':.':':':'.'.':':':':'
is b 'st
':'::':':('ti:::::..::::::':':':':':::r:ii r:::.'::i
e .'.'
•�
_
J
N p
C
ti
yy..................................................... .. ..way 30
Stout Hupl i•
.....................................................: .. ...
:.1.
y.. ..... 16th St.
Rllil:..l.o'.'.':.'.'.'.:.:.:.:.:.::..
.........................
..................... ...... .. ... ... ..........................
.................................................... _ .................... ...........
.................................................... c4 Bar U.S
..................................................... ............. .............. ..... ... ..........................
..................................................... ................................... ..... ... ..........................
st ms's, ' :. . .. ..:'':'IiiGHh :
5th st ".''ith.'.9f:':'.'.':': ':.'.':'.':':'.
....... ...... .......
.......................................
18. .!
Z •
..
Y
.......................................
., ... .:. Cl .. ............
.'.'.'.:'.'.'.':.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. '.'.:.........'.'."�'.... ':.'.'.':.'......
.'........::..'.':.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':.':
•� •
7
........................
"..
'.'.'.'c:.'.'.':::::' ly .StflL'ENMrNtia.'AW.'.'.'.'.'S '.'
::..k�!
................................................... ......... ........ ... ..
..... ............. ................
......... ......... ......... .......... ....... .......... .............. .............. ........
........
.......................................... ....... ....... ..... ............. ................
......................................... �M1fitl.'.1d.'.'.'.':::.::::.... .... .............. ................
................................................................
.. ..... ......................... ............. ................
...................................................................... .
.... .'.'.'.'. . .'.'.'..'.q' �'.' .'.'.'.'. .'•.'::.'.'.. ".'::.':.:'.'.. ................
'.
:si �y�
rr� tt**STJl i�':..:'.'.::'.....':.;.:.'..:':::...:'.'... ..'.'........:'.':''.. ...f.;.
.;w
.'JI .'.':L>V.
SAN BERNARDINO
BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN
City of San Bernardino
0 THE DIKE PARTNERSHIP CONTEXT MAP
1.3 STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS
The State of California Department of Transportation has produced a document
entitled "Bikeway Planning and Design" which establishes minimum design criteria
for the planning and construction of bikeways. The recommendations of this master
plan are intended to meet or exceed those guidelines and take into account variables
such as bicycle traffic volume, vehicular volume, traffic flow conditions, etc. A
copy of "Bikeway Planning and Design" from the Fourth Edition of the Highway
Design Manual can be found in the Appendix. Throughout this report "Bikeway
Planning and Design" is referred to as State Guidelines.
The California Bikeways Act provides the following definitions, which will be used
throughout the Master Plan:
Bicycle means a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by
human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having either two or three wheels
in a tandem or tricycle arrangement.
Bicycle commuter means a person making a trip by bicycle primarily for
transportation purposes, including, but not limited to, travel to work, school,
shopping, or other destination that is a center of activity, and does not include a trip
by bicycle primarily for physical exercise or recreation without such a destination.
Bikeway means all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. Bikeways are
described as either Class I, Class II, or Class III as indicated below.
Class I bikeways are referred to as "bike paths" and provide a completely separated
right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with
crossflows by motorists minimized. The Department of Transportation discourages
significant pedestrian usage of Class I bike paths to minimize conflict. Refer to
Figure 2.
Class II bikeways, or "bike lanes," provide a restricted right-of-way designated for
the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor
vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by
pedestrians and motorists minimized. Refer to Figure 3.
Class III bikeways, or "bike routes," provide a right-of-way designated by signs or
permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists.
INTRODUCTION 1-3
or
d(Min) r
:2(Min)' .. 8 Min. Width ZQrlina: —
Graded Paved:. . . . . ' Graded
FIGURE 2: TYPICAL SECTION FOR CLASS I BIKE PATHS
Source: Adapted from Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual
INTRODUCTION 1-4
Parking Stoll, or Optional 4" Solid Stripe
61. Solid White Stripe
5' Min. Motor Vehicle Lanes 5' Mine
Parking Bike Bike Parking
Lane Lane
* The optional solid white stripe may be advisable where stalls are
unnecessary(because parking is light)but there is concern that
motorists may miscontrue the bike we to be a traffic lane.
(1)STRIPED PARKING
Vertical Curb 6.1 Solid White Stripe Rolled Curb
*4 Min. Motor Vehicle Lanes *III Min.
* S is recoesmended where there is substantial parking or
turnover of parked cars is high (e.g.commercial areas).
(2)PARKING PERMITTED WITHOUT
PARKING STRIPE OR STALL
�3'Mn.� /fig Solid White Stripe3'Mn�
f
�I 4' Min. Motor Vehicle Lanes 4 Min.
Bike Bike
Lane Lone
(3)PARKING PROHIBITED
,0----6 Solid Solid White Stripe`
-�4 Min.�- Moo Vehicle Lanes -�4 Min.
Bane Bike e
(4) TYPICAL ROADWAY
IN OUTLYING AREAS
PARKING RESTRICTED
FIGURE 3: TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR CLASS II BIKE LANES
Source: Adapted from Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual
INTRODUCTION 1-5
1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
This Master Plan necessarily relates to, supports, and depends on other plans and
documents. The most significant of these are summarized below.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT, SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN
This element of the General Plan discusses both motorized and non-motorized
transportation in the City, and establishes general circulation goals, objectives, and
policies. Bikeway related goals are further discussed in Section 3.
Findings of this Master Plan should be incorporated in the next amendment to the
General Plan.
BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN, HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL, STATE_
OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
The July 1990 edition is used as a reference for bikeway design criteria and policies.
The document, part of the Highway Design manual, establishes guidelines and
minimum standards which should be met or exceeded as local conditions require.
A copy of "Bikeway Planning and Design" is included in the Appendix of this
report.
SAN BERNARDINO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AND BUDGET
The City develops and adopts an annual capital improvements program (CIP) and
budget. All major expenditures for the City are identified and the CIP is used as
an operations plan for the year.
This Master Plan is intended to provide the City with guidance and priorities in the
development of future capital improvement programs.
CALIFORNIA BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACT
The intent of this legislation is to help establish a bicycle transit system. In addition
to providing a funding mechanism -- the Bicycle Lane Account -- the Act
establishes criteria for state review of bikeway plans. This Master Plan has been
developed in consideration of the state's criteria and will be reviewed by the state's
Bicycle Coordinator. In January, 1994, Senate Bill 1095 becomes effective,
amending the existing California Bikeways Act. One of the amendments requires
that local RTPA's (SANBAG) review and approve master plans instead of the State
Office of Bicycle Facilities.
INTRODUCTION 1-6
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP)
As described in the RTIP, the 1992-1999 RTIP for the San Bernardino region is a
seven-year program of freeway and expressway, arterial, transit, bikeway, and
aviation projects. The projects are recommended for various stages of development
during the program period of July 1992 through June 1999. The project listings
include the location and description of the proposed work, the project cost,
anticipated funding sources and the scheduled year of the work. The development
of the RTIP is mandated by state and federal regulations. Member agencies and
transportation operators must have their major projects approved in the RTIP in
order to qualify for some categories of state and federal transportation funding.
This Master Plan will be used by the City to update San Bernardino projects listed
in the RTIP.
SAN BERNARDINO COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN OF PARKS
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
The Master Plan of Parks, Recreation and Open Space provides a guide for future
park, recreation and open space development in the City. Included in the Master
Plan is an inventory of existing park and recreation facilities, a discussion of
population estimates and projections, recommendations for improvements to existing
parks; recommendations for new park acquisitions, and a discussion of bicycle,
hiking and equestrian trails. The Master Plan makes several recommendations with
respect to bicycle routes, and was used as a starting point for discussions on the
Bicycle Facilities Master Plan.
DRAFT SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL COUNTY-WIDE BICYCLE PLAN
The Draft County-wide Bicycle Plan, developed by San Bernardino Associated
Governments, identifies and prioritizes bicycle facility needs on a regional basis and
establishes selection criteria for implementation of recommendations. Local bicycle
master plans were utilized to document planned bikeways. Information from the
San Bernardino Bicycle Facilities Master Plan will be incorporated in subsequent
drafts of the County-wide Plan.
SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL MASTER PLAN
Developed by the County of San Bernardino, this document describes
recommendations for improvements to the Santa Ana River including multi-use
trails, rest stops, parks, connections to local trails, etc. Improvements to the City
of San Bernardino segment are considered long-term projects and will likely not
occur within 3-5 years.
INTRODUCTION 1-7
TRIP REDUCTION ORDINANCE HANDBOOK
The Handbook, as described in the Handbook preface, is "a guidance document
developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District to assist local
governments in fulfilling their responsibilities as defined in the 1991 Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) and 1992 Carbon Monoxide Attainment Plan. Both the
1991 AQMP and the 1992 CO Plan identify transportation control measures for
local government implementation through a trip reduction ordinance or other legally
enforceable mechanisms that are approved by the Air Resources Board and the
Environmental Protection Agency. This document is intended to provide local
governments with guidance to craft programs to help meet the 1994 regional and
county-wide vehicle trip reduction targets..."
The Handbook indicates that local governments must have a trip reduction ordinance
or other mechanism in place by December 31, 1993. The Handbook identifies trip
reduction strategies and offers a menu of actions which local governments can use
to assemble their specific program. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements is one
Transportation Control Measure described.
INTRODUCTION 1-8
Section 2
EXISTING INFLUENCES
This section identifies existing elements and features of San Bernardino and discusses their
influence on bikeway facilities.
2.1 EXISTING BIKEWAYS AND RELATED FACILITIES
EXISTING BIKEWAYS
Currently, there are no designated bikeways of any kind in the City of San
Bernardino. In the past, designated bike lanes were part of several city streets, but
these lanes were removed or allowed to disappear due to maintenance and safety
concerns. Bicycle travel in the City now occurs on streets and roads without
designation.
Accurate information regarding current rates of bicycle commuting in San
Bernardino is not available. AQMD figures show that approximately .6% of all
morning commuters in the region bike to work. There are 31,524 employees on
record with AQMD working for large employers in the City, and perhaps twice that
number employed at firms having less than 100 employees. At a rate of .6%, there
may be as many as five or six hundred (500-600) bicycle commuters riding to work.
This number is supported by CTS documentation that 123 employees from only 116
registered large employers are bicycle commuters in the City.
The City of San Bernardino Comprehensive Master Plan of Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space lists several planned Class I bike paths such as the Santa Ana River
Trail and the Greenbelt Trail, and makes recommendations regarding local on-street
bikeways as well. The Comprehensive Master Plan was used as a starting point for
the Bikeway Facilities Study effort.
Personal safety is an issue in several areas of San Bernardino. Approximately 40%
of the questionnaire respondents indicated "high crime areas" is a significant
concern with respect to bikeway problems.
BIKE PARKING FACILITIES
Locations of public bike parking facilities are illustrated in Figure 4. These
locations represent facilities which are owned or controlled by public agencies, and
do not include privately offered facilities available to the public.
EXISTING INFLUENCES 2-1
REST AND SUPPORT FACILITIES
It is important to understand the locations of support facilities for bicycle
commuters. The availability of drinking water, restrooms, restaurants, bicycle
shops, air for tires, etc. may increase the convenience and desirability of a potential
route and influence route selection.
Public facilities which offer drinking water and/or restrooms are illustrated in Figure
4. Not included in the illustration are private facilities, either at commercial
establishments or at the commuter's destination. Facilities such as showers and
changing rooms at the commuter's destination are very important support elements
of a bicycle commute. County of San Bernardino offices are in the process of
installing shower facilities for bicycle commuters. The City provides shower
facilities at several community centers, including Mill Center, Rudy Hernandez
Center, and Ruben Campas Center. Additionally, as a result of AQMD and CTS
programs many private companies are installing shower and locker facilities at the
workplace.
Most of the streets under consideration for bikeway facilities are commercial streets
and offer a variety of support services for the cyclist such as restaurants and service
stations.
2.2 COMMUNITY FEATURES
Figure 4, Community Features, illustrates existing and future places or facilities that
may be destinations for the cyclist. Parks, open space, schools, public buildings,
commercial centers, and transit facilities are indicated.
Many significant facilities are located in or near downtown, such as the Fourth
Street Transit Mall, the Metrolink Station, city hall, county buildings, state
buildings, the library, Seccombe Lake Park, and the courthouse. Many historic
buildings and places are in the downtown area as well.
California State University San Bernardino, in the northwest portion of town, serves
more than 12,000 students and employs approximately 4,000 persons as faculty and
staff. Ultimately, more than 25,000 students and 5,000 faculty and staff will be at
the campus.
Norton Air Force Base is a 2,300 acre military facility located close to the Santa
Ana River southeast of downtown San Bernardino. The Defense Department has
announced plans to close the base, and the base will be redeveloped as determined
by a multi jurisdictional redevelopment agency. New uses will likely include both
destinations and trip generating uses for bicycle commuters, and should be served
by bikeways and support facilities.
EXISTING INFLUENCES 2-2
Flood control channels within the City present opportunities for off-street trails.
The Flood Control District manages and controls most of these elements, including
Twin Creek, Warm Creek, Lytle Creek, City Creek, and the Cajon Wash.
The Land Use Plan of the City's General Plan illustrates land use for the City, and
can be found in the Appendix of this report.
2.3 LOCAL AND REGIONAL LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING
RAIL TRANSIT
Metrolink currently provides passenger rail service from San Bernardino to over
twenty (20) rail stations to the west, including the Los Angeles Union Station.
There are three trains, Monday through Friday, departing San Bernardino in the
morning at staggered intervals. Three trains also arrive in San Bernardino in the
evening. The number of trains stopping at the San Bernardino station is likely to
increase in the near future, according to Metrolink. Eventually, a rail connection
between San Bernardino and downtown Riverside will be established. Metrolink
tickets are valid for use on the Metro Red Line subway at Union Station.
Bicycles may be brought on board by advance permit for which there is no charge.
Currently, there are no bicycle lockers at the San Bernardino station.
The City of San Bernardino, in collaboration with San Bernardino Associated
Governments, is planning to refurbish the historic San Bernardino station and
surrounding area. The planning effort for this project is anticipated to begin in 1993
-1994. Bicycle amenities will be addressed.
BUS TRANSIT
Omnitrans provides public bus transportation within San Bernardino County. In the
City of San Bernardino, twelve (12) bus lines are available. All twelve routes
connect with the Fourth Street Transit Mall on Fourth Street between Arrowhead
Avenue and 'F' Street. The Fourth Street Transit Mall consists of a series of
sheltered bus stops located downtown on a commercial street and is within walking
distance of city hall, the courthouse, county buildings, and several office buildings.
Omnitrans buses are not equipped with bike racks for transportation of bicycles. It
is worthwhile to note that in the near future, buses to the south in neighboring
Riverside County will carry bike racks on most routes.
Additionally, Dial-a-Ride service is available for senior citizens and for persons with
disabilities.
EXISTING INFLUENCES 2-3
REGIONAL BIKEWAYS
Regional bikeways are identified in the San Bernardino Regional County-wide
Bicycle Plan prepared by San Bernardino Associated Governments. The first draft
of the County-wide Bicycle Plan was available at the time of this report, and a map
of the local San Bernardino area is provided in the Appendix of this report.
PARK N' RIDE FACILITIES
Currently, there are no designated Park N' Ride facilities within San Bernardino.
In Colton, just south of the city limits, there is a Park N' Ride facility at the
Howard Johnson's on Sperry Drive. Omnitrans provides bus service to the facility,
but no bicycle lockers are available at the time of this report.
PLANS
Refer to Part 1.4, "Relationship to Other Plans."
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIONS (TMA's)
No TMA's exist for the San Bernardino area at the time of this report.
2.4 CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
As indicated in Section 1, "Introduction," citizen involvement was encouraged
throughout the Master Plan process. Citizen input was solicited in three ways: 1)
by making widely available a community questionnaire; 2) by conducting a well-
advertised public workshop; and 3) by discussion at public meetings such as the
City Council meeting.
COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE
The questionnaire was available at the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department, at some local bike shops, and at the public workshop. Sixty-five (65)
questionnaires were completed and returned for evaluation. While this number of
questionnaires does not represent a statistically valid set of responses which can be
applied to all of San Bernardino, many findings are interesting and valuable to note.
A copy of the questionnaire and a tabulation of answers can be found in the
Appendix. A summary discussion of the results is provided below.
Most of the respondents are frequent riders, with 29% indicating they bicycle
commute to work. Nearly all indicated they also ride for fitness and recreation.
More designated bikeways (49%) and designated safe bicycle parking (48%) were
indicated most often as factors which would increase bicycling frequency.
EXISTING INFLUENCES 2-4
Thirty-eight percent (38%) indicated they would consider bicycling to the Metrolink
rail station at least once per month for connection to rail transport.
About half of the respondents were 35-54 years old, and most are not San
Bernardino residents.
Most (57%) indicated a preference for on-street Class II bike lanes as opposed to
Class I (37%) or Class III (3%) routes.
The questionnaire asked for comments from respondents. Comments and their
frequencies are provided in the Appendix of this report.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
The community workshop was held as an information gathering session early in the
Master Plan process. Options for route selection were presented and discussed, and
the questionnaire was administered. The workshop was held on May 25, 1993 in
the evening and was attended by less than ten people. Members of the public, in
attendance, generally were outspoken bicycle commuters who provided valuable first
hand information. Significant discussion included:
"Waterman, 'E' Street, and 2nd could be useful bikeways"
"Another east / west bikeway is needed above SR30 -- probably 30th Street and
Lynwood"
"Mountain View used to be striped with bike lanes"
"Mountain View should be the number one priority because it is important and easy
to achieve. Should pursue implementation now to build support and enthusiasm for
bikeways."
"Marshall, Lynwood, and Valencia had striping previously"
"School locations should be considered in route selection"
"Need east / west link to San Bernardino Valley College"
"Police should receive education with respect to bicycle laws"
"Public can be rotated into patrol routines"
"Safety is an issue on Class I bike paths -- consider lighting, patrols, call boxes,
fencing, irrigation"
EXISTING INFLUENCES 2-5
"Check into Rails to Trails and Bike Centennial for railway opportunities"
"Check into SANBAG railway acquisition from Redlands to San Bernardino"
"Vehicular couplets are unlikely, but bikeway couplets seem OK"
"Frequency of bikeways (every mile or so) seems appropriate"
"Lower segment of Cajon Creek should be opened"
"Little Mountain Drive will be too tough for most cyclists, but should be offered as
a bikeway"
2.5 DEMAND FOR BICYCLE FACILITIES
Generally, the end result of a demand analysis is that information is quantified or
otherwise presented for the purpose of discussing the potential usage of the subject
facility. It is important to consider demand for bicycle facilities in terms of both
current and future demand. It is fair to say that demand for bicycle facilities is
lower now, prior to implementation of a bicycle program, than it will be after
implementation. Factors influencing future demand may include variables such as
availability of routes, availability of bicycle storage facilities, incentives for bicycle
use, development of routines, opportunities to interface intermodally with train and
bus transportation, bicycle ownership rates, etc. It is anticipated that once bicycle
facilities and programs are in place, demand and usage will increase.
Demand for bicycle facilities is discussed below in terms of hints and clues which
lead to the conclusion that there is a significant need for bicycle facilities in San
Bernardino:
Half of the employees in the area live 10 miles or less from their workplace,
a very bikeable distance. (Source: Commuter Transportation Services,
Crossroads newsletter)
Twenty four percent (24%) of the 6,000 county employees working in the
City have high interest in bicycle commuting. The demographic profile of
the county employee closely resembles the profile of the average non-county
employee. The county goal is to achieve a bicycle commute rate of six
percent (6%) of the total commute trips. (Source: County of San Bernardino
Commuter Services Office)
There may already be five or six hundred (500-600) bicycle commuters in
the City without benefit of designated bikeways or support facilities and
programs. (Source: AQMD and CTS)
EXISTING INFLUENCES 2-6
In the City of Riverside, bicycle commute rates among city employees
increased from three (3) to eighteen (18) in 1992 as a result of a bicycle loan
program.
Thirty percent (30%) of the San Bernardino County respondents to a CTS
commuter survey would consider bicycle commuting on a trial basis. In the
same survey, respondents who rode bicycles to and from work expressed a
higher than average level of satisfaction with their commutes. (Source: 1993
State of the Commute, CTS)
For a fourteen (14) mile roundtrip commute, the average person would save
roughly $739 per year by switching from automobile to bicycle. (Source:
CTS brochure: 'Bicycling -- An ETC's Guide to Creating a Bicycle
Program")
Fifteen percent (15%) of the employees at Fleetwood Enterprises, a large
employer, are bicycling to work as a result of a vigorous bicycle program.
Less than 1% of the employees biked to work prior to the program. (Source:
Inland Transportation Services)
Currently, there are 12,000 students attending Cal State University San
Bernardino and only 400 beds available on campus. Eventually, there will
be 25,000 students and approximately 2,700 beds. Additionally there will
be over 5,000 faculty and staff members needing to get to campus. Clearly,
many trips will be made to the campus. The University will soon be
updating its campus master plan, and Associated Students, Inc., the campus
student association, has requested that bike routes and facilities be an
important element. (Source: CSUSB)
The downtown area is deficient in terms of automobile parking. For each
bicycle commute into downtown, there is one less automobile parking space
required.
The above figures refer to workplace commutes only. Bicycles can and will
be used also for commutes to school, for errands, and other short trips.
In addition to bicycling for purposes of reaching the workplace or other
destination, recreational bicycling is one of the most popular and fastest
growing leisure activities.
The State Leglislature, in the California Bicycle Transportation Act, states
that, "Traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, public health, energy
shortages, consumer costs, and land use considerations, resulting from a
primary reliance on the automobile for transportation, are each sufficient
reasons to provide for multimodal transportation systems."
EXISTING INFLUENCES 2-7
Emissions from automobiles are highest and dirtiest for short trips (2 miles
or less) or when engines are not warm. Using bicycle transportation for
short trips instead of automobiles would result in significant air quality
benefits.
Regardless of demand the City must participate in the reduction of
automobile trips and meet ridership goals established by the AQMD.
Incorporation of transportation projects into the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP) and their corresponding funding is at risk
otherwise Bicycle commuting is one way, a very efficient way, to address
the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan.
2.6 ENFORCEMENT
The California Vehicle Code addresses requirements and regulations governing the
operation of bicycles on roadways. The regulations, enforceable by local
authorities, are listed below for reference.
Section 21200 Laws Applicable to Bicycle Use
Section 21200.5 Riding Bicycle Under Influence of Alcohol or Drugs
Section 21201 Equipment Requirements
Section 21201.5 Reflectorized Equipment
Section 21202 Operation on Roadway
Section 21203 Hitching Rides
Section 21204 Riding on Bicycle
Section 21205 Carrying Articles
Section 21206 Local Regulation
Section 21207 Bicycle Lanes
Section 21207.5 Motorized Bicycles: Prohibited Operation
Section 21208 Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes
Section 21209 Motorized Vehicles and Motorized Bicycles in Bicycle Lanes
Section 21210 Bicycle Parking
Section 21211 Obstruction of Bikeways or Bicycle Paths or Trails
EXISTING INFLUENCES 2"8
rn
w
E-
� w
0
P4 N HwNy
U W
p; p3q�D .-7 Z UCU rn W�
oA
P. a �� q w aE
z w v' oz �w D4 w U ®°�� OA 1 o �]a. m
d Fad OC '�`W 54�wa 0 c4H r4pq ` WVGCRi�w a wo al. Fwzw
A;� w a`"'wzaaGw g�Rw 1�0°a z 0cwo0a°�A�Aw•,Wow�CwhCN7"t�»�pd�w.a °�a w pQ�iapq a a '" Uas UO z a `� aQU UoCa° `"''o��w�°Ec..
w A 9 rn Qa z z waoo a O Wzp„ a c Uxmz ° z 1 0z
a � vw a vooe c w> � °OwW ww�A. o
1ww tz° On a s� wx a �o °A zziGz C�4l. / f•W O o
w
►'��
w
.rNO7��f 7r O�mCDO.tiNO]�M�AdOL�000r+NP»OmI�O�O.r y .r C4 "�`ti"r^�^�-r^�-y.•r.•-iNNNNNNNNNNP)17C7 f� NPld �fOD V N Q��1A V3,M d
T
r ® T e
U w
G° I
1 A
A
Z
/1.4
,apin w
z !-�1 . --
I ° 06 eM4 IN
I ; any wlOd
mo V g
G°r •°G ( F o J N j� ° o
ut u
1 = m L = m
G °
w off, 'IS OuORA m
) _ A
W1 _z
/ Im —any 6u11�aiS u \\ �
�
Z
O
F++ y y l.� 1-4
ony oou°oodd1
O¢•any ouaJDA y
a o
A PNoM 941
0
/
ur '-t
GoJj L •any uow�o3oM
y .* any uowJaiOM
y s OLal O Am DjjajS
c� •any Maw u}W y
GoJ Fj :...:::;:;:•:::;'.:;:;: any poayMwjy
-is .3.
GAG ar / o �''` ::•�:
ix
I N
N < 'any uowaA 'IM
o R
,4b 1 c o r
_7" QED r�i �1dCID)
o• Tv � N
'IS OlwoipOO
' n
°cl a�b cao anV oyouoa y
G �1 aG/ o o�•' /-�
�Gg E e f
•any uOipuaW O
U
1 CP o
a TL
d° Got° H Huai
o
/ GJ Go'O W _�� 'any •Mai •u ` W
I [T�� 'is ��a❑ 4
L
Pq
F� i aE I _ v I
91 ej `` ^ 00� 0
0
Section 3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
GENERAL GOALS
To promote bicycling as a safe, convenient, efficient alternative mode of transportation
meeting the needs of San Bernardino residents.
To achieve quantifiable increases in bicycle commuting, in order to help meet the City's
trip reduction goals and as required by the Air Quality Management District.
DESIGN OBJECTIVES
Bikeways and bikeway programs should maximize transportation interface opportunities.
Bikeways should meet or exceed State of California standards.
Bikeways should link together significant community features such as libraries, parks,
business centers, schools, and residential areas.
Bikeways should address the needs of both bicycle commuters and recreational cyclists.
Bike paths should address the needs of disabled citizens.
City bikeways should connect with regional bikeways and with adjacent bikeways.
The bikeway system should be legible and understandable.
Personal safety should be emphasized.
Designated bikeways should be provided at a frequency of at least one or two miles in each
direction.
Bicycle commuters should have the option of using either Class I bike paths or on-street
bikeways when traveling through town.
Reduce the need for automobile parking spaces by providing bicycle security devices and
bicycle storage facilities.
As indicated in the Trip Reduction Ordinance Handbook developed by the AQMD,
development of bikeways must be accompanied by supportive actions such as providing
bicycle parking or showers at the workplace.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 3-I
Section 4
MASTER PLAN
This section presents the components of a comprehensive plan to address bikeway facility
needs of San Bernardino. The plan includes both facility improvements and program
recommendations, and is based on community input, established goals and objectives, and
criteria established by the State of California.
During the planning process for this report decisions were reached regarding the importance
and timing of all of the recommendations, resulting in a phasing concept. Three overall
phases were identified. Recommendations are organized by phase in Section 5,
"Implementation."
Specific recommendations are indicated in bold type and numbered sequentially for
reference to Section 5, "Implementation."
4.1 ROUTE SELECTION
Refer to Figures 5, 6 and 7 for illustrations of proposed routes. It is intended that
the recommendations be implemented and completed in the phases indicated,
meaning that planning and funding for implementation may need to occur in
advance of the phase for which the recommendation is listed.
By law, bicycles are allowed on all local roads and streets, therefore all local roads
and streets may be considered as bikeway facilities. Roads and streets are
recommended as designated bikeway routes only if the designation reflects an
advantage of that particular route over others that may be used.
One of the issues to be addressed in San Bernardino in terms of route selection is
the appropriateness of the arterials as bikeways. The City's General Plan suggests
that the arterials be avoided as bikeways. However, the arterials often represent the
only streets in many areas which travel directly through without backtracking and
taking turn after turn in residential areas. Moreover, the arterials are the streets
which regional bikeway maps show as inter-city links. Arterials have the added
advantage of being well lit, provide "comfort in numbers" against perceived threats
to personal safety, and tend to have adequate support facilities such as service
stations and restaurants. Disadvantages include more automobile traffic, tighter
spaces in many cases, and more lanes to cross when making turns on a bicycle. It
appears that the arterials cannot be avoided as designated bikeways. The challenge
is to provide bikeway facilities of an appropriate safe and convenient design to
overcome the disadvantages of the arterials.
MASTER PLAN 4-1
All new bikeways should meet or exceed State guidelines as described in "Bikeway
Planning and Design" found in the Appendix of the report.
The routes shown represent the preferred alternative at the time of this report.
Changes to road conditions, parking needs, and patterns of bicycle and automobile
use may necessitate modifications to the recommendations below.
PHASE ONE (FY 1993-94 to FY 1995-96)
The following objectives are considered primary in importance and were used in the
selection of Phase One bikeways:
Provide bicycle facilities serving University commuters.
Provide a link between the downtown core and the rail station.
Develop one (1) east / west link and one (1) north / south link to downtown.
Refer to Figure 5 for an illustration of the following Phase One route
recommendations.
4.1a Recommendation: Develop a Class II bike lane in each direction along
University Parkway from the University to Cajon Boulevard.
Currently, on-street parking is allowed, but underutilized. It is recommended
that parking be prohibited to provide for a six foot (6') wide bike lane in
each direction. At the freeway, the lanes may need to narrow to the
minimum.
4.1b Recommendation: Develop a Class II bike lane in each direction on
Kendall Drive.
This proposed route will help link the fast-growing northwest portion of
town with the University and via the proposed Mountain View Corridor to
the downtown. Al Guhin Park anchors the northwest end of this bikeway.
4.1c Recommendation: Develop a Class II bike lane in each direction on
40th Street.
Fortieth (40th) Street will serve as a connection between the proposed
bikeways on Kendall Drive and Mountain View and provides direct bike
access to Wildwood Park.
MASTER PLAN 4-2
4.1d Recommendation: Develop a Class II bike lane in each direction on
Mountain View Drive.
Mountain View Corridor will be a key route connecting parts of town in the
north and northwest to the downtown area. Several parks and schools are
near Mountain View Drive, including Wildwood Park and Seccombe Lake
Park. For most of its length, Mountain View is flanked by residential
neighborhoods. Several bus routes cross Mountain View Drive. Mountain
View Drive, as its name suggests, allows scenic views to nearby mountains;
a large landscaped median and mature parkway trees provide additional
visual interest and shade for cyclists.
It is recommended that, at a minimum, six foot (6') wide bike lanes be
established by striping the street for one lane of traffic in each direction.
On-street parking may remain. In the future, a connection to the proposed
Greenbelt Trail in the north may be made via existing right of way for an
abandoned railway.
4.le Recommendation: Provide Class II bike lanes in each direction along
North Park Boulevard between University Parkway and Mountain View
Avenue.
In addition to serving bicycle commuters traveling to the University, this
east/west bikeway will ultimately link the University with downtown San
Bernardino via Mountain View Avenue. Adjustment of travel lane widths
and deletion of on-street parking should be considered to accommodate the
lanes.
It is envisioned that the proposed Mountain View Drive bikeway and the proposed
bikeways surrounding the University will receive the highest bicycle commuter
ridership, and should be given top priority for implementation. High ridership will
generate enthusiasm and motivation for further implementation of bicycle
recommendations.
MASTER PLAN 4-3
z
0
U
0
P4 9
z U
p aF o off. 0
P4
0
W Lp o 0 O
"'
i
E- uw
w � w�
1.4
w
Q 0 0 zo $
W a 9 � s\ � H S pa
E4
• �� c 0
• e
14,
o° I
I A
W Japin w
11W '3
ZW . oe Rw iH
I o�' a •o"y w�Dd
a
°>
c
' J
z
•}S DuoRn � o
./ .any 6ut�Jalr, n � o Qi
W o A
E Q
fL
•a"y oouo3odd1
o"y o 3uQI0A a °D
U
/ a
?. O
to PFJOM o4} to
a En ci
'o"y uouuo}DM •o"y uowJO}DM
;° DJJiI
'j�q o"y Maw u;w
'GA p024MOJJy y
to
4
� O
2
I
j o"y uowoA •}ry
°jOw D� o1\k1 cc o
R
En
L y t O
no L to
\ $ 7 •}S DIUJO;IIDo
o"y 043uD8
o, < a
•any UDipuayr Q
J 0
0
4Oi C — 0/on oo J Q �•
\� �V• CPe D1Ja1
V.
OAV
UI U) W
•" N 1
ao4
I
-}S W
ols
OF] A
PHASE TWO (FY 1996-1997 to FY 2000-2001)
The following objectives are considered important and were used in the selection
of Phase Two bikeways:
Develop bikeway links to downtown from the south and the east.
Provide bicycle facilities serving San Bernardino Valley College.
Develop first Class I bike path in the City.
Refer to Figure 6 for an illustration of Phase Two routes.
Specific strategies for incorporating Phase Two and Three bicycle facilities on
existing streets are provided as suggestions for consideration and can be found in
the Appendix of this report.
4.1f Recommendation: Pursue development of a Class I bike path along the
Twin Creek flood control channel (the "Mid City Connector").
The Mid-City Connector was selected as the first Class I bike path
implemented due to the fact that it can, to a large degree, stand on its own
without prior implementation of other Class I trails. It also serves commuter
destinations such as the downtown area, Perris Hill Park, the County
hospital, Norton Air Force Base and the National Orange Show Fairgrounds.
Ultimately, it will connect to at least ten (10) other proposed bikeways in
San Bernardino, including the Santa Ana River Trail to the south and the
Greenbelt Trail to the north, before continuing south on the San Timoteo
Creek. Refer to Part 4.7, "Safety," for a discussion of safety and security
issues on Class I bike paths.
4.1g Recommendation: Extend Mountain View Drive bikeway corridor south
to Hospitality Lane via Arrowhead Avenue and 'E' Street.
4.1h Recommendation: Develop bikeways (Class II or III) on Tippecanoe
Avenue and San Bernardino Avenues.
Tippecanoe and San Bernardino Avenue continue regional links from the
south and east and provide new routes to the downtown area. In the future,
San Bernardino Avenue will represent one of the few bridges over the Santa
Ana River. Tippecanoe leads directly southward to Loma Linda University
just outside the city limits.
MASTER PLAN 4-5
4.1i Recommendation: Develop bikeways (Class II or III) on Sterling
Avenue, Mount Vernon Avenue and Mill Street.
Mount Vernon Avenue will provide a north/south bikeway west of the
freeway while serving the rail station, San Bernardino Valley College, and
the future specialty district identified in the City's General Plan. It will
ultimately connect with at least seven (7) other proposed bikeways. Mill
Street will serve the college, several schools, and Lytle Creek Park. Sterling
Avenue will ultimately provide a north / south route between the proposed
Greenbelt Trail and the proposed Santa Ana River Trail. Much of Sterling
Avenue is in the City of Highland, planned to be a Class III bike route.
4.1j Recommendation: Develop a bikeway (Class II or III) on Highland
Avenue.
Highland is identified as an inter-city link on the County-wide Bicycle
Master Plan, and a Class II bikeway in the City of Highland General Plan.
It also provides direct bicycle access to Perris Hill Park, the County
Hospital, and Pacific High School, and will ultimately connect with at least
six (6) other proposed bikeways. The City's General Plan also identifies a
special commercial district on Highland north of downtown.
4.1k Recommendation: Develop a continuous Class II bikeway beginning on
Fifth Street at the eastern city limits, continuing downtown to 'E' Street,
then on Fourth Street to the rail station.
This east / west route connects the eastern part of town with the downtown,
the Fourth Street Transit Mall, Carousel Mall, the rail station, Seccombe
Lake Park, Meadowbrook Park, Rudy Hernandez Center, downtown office
and governmental buildings, Norton Air Force Base, and the proposed
Mountain View Bikeway Corridor. Clearly, there is great bicycle commuter
potential for this route. Fifth Street is indicated on the County-wide Bicycle
Master Plan as in inter-city link.
It is recommended that east of Waterman Avenue removal of on-street
parking be considered to create room for bike lanes in each direction.
4.11 Recommendation: Coordinate with the Norton Air Force Base
redevelopment team, the Flood Control District, Caltrans, and the City
of Highland for development of a Class I bike path along the City Creek
Trail.
Potentially, implementation of this trail could be a requirement of the
redevelopment process for Norton Air Force Base. The City of Highland
has a memo of understanding with the Flood Control District regarding this
MASTER PLAN 4-6
trail, and will pursue implementation of a non-paved, multi-use trail. To be
of value to commuters, the bicycle portion of the trail should be paved. This
proposed trail is included in the City of Highland Trail Master Plan. Where
the trail crosses Freeway 330, Caltrans has provided tunnels for access, and
provided a graded trail north to the City limits.
4.1m Recommendation: Coordinate with the County of San Bernardino,
Caltrans, the City of Highland, and the Flood Control District to pursue
development of the Class I Sand Canyon Trail.
The proposed Sand Canyon Trail provides a connection between the
proposed Greenbelt Trail and the Mid City Connector, serving the Patton
State Hospital and Patton Park. Its alignment follows the Warm Creek
Channel. The City of Highland has a memo of understanding with the Flood
Control District to allow a non-paved, multi-use trail there. To be of value
to bicycle commuters, the bicycle portion of the trail should be paved.
4.1n Recommendation: Provide Class II bike lanes on Valencia Avenue
between 40th Street and Highland Avenue.
This scenic route will connect the proposed 40th Street bikeway with
Highland Avenue, Perris Hill Park and the High School. Bicycle lanes
previously existed on Valencia Avenue before their removal due to
maintenance issues.
MASTER PLAN 4-7
z
0
U
A
In y
FA
O
z A
In
93 In
` U 0 U ~
w a N DA
w.. w w az
rn �O
s o
W w W
A A A A A AC pa•' >� � w
P.
^ In A rn In rn
F� 0 rn 0 0 0 w E"0 In z U w ^
0 a 0 0 '`wjg F a
° ,�0 W� W
P.L.) ■914 a. 914
♦ • r1 ZA
F -� CWh zA
- W
�) M
■ ♦ • �j� r0r
YGO I
J J
i A
z
l^1 w Japan w
O � o
- OE aW IH
1�•-1 F�+'i I
~n+ I •an U Dd
ID
E' 1 I �•
GOrG°J g AGOG, ' I .PF r• o in Ln: L°n -
4G I P!:io OI m O� �N• o v
•
any 6uilJa}S /a
d •
1 N • •any aouo°add1
•any q3uGIDA I ■ ~
V 1 Fil V 4/ �� ■ > b
IQ PPOM p41
/
vii
.r` •any uowJO}DM •any IDLU.JGIDM
Am —GIs
g 40 cj/•any CMG wI�////
4° •an PD24MOJJy :::•:;::;
rG 4 \` :::::::::::::;.;:.:.: •any P024MCUJV g
a` ♦ °1 y W
o` it
Z§ 1111
•any uowaA '}W
c
' 11111 `'O��°°h a►}�!l in
cc is r
O t�
O is
iE
"rG / •.� 11 ro n = to 8
'IS DIuJO;IIDo
° e 111 n anV 04ouDa
S b D1 �.
_ r r 11111 a
•any ZJ1 Puapy Q
I °�►•�/°d�P `�C 111 •owe � U
O —
iE
J p
i
Dual
/ Go D
/ Q G°o� - •on •Mai •u
in in
an N 1 0
I is I w
17 -is
00F]
PHASE THREE (FY 2001-2002 and BEYOND)
The following objectives are considered important and were used in the selection
of Phase Three bikeways:
Complete system of Class I bike paths.
Fill in system to establish bikeways at 1 to 2 miles apart each way.
For each area of town, provide option of Class I travel or on-street travel.
Complete connections to regional inter-city links.
Refer to Figure 7 for an illustration of Phase Three routes.
4.10 Recommendation: Develop a Class I bike path on Chestnut Avenue
between the proposed Greenbelt Trail and Kendall Drive, and a Class
II continuation south on Palm Avenue and Institution Road.
This bikeway will ultimately connect the proposed Greenbelt Trail with the
proposed Cajon Creek Trail and provide one of the few crossings over
Interstate 215. The Chestnut Avenue segment will be within the right of
way between an existing Eucalyptus windrow and the street.
4.1p Recommendation: Develop a bikeway (Class II or III) on 30th Street
between Sterling Avenue and Miramonte Drive.
This proposed route provide an east /west bikeway roughly midway between
the proposed bikeways on Highland and 40th Street, crossing or connecting
to three proposed north / south bikeways.
4.1q Recommendation: Develop a bikeway (Class II or III) on Baseline
Street from west city limits to the east city limits.
This proposed east / west bikeway will connect to at least seven proposed
north /south bikeways and provide inter-city links with Rialto and Highland.
Martin Luther King School lies along the proposed route. To the East, in
the City of Highland, Highland Avenue is planned to be a Class II facility.
MASTER PLAN 4-9
4.1r Recommendation: Coordinate with the Norton Air Force Base
redevelopment team to provide at least one north south Class I or II
bikeway through Norton Air Force Base.
The route should connect with the proposed Sterling Avenue bikeway to the
north and the proposed staging area at the Santa Ana River Trail to the
south.
4.1s Recommendation: Extend the proposed Tippecanoe bikeway northward
to Baseline Street.
4.1t Recommendation: Develop a bikeway (Class II or III) on Meridian
Avenue between Baseline Street and the southern city limits.
This route is an extension of a planned inter-city link from Colton.
4.1u Recommendation: Extend the proposed Class I bike path along the
Twin Creek flood control channel southward from Mill Street past the
golf course to the proposed Santa Ana River Trail. Continue the route
along San Timoteo Creek.
In addition to connecting to the Santa Ana River Trail, it would be desirable
to connect to Warm Creek through the National Orange Show Fairgrounds.
4.1v Recommendation: Participate in the development of a Class I bikeway
along the Cajon Creek and Lytle Creek Washes.
This bike path will be important for both recreational cyclists and
commuters. It will connect the proposed Santa Ana River Trail with Glen
Helen Regional Park, linking to at least seven (7) other bikeways between.
It also connects the fast-growing northwest areas with downtown.
4.1w Recommendation: Coordinate with the County of San Bernardino for
implementation of the Santa Ana River Trail Master Plan.
The Santa Ana River Trail is a major regional trail and open space feature
which will ultimately link the San Bernardino Mountains with the Orange
County coast. A Master Plan has been published and the first phases are
being implemented. According to the County of San Bernardino,
implementation of the Master Plan in the San Bernardino segment will likely
not take place before the end of this decade. It will be important to connect
local bikeways to the Santa Ana River Trail wherever feasible; opportunities
to do that exist at the proposed Cajon Creek and Twin Creek Trails as well
as the Tippecanoe and Norton Air Force Base bikeways. The Santa Ana
River Trail Master Plan currently indicates that a major staging area will be
MASTER PLAN 4-10
located near where Waterman Avenue crosses the Santa Ana River Trail.
The City participated in the development of the Master Plan and is a member
of the Santa Ana River Coordinating Council and the Santa Ana Trail
Technical and Citizen Advisory Committee.
4.1x Recommendation: Pursue development of the Greenbelt Trail.
The Greenbelt Trail is envisioned to be a regional multi-use trail skirting the
San Bernardino foothills at the north end of town. In addition to
transportation opportunities, the trail would provide outstanding recreational,
scenic and interpretive opportunities as well. The Greenbelt Trail is included
in the County-wide Bikeway Master Plan, and interest in the project is high.
According to the City's Comprehensive Master Plan of Parks, Recreation
and Open Space, the length of the trail within the City of San Bernardino
totals approximately fifteen miles, with the Flood Control District owning
most of the property. A large number of other property owners, including
the City of San Bernardino, controls the balance of the land area.
The Greenbelt Trail is a large, complex, but very worthy project. Toward
the goal of implementation, the City should establish a Task Force which
would assist in the development of a Greenbelt Trail Master Plan. The
Master Plan would establish alignments, develop standards, and identify key
acquisitions and right of way issues.
CLASS I BIKE PATH ISSUES
With exception of the Greenbelt Trail, all proposed Class I bike paths will occur
alongside drainage channels controlled by the San Bernardino Flood Control
District. It will be necessary to establish a relationship with the District to
implement the bike path recommendations. The District has a procedure in which
a Memo of Understanding is established between an agency and the District,
followed by a Common Use Agreement. The applicant agency will bear the costs
of improving the subject property for the specific use. There is a fee involved in
establishing the agreement, usually about $480.
The City of Highland has provided the District with a Memo of Understanding
regarding the Sand Creek and City Creek drainages. It is anticipated that these
channels will be available to the public as unpaved trails by 1995. This will require
coordination and cooperation between Highland and San Bernardino and a similar
Memo of Understanding with the District for the San Bernardino sections of these
trials. In order for these and other channels to be useful from a commuter
standpoint, it will be necessary to provide paved surfaces.
MASTER PLAN 4-11
z
0
H
U
W AAi
W r7
a P4 P c C) �w
U U O U ►� A Or,
Pa p4' CS
c� c7 -. ►. O A 4
A A A A W G4 N U F
E mm P5
W
vw, vwi o -+ o a c� z wzww �w
z o
0 a o o �}, wH o
aa. Pa. a s W P rota E ' er W
W a pp c a
I A
JI 114 Q
Z
■
A
►� Japan W
. OE AWMAH
^ WiDd
cc ul
•
GO .O I • • O N In• C —
O v
Duo = m °_"'' v�• `o R OL
v cn A
W C3 �a a
°" ♦�
/ ♦ \ ■ N
W O E O
P
\ \ \ \ u v
/� _ \
A PIJOM 943 1 ��•: N; � � \ v \
�oJ t\ -o^y UDWJa3DM \ o^y lowlalom
oijal
cb'r / O�`` W o^ pD94MoJJy \
G ��� ` �i`;�Ln:'.{?;;;`,•`.; :�:`.�:`,�. \'�V POa4MDUJy\C�
■
oll `\
I
bill
` 6AV '3W
cn
u'O+IIryO)v y J j/f o
CD Owl oil
'IS D!UJOP.lD3
\ O
oloo^r •xC� ''� ��\� ` a^y uDlpuoW O
. .♦ D L
414r` A# 0•
Or
J 9
coo Duos
/ �O o / "
GdD� •any •woi •u
/ g
in
o :+
/ DJ ',
IZ
.3S I ww
F
'3S I H
nn U / P.
I N I A
""eJ uuuu� -- ��
4.2 BICYCLE PARKING
The provision and development of bicycle parking in San Bernardino is divided into
two categories for the purposes of this Master Plan: public-provided and private
sector provided.
Design issues and considerations pertaining to both categories are addressed below:
Consideration must be given to both short term and long term bicycle
parking. An example of long term parking would be a secure parking space
or storage facility for a commuter who may want to leave a bicycle for more
than several hours or for overnight. Enclosed and lockable lockers, attendant
supervised areas, or an interior lockable space would be appropriate for long
term parking. Short term parking would be defined as parking from a few
minutes to several hours. Stationary bicycle security devices (racks, bollards,
etc.) should be provided that conveniently and safely support the bicycle.
The device should be lockable or should accept locks provided by the
cyclist.
Regarding bicycle lockers, coin or token operated models tend to be more
flexible and useful than lockers which open via keys assigned to individuals.
The short term bicycle parking tables in this part serve as a guideline for
establishing requirements based on the type of use. It is recommended that
the need for long term bicycle storage devices be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis in addition to the requirements for short term parking.
Further information can be found in a 1989 report prepared by the San
Diego County Bicycle Coalition, provided in the Appendix of this document.
PUBLIC BICYCLE PARKING
To encourage and facilitate bicycle commuting, bike parking should be available at
public facilities. This includes facilities which are controlled by the City (parks,
City Hall, etc.) and facilities which are within the City but controlled by other
agencies (Sheriff, schools, etc.)
4.2a It is recommended that the City aggressively pursue provision of bicycle
parking at public facilities.
At parks the number of bicycle security devices needed will be dependent
upon the number of visitors. Percentage of automobile spaces is not always
an appropriate method of determining quantity of bicycle security devices
because park visitors often do not commute to parks by automobile. An
estimate must be made for each location and the amount increased if
MASTER PLAN 4-13
warranted based on observations of bike parking patterns over time. Refer
to Figure 4 for a listing of parks already providing bike racks.
In commercial / retail districts, the City should pursue opportunities to
provide public bicycle security devices. These should occur in public
parking lots (10-15% of automobile spaces) and also along retail streets
within the right-of-way where feasible. On retail streets, an estimate must
be made of required devices and increased if warranted based on
observations of parking patterns.
For public schools, the City should contact the school district and encourage
use of bicycle lockers for teachers and staff. The City should pursue funding
for this effort to assist the school district. Cal State University San
Bernardino already has at least one hundred (100) bike racks on campus and
will increase that number as the upcoming Campus Master Plan is
implemented.
For the rail station, the City should coordinate with Metrolink and
SANBAG to provide bicycle lockers or other long term storage facility, at
least in quantities equal to 5% of the number of automobile spaces.
Additional space should be provided for future expansion, if warranted by
demand. This coordination effort should be part of the upcoming planning
effort for renovation of the rail station.
For the Fourth Street Transit Mall, the City should provide public bicycle
storage facilities to encourage both bicycle commuting and bus commuting.
The number of spaces should relate to the number of bus commuters, and
since a realistic estimate for bicycle ridership in the near future is 1-2% it
makes sense to provide a number of bicycle storage spaces equal to 1-2% of
the number of daily bus commuters. The need for bicycle parking at the
Transit Mall is increased by the absence of bike racks on the buses. One
exciting, visionary approach to this issue involves development of a
comprehensive Bicycle.Commuter Center. Located close to the Transit Mall
but also near many office and government buildings, this facility would
provide not only secure, attended bicycle storage, but also changing facilities,
restrooms, bicycle commuting information, group commute bulletin boards,
and commuter goods and services such as coffee, drinks, pastries,
newspapers, etc. It may be feasible for this operation to be concessionaire-
run or even privately owned with encouragement and support from the City.
Perhaps a local bicycle shop would be interested in the operation, since
many bicycle commuters would conceivably need bicycle service and
products. Since the facility would serve not only the Transit Mall but also
surrounding downtown employment centers, the number of potential
customers could be significant. Moreover, bus commuters could purchase
commuter goods as well. A monthly or daily fee could be charged for
MASTER PLAN 4-14
bicycle storage in the same way that public automobile parking is often
provided. As a potential funding source, the City could contact AQMD to
coordinate trip reduction credits for large employers who contribute to the
Bicycle Commuter Center. The Bicycle Commuter Center makes economic,
social, and transportation sense, promoting intermodal alternative
transportation, downtown business activity, and an alternative transportation
commuter "culture." The Center could be accomplished in conjunction with
the Alternative Transportation Learning Center (Recommendation 4.6f).
4.2b Recommendation: Pursue development of the Bicycle Commuter Center
serving the Fourth Street Transit Mall and downtown areas, and
providing bicycle storage and other bicycle commuter support elements
such as restrooms, changing areas, refreshments, and commuter
information.
Alternatively, bicycle storage devices alone should be provided in parking
lots, parking structures, or other public areas near the Fourth Street Transit
Mall.
For public and government buildings for which automobile parking is
provided, Table 1 can be used as a guideline. Special consideration should
be given to long term bicycle parking at these facilities for use by City staff.
TABLE 1: BICYCLE PARKING AT PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Minimum % of Long Term Short Term
Auto Parking Parking Parking
Minimum % of Minimum % of
Bike Parking Bike Parking
City Hall Offices 15% 60% 20%
Libraries 10% 10% 60%
Fire, Police, Sheriff 10% 80% 10%
Departments
Source: Adapted from Draft Bicycle Master Plan, City of Santa Monica
MASTER PLAN 4-15
PRIVATE SECTOR BICYCLE PARKING
Regarding short term bicycle parking, there is currently no city requirement for
privately- owned operations to provide a certain number of bicycle security devices.
As bicycle commuting becomes a more frequently used mode of transportation,
there will be more demand for bicycle security devices. Other cities have
established various requirements as part of their zoning codes, usually around ten
percent (10%) of the number of automobile parking spaces. As an incentive and
encouragement for bicycle commuting, certain operations should be required to
provide bike parking for patrons in a similar way that a certain number of
automobile spaces are required based on type of operation and building size. Table
2 establishes recommendations for short term bicycle parking based on use:
TABLE 2: SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Type of Use % of Auto Requirements
General Office 10%
Banks, Savings and Loan Institutions 15%
Hospitals and Medical Centers, Medical, 0%
Dental, and Veterinary Offices
Retail 10%
Manufacturing, Warehousing 10%
Restaurant 10%
Hotels, Motels 0%
Child Care, Preschools 5%
Private Schools and Colleges 20%
Auditoriums, Museums, Galleries, Stadiums, 10%
Theaters
Bowling Alleys, Billiard Parlors, Skating 10%
Rinks, Assembly Halls
Health Clubs and Studios 15%
Source: Adapted from Draft Bicycle Master Plan, City of Santa Monica
MASTER PLAN 4-16
4.2c Recommendation: Consider incorporation of Table 2 into the Zoning
Ordinance.
As required by AQMD large employers and the City as a whole will need to
address employee commuting patterns, working to achieve quantifiable trip
reductions. Employers and the City may elect to approach this issue by the
promotion bicycle commuting. In these cases, provision of long term bicycle
parking or storage facilities will be key. The capacity of these storage facilities will
be up to individual employers.
4.3 SIGNS
REGULATORY SIGNS
Many standard roadway signs, such as speed limit and warning signs, apply to both
motorists and bicyclists. In addition to those, State guidelines require that bikeways
include specific signs and pavement markings. These requirements can be found
in the Highway Design Manual in the Appendix of this report.
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
Directional signs indicating major elements of the City can be of benefit to both
vehicular commuters and bicyclists. Confusion is eliminated and the chances of
wrong turns minimized. The roadway is therefore more convenient and usable.
4.3a Recommendation: The City should develop and maintain a directional
sign program which would serve both vehicular and bicycle commuters.
Destination signs should be appropriate in character to San Bernardino and
consistent with the City's sign ordinance. Signs should be placed where bike
routes cross or where route decisions are made. The standard bike route
signs carrying destination messages may also be used in addition to the bike
lanes sign. The following facilities should be considered for identification
with directional signs:
Regional Malls
Fourth Street Transit Mall
Proposed Bicycle Commute Center
Cal State San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley College
MASTER PLAN 4-17
Downtown San Bernardino
Seccombe Lake Park
Orange Show Fairgrounds
Proposed Santa Ana River Trail
Proposed Greenbelt Trail
Libraries
Metrolink Rail Station
4.4 BICYCLE DETECTORS
The primary purpose of the bicycle loop detector is to recognize a bicycle at an
intersection and trigger the signal to change lights. A low volume of vehicular
traffic along a bicycle corridor increases the need for a bicycle loop detector, since
the frequency of signal changes due to presence of an automobile is lower and a
bicycle commuter may have to wait longer for the signal to change.
The newer inductive loop detectors offer enough sensitivity to detect bicycles when
no vehicles are waiting at an approach (Source: O'Rourke Engineering). Of course,
the loop must be extended to include the bike lane as well as the automobile lane.
In order to let the cyclist know to wait in the bike lane, the presence of a loop
detector in the bike lane should be identified in some way such as a pavement
marking or mounted sign on the signal.
Currently, the City has no plans to install bicycle detectors. However, when bicycle
commuting increases along designated bikeways as anticipated and if the vehicular
traffic along the same route is not significant enough to trip signals with sufficient
frequency, the City should consider the installation of bicycle loop detectors at those
specific intersections.
4.5 TRANSPORTATION INTERFACE
Effective links to and coordination with other modes of transportation will increase
the viability of bicycle commuting for many commuters. Bicycle commutes that
may be too long or otherwise undesirable (riding home at night in the dark, for
instance) may be more palatable if combined with bus, rail or park-and-ride options.
Recommendations regarding coordination with transportation facilities within San
Bernardino are described below.
MASTER PLAN 4-18
METROLINK RAIL STATION
The rail station currently provides service as described in Part 2.3, "Local and
Regional Long-Range Transportation Planning." The City of San Bernardino will
promote the use of the rail station by bicycling commuters through participation in
the rail station renovation process beginning in 1993-1994, ensuring that the
following recommendations are considered.
4.5a Recommendation: Require that long term bicycle storage facilities be
provided at the rail station.
The capacity of the storage system should equal at least 5% of the number
of automobile spaces, with room to increase the amount if warranted by
demand.
4.5b Recommendation: Request that changing rooms be made available, with
lockers and showers.
4.5c Recommendation: Require that site design and circulation
accommodate and encourage easy access for cyclists.
In addition to ensuring effective on-site circulation for cyclists, coordinate
with the rail station planning team to provide an enhanced bicycle and
pedestrian corridor from the downtown area along Fourth Street to the rail
station.
4.5d Recommendation: Request that special incentives be made available to
commuters who include bicycle transportation in their commute.
Since each commuter who rides a bicycle to the rail station represents one
less automobile parking space taken, there is a real economic benefit to
encouraging bicycle commuting to the station. This benefit may be given
back to the commuter in the form of bicycle incentives such as reduced train
fare, free bicycle storage, priority seating, etc.
BUS TRANSPORTATION
As described in Part 2.3, "Local and Regional Long-Range Transportation
Planning," Omnitrans provides bus service in San Bernardino, with the Fourth Street
Transit Mall, the focus of all routes. Part 4.2, 'Bicycle Parking," describes
recommendations with respect to bicycle storage, and is a key element of
transportation interface between bicycle and bus. In addition, the City should
pursue coordination with Omnitrans for the provision of bus bike racks on certain
routes. Bus bike racks will increase commuter options. For instance, a bicycle
commuter who rides downhill from north San Bernardino in the morning may take
MASTER PLAN 4-19
the bus, with bicycle mounted on the front, uphill at night in the dark. Respondents
to the questionnaire indicated that they would "often" (21%) or "infrequently" (43%)
use bike racks mounted on buses, as opposed to those who would "never" use them
(36%).
4.5e Recommendation: Request that Omnitrans provide bus bike racks on
selected routes.
Consider routes between downtown and the University.
4.6 PROGRAMS
Education and awareness programs should complement facility improvement to
enhance bicycle safety and convenience. It is assumed that increased safety and
knowledge will translate into increased confidence and therefore increased use.
Two program aspects are discussed in this part: Safety Education, and Promotion.
SAFETY EDUCATION
Safety education programs should target both bicycle commuters (employees,
businesspersons, shoppers, and students) and recreational cyclists. Emphasis should
be on how to ride on the street, use of helmets, using lights at night, preferred local
routes, etc.
Currently, the San Bernardino Police Department operates a Bicycle Rodeo and
Safety Education Program through a State grant.
4.6a It is recommended that the City of San Bernardino pursue regular
bicycle safety programs which will target a broad range of cyclists.
There are many bicycle safety programs from which to choose.
Organizations providing custom seminars, events or workshops include:
Safe Moves (310/399-4805), which provides a wide. variety of programs for
children and adults regarding multimodal transportation, bicycle safety, etc.
Safe Moves is a non-profit organization.
The Human Powered Transit Association is a non-profit organization which
targets the adult bicycle commuter.
Additionally, teachers or City staff may be trained to teach bicycle safety
and awareness.
MASTER PLAN 4-20
PROMOTION
The availability of bikeway facilities will not alone necessarily result in significant
increases in bicycle commuting. Commuter participation in alternative modes first
requires awareness of the opportunities and benefits, often coupled with incentives
for use. The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and Commuter
Transportation Services (CTS) have promoted these alternatives throughout the
region and oversee extensive programs to reduce commuter trips, primarily with
large employers. Commuters to smaller workplaces (the majority of work
commutes) and non-work commuters have. received less attention.
One of the recommendations made by CTS in its 1993 report State of the Commute
is to increase the investment in mass marketing alternative transportation. To
increase bicycle commuting locally, the City should increase promotion of bicycle
commuting, targeting employees of both large and small organizations and non-work
commuters. A number of steps can be taken:
4.6b Recommendation: The City should designate one staff person as having
the responsibilities of the City Bicycle Coordinator.
The Bicycle Coordinator has a very important role, generally promoting
bicycle usage and internally coordinating implementation of the Master Plan.
This person may have other non-bike responsibilities as well, but would take
on the following bicycle program tasks:
Would be "in the loop" regarding street projects or large developments and
would be able to discuss bicycle issues in terms of project design.
Would be the City contact for bikeways issues and could answer questions
from the public or from other agencies.
Would have bikeway information available for distribution.
Would coordinate with the rail station planning team for bicycle facilities at
the rail station.
Would coordinate and promote bikeway programs, incentives, and awareness
events.
Would organize and pursue funding sources for bikeway projects and bicycle
programs.
Would participate in regional or county-wide bicycle planning efforts.
MASTER PLAN 4-21
4.6c Recommendation: Coordinate with regional entities such as the AQMD,
CTS, and San Bernardino Bicycle Coalition, and the Riverside Bicycle
Coalition to stage promotional and awareness events.
These organizations can conduct programs such as Bike-to-Work Week to
encourage bicycle commuting. Such events could include prizes, raffles, and
refreshments. These organizations also have brochures, posters,
advertisements, and message in other media which could be used locally.
These regional entities should also be made aware of new bikeways as they
are implemented. Bikeway information would be useful during their regular
large employer commuter programs.
4.6d Recommendation: Upon implementation of bikeways serving the
University, conduct an awareness campaign to inform student
commuters of the bicycle option.
4.6e Recommendation: Upon implementation of Phase One routes, prepare
a promotional map showing all City bikeways.
Such a map could include existing and proposed routes, bike-related
advertisements, parking facilities, transportation interface points, important
community features, etc.
4.6f Recommendation: Coordinate with AQMD and CTS for the planning
and implementation of an Alternative Transportation Learning Center.
The Center would be a clearinghouse for commute related information and
services, including: remote train ticket machines; bus route information;
educational displays showing benefits of alternative transportation; rideshare
boards; interactive exhibits for demonstrating air quality and traffic issues;
bicycle storage; and provision of commuter goods. Perhaps there would be
a classroom for demonstrating bicycle safety and maintenance. As indicated
in previous sections, the ideal place would be downtown near the Fourth
Street Transit Mall, however, a location in the rail station or another public
building would also be appropriate. The intent would be to provide
commuter related information in an informative, fun, interesting way similar
to science and discovery museums.
4.6g Recommendation: Coordinate with Police and Sheriffs departments for
loan and/or distribution of confiscated bicycles.
The City of Riverside is utilizing confiscated bicycles in-house in a loan
program to City employees, increasing bicycle commuting from three (3) to
eighteen (18) in one year.
MASTER PLAN 4-22
4.7 SAFETY ISSUES
For the purposes of this section only, "Safety Issues" will refer to the personal
security of the cyclist and the security of properties adjacent to proposed Class I
bike paths with respect to crime.
SECURITY OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES
Several Class I bike paths are proposed to occur in areas where residential units will
back up to the trails. There may be a perception that this could lead to greater
access and a higher likelihood of illegal activity along these corridors. This same
issue has been addressed in the City of Highland, which will share several of the
proposed bike paths with the City of San Bernardino. The City of Highland found
no correlation between trails and increases in crime that would justify special or
unusual security measures. The intent is to establish bike paths as feasible and then
address any problems which result, if necessary, rather than anticipate a problem for
which there is no compelling reason to believe will occur.
It is the recommendation of the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan that a similar
approach be taken in San Bernardino; establish the bike path then address any issues
which arise, if necessary. Should it be necessary to take action to discourage illegal
activity, the following list of opportunities can be considered:
Provide lockable gates at the ends of trail segments which can be locked
after a certain hour.
Request that the City's police bicycle patrol be extended to cover bike paths.
Enlist regular bicycle commuters to help with watching for undesirable
activities, outfitting them with radio communication devices and highly
visible vests or helmets.
Install planting which discourages foot traffic (armed plants).
Install irrigation systems which are controlled by motion sensors and which
are activated by movement in sensitive areas.
MASTER PLAN 4-23
CYCLIST SECURITY
Based on comments from the community questionnaire, riding through high crime
areas is a significant concern. While it is hoped that this concern will be reduced
over time as conditions improve in certain areas, there are some activities which can
be considered to address the issue:
Coordinate with Omnitrans for installation of bike racks on buses. This may
allow cyclists to ride to work during daylight hours, but bus during the dark
evening hours to a location near their home.
Encourage commuting cyclists to bike in groups. Groups can be organized
within specific offices or buildings or as a result of information boards
posted at the proposed Bicycle Commuter Center.
Request increased police presence along bicycle corridors in the evenings.
Enlist regular bicycle commuters to help with watching for undesirable
activities, outfitting them with radio communication devices and highly
visible vests or helmets.
Provide increased street lighting along dark bicycle corridors.
MASTER PLAN 4-24
Section 5
IMPLEMENTATION
This section provides a working tool for the City in the implementation of
recommendations presented in Section 4, "Master Plan." Three key components of program
implementation are presented: costs, phasing, and funding.
5.1 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS AND PROJECT PHASING
The recommendations of the previous section have been prioritized and are
generally categorized into three phases based on conformance with criteria below.
It is recognized that unforeseen influences such as funding, street improvement
timing, and pace of development may alter the timing of bicycle improvements.
The categorization below provides a general guideline only.
Phase One items should: be implemented by the end of FY 1995-96; meet obvious
needs regarding the downtown area and the University; have the greatest chance of
building ridership and enthusiasm.
Phase Two items should: be implemented by the end of FY 2000-01; build on
Phase One routes and programs; expand bicycle facilities, making regional
connections.
Phase Three items should: be implemented after FY 2000-01; complete the local
bicycle facilities program; complete links to regional systems.
Following are tables prepared to illustrate phasing of recommendations and
approximate probable construction costs. Construction costs are in 1993 dollars, and
include engineering costs and contingencies. Items are keyed to Section 4
recommendations.
Funds for various projects may originate from a variety of mechanisms at the City's
discretion, including federal, state, or local funding programs, City capital
improvement funds, City maintenance funds, City redevelopment funds, developer
contributions, agency participation, or corporate contributions. Project design and
implementation will usually originate with the Public Works/Engineering
Department, however, the Economic Development Agency and the Planning
Department will be completely aware of the recommendations of the Master Plan
and may facilitate implementation of particular elements as part of larger projects.
The recommendations of the Master Plan should be considered when routine street
improvement projects (i.e. restriping, resurfacing, widening) are scheduled for
implementation. Additionally, planning for new public projects such as parks,
public buildings, roadways, and bridges should include bicycle elements as
appropriate.
IMPLEMENTATION 5-1
It should be noted that a Caltrans encroachment permit will be required for any project
which includes work within the State right-of-way. Matters relating to the encroachment
permit process can be discussed with the Caltrans office in San Bernardino, Development
Review Division.
PHASE ONE (FY 1993-1994 to FY 1995-1996)
ITEM DESCRIPTION COMMENTS APPROX. IMP
COSTS
4.1a University Parkway Bike Application submitted for $ 37,000
Lane Bicycle Lane Account
funding.
4.1b Kendall Drive Bike Lane Mostly Class II, some $150,000
Class III temporarily.
4.1c 40th Street Bike Lane $112,000
4.1d Mountain View Bikeway Application expected to be $185,000
Corridor submitted for SB821
funding.
4.le North Park Bike Lanes Application submitted for $ 40,000
Bicycle Lane Account
funding.
4.2a Bicycle Parking at Public Four locations per year $ 14,500
Facilities assumed.
4.2c Table 2 Administrative ---
4.5a Bicycle Storage Facilities at Part of rail station funding. ---
the Rail Station
4.5b Changing Rooms Part of rail station funding. ---
4.5c Site Design Part of rail station funding. ---
4.5d Special Incentives Part of rail station funding. ---
4.6b City Bicycle Coordinator Responsibilities are $ 3,000
assigned to existing staff.
Costs are for support
(supplies, etc.), 1000 per
year.
IMPLEMENTATION 5-2
PHASE TWO (FY 1996-1997 to FY 2000-2001)
ITEM DESCRIPTION COMMENTS APPROX. IMP
COSTS
4.1f Mid City Connector $500,000
4.1g Mountain View Drive $140,000
Extension
4.1h Tippecanoe Avenue and San $120,000
Bernardino Avenue Bikeways
4.1i Sterling Avenue, Mount $500,000
Vernon Avenue and Mill
Street Bikeways
4.1j Highland Avenue Bikeway $272,000
4.11 City Creek Trail Condition Norton
Development
4.1m Sand Canyon Trail $360,000
4.1n Valencia Bike Lanes Striping and Signs $ 47,000
4.l w Greenbelt Master Plan Allow $100,000
4.2a Bicycle Parking at Public Four locations per year $ 24,000
Facilities assumed.
4.2b Bicycle Commuter Center Allow for City. $100,000
4.3a Directional Sign Program Assume 12 locations. $ 12,000
4.5e Bus Bike Racks Assume 3 routes. $ 15,000
4.6a Bicycle Safety and Assume 15,000 per year. $ 75,000
Awareness Programs
4.6b City Bicycle Coordinator Responsibilities are $ 5,000
assigned to existing staff.
Costs are for support
(supplies, etc.), 1000 per
year.
4.6c Promotional Events Assume 5,000 per year. $ 25,000
4.6d University Coordination ---
4.6e Map of Bikeways Allow $ 5,000
4.6f Learning Center Allow for City. $100,000
4.6g Loan Program --- ---
IMPLEMENTATION 5-3
PHASE THREE (FY 2001-2001 and BEYOND)
ITEM DESCRIPTION COMMENTS APPROK IMP
COSTS
4.10 Chestnut Avenue Bike Path Part of Greenbelt Trail ---
4.1p 30th Street Bikeway $189,000
4.1q Baseline Street Bikeway $182,000
4.1r Bikeway through Norton Air Condition on Development. ---
Force Base
4.1s Tippecanoe Bikeway $ 65,000
Extension
4.1t Meridian Avenue $87,500
4.lu Mid City Connector $220,000
Extension
4.1v Cajon Creek and Lytle Creek --- $1,200,000
Bike Paths
4.1w Santa Ana River Trail ---
Coordination
4.1x Greenbelt Trail Allow Unknown
4.2a Bicycle Parking at Public $50,000
Facilities
4.3a Directional Sign Program Assume 12 locations. $ 12,000
4.5e Bus Bike Racks Assume 3 routes. $ 15,000
4.6a Bicycle Safety and Assume 15,000 per year. N/A
Awareness Programs
4.6c Promotional Events Assume 5,000 per year. N/A
4.6e Update Map of Bikeways Allow $ 5,000
UNIT COSTS
Sandblast Striping $1.50/lf Phase III Bike Lanes $40,000 per mile
Thermoplastic Stripe $1.20/If Phase III Bike Path $91,000 per mile
Standard Sign $200 each Mobilization 10%
Directional Sign $1,000 each Engineering 10%
Bike Rack $1,200 each Contingencies 10%
AC Paving $1.50/sf
IMPLEMENTATION 5-4
5.2 FUNDING SOURCES
The role of bicycling in our communities is expanding. The benefits of bicycle
commuting are substantial, especially relative to management of traffic congestion,
control of air pollution, and conservation of resources. Acknowledgement of these
benefits has led to a wide variety of programs which offer funding mechanisms for
qualifying bikeways projects. Much of the information below is adapted from the
"Funding Working Paper for Bicycle and Pedestrian Related Projects", by the
Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 discusses
creation of a national intermodal transportation system involving "all forms of
transportation in a unified, interconnected manner." The ISTEA offers several
opportunities to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Programs pertaining to
bicycle enhancements are described below.
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS SYSTEM FUNDS (Under ISTEA)
Administration: Through the State after SANBAG and Caltrans
processing and inclusions in RTIP and STIP
Project Types: Bicycle and pedestrian facilities on land adjacent to
any highway on the National Highway System.
Facilities must be principally for transportation rather
than recreation.
Funding: Federal share of project's costs is 80%, with 20% from
State or local sources.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS (Under ISTEA)
Administration: Through the State after SANBAG and Caltrans
processing and inclusions in RTIP and STIP.
Project Types: Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, non-
construction projects (programs, services, etc.), and bus
facilities such as bike racks on buses or bike storage
facilities. Facilities must be principally for
transportation rather than recreation. The
"Transportation Enhancement Activities Program" is
for "over-and-above normal" transportation projects
and will distribute $200 million to California through
1997.
IMPLEMENTATION 5-5
Funding: Federal share of project's costs is 80%, with 20% from
State or local Sources.
FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY PROGRAM (Under ISTEA)
Administration: The Forest Service, Caltrans, and the Federal
Department of Transportation discuss proposed
projects and approve specific projects by consensus.
Local jurisdictions may apply for funding.
Project Types: Construction and maintenance of roads (including
bicycle facilities) located in national forests or serving
national forests; acquisition of scenic easements or
sites; construction of rest areas. The proposed
Greenbelt Trail may be an eligible project.
Application Period: Annually, in May and August, depending upon specific
program.
CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FUNDS (CMAQ)(Under ISTEA)
Administration: Through the State after SANBAG and Caltrans
processing and inclusion in RTIP and STIP.
Project Types: Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and
non-construction projects (programs, services, etc.).
Facilities must be principally for transportation rather
than recreation..
Funding: Federal share of projects costs is 80%, with 20% from
State or local sources.
SCENIC BYWAYS PROGRAM FUNDS (Under ISTEA)
Administration: Through the State after SANBAG and Caltrans
processing and inclusion in RTIP and STIP.
Project Types: Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities related
to safe bicycle use along the highway. Planning,
design, and engineering are eligible costs.
IMPLEMENTATION 5-6
Funding: Federal share of project costs is 80%, with 20% from
State or local sources. Ten (10) million is available
annually through 1996.
NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS FUND (Under ISTEA)
Administration: Government agencies, private individuals, and
organizations, may apply to the Recreational Trails
Advisory Board.
Project Types: A wide variety of projects related to recreational trails,
including construction of new trails, maintenance,
acquisitions, administration and programs. The
Greenbelt Trail may be an eligible project.
Application Period: Undetermined at the time of this report.
MASS TRANSIT CAPITAL AND FORMULA GRANTS
Project Types: Projects in urbanized areas relating to mass transit
systems. Bicycle parking and bicycle facilities relating
to mass transit systems may be eligible.
Funding: Federal share is 90%
Application Period: Annually in September.
STATE PROGRAMS
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) (SB821)
Administration: Through SANBAG to counties and cities.
Project Types: Safety education, design and construction of bicycle
and pedestrian projects.
Funds Available: Varies according to sales tax receipts. Approximately
$450,000 for bikeway projects in the San Bernardino
County area, fiscal year 1993-94.
Application Period: Due April, annually. Calls will go out around January.
IMPLEMENTATION 5-7
BICYCLE LANE ACCOUNT
Administration: CalTrans District 8.
Project Types: Design and construction of bikeways, bicycle parking,
programs, bicycles on transit vehicles.
Funds Available: $360,000 for projects generally, another $360,000 for
projects on state highways. Local match is 10%.
Application Period: Annually in December
PROPOSITION 116
Administration: California Transportation Commission.
Project Types: Bicycle commuting projects.
Funds Available: None available for San Bernardino. $20 million was
to have been available over a five year plan extending
through 1996, but high demand has used up funds.
Another 73 million is available for rural projects.
Application Period: November 20
ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION FUNDS
Administration: State Resource Agency
Project Types: Mitigation projects where bikeways may be
components.
FLEXIBLE CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
Administration: Local and regional agencies submit to SANBAG for
approval and inclusion in RTIP.
Project Types: Projects which reduce congestion and add capacity to
transportation corridors. Bicycle lane projects may be
eligible.
Funding: $18.5 billion statewide from gas tax revenues. All
funds have been programmed through the year 2000.
IMPLEMENTATION 5-8
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Administration: State Department of Parks and Recreation.
Project Types: Acquisition, planning, and development of outdoor
recreational facilities, especially in urban areas. Trails
may be eligible. The Greenbelt Trail may be eligible.
Funding: Reimbursement program providing about $2 million
annually.
Application Period: Annually in December.
REGIONAL PROGRAMS
MEASURE I
Administration: SANBAG
Project Types: Transportation and air quality.
Funds Available: Approximately per year from sales tax revenues
through 2010. There is no designated bicycle program
element in the measure.
Application Period: February 1
ASSEMBLY BILL 2766
Administration: Air Quality Management District.
Project Types: Air pollution reduction projects.
Funds Available: Varies with motor vehicle registration fees,
approximately $3 million per year for all projects in
the District.
Application Period: Summer of 1993
IMPLEMENTATION 5-9
Section 6
CREDITS
6.1 PERSONS, COMPANIES, AND AGENCIES CONTACTED
Virginia Alvarado, Transportation Manager, City of Riverside (909)782-5432
Mike Bair, San Bernardino Associated Governments, (909) 884-8276
Rick Blunden, Chief, Office of Bicycle Facilities, State of California (916) 653-0036
Barbara Brae, Inland Transportation Services, (909)798-1075
Annabel Cook, AQMD Transportation Programs, (909) 396-3198
Kerry Forsythe, San Bernardino Associated Governments, (909) 884-8276
Roberta Holden, Chairperson, Riverside Bicycle Coalition, (909) 351-3500
Michael Jackson, Bicycle Coordinator for the City of San Diego (619)236-6064
Donna Marks, Commuter Transportation Services, (909) 422-8088
Ken McGuire, Office of Bicycle Facilities, State of California (916)653-2750
Ken Pierce, Commuter Services Office of the County of San Bernardino (909) 387-
4247
Von Loveland, AQMD, (909) 396-3198
Britt Wilson, Assistant Planner City of Highland, (909) 864-8732
CREDITS 6-1
6.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Draft Bicycle Master Plan, City of Santa Monica, November 1991
General Plan, City of San Bernardino, June 1989
Bikeway Planning and Design, Highway Design Manual, State of California
Department of Transportation, 1993
Draft Final Trip Reduction Manual, AQMD, May 1993
Santa Ana River Corridor Trail System - Final Master Plan, July 20, 1990
County-wide Bicycle Master Plan,
San Bernardino Cornprehensive Master Plan of Parks, Recreation and Open Space,
April 1992
Bicycle Securily Devices: A Guide to User-Compatible Devices, San Diego County
Bicycle Coalition, 1989
Crossroads, Commuter Transportation Services, September 1993 Issue
Bicycling: An ETC's Guide to Creating a Bicycle Program, Commuter
Transportation Services
Funding Working Paper for Bicycle and Pedestrian Related Projects, Sacramento
Area Council of Governments, February 1993
Trails Master Plan, City of Highland General Plan, 1992
State of the Commute Commuter Transportation Services, 1993
CREDITS 6-2
BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL-- FOURTH EDMON
CHAPTER 1000
0 0 7
3
1
1
1
1
1
8
9
7
1
0
9
7
7
7
HIGHWAY DESIGN A ANUAL 1000.1
July 1. 1990
(d) 21210--Bicycle parking.
CHAPTER 1000 (e) 21960--Use of freeway shoulders by bicy-
BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN clists.
Topic 1001 - General Information
Topic 1002 - General Planning
Index 1001.1 -Definitions Criteria
"Bikeway" means all facilities that provide 1002.1 Introduction
primarily for bicycle travel
(1) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Provides a Bicycle travel can be enhanced by improved
maintenance and by upgrading existing roads
completely separated right of way for the exclu-
save use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross- used regularly by bicyclists. regardless of
flaw minimized whether or not bikeways are designated. This
effort requires increased attention to the right-
(2) Class II Bikeway(Bike Lane). Provides a hand portion of roadways where bicyclists are
striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street expected to ride. On new construction. and
or highway.. major reconstruction projects, adequate width
(3) Class III Bikeway(Bike Route). Provides should be provided to permit shared use by
for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle motorists and bicyclists. On resurfacing pro-
traffic sects, the entire paved shoulder and traveled
way shall be resurfaced. When adding lanes
More detailed definitions are contained in or tarn pockets, a minimum 4-foot shoulder
Section 2373 of the Streets and Highways Code. shah be provided (see Table 302.1). When
placing a roadway edge stripe, sufficient room
1001.2 Streets and Highways Code outside the stripe should be provided for bicy-
References clists. When considering the restriping of
• roadways for more traffic lanes, the impact on
(a) Section 157--Severance of a major bicycle bicycle travel should be assessed. These efforts,
route by freeway construction. to preserve or improve an area for bicyclists to
(b) Section 157.2--Incorporation of bicycle fa- ride.can benefit motorists as well as bicyclists.
cilities in the design of freeways.
(c) Chapter 8--California Bikeways Act. 1002.2 The Role of Bikeways
(d) Section 2374--Cakrans to establish design Bikeways are one element of an effort to im-
criteria for bikeways. prove bicycling safety and convenience - either
to help accommodate motor vehicle and bicycle
(e) Section 2376--Local agencies must comply traffic on shared roadways. or to complement
to the criteria established by Caltrans. the road system to meet needs not adequately
(0 Section 2381--Use of abandoned right of met by roads.
way as a bicycle facility. Off-street bikeways in exclusive corridors
can be effective in providing new recreational
1001.3 Vehicle Code References opportunities. or in some instances, desirable
commuter routes. They can also be used to
(a) 21100(Ii)--Operation of bicycles on side- close gaps where barriers exist to bicycle travel
walks. (e.g.. river crossing). On-street bikeways can
(b) 21207.5--Prohibition of motorized bicycles serve to enhance safety and convenience. espe-
cially if other commitments are made in con-
on Class I and II bikeways.
junction with establishment of bikeways, such
(c) 21208--Mandatory use of bike lanes by bi- as: eliminatim of parking or increasing road-
cyclists. way width. elimination of surface irregularities
and roadway obstacles, frequent street sweep-
1000.2 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
July 1. 1990
ing, establishing intersection priority on the (2) Class I Bikeway Bike Path). Generally.
bike route street as compared with the majority bike paths should be used to serve corridors
of cross streets, and installation of bicycle-stn not served by streets and highways or where
sitive loop detectors at signalized intersections. wide right of way exists. permitting such facili-
ties to be constructed away from the influence
1002.3 The Decision to Develop Bikeways of parallel streets. Bile paths should offer op-
portunities not provided by the road system.
The decision to develop bikeways should be They can either provide a recreational opportu-
made with the knowledge that bikeways are not pity, or in some instances, can serve as direct
the solution to all bicycle-related problems. high-speed commute routes if cross flow by
Many of the common problems are related to motor vehicles can be minimized. The most
improper bicyclist and motorist behavior and common applications are along rivers, ocean
can only be corrected through effective educa- fronts. canal& utility right of way, abandoned
tion and enforcement programs. The develop- railroad right of way. within college campuses,
ment of well conceived bikeways can have a or within and between parks. There may also
positive effect on bicyclist and motorist behav- be situations where such facilities can be pro-
ior. Conversely, poorly conceived bikeways can vided as part of planned developments. An-
be counterproductive to education and en other common application of Class I facilities is
forcement programs. to close gaps to bicycle travel caused by con-
struction of freeways or because of the exis-
1002.4 Selection of the Type of Facility tence of natural barriers (rivers. mountains.
etc.).
The type of facility to select in meeting the (3) Class II BO
oetuay Bfloe Lane). Be ric lanes
bicycle need is dependent on many factors. but
the following applications are the most common are established along streets in corridors where
for each type. there is significant bicycle demand, and where
there are distinct needs that can be served by
(1) Shared Roadway (No Bdwux y DesVia them. The purpose should be to improve con-
HoN. Most bicycle travel in the State now oc- ditione for bicyclists in the corridors. Bike
curs on streets and highways without bikeway lanes are intended to delineate the right of way
designations. This probably will be true in the assigned to bicyclists and motorists and to pro-
future as well. In some instances, entire street vide for more predictable movements by each.
systems may be fully adequate for safe and effi But a more important reason for constructing
dent bicycle travel. and signing and striping for bike lanes is to better aocammodate bicyclists
bicycle use may be unnecessary. In other through corridors where toolifflcient room exists
cases, routes may be unsuitable for bicycle for safe bicycling on eldsting streets. Ibis can
travel. and it would be inappropriate to encour- be accomplished by reducing the number of
age additional bicycle travel by designating the lanes. or prohibiting parking on given streets in
routes as bikeways. Finally. routes may not be order to delineate bike lanes. In addition. other
along high bicycle demand corridor's. and it things can be done on bike lane streets to im-
would be inappropriate to designate bikeways prove the situation for bicyclists.that might not
regardless of roadway conditions (e.g.. on minor be possible on all streets (e.g., improvements to
residential streets). the surface. augmented sweeping programs.
Many rural are used by touring . special signal facilities. etc.). Generally,stripes
bicyclists for intercity and recreational travel. alone will not measurably enhance bicycling.
In most ca ses. it would be inappropriate to If bicycle travel is to be controlled by de-
designate the highways as bikeways because of lineation. special efforts should be made to as-
the limited use and the lack of continuity with sure that high levels of service are provided with
other bike routes. However, the development these lanes.
and maintenance of 4-foot paved roadway In selecting appropriate streets for brine
shoulders with a standard 4-inch edge stripe lanes, location criteria discussed in the neat
can significantly improve the safety and soave- section should be considered.
nience for bicyclists and motorists slang such
routes.
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000.3
July 1. 1990
(4) Class III B&eu)ay Bike Route). Hike anticipated. separate facilities for pedestrians
routes are shared facilities which serve either are necessary to minimize conflicts.
to: Sidewalk facilities are not considered Class I
(a) Provide continuity to other bicycle facilities facilities because they are primarily intended to
(usually Class II bikeways); or serve pedestrians. generally cannot meet the
(b) Designate preferred mutes through high design standards for Class I bikeways, and do
demand corridors. not minimize motorist cross flows. See Index
1003.3 for discussion relative to sidewalk bike-
As with bike lanes, designation of bike ways
routes should indicate to bicyclists that there By State law, motorized bicycles ("mopeds'
are particular advantages to using these routes are prohibited on bike paths unless authorized
as compared with alternative routes This by ordinance or approval of the agency having
means that responsible agencies have taken Jurisdiction, over the path. Likewise. all motor
actions to assure that these routes are suitable vehicles are prohibited from bike paths. These
as shared routes and will be maintained in a prohibitions can be strengthened by signing.
manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists.
Normally. bike routes are shared with motor (1) Widths. The minimum paved width
vehicles. The use of sidewalks as Class M for a two-way Me path shall be 8 feet. The
bikeways is strongly discouraged. minimum payed width for a one-way bike
It is emphasized that the designation of path shall be d feet. A minimum sdoot wide
bikeways as Class I. II and M should not be sided area shall be provided adjacent to the
construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one pavement (see Figure 1003.1A). A 3-foot
is better than the other. Each class of bikeway graded area is recommended. Where the paved
has its appropriate applicatim width is wider than the minimum required. the
graded area may be reduced accordingly; how-
In selecting the proper facility, an overriding ever. the graded area is a desirable feature re-
concern is to assure that the proposed facility gardless of the paved width. Development of a
will not encourage or require bicyclists or mo- one-way bike path should be undertaken only
torists to operate in a manner that is inconsis- after eardW consideration due to the problems
tent with the rules of the road. of enforcing one-way operation and the diillcul-
An important consideration in selecting the ties in maintaining a path of restricted width.
type of facility is continuity. Alternating seg- Where heavy bicycle volumes are antici-
ments of Class I and Class II (or Class im bike- pated and/or significant pedestrian traffic is
ways along a route are generally incompatible, expected. the paved width of a two-way path
as street crossings by bicyclists are required should be greater than 8 feet. preferably 12 feet
when the route changes character. Also, or more. Dual use by pedestrians and bicycles
wrong-way bicycle travel wiII occur on the street is undesirable, and the two should be separated
beyond the ends of bike paths because of the wherever possible. Another important factor to
inconvenience of having to cross the street. 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.
TOPIC 1003 - Design Criteria
Experience has shaven that paved paths less
than 12 feet wide sometimes break up along the
1003.1 Class I Bikeways edge as a result of loads firm maintenance ve-
Class I bikeways (bike paths) are h cftks .
with exclusive right of way. with cross flows by Where equestrians are expected. a separate
motorists minimized. Section 2373 of the facility should be provided.
Streets and Highways Code describes Class I
bikeways as serving "the exclusive use of bi-
cycles and pedestrians". However. experience
has shown that if significant pedestrian use is .
1000-4 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Janu=T,1997
Figure 1003.1A
Two-way Bike Path on Separate
Right of Way
• -•.r::.
•„b�,_,.S�r,'. .,:� Vii•�''_}"...•- •.,;,
-.:���;;•' * �' t z,•a�:S�.yy�.�,- >:.+ice,,-r,
. .::Y• M,•Y.1}ttiV+,�Jf�'S.'�GM1�i=:Y�rN•i.:K
:i(Min) _ 6' Min. Width 2�OA' • ' =
. .Graded : paved...
Figure 1003.1B
Typical Cross Section of Bike
Path Along Highway
2 Graded 1inL
*5'or 8 in
Hi NOV f 2 % y
Edge of pavement
5' (Min.) Bike Path
*One-Way: 5 Mink m Width
Two-Way. 8 Minimm, Width
HIGHWAT DESIGN MANUAL 1000-8
July 1. 1990
(2) Clearance to Obstructions. A minimum as yield signs. stop signs. or traffic signals
2-foot horizontal clearance to obstructions which can be activated by bicyclists. Even
shall be provided adjacent to the pavement when crossing within or adjacent to the pedes-
(see Figure 1003.1A). A 3-foot clearance is trlan crossing. stop or yield signs for bicyclists
recommended. where the paved width is wider should be placed to minimize potential for con-
than the minimum required, the clearance may flirt resulting from turning autos. where bike
be reduced accordingly: however an adequate path signs are visible to approaching auto traf-
clearance is desirable regardless of the paved fic. they should be shielded to avoid confusion.
width. If a wide path is paved contiguous with In some cases. Bike Xing signs may be placed
a continuous fted object (e.g.. block wall). a 4- in advance of the crossing to alert motorists.
inch white edge stripe. 1-foot from the fixed ob- Ramps should be installed in the curbs, to pre.
f ect. is recommended to minimize the likelihood serve the utility of the bike path.
of a bicyclist hitting it. The clear width on (5) Separation Between Bice Paths and
structures between railings shall be not less Highways. A wide separation is recommended
than 8 feet. It is desirable that the clear width between bike paths and adjacent highways (see
of structures be equal to the minimum clear Figure 1003.1B). Bike paths closer than 5
width of the path(Le.. 12 feet). feet from the edge of the traveled way shall
The vertical clearance to obstructions include a physical barrier to prevent Way-
across the clear width.of the path shall be a elists from encroaching onto the highway.
minimum of 8 feet. Suitable barriers could .include chain link
(3) Str(ptrtg and Signtrg. A yellow centerline fences or dense shrubs.- Low barriers (e.g..
stripe may be used to separate opposing direr- dikes. raised traffic bars) next y i highway are
tions of travel. A centerline stripe is particu-
larly beneflcial in the fallowing over them and into oncoming automobile traffic.
In instances where there is danger of motorists
(a) Where there is heavy use: encroaching into the bike path. a positive bar.
(b) On curves with restricted sight distance: rieer (e.g.. concrete barrier, steel railing)
and. should be provided. See Index 1003.6 for crite-
ria relative to bike paths carried over highway
(c) Where the path is unlighted and nighttime bridges.
riding is expected. (Refer to Topic 1004 for Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets
signing and striping details.) and highways are not recommended. They
(4) Intersections wtth Highways. Irrtersec- should not be-considered a substitute for the
tions are a prime consideration in bike path de- street. because many bicyclists will find it less
sign. If alternate locattom for a bike path are convenient to ride on these types of facilities as
avail able. the one with the most favorable inter- compared with the streets. particularly for util-
section conditions should be selected. ity trips.
Where motor vehicle cross traffic and bicycle (6) Bice Piadw to the Median of Hiptuoays.
trafl3c is heavy. grade separations are desirable As a general rule. bike paths in the median of
to eliminate intersection conflicts. where-grade highways are not z n n-1-1 mended because they
separations are not feasible. assignment of right require movements contrary to normal rules of
of way by traffic signals should be considered. the road Specific problems with such facilities
Where traffic is not heavy. stop or yield signs for include:
bicyclists may suffice. (a) Bicyclist right turns from -the center-of
When crossing an arterial street. the cross- roadways are unnatural for bicyclists and
ing should either occur at the pedestrian confusing to motorists.
crossing, where motorists can be expected to (b) spec motets through inter-
stop, or at a location completely out of the in- sections with signals are unclear.
fluence of any intersection to permit adequate
opportunity for bicyclists to see turning vehi (c) Left-turning motorists must crass one di-
cles. When crossing at midblock locations. rection of motor vehicle traft and two
right of way should be assigned by devices such
milk" I
0
1000.8 BIGHWAT DESIGN MANUAL
July 1. 1990
rections of bicycle traffic. which Increases (10) Length of Crest Vertical Curves. Figure
conflicts. 1003.1E indicates the minimum lengths of crest
(d) Where intersections are infrequent. bicy- vertical curves for varying design speeds.
clists will enter or exit bike paths at mid- (11) Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves.
bkoek. Figure 1003.1F indicates the minimum clear-
(e) where medians are landscaped. visual re- ances to line of sight obstructions for horizontal
lationships between bicyclists and mo- curves. The required lateral clearance is ob-
torists at intersections are impaired. tained by entering Figure 1003.1F with the
stopping sight-distance from Figure 1003.1D
For the above reasons, bike paths in the and the proposed horizontal curve radius.
median of highways should be considered only (12) Grades. Bike paths generally attract
when the above problems can be avoided. less skilled bicyclists. so it is important to avoid
(1) Design Speecl. The proper design speed steep grades in their design. Bicyclists not
for a bike path is dependent on the expected phYskaliy conditioned will be unable to negoti-
type of use and on the terrain. The miaimma ate Ion& steep uphill grades. Since novice b1cy-
design speed for bite paths shall be 90 mph clists often ride poorly maintained bicycles. long
except as noted in the table below. downgrades can cause problems. For these
reasons. bike paths with long. steep grades will
Design generally receive very,little use. The maximum
Type of Facility S ( ) It is desirable sustained grades be limited
Bike Paths with Mopeds Prohibited . . . . . 20 to 2% if a wide range of riders is to be accom
Bike Paths with Mopeds Permitted . . . . . 30 modated. Steeper grades can be tolerated for
Bike Paths on Long Downgrades short segments (e.g.. up to about 500 feet).
(steeper than 4%. and longer Where steeper grades are necessitated. the de-
sign speed should be increased and additional
than 500 ft.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . width should be provided for maneuverability.
• (I3) Structwul Sectbn. The structural sec.
hm talLtion of "speed bumps" or other tion of a bike path should be designed in the
shnilar surface obstraetioM. intended to same manner as a highway. with consideration
cause bicyclists to slow doyen in advance of given to the quality of the basement soil and the
Intersections, shall not be use& lbew de- aatripated loads the bikeway will experience.
vices cannot compensate for improper design. Principal loads will normally be from mainte-
0 HaYzontalAlignment and Supereleixition6 nano and emergency vehicles. Ezpansive soft
en
Minimum amended curve radii and su- should be giv special moderation and will
perelevations for various design speeds are probably require a special structural section. A
n2munum
shows on Figure 1003.1C. When mtinbmum P thiclalesa of 2 (aches of
curve radii are selected. increased pavement asphalt concrete is recommended. Type "A" or
Depart-
width on the inside of the cum is recom. asphalt concrete (as described is Depart-
mended to compensate for bicyclist leam went of Transportation Standard Specffica-
tions). with 1/2-i2ch maxim= aggregate and
A straight 2% cross slope is recommended medium grading is recommended. Considera-
on tangent sections. Superelevations steeper tion should be given to increasing the asphalt
than 2% should be avoided on bike paths ex content to provide increased pavement life.
pected to have adult tricycle trait. Consideration should also be gWm to
(9) Stoppbg Sight Dbtwwe. Figure 1003.1D stenflltatiou of basement soil to preclude
Indicates the minimum stopping sight distances Pile weed growth through the pavement
for various design speeds and grades. For two- (14) Dm&wge. For proper drainage, the
way bike paths. the descending direction will surface of a bike should have a cross slope of
control the design. 2%. Sloping in one direction usually simpliDes
loa>gtt idinal drainage design and surface
canstnxtioa. and accordingly is the.preferred
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-7
January, 1987
Figure 1003.1C
Curve Radii & Superelevations
150
140
I
130 I
120
110
2
loo plot of: V _ tan8+f
fir.. � _
N
� 90 � �; c
• 2s�, 5 where:V =velocity,ft./sec.
CD
g =acceleration due to
eo gravity, ft./sec?
R=radius of curvature,".
. 70 f =coef f3*t of friction an
N
°C E I ed on a26o (based mximum0Olean)
• =tom. •o tan 6= superelevation rate, ft./ft.
50
40
V :15 m.p.h. I
30
20
10
40 m O N
O d C O O
Superefevotion Rate- Ft./Ft.
1000-8 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Jammy,1W7
Figure 1003.113
Stopping Sight Distance
20
15
Be
' 1 1 yam.
1 'L
CID
all
7
00 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
V2 Stopping Sight Distonce-Ft.
S- 3 ±G) *367V
where: S = stopping s ht distance,ft. Descend —
V = velocity,mph Ascend ------
f =. coef 1cKnt of Wion (use 025)
G = grade ftlft. (rise/run)
Sight Distances for Crest
Vertical Curves
. ..1 ....... ........
. ..30
h
a
1
:\
of q
=20 1'� .........�'
v .. -
.� 15
a
. 10 ���
J�
0 0 SxNo V.C.rtgiied
MO 300 400 7)0 800 900
Minix w Length of Vertical Curve-ft.
2
200( +
L=2S —
when S>L where: S = Stopping s�ht distance.
se
A = Ay�nic drence in fie.
2 h, = 4 y2 fti -eye of cycgst.
L -
AS when S L h2.= 113 ft.-height o't o9w.
100(�+�) L = Idininlun vertical curve Ier*.
11
I . . 1
lost
life
1
I if ► �
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
•
II■■■ /■■ I • .■ ■ • U . . 7■ ■�i■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ %■■■ •■■■ ■■■ • /■ I %re •Ci■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ I■■ I■ ■ ■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 1■■■ O■■ ■■ /■ I■ ' ■ I I ' /■ .■■■�
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ i■■■ I■■ ■■ I■■ ■■ �■ /■ ■ /■ ■ I■■ .■ ■/a
■■■■■■■■t■ ■■■■■■■I■■■■■I■■■■I■■■%■■■/■■%■■U■■U■■/■I.■II■�I■■■I.■�• /■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■'I■■■■I.■■■■II■■■I�■■■/■■I�■■I�■tl�t■%■ice■%tai■■■I.■ � �■■
■■■■■■■■t■■■■■■■■It■■■■�I■■■■I■■■/■■/.■■/■■//■/■■►I■/■■►I■I.■■■I.I ■■■■
■■■■■t■■■■■t■■■t■I/■■■■/■■■■II■■■►I■■■�■■%■■%■/�■I�■■I■Ii■I■■■rte■ .M■■■■
" ■■t■■■■■■■■■■■■■i/■t■■I/■■■■/■■��■■I I■■II■■I/■■%■I.■iI■�i■I.■■■��■■ •t■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■/■■■■I■■■I I■■■I■■I/■■�It■%■I.■t%■I.■I.■I■■■►■■■�i■■■ • fit■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■II■■■■I I■■■I■■■I I■■I.■■I.■■�I■I/■�I■I.■I.�/�■■I.�■■Iia■ ■■■
Pid
MP
jolt
■■■■■■■■I/■■/.■■�/■�/■�■' �/I�/%��/!V�■■!�■�i//ice/!�/!%!i/t■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■I■■I%■Ii■FA■i/A /.%%S!/_%/!!I■/!A■!i■ /!i-'/■■■t■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■I.■■�i■/.■,/Ii.,/iYii!i! /!i/:/!i/�i!��i/■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■t■■
� 1 �
1000-10 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
July 1. low
practice. Ordinarily, surface drainage from the less apt to swerve toward opposing traffic in
path will be adequately dissipated as it flows making certain they will not hit bicyclists.
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 Figure 1003.1 G
the hillside drainage. When necessary. catch
basins with drains should be provided to carry Barrier Post Striping
intercepted water across the path. .
Culverts or bridges are necessary where a
bike path crosses a drainage channel.
(15) Barrier Pbsts. It may be necessary to TJ
install barrier posts at entrances to bike paths + s�
to prevent motor vehicles from entering. When
locating such installations. care should be 'e T.iN. str►N
taken to assure that barriers are well marked .
and visible to bicyclists, day or night (Le.. in-
stall reflectors or rdlecta fled tape).
Striping an envelope around the barriers is Class II bike lanes sban be one-way faeili- I
recommended (am Figure 10MAG). ff sight ties. Two-way bike lanes (or bike paths that
distance is limited. special advance warning are contiguous to the roadway) are not permit-
signs or 0ainted pavement warnings should be ted. as such facilities have proved unsatisfac-
provided. Where more than one post is neces- tory'
sary. a 5-foot spacing should be used to permit (1) Widths. Typical Class lI bikeway con-
passage of bicycle-towed trailers. adult b icy- Bguradons are illustrated in Figure 1003.2A
cles, and to assure adequate room for safe bicy- and are described below:
cle passage without dLsmounting. Barrier post (a) Figure 1003.2A-1 depicts bike lanes on an
installations should be designed so they are
removable to permit entrance by emergency and urban trPc street where parking
service vehicles. stalls (or continuous parking stripes) are
marked. Bilge lanes are located between
Generally. barrier conl3guratbaa that pre- the parking area and the traffic lanes.
clude entry by motorcycles present safety and Minimum widths are as shown.
convenience problems for bicyclists. Such de- Hike lases shall not be placed between the
vices should be used only where aW me pmb-
lerns are encountered. pmt area sad the cm�b. Such fadliti�in
crease the conflict between bicyclists and
opening car doors and reduce visibility at
1003.2 Class II Bikeways inter. Also.they prevent bicyclists from
Class lI bikeways (bike lanes) for prefer- leaving the bike lane to turn left and cannot be
ential use by bicycles are established within the maintained.
paved area of highways. Bile lane stripes are (b) Figure 1003.2A-2 d
intended to promote an orderly flow-of traffic,by depicts bike �� on
establishing specific lines of demarcatlon be- an urban-type curbed street. where parking is
tween areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to but without parking stripe or afar
be occupied Bike lanes are established is
p by motor vehicles. This effect is conjunction with the parking areas. As
supported by bike lane signs and indicated. 11 feet or 12 feet (depending on
markings. Bike lane stripes can increase bW- the type of emb) shall be the minimum
clists' confidence that motorists will not stray width of the bike lane where parking is
into their path of travel if they remain wlthtn
the bike lane. Likewise. with more certainty as ��' This type of lane is satisfactory
where parking is not actensive and where
to where bicyclists will be. passing motorists are
turnover .of parked cars is infrequent.
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-11
January, 1987
Figure 1003.2A
Typical Bike Lane Cross Sections
(On 2-lane or Multilane Highways)
Parking Stalls or Optional 4" Solid Stripe
6" Solid White Stripe
5' Min. Motor Vehicle Loner 5' Min.
Parking Bike Bike Parking
Lane Lane
The optional solid white stripe may be advisable where stalls are
unnecessary(because parking is light) but there is concern that
motorists may miscontrue the bike ions to be o traffic lone.
(1)STRIPED PARKING
�Vertical Curb 6" Solid While Stripe Rolled Curb
*12 Min. Motor Vehicle Lanes
� *lII Min.
* 13'is recommended where there is substontiol parking or
turnover of parked cars is high (e.g. commercial areas).
(2) PARKING PERMITTED WITHOUT
PARKING STRIPE OR STALL
�SMn� 6~ Solid White Strgle AA
4' Min Pte- Mob► Vehicle Lanes 4 Min.
Bike Bike
Lone Lanz
(3) PARKING PROHIBITED
—6° Said White SMw—,,,.w
-+lee Mnlor V61we Lanes
Bike
Lane Lola
(4) TYPICAL ROADWAY
IN OUTLYING AREAS
PARKING RESTRICTED
1000-12. HIGHWAY DZS1GN MANUAL
July 1. 1980
However. if parking is substantial or turnover of quent parking is handled off the pavement.
parked cars is high. additional width is This can be accomplished by supplementing the
recommended. bike lane signing with R25 (park off pavement)
(c) Figure 1003.2A-3 depicts bike lanes along signs, or R26 (no parking) signs. Minimum I
the outer portions of an urban type curbed widths shall be as shown. Additional width is
street, where parking is prohibited. This is desirable, particularly where motor vehicle
generally the most desirable configuration speeds exceed 40 mph.
for bike lanes. as it eliminates potential The typical motor vehicle lane width next to
conflicts resulting from auto parking (e.g.. a bike lane is 12 feet. There are situations
opening car doors). Minimum widths where it may be necessary to reduce the width
shall be as shown. Both minimums shah of motor vehicle lanes in order to stripe bike
be achieved. With a normal 2-foot Ent- lanes. In determining the appropriateness of
ter. the minimum bite lane width shall narrower motor vehicle lanes, consideration
be 5 feet. 'Ibe intent is to provide a min- should be given to factors such as motor vehicle
imam 4-foot wide bike lane. but with at speeds. truck volumes. alignment. and sight
least 3 feet between the traft lane and the distance. when favorable conditions exist,
longitudinal point at the concrete gutter. motor vehicle lanes of 11 feet may be feasible.
since the gutter reduces the effective width Bike lanes are not advisable on long. steep
of the bike lane for two reasons. First. the
longitudinal always be downgrades. where bicycle speeds greater than
point may not al
smooth. and maybe difficult to ride along. 3o mph are expected. As grades increase.
. downhill bicycle speeds will irusease, which in.
Secondly the gutter does not provide a the problem of riding near the edge of
suitable surface for bicycle trove'. where
gutters are wide (say. 4 feet). an additional the roadway. In such situations. bicycle speeds
clists can approach those of motor vehicles. and ex-
3 feet must be provided because bicy
should not be expected to ride !a the gut bicyrclists will generally move into the
ter. who ever passible. the width of bilge motor' vehicle lanes to increase sight distance
lanes should be incised to 6 to 6 feet to and ��' Tf bike �� an to be
provide for greater safety. Ffght-foot bike striped. additional width should be provided to
lanes can also serve as emergency parking accommodate higher bicycle speeds.
area for disabled vehicles. If the bike lanes are to be located on one-
Striping bite lanes nest to Garbs where way streets, they should be placed on the right
parking is prohibited only during certain side of the street. Bike Is on the left side
hours shall be done only is with would cause bicyclists and motorists to under-
special signing to designate the hours bite take cross maneuvaa in making let turns
lanes are to be effective. Since the Vehicle onto a two-way street.
Code requires bicyclists to ride in bilge lanes (2) Sb Q*v and SWdng. Details for striping
where provided (except under certain condi and signing of bike 'saes are included under
tions). proper signing is necessary to inform bl Topic 1004.
cyclists that they are required to ride in bike Raised barriers (e.g.. raised traffic bars
lanes only during the course of the parking and asphalt concrete dikes) or raised page-
prohibitiom This type of bike lane. should be
most masters Shari not be aced to delineate
considered only if the vast majority of bicycle bite lanes. Raised barriers preverrt motorists
travel would occur during the hours of the from g into bike In before making
parking prohibition. and only if there is a firm right turns. as required by the Vehicle Code.
commitment to enforce the parking prohibition. and restrict the movement of bicyclists desiring
Because of the obvious complications. this type to enter or a tt bike lanes. They also impede
of bike lane is not encouraged for general appli- routine maintenance. Raised pavement mark-
cation. era increase the difficulty for bicyclists when
Figure 1003.2A-4 depicts bike lanes on a entering or exddng bike lanes. and discourage
highway without curbs and gutters. This lo- motorists from merging into bike lanes before
cation is in an undeveloped area where infre- maing right turns.
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000.13
July 1. 1960
Bike lane stripes should be placed a con- signal. it is desirable to install detectors that
stant distance from the outside motor vehicle are sensitive enough to detect bicycles.
lane. Bike lanes with parking permitted (11 ft Figure 1003.2C illustrates recommended
to 13 ft between the bike lane line and the curb) moping patterns for bike lanes crossing a mo-
should not be directed toward the curb at inter- torlst right-turn-only lane. When confronted
sections or localized areas where parking is with such intersections. bicyclists will have to
prohibited. Such a practice prevents bicyclists merge with right-turning motorists. Since bi-
from following a straight course. Where transi- cyclists are typically traveling at speeds less
tions from one type of bike lane to another are than motorists, they should signal and merge
necessary, smooth tapers should be provided. where there is sufficient gap in right-turning
(3) Intersection Design. Most auto/bicycle traffic. rather than at any predetermined lo-
accidents occur at intersections. For this rea- cation. For this reason. it is recommended that
son. bikeway design at intersections should be either all delineation be dropped at the ap-
accomplished in a manner that will minimize proach of the right-turn lane (or off-ramp), or
confusion by motorists and bicyclists, and will that a single. dashed bike-lane line be extended
permit both to operate in accordance with the at a flat angle across the right-turn lane. A pair
normal rules of the road. of parallel lines (delineating a bike lane cross-
Figure 1003.2B illustrates a typical Inter- m8) to channel the bike merge is not recom-
section of multilane streets, with bike lanes on mended. -as bicyclists will be encouraged to
all approaches. Some common movements of cross at a predetermined location. rather, than
motor vehicles and bicycles are shown. A when there is a safe gap in right-turning traffic.
prevalent type of accident involves straight- Also, so have are apt to assume they
through bicycle traffic and right-turning mo- have the", of way. and may not check for
toris Left
-turning L -turning bicyclists also have prob-
lems, as the bike lane is on the right side of the A dashed line across the right-turn-only
street, and bicyclists have to cross the path of lane is not recommended on extremely long
cars traveling in both directions. Some bicy- lan es. or where there are double right-turn only
clists are proficient enough to merge across one lanes. For these types of intersections. all
or more lanes of traffic.to use the inside lane or striping should be dmpped to permit judgment
left-turn lane provided for motor vehicles. How- by the bicyclists to prevail. A Bike Xing sign
ever, there are many who do not feel comfort- may be used to warn motorists of the potential
able making this maneuver. They have the op- for bicyclists crossing their path.
tion of maldng a two-legged left turn by riding
-' along a course similar to that followed by 1000.3 Class III lUkeways
pedestrians, as shown in the diagram. Young
children will oftenthnes prefer to dismount and Class M bikeways(bike routes) are intended
change directions by walking their bike in the to provide continuity to the bikeway system.
crosswalk. Bike routes are established along through
At intersections where there is a bike lane routes not served by Class I or II bilcaways.or to
and traffic-actuated signal. installation of bicy- cones dieconzinuous segments of bflceway
cle-sensitive detectors within the bike lane is (normaUy bike Ianes). Class M facil are
desirable. Push button detectors are not as shared facil s. either with motor vehicles on
satisfactory as those located in the pavement the street. or with pedestrians on sidewalks,
because the cyclist must stop to actuate the and in either case bicycle usage is secondary.
push button. It is also desirable that detectors Class M facilm are established by P
in kft-turn lanes be sensitive enough to detect Bike Route signs along roadways.
bicycles (see Chapter 9 of the Traffic Manual Minimum widths for Class M biloeways are
and Standard Plans for bicycle-sensitive deter- not presented. as the acceptable width is de-
tor designs). pendent on many factors. including the volume
At intersections (without bike lanes) with and character of vehicular traffic on the road.
significant bicycle use and a traffic-actuated tYPkal speeds. vertical and horizontal align
meni. sight distance, and parking conditions.
4 4
1000-14 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Januwy, 1987
Figure 1003.28
Typical Bicycle/Auto Movements at
intersections of Multilane Streets
I KE �
I I �
Ped. Crossing
-Now
i 1
� II
Ped. Crossing I
r
I LEGEND
— - -►bike Travel
I ===•►Mokx Vehide Tmd
i I
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-15
January, 1987
Figure 1003.2C
Bike Lanes Approaching Motorist
Right-turn-only Lanes
Ped. Crossina Ped. Crossing
' t * 1E If
*LANE
I BIKE Optional Dashed Stripe. BIKE
Not recommended *If space is
where a long right- ( 4mk available
tum-only lane or
double turn lanes Typical path
I exist. I of through
bicyclist.
1r
* If space is available.
I ! erwise all delineation
should be dropped at LANE
SANE this point.
BIKE BIKE
RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE PARKING AREA BECOMES
RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE
Ped. Crossin Ped. Crossin
tvj
I I BIKE Typical path of
Typical path of through bicyclist.
I I through bicyclist. —14
'w
*If space Is
available.
Drop bike lone
I I stripe where
right turn only
■ BIKE ■ IBIK designated.
OPTIONAL DOUBLE RIGHT LANE BECOMES
RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE
0
1000-16 HIGHWAY IMIGN>UNUAL
July 1. 1990
Since bicyclists are permitted on all (b) On long. narrow bridges. In such cases.
highways (except prohibited freeways), the ramps should be installed at the sidewalk
decision to sign the route should be based on approaches. If approach bikeways are two-
the advisability of encouraging bicycle travel on way, sidewalk facilities should also be
the route and other factors listed below. two-way.
(1) On-street Bike Route Criteria. To be of Whenever sidewalk bikeways are estab-
beneSt to bicyclists, bike routes should offer a lished, a special effort should be made to re-
higher degree of service than alternative streets. move unnecessary obstacles. Whenever bicy-
Roiutes should be signed only 9 some of the fol- clists are directed from bike lanes to sidewalks,
lowing apply,. curb cuts should be flush with the street to as-
(a) They provide for through and direct travel sure that bicyclists are not subjected to prob-
in bicycle-demand corridors. lems associated with crossing a vertical lip at a
flat angle. Also curb cuts at each intersection
(b) Connect discontinuous segments of bike are necessary, as well as bikeway yield or stop
lanes. sighs at uncontrolled intersections. Curb cuts
(c) An effort has been made to adjust traffic shoes be wide enough to -ccommodate adult
control devices (stop signs. signals) to give and taro-wheel bicycle trailers.
greater priority to bicyclists. as compared In residential areas. sidewalk riding by
with alternative streets. This could include young children too inexperienced to ride in the
placement of bicycle-sensitive detectors on street is common. With lower bicycle speeds
the righthand portion of the road,where bi- and lower auto speeds, potential conflicts are
cyclists are expected to ride. somewhat lessened. but still exist. Neverthe-
less. this type of sidewalk bicycle use is.ac-
(d) in areas of critical width to provide � But it is inappropriate to sign these fa-
imp� safety. dlitiea as bikeways. Bicyclists should not be
encouraged (through signing) to ride facilities
(e) Surface imperfections or riregularities have that are not designed to acca®modate bicycle
been corrected (e.g., utility comers adjusted travel. '
to grade. potholes filled. etc.). (S) DesUnation S( nft Qf Bike Routes. For
(fl Maintenance of the route will be at a higher Bike Route signs to be more functional, sup-
standard than that of other comparable plemental plates may be placed beneath them
streets (e.g.. more frequent street sweep- when located along routes leading to high de-
mand destinations (e.g.. "ro Downtown": 'To
(2,) Sldewa&Bikeway CrfEeria. In general, State College": etc.-- see Figure 1004.4 for type-
the designated use of sidewalks (as a Class M � '
bikeway) for bicycle travel is unsatisfactory. There are instances where it is necessary to
It is important to recognize that the devel- 9W a route to direct bicyclists to a logical des-
opment of wide sidewalks does not tinatian., but where the route does not offer any
necessarily add to the safety of sidewalk bicycle of the above listed bike mute features. In such
travel. as wide sidewalks will encourage higher cases the mute should not be signed as a bike
speed bicycle use and can increase potential for mute: however. destination signing may be ad-
conflicts with motor vehicles at intezaectiorls. as vim' A typical application of destination
well as with pedestrians and ed objects. t would be where bicyclists are directed
off a highway to bypass a section of freeway.
Sidewalk bikeways should be considered Special signs would be placed to guide bicyclists
only under specW circumstances-1 such as: to the next logical destination. The intent is to
(a) To provide bikea►ay continuity slang high direct bicyclists in the same way as motorists
speed or heavily traveled roadways having would be directed if a highway detour wax ne-
inadequate for bicyclists. and unin- cessitated.
terrupted by driveways and faI actions
for long distances.
HIGHWAT DZ81t1N l[ANUAL 100017
July 1. 1990
1008.4 Bicycles on Freeways of bikeway. Many of the criteria are Important
In some instances. bicyclists are permitted to consider on any highway where bicycle travel I
$ on freeways. Seldom would a freeway be signed is expected. without regard to whether or not
or striped as a bikeway.but I can be opened for bikeways are established.
use if it meets certain criteria. Fssenttelly. the (1) Brides. Bikeways on highway bridges
criteria involve assessing the safety and cone- must be carefully coordinated with approach
nience of the freeway as compared with avail- bikeways to make sure that all elements are
able alternate routes. If a reasonable alternate compatible. For example. bicycle traffic bound
route exists, it would normally be unnecessary in opposite directions is best accommodated by
to open the freeway. However, if the alternate bike lanes on each side of a highway. In such
route is inconenient (e.g.. it Involves substan- cases. a two-way bike path. on one side of a
tial out of direction travel) and/or is considered bridge would normally be inappropriate, as one
unsuitable for bicycle travel (e.g.. high-speed direction of bicycle traffic would be required to
traffic. no paved shoulders, poor sight distance. cross the highway at grade twice to get to and
etc.). the freeway may be a better alternative for from the bridge bike path. Because of the in-
bicyclists. However. a freeway should not be convenience,many bicyclists will be encouraged
opened to bicycle use if it is determined to be to ride on the wrong side of the highway beyond
incompatible (e.g., narrow lanes, no shoulders. the bridge termini.
freeway-to-freeway interchanges, etc.). Nor- The following criteria apply to a two-way
mally, freeways fn urban area will have bike path on one side of a highway bridge:
character that make it infeasible to permit
bicycle use. Where no reasonable alternative (a) The bikeway approach to the bridge should
exists within a freeway corridor. development of be by way of a separate two-way facility for
a separate bike path should be considered if the reason explained above.
dictated by demand. (b) A physical sepamtion• such as a chain
When bicyclists are permitted on segments link fence or railing shall be provided to
of freeway. it will be necessary to modify and offwt the adverse effects of lining bicy-
app may regulatory sWw paw- ales traveling against motor vehicle traf-
larly those at freeway ramp entrances (see Bc. The physical separation should be de-
Chapter 4 of the Traibc Manual). signed to minimize fazed end hazards to
motor vehicles and g the bridge is an tn-
loo9.a It[ultipuspose lReereatio®al Trail terchange structure. to a sight dis-
tance restrictions at ramp . . 1 1 cation.
In soau instances, it may be appropriate for It is recommended that bikeway bridge
recreational agencies to develop multipurpose or fences placed between traffic Lanes
recreational trails -for hikers,joggers. equestri- and bikeways be at least 4.5 feet high to min-
ans, bicyclists. etc. Many of these trails will not to the likelihood of bicyclists falling over the
be paved and will not meet the standards for railings. Standard age which are
Class I bikeways. As such. these fwilittes lower than 4.5 feet can- be retrofitted with
should not be signed as bikeways. Rather. they lightweight upper railings or chain link fens
should be designated as recreational trails (or suitable to restrain bicyclists.
similar designation). along with regulatory
signing to restrict motor vehicles. as appropri- lk v-- do highwq awcror struetsres
n ate. if recreational trails are to serve primarily for bOwway trafc shall eoaI to CWH" s'
bicycle travel. they should be developed to sc- standard pedestrian overc:osriug desiglr
cordance with standards for Class I bikeways. loading of 86 pounds per square loot: TIm..
minimum clew width shall be the paved
1009.6 ttlscel aneaos Meway Criteria width of the approach Mama. If pedestrians
are to use the structure. additional width to
The following are miscellaneous bikeway recommended.
criteria which should be followed to the went (2) Swface guatUU. MN. s uface to be used
pertlaerit to Class I. II,and III bfirways. Some. by bicyclists should be smooth.free of poewles.
by their very nature. will not apply to all classes
1000-22 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL j
May I& 1m
Figure 1004.3
Bike Lane Signs and Markings
WHERE VEHICLE PARKING IS PROHIBITED
Optional Dashed Stripe
Centerline or Lane Une (See Note 4)
6' White stripe 4' Minim un+ 200•
(see Figure 1003.2/►) n-
4100 , q
Curb or edge of pavement
R26, 11e1 Opitenal Markings
(He Parking) (See Note 1)
(I11ke Lane) ,
(See Note 6)
WHERE VEHICLE PARKING IS PERMITTED
Optional Deahed stripe
(see Note 4)
— SIMMONS -
11' or 1 r Minimum 200' Mandalaq F W S' Minhnum
(See Figure 1003.2A) (ses Nob 1)
_
white
IA=T i�
CT s«TNab s)
� white strips (sne
« Nte 6)
NO STALLS STALLS
Notes:
I. The Bike lAne Pavement marikinp shall be placed an 5. In areas when parking stalls are not necessary
the far side of each intersectim and may be placed at (MMUse parking to light). it is permissible to paint a
other locations as desire!. 4" solid white stripe to fully delineate the bike lane.
Z. The use of the bkycle symbol pavement marling to This may be advisable where them is concern that
supplement the word message is optional. motorlsts may misconstrue the bike lane to be a tm is
lane.
3. The 1383 aft Route stets may be placer intermtttentiy � .�181 bile sign shall be placed at the beginning of
along the bike lane if desired. all bike lanes. on the far side of
every arterial street
4. 7be bike lane line tray either be dropped entirely.200' intersectim at all major changes in direction, and at
in advance of the interseMlon.or a dashed Hne carried —3dmum half-mile intervals.
to the intersection or through the intersection
HIGHWAY DEMCM YAMAL 1000-29
January,1967
Figure 1004.4
Bike Route Signing
693
Special Optional
G33 Destination Signing
JL G93
Special Optional
Oestinatios Sivaisl
NOTE:The GN Bike Route signs shall be placed at all polft when
the route changes dkvction and pert x*Wl r as necessary.
SAN BERNARDINO LAND USE PLAN
SOURCE: SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN
1
i
N
W Q
CE
W
cl:
0
oil
h �gg
d y.I S
Z. p
.�"d•�r, C U
U
„off
I � x
- W W
In
uj
� h
N -r
1
J ' T
b _ J
Y Z
LL Q J J
Cf)
W J ¢ CL U
w d w F- U W
W
W O
,, C7
W a W 4-+
J n U — d N
1
'4. 4
t
1
REGIONAL BICYCLING MAP
SOURCE: DRAFT COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
�I■ ,�_::: 11 ,,x;��.,.,.�^������,��.
�r 1111—_ Em Now li:wur
RAI
IS
MEME MO
RIM
PAN
OF
film
■ � — ■mot � II
IE rya
am
1► �C1� ���j"E= iii - � _r. ._. � 7 :���������r � ��
.11 �rrl� 1 �►
_ L 111111 ''
'I�� �'� �N�� ��"��� X11 ��■■ .� I — � :.
CI:C:111 I:CC'-1111 711:■■■ ■■ ■■C�■., _ AS
11103 Y r •
---- -- l�il r
Nil
�i .i ■E11a�r��il�il■�C�11�1��'il■11�■���C�/ �w -�,
. � .111—i! - �a L��Yu===i1 -�'• . -- _ •.. �_ - �. � �. .;�
`. -. r..� �•�'iih"'llll` ■:11 1 1111 .' 1111
♦ .�� A�.,, �11 �.: i�i�•�all. ii�i1 ►::�1 UM11
/��_' 1�■11- 1_ '�II 11111 11111 = �! /��� 1 7�rm
� 3 '_-i 1 1 _ � r �,.� -. 1 —p-�•�.�'"r/.. ��r ri a '� - i
. ,I=1���� ��'J�� � : r. � Ile■ �� ��,,1 raraaa �iz�..��� ;r �� �►. .
ism
11�I�HIM ,
._
�/���IN
■ 111 � ' V� C � '! � ./.;�I� i : e a�
.1 . �riC■�1 � �1:.�: rte- .1 1 -:�1:��.;_
'Irl.�l� �' .,r LTA u� I-,■ _ '• ' � i�;,
�C -�
SEEN �� 1111
MON
r■t�f�i,��il..tli! Ic l IF-' ` • a '.•
ME
MIN
n _
COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE
SOURCE: THE DIKE PARTNERSHIP
1993 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE
The City of San Bernardino would like to thank you for participating in this Master Plan
effort. This questionnaire is designed to allow you to express and document your ideas
and concerns regarding bikeway issues. Your comments are valued and will be
considered throughout the planning process.
Since we are early in the Master Plan process, comments received at this time are
timely and important. If you would like to make additional comments at a later date,
please feel free to do so by letter or by attending subsequent public meetings.
1. HOW FREQUENTLY DO YOU RIDE?
(51) Two or more times per week ( 3) About once per month
( 8) About once per week ( 2) Less than once per month
2. FOR WHAT PURPOSES DO YOU RIDE?
(64) Fitness/Recreation ( 5) Shopping and errands
( 4) Commuting to school/college (19) Commuting to work
( 1) Commuting to Library
3. DURING WHAT TIME OF DAY DO YOU GENERALLY RIDE?
(45) Mornings (46) Weekends
(22) Afternoons (31) Weekdays
(39) Evenings ( 1) Time of day noon
4. DO YOU TEND TO RIDE SINGLY OR IN GROUPS?
(27) Ride alone most often (29) Ride in groups of three or
(17) Ride with a friend most often more most often
5. HOW OFTEN WOULD YOU BE LIKELY TO UTILIZE BIKE RACKS MOUNTED
ON CITY (OMNITRANS) BUSES?
(12) Often (25) Never
(27) Infrequently
6. WHICH FACTOR(S) WOULD CAUSE YOU TO INCREASE YOUR FREQUENCY
OF BICYCLING?
(31) Designated safe bicycle parking (32) More designated bikeways
(23) Showers and lockers at the (12) More local organized rides
workplace (28) Patrolled bikeways for safety
(19) Finding others willing to ride ( 5) Other more time, less hills,
(24) Lighting on bikeways bike lockers, tax incentives,
cleaner streets
7. WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS FOR
BIKEWAYS IN GENERAL?
(27) Widths too narrow (10) Pedestrians
(22) Intersections difficult to cross (33) Dirt or debris in bikeway
(33) Poor driving by motorists (41) Not enough designated
( 3) Slow cyclists bikeways
( ) Fast cyclists ( 7) Other treat different from
(30) High crime areas sidewalks esp . Ca,
intersections, too many
curves, need to patrol and
enforce designated lanes,
continue Santa Ana River
project (many requested),
cyclists riding against traffic
8. PLEASE IDENTIFY STREETS WHICH YOU FEEL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
FOR NEW BIKEWAYS (USE MAP ON REVERSE).
Mt. View, College Parkway, 5th St., Baseline (several), Highland (several), into
mountain areas like 18 or 330, D St., 30th St., Patton, E St., SB - Redlands Ave.,
Brockton Ave., Redlands Blvd. (several), Barton Road, Mill, Hwy 30, Alabama,
Orange, Waterman, Arrowhead, Palm, Foothill, Boulder, along riverbed, Granada,
3rd, San Bernardino, Tippecanoe Ave., San Timiteo Canyon.
9. WHAT TYPES OF FACILITIES DO YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO HAVE
ALONG BIKEWAYS TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO BICYCLISTS?
(12) Auto service stations (33) Public bike parking
(13) Fast food restaurants ( 9) Restaurants
(20) Convenience markets ( 6) General retail stores
(56) Public restrooms (29) Bicycle shops
( ) Public showers not safe ( 9) Other open areas, good
scenery, water, repair
stations, rest areas,
covered benches, phones
10. ASSUMING THAT THE METROLINK RAIL STATION HAS FACILITIES FOR
BICYCLISTS, HOW OFTEN WOULD YOU CONSIDER COMMUTING BY
BICYCLE TO THE STATION FOR TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL OR BUS
ELSEWHERE?
( 8) Each work day (11) Once or twice per month
( 6) Once or twice per week (30) Less than once per month
11. ARE YOU A CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO RESIDENT?
(18) Yes (42) No
12. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR AGE GROUP.
( ) 0 - 4 years (36) 35 - 54 years
( 4) 5 - 17 years (10) 55 - 69 years
(13) 18 - 34 years ( ) over 70 years old
13. WHAT TYPE OF BIKEWAY DO YOU PREFER TO RIDE ON?
(24) Class I bike path (off street) ( 3) Class III bike route (signs
(37) Class II bike lane (striped, only)
on street) (13) No preference
14. ON THE MAP PROVIDED,PLEASE MARK THE LOCATION OF YOUR
EMPLOYMENT WITH A "W" AND YOUR RESIDENCE WITH AN "R".
15. DO YOU HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS?
A. I would like to see safer, easier access areas where children could ride,
paved trails, paths or off-street Class I paths.
B. I would commute to work, but consider the ride unsafe due to (1) high
crime and; (2) there are no designated bikeways (I live in Riverside).
C. Will there be provisions to keep joggers, skaters, roller-bladers out of the
bike lanes ... that is, reserve them for bikes to avoid hazardous situations
and accidents.
D. We need a bike path that goes into the mountains like 18 or 330, because
it is a route alot of bicyclists use, but it is a very busy route to ride.
E. We live in S.B. mountains. There is actually no safe places to ride
(street). Dirt biking - there are alot of trails.
F. I would like to see the flood control channel paved - starting at 40th to
Inland Center.
G. The plan provided by the consulting firm is good. I like Class II bike lanes
better than the other designations. Automobile traffic tends to blow away
debris. Class II lanes provide a place in the roadway that gives legitimacy
to our presence in the eyes of motorists. White lines seem to guide
motorists in a more predictable path, thus maintaining their distance from
cyclists.
H. I approve of the proposed bikeways on the map.
I. I prefer to ride on the streets, not on separate "trails". We just need
enough shoulder, or a striped bike lane to let us stay out of heavy traffic.
J. I would like to ride a bike to the Metrolink Depot in San Bernardino and
commute to my work in Pomona. Two concerns: (1) Metrolink only allows
2 bikes per coach. (2) Beginning July 1993, Metrolink will issue "permits"
to bring your bike on the train. Will Metrolink charge us to bring our bikes
aboard? It will cost me $144/month as it is. This is more than the cost of
auto commuting!
K. Not familiar with any bikeways in San Bernardino, no separate lanes
marked for bikes.
L. Since I ride only recreationally on weekends, an unlikely combination of
factors would induce me to ride in San Bernardino for commuting:
showers & lockers at work; safe, designated, well-lit bike routes; and other
riders along the roads. Streets with fast traffic should have Class II or I
routes.
M. Good survey! What about bike pools? Where people living in the same
area could ride together to and from work? The only things holding me
back from riding to work are: (1) No showers or lockers at work. (2) No
vehicle to do field inspections with. (3) Is it possible to have a county
bicycle to do field inspections instead of a county car, a county bike with
baskets?
N. Sierra Way (or Mt. View) is probably the best potential bikeway to Sierra,
Arrowhead, or Waterman. Arrowhead would be my first choice. The
Santa Ana River and other watershed paths should be given priority for
development. If less heavily traveled parallel streets to those marked are
more appropriate, use those.
O. People should be more exposed to and made aware of bicycle safety and
cyclists on the road. There are a lot of us out there, we need to be taken
care of.
P. I think your areas are about six years behind the times and I think you
should get off your ends and get something done!
Q. We need safe bikepaths off-street to take children.
R. The core of this Bikeway Master Plan should be a Class I bide path along
the Santa Ana River. It will link or be an extension of the Santa Ana River
bikeway already in place, further down the river.
Two north/south Class II bikeways (Del Rosa/Tippecanoe and Palm
Avenues) will bring San Bernardino riders safely to the Santa Ana
Bikeway.
East-running Class II bikeways - Highland Avenue and 5th will enable
rides to go on long rides out Green Spot to points east. Class II bikeways
- Highland (westward) and Kendall (northwest) will enable riders to take
long rides in those directions, even to Glen Helen Park.
S. Existing bikelane stripes on Valencia Avenue between 30th and 40th are
badly faded and need re-striping.
T. The City should take advantage of the many well-trained and experienced
cyclists and cycling coaches (licensed through the U.S. Cycling Federation
(USCF) and trained by both the USCF and Olympic Training Center
programs), who live, work, coach and train in this area. The coaches and
cyclists have daily experience, year round, and can provide excellent first-
hand consulting based on that experience.
Local bike clubs (Redlands Water Bottle Transit, Tri City Velo Sports) and
bike teams (Canyon Velo, Riverside Bicycle Club, Team Redlands, Tri City
Velo Sports) can assist City transportation, safety, and law enforcement
in enforcement and developing rider education and rider safety programs
for cyclists of all ages & capabilities.
The proper fit and wearing of a helmet by all cyclists must be encouraged,
emphasized, and taught! (While California may never pass a mandatory
bicycle helmet law for the shallowest of constitutional arguments, severe
head trauma/injury, death, and liability issues/claims can be reduced.)
U. Promote articles/educational pieces on bike commuting in Sun Newspaper
to educate auto/bike public on hazards, rights, etc. to increase
safety/participation in bike commuting.
V. Embark on an educational program aimed at motorists - educate them on:
1) required room to safely pass a cyclists; 2) if there is not adequate, safe
room, they do not pass.
BIKEWAY ACCOMODATION STRATEGIES
SOURCE: THE DIKE PARTNERSHIP
June 16, 1993
Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
BIKE LANE ACCOMODATION STRATEGIES
DELETE ONE OR MORE TRAFFIC LANES
Maintain number of turn lanes at intersections
Couplet opportunities -- modify vehicular traffic flow
DELETE ON-STREET PARKING
Deletion on one side will yield two minimum lanes
Downtown, consider mitigation (off-street parking development, public parking signs,
etc.)
RESTRICT PARKING DURING PEAK BICYCLE COMMUTE
Parking allowed after 9 am till 4:30 pm
Disadvantages: Off-peak cyclists have less desirable facility,enforcement
DELETE CENTER MEDIAN,RESTRIPE
Maintain number of turn lanes at intersections
DELETE CENTER TURN LANE
Maintain number of turn lanes at intersections
BIKEWAY COUPLET
One-way bike traffic per street
Only need to find room for one bike lane per street instead of two
PARKWAY and/or CURB MODIFICATION
Widen street paving
PARALLEL BIKEWAY
Find parallel option that has continuity
Disadvantages include lack of support facilities, lessened perceived security, circuitous
routes, fewer traffic signals, less direct links to other routes
CLASS III DESIGNATION
Be sure enough room for bike route
NO DESIGNATION
The Dike Partnership Landscape Architecture Urban Design Site Planning Irvine / San Diego
One Venture, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92718 714 753 1779 Fax 714 753 1479
BICYCLE SECURITY DEVICES:
A GUIDE TO USER-COMPATIBLE DEVICES
SOURCE: SAN DIEGO BICYCLE COALITION
BICYCLE SECURITY DEVICES:
A GUIDE TO USER-COMPATIBLE DEVICES
TYPES AND LOCATION SUITABILITY
JULY 1989
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
P.O. Box 8653
San Diego, CA 92102-0653
(619) 298-0064
f PREFACE
on a yearly basis bicycle coordinators of the several cities in
the San Diego region propose and request funding for bicycle
facility projects. The intention of the bicycle coordinator is
to further improve the bikeway system under the jurisdictional
control of their respective city. Their objective is to develop a
circulation system which encourages an alternative method of
travel for the citizen other than motorized transportation.
Historically, the cycling community has provided commentary on
projects after they were planned, and more often than not, while
the facility was being installed. This effectively placed the
cycling community in a reactive posture rather than a more
preferred proactive, consultative posture. In a sense, the
cycling community was more a critic rather than a promoter.
The San Diego County Bicycle Coalition realized that bicycle
facility planners needed the bicycle communitys' input during the
planning stages of bikeway projects. Further, the cycling
community had to take a more proactive role in guiding planners
so that future bicycle facility designs reflect the practical
needs of the cyclist.
This report is an attempt to contribute to the bicycle facility
planners ' store of knowledge about cyclist perceptions and
t dispositions. A focus is placed on the security element as it
f relates to the useability of the bikeway system. .The system
improves when a cyclist can use it at a comparative advantage to
motorized means and have confidence that the security of the
machine at destination will be ensured.
i
f
I
t
i •
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
1.0 LOCATION OF SECURITY FACILITIES 4
1. 1 LONG-TERM FACILITY LOCATION 5
1. 1. 1 Employment Centers 5
1. 1.2 Transit Stations 6
1. 1. 3 Multi-Family Residential 6
1. 1.4 Regional Shopping Center 8
1.2 SHORT-TERM FACILITY LOCATION 9
1.2 . 1 Community Shopping Center 11
1.2 . 2 Neighborhood Shopping Center 12
2.0 SECIIRITY DEVICE EQUIPMENT 13
2 . 1 THE DEVICE
13
2 . 1. 1 The User 13
2 . 1.2 Sup]2ort. Protect. Secure 14
2 . 1. 3 The Lock-u2 Process 14
2 . 1.4 Area Compatibility 15
i 2 .2 CLASSIFICATION OF SECURITY DEVICES 15
2 . 3 BICYCLE SECURITY EQUIPMENT 17
I3.0 TRAVEL BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 31
3 . 1 COMMUTER 31
I 3. 2 SHOPPER 32
3. 3 RECREATION 32
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BITE-SPECIFIC BICYCLE SECIIRITY 34
4.1 TRANSIT STATION 34
4 .2 PARK AND RIDE RESERVOIRS 35
4.3 REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY-LEVEL SHOPPING CENTER 35
4.4 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PRD, CONDOMINIUM,
APARTMENT) 3 6
1
FOOTNOTES 38
BIBLIOGRAPHY 39
APPENDIX 40
EXHIBIT 1 41
EXHIBIT 2 42
EXHIBIT 3 44
i
I
NON
0
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to serve as a guideline to local
governmental bicycle coordinators, administrative agencies, and
managers of local business enterprize concerning bicycle parking
location and the bicycle security device.
This is a guide which offers direction on where security device
placement should occur in various urban situations that cyclists,
through experience, acknowledge as a low risk location.
i
lAdditionally, this is a guide which describes the types of
devices to deploy that experienced cyclists will use and which
serve to encourage use from the non-cyclist commuter who wishes
to alter their travel method.
The report covers the subject areas of location strateav,
security device suitability, travel behavior, and site
guidelines. Also, included is a compilation of bike parking
publications and bike rack manufacturers as a source of reference
for additional inquiry.
This report was reviewed by the San Diego County Bicycle
Coalition and their suggestions were incorporated into the text
(the final draft of which received the coalition's endorsement. )
r
i
r 3
1.0 LOCATION OF SECURITY FACILITIEB
The usefulness and location of a particular bicycle security
device is controlled by the interval of time, or "stop, " that the
bicyclist will be away from the unattended bike. This interval
of time that the cyclist is away from the secured bike can be
classified into two categories: long-term and short-term.
Long-term parking is a use that occurs at employment centers,
transit stations, and multifamily dwellings. That is to say, the
bike is left unattended for a considerable spell of time, which
in specific cases may be overnight.
Short-term parking is a use that will occur at shopping centers,
post offices, banks, libraries, and recreation areas where the
stop is just long enough to require a securing of the bicycle
while the user is preoccupied elsewhere.'
The following analysis will discuss the location of security
devices depending on the length of use.
4
1.1 LONG-TERM FACILITY LOCATION
Generally, a cyclist who has traveled a considerable distance
to arrive at a particular activity or location can be expected to
leave the bike unattended for many hours.2 Such long-term
bicycle parking needs are found at employment centers, transit
stations, regional shopping centers, and central business
districts. In addition to securing the bike, the placement of
security equipment should protect the bicycle from motor vehicle
damage and avoid obstructing pedestrian flow.
1. 1. 1 Em2lovment Centers
At employment centers the location of the security device is
A Y
less critical and can be placed in a variety of places. For
example, bike lockers are sufficiently secure to allow placement
in obscure corners of an employee parking lot. However, the
further the equipment is placed from the building entrance, the
greater the disincentive to commute by bicycle transportation.
To foster use and to gain advantage over other transportation
modes, bicycle parking should be located as closely as possible
to the building entrances. Should there be lavatory and shower
facilities provided, than proximity should radiate outward from
the location of those facilities. The use consideration here is
5
two-fold: 1) exposure to "public" view, and 2) proximity to
clean-up facilities. Cycling employees are time conscious and
rate proximity and convenience of bicycle parking only slightly
below the protection the security devices afford their bikes.
1. 1.2 Transit Stations
In contrast to an employment center, where the bicycle is located
near the user, transit station bike parking is unattended and
unguarded. The high-security devices that are required in a
transit station can be located in unusable corners or sites well
removed from the embarkation point. However, if the security
device exposes any part of the bicycle to public view and
tampering, then a more proximate and public location to the
embarkation point is desirable. The thought behind this concept
holds faith in the- belief that theft of the attached bicycle
accessories may be discouraged by a perceived risk of discovery
presumably created by the casual surveillance of a boarding
passenger (See Exhibit #1 on following page) .
1. 1.3 Multi-Family- Residential
The installation of bicycle security devices within apartment
complexes, planned residential developments, and condominium
6
I
4
EXHIBIT 1
Proposal for Transit Station Bicycle Security
Parking Location. ( Refer to text section 1.1.2 )
AC fC
cE �,
I �j�� •. •r ice. ,��"t •}��i fr.�i tom.::;..�..� � l'11
C1� •S Z .:.. ;•rte *!!►^
Oft. "'�.'�;,w"`'�e�.�: (r
Sr At a T—
CL
� I1r y
t i �
l
I
• I
clusters requires a balanced regard of security-device capability
and location. Designed space for personal storage of a bike
within the living unit reduces the bicycle parking requirement of
the complex to a simple provision of quest bike parking outside
of the living unit. If storage within the unit is not feasible,
than high- security devices should be located in public areas or
car parking-lot islands where there is intermittent surveillance.
Enclosure and protection from the weather are paramount in any
overnight storage outside the unit.
1. 1.4 Regional Shocnina Center
Population of Service Area: Over 100, 000
Service Area: 10-mile radius
Regional shopping centers focus shopper attention inward from the
perimeter of parking areas. Location of bicycle security
facilities at these perimeter areas offer the cyclist a risky
option of leaving the bike in an unattended and unsurveilled area
exposed to leisurely theft. Perimeter location should be
considered only with completely enclosed security devices. A
more desirable location of bicycle security devices is within the
main corridor of the center. Security devices within these
highly trafficked areas can be of lesser security.
1
fIdeally, the shopping center would combine and utilize both
f location concepts. Place high-security devices on the perimeter
1►
8
for the cyclist whose equipment would require encapsulation and
barrier protection. Place lesser-security options along the
interior corridor for the cyclists whose equipment is
unattractive to poachers or which is unobtainable without obvious
notice of violation ( See Exhibit 2 on the following page) .
1.2 SHORT-TERM FACILITY LOCATION
Short-term bicycle parking requirements are similar in nature to
those accommodating shopping patterns and behaviors associated
with community and neighborhood shopping districts. The
perception of security heightens with the location of devices in
well surveilled areas such as busy walkways and transit
interchange nodes. Examples of the types- of personal business
activities which exhibit small time-intervals for completion are
stops at libraries, grocery stores, post offices, and banks. 3
These activities require the bicycle rider to leave the equipment
unattended for only a short time while completing his/her
personal tasks.
1.2.1 cnumuni ty Shopping Center
Population of Service Area: 100000 to 25,000
Service Area: 3-mile radius.
Bicycle parking durations at community shopping locations are
shorter then at regional ones. The promotion and fostering of
9
shopping by bicycle is, to a great degree, dependent upon
security- facility location, more so than the degree of security
offered by the security device. Generally, there are seven key
principles c for bicycle parking at the community shopping
center:
1. Put the parking near the entrance. The rack out back
where no one can see it. . .like by the dumpster, may promote
theft and discourage use.
2.. Do not put the bike parking next to car parking or
traffic lanes unless you provide adequate protection.
I 3 . The placement of bicycle racks should not create a hazard
to pedestrian traffic.
I 4 . Locate the parking within view of windows, security
offices or pedestrian traffic.
5. Look for areas protected from the weather.
6. Think about expansion and phasing of additional
equipment.
7 . Bicycle security devices should be located closer than 1
the nearest automobile parking to the storefront.
11
EXHIBIT 2
Shoving illustration of typical regional shopping center
spatial arrangement. Proposes location of bicycle security
devices based upon security requirements . ( Refer to
section 1.1.4 of text. )
® � LEGEND
Class 1 . High
security device.
(bike locker)
® Class b 3.
Security less
s v:
greater surveil:
capability.
4.
I�L J
k 2
pry�� .c. mist co T
1.2 . 2 Neighborhood Shopping Center
Population of Service Area: 2, 000 to 10,000
Service Area: 1 to 2-mile radius.
To some extent the concepts and parking strategies applied in
community shopping center will also be applicable in the
neighborhood center.
The northern California town of Chico is an example of good
neighborhood shopping center parking strategies. With a
population of 30, 000 to 40, 000 people, there is a distinct
' network of satellite neighborhood commercial areas surrounding a
downtown commercial center. In the downtown area of Chico one
auto parking space on each corner is given over to bicycle
parking. This parking strategy promotes a high visibility of the
bicycle parking site without obstructing pedestrian flow or
business activity. Ancillary bike parking is located in tandem
with high-volume single-use businesses such as that which occurs
g
at banks, phone centers, or copy centers. Bicycle-security
facilities for these businesses are located near to their
entrances and outside adjacent windows.
In the satellite neighborhood commercial nodes such as those
composed of the grocery/liquor/laundry plazas, each center will
have a bike-parking facility in a conspicuous and highly
12
surveilled location. For example, theaters locate the security
rack to the front of the entrance where ushers are on duty.
2.0 SECURITY DEVICE EQUIPXZNT
Choosing a bike-parking security device requires careful
consideration of a host of criteria. This section presents some
guidelines to prospective procurement officers of security
devices. Following this discussion, specific- examples of bike
�. lock and security equipment as reviewed by experienced cyclists
are shown.
The managerial decision of which type of security device to
provide should consider two elements: 1) The type of user and
his/her associated needs; and 2) The suitability of the device to
a bicycle.
2.1 THE DEVICE
-" A bicycle-security device must support,. protect, and secure the
bicycle. Secondary to such criteria .is the amount of effort
required by the user to utilize the security device. A tertiary
requirement of the security device is that it be compatible with
the nearby circulation patterns.
13
EXAMPLE 4 A, B, and C
"Wave Rack" Class 3, ST- RE,LN,CLC R-3
"Bike-Hoop"
Requires that the user carry their own locking mechanism. Some
locking arrangements require that the front wheel be removed and
locked to the bicycle frame. While this discourages use, cyclists
will do what is necessary to- protect their equipment.
4A
4B 4C
%a V%V"*q AM o++.COWS "wan"V&%W"a
t~
r-
r4
r•ar
g1pNT ELPATON SIDE EUTATION
i�
l •
22
4x EXAMPLE S
"Bike Bollard" Class 2, ST- RE,LN R-3
The positive aspect of this device is that the user is not required
to supply a locking mechanism. All moving components of the bike
can be secured. The negative aspects of the design is the
deficiency of support for the wheels and frame. Damage to the frame
and the wheels might result from a lateral force. Installation
requires pedestrian diverters to protect the passerby.
r
.i
L
ADD
ss
LAWWWY
-
w
■wr��w.r�w�� I mss_ .�
rr•
w-r►��wr�wr���
w�•
�wwr�.lrwwrr 'rrr
r•w O
t
r
MO � rww a JE--
4
23
0 #
EXAMPLE 8
"Bike Boot" Class 3, ST- RE,LN,CLC R-4
There are better designs which are aesthetically more pleasing. The
use of this device requires a high security lock and a cable or the
removal of the front wheel.
a
SEE P. 2
I
26
EXAMPLE 9A,B, and C
Bike rack. Class 4, ST- RE,LN R-0
This is used for mass storage requirements. The design is poor
because: 1) the frame support is inadequate; 2) the spatial
arrangement is obstructive to surrounding pedestrian flow; and 3)
the security for a bicycle of high value is inadequate.
9A
9B
I
i
i
9C
27
EXAMPLE 10
Class 4, ST- RE,LN R-0
A typical wheelbender which will be avoided by knowledgeable users.
The poor design discourages use by bicyclists as security features
are deficient and bicycle can be damaged by lateral a force.
l
F '� .� _ •.i- ter: Z '-7y _.�Y ���i`�*�^i.w��Ii.�`.,�.
28
EXAMPLE 11
"Wall Stand" Class 3, ST- R,RE,LN. R-0
By example (see picture) there are drawbacks to the security of this
device. A cyclist will not purposefully use this device unless
required by some authority, and even then only when other more
preferable arrangements cannot be found. The device restricts
pedestrian flow and subjects the bike to possible vheelbending.
r
•
• r•
i
t AAA•
29
EXAMPLE 12 A, B,
Class 3, ST- RE/LN R-0
Inadequate design for any bike. No frame support, defies locking,
damage to equipment probable. Obstructive to pedestrians. The
message here is to use at your own risk.
.jw- _ /� - -
+ 12B
12A
J
- `.M Ili. .'�_:' •1 I .. '%
30
3.0 TRAVEL BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
The choice of a security device is controlled to some degree by
the travel behavior characteristics of the cyclist. It would be
beneficial to know the "on average" travel characteristics of the
user in order to 'select the most appropriate security device to
use at a particular location. The following discussion considers
the prevalent travel traits of a cyclist as a commuter, shopper,
and a recreational traveler.
3. 1 COMMUTER
Cyclists that commute on a regular basis use equipment suitable
for trip comfort. Considering that the average trip length in
San Diego of a home to work commute is 10.6 miles, ° a cyclist
traveling at 10 mph would take approximately 60 minutes to
complete a 10 mile distance (not counting time spent at signaled
intersections) . Though in terms of the experienced cyclist this
is not an inordinately long trip, a comfortable commute would
require the use of specialized accessories. This type of
equipment is expensive and may be customized to suite personal
needs. To assure protection of this equipment, the user will seek
the highest security available to protect the value of his/her '
machine.
31
of the total trips made in San Diego, 31.9 percent-- the largest
single category - were made in traveling from home to work.
When transportation coordinators attempt to change the urban
commuting habits of San Diegc, they will seek to spread this
volume of trips over several modes of travel, ,e.g. , transit,
carpool, HOV lanes, and bicycles. Encouraging a commuter to use
a bicycle will require that close attention be given to provide a
compatible security apparatus at the work destination.
3.2 SHOPPER
In a travel behavior survey conducted by the San Diego
Association of Government (SANDAL) ,
9 a trip made for shopping
reasons accounted for 17 percent of the total trips made in
1985. 10 (In contrast, the 1966 trip total of this category
was 11.9 percent) . The average trip distance for the shopping
trip is 4.9 miles. A cyclist traveling at 10 mph will spend 30
minutes to travel that distance. ( Pragmatism dictates that a
bicycle is more likely to be used on a localized basis for the
daily shopping needs and only occasionally be used to travel a
4.9 mile distance to a regional shoppinq center.) This survey
result indicates that there is considerable travel behavior that
may be for short-term activity at the destination.
•
3.3 RECREATION
The SANDAL travel behavior survey found that trips made for
recreational/social purposes accounted for 7.3 percent of the
32
total trips made in 1985. Educational trips accounted for
4 .7 percent of the total. However, this particular San Diego
travel characteristic may not be representative of the cyclists,
! travel behavior. For example, a recent bicycle count performed
by SANDAG (see Exhibit .l in Appendix) established an average
hourly count of 16 riders per hour at a data station located at
the intersection of Encinitas Boulevard and Pacific Highway. 12
This survey was conducted during the weekday peak commuting hours
from 6 to 9 A.M. and 3 to 6 P.M. In comparison, the San Diego
County Bicycle Coalition conducted a weekend-day road survey of
cyclists nearby to this SANDAG data station and produced an
average hourly rate of 184 riders per hour ( see Table 2 ) . This
suggests that there may be a greater use of the bicycle in
recreational/social travel than indicated by the SANDAG bicycle
count data.
TABLE 2 Results' of a Bicycle Trip Count on a weekend day at
' Encinitas Blvd. and Pacific Highway. Performed by the San Diego
County Bicycle Coalition on 28 August 1988.
Hour Riders Headed Riders Headed
of Day SOUTH NORTH
9 - 10 89 92
10 - 11 114 120
11 - 12 117 91
1 12 - 13 94 84
13 - 14 91 74
14 - 15 69 71
6 HOURS 574 532 = 1106
--------------
1106 riders divided by 6 hours 184 avg. hourly rate. .
f
33
1
p
In light of a one to two percent modal split attributed to
bicycle travel in San Diego by the SANDAG Travel Behavior
Survey, it should be noted that there is possibly a significant
number of users who are not being counted. And, when considering
the percent of all trips devoted to recreational purposes, it may
be that the bicycle accounts for a larger share of the regional
modal composition overall.
4.0
RECOMMNDATIONS FOR BITE-BPZCIFIC BICYCLE SECURITY
4. 1 TRANSIT STATION
Bicycle security devices placed at transit stations must
accommodate two classes of use: short-term and long-term. Short-
term uses may be for shopping, recreation or entertainment. 'They
require a lesser degree of bicycle security. The designs
presented in Example 1 and 2 are appropriate for short term use.
These should be located near to embarkation points and under
cover.
The design presented in Example 1 is recommended for the long-
■
term user, e.g. , the cyclist entering into the transit system for
the home to work trip. The relative location of this type of
device is of minor consideration in the overall security.
An innovative proposal combines the business community with
the
transit facility by allowing the installation of a bicycle repair
34
1
shop and check-in compound at the transit station. Cyclists
would be able to "check-in" their equipment at a surveilled
storage area which is monitored by repair-station employees.
Economic benefits to the shop would come from the exclusive right
plus regular retail operations on the site. This concept is not
new and has been incorporated into the Japanese transit system.13
The message becomes clear that bicycle use is safe and
encouraged.
4 .2 PARK AND RIDE RESERVOIRS
The bicycle user will require long-term and completely enclosed
types of security such as provided by Example 1. The proximity
of the park-and-ride site to easy highway access makes an
unprotected bike an easy target for theft.
4.3 REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY-LEVEL SHOPPING CENTER
There are two location and device strategies which are
appropriate for these sites. If location is on the perimeter,
then a high security device such as example 1 is necessary. If
location is within the confines of the complex, then security of
the mechanism is balanced with security of surveillance and the
"publicness" of the location. Within the interior of a shopping
complex, Examples 4a, 2, and 3 are appropriate designs. On the
( perimeter of the complex, Example 1 is the only applicable
1 device.
35
4
4.4 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PRD, CONDOMINIUM, APARTMENT)
t
There are several location methods and security strategies which
would be required at these sites. The highest level of security
and location satisfaction is storage within or attached to the
living unit. New residential developments should allow for a
bike-storage "closet" so that the bike can be locked up within
the unit.
Secondary security would be available at locations exterior to ,
the unit removed from personal control. Bike lockers and Class-2
type racks such as Example 3 would be provided. The space would
be protected from automobile use by auto and pedestrian barriers.
where space is not a constraining factor, bike rooms could
provide security at small multifamily units-- keyed with
restricted and known access.
The University of San Diego has provided a similar concept in the
use of bike "gazebos." These gazebos store the bike parking for
the dorm residents. Security is provided by a Class-4 device.
San Diego state University has roughly 300 bike lockers dedicated
to dorm residents for outside security storage.
Locating facilities outside living units will be dependent upon
the degree of defensible space-- in small complexes where
36
neighbors are likely to know of one another, location can be
removed from continuous sight. Where neighbors and visitors are
many, then the locations must be moved into areas that will
experience real or perceived continuous surveillance.
1
1
1
f
1
f
I .
37
FOOTNOTES
1. "Guide for Development of New Bicycle Facilities 1981, "
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
officials, 444 North Capital Street NW suite 225, Washington,
D.C. 20001
2. "Bike Parking Location," Bicycle Forum Technical Note Pl,
Bikecentennial, P.O. Box 83111, Missoula, MT 59807
3. Supra footnote 1.
4. Supra footnote 2.
5. "Evaluating Bicycle Parking Racks: A Review of Criteria, "
Bikeway Products Co. , 1125 16th Street, Bellingham, WA 98225.
6. "Bicycle Parking Issues and Trends in the American City:
Observations and Speculations, " 1982 Pro Bike Conference, Tim
Wahl, 1125 Sixteenth St. Bellingham, WA 98225
--Tim Wahl asserts that "dwelling excessively on a rack's ability
to provide maximum protection from theft can obscure the fact
that most cyclists will persist in using their own type of lock,
anyway. . . " What this author neglects to address is that it is
perhaps more a function of the lack of facilities that has formed
the habit rather than a preferred method.
7. Supra note 5.
S. "Travel Behavior In The San Diego Region," SANDAG INFO
Bulletin Number 2, March/April 1987.
9. Supra note 7.
10. Supra note 7.
11. Supra note 7.
of Table 3 taken from "Bicycle 12. See copy in Appendix cy cle Counts
at Selected Intersections in San Diego County," SANDAL 1985.
13. Based upon eyewitness accounts from cyclists who have visited
the country and investigated the transit system.
38
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "A Simple Bike Rack Design, " Bicycle Forum Technical Note P3,
r Bikecentennial, P.O. Box 8311, Missoula, MT 59807 (406-721
1776)
2. "Bicycle Commuting- A Handbook for Employers, " Bicycle Commuter
Service, 1914 S.E. Ankeny Street, Portland, OR 97214 (503- 233
bike)
3 . Wahl, Tim "Bicycle Parking Issues and Trends in the American
City: Observations and Speculations, " 1982 Pro Bike Conference
(Tim Wahl 1125 Sixteenth St. , Bellingham, WA 98225)
4 . "Bicycle Parking- Who Needs It?" Bicycle Forum Brochure,
Bikecentennial, P.O. Box 8311 Missoula, MT 59807.
5. "Bike Parking Location, " Bicycle Forum Technical Note P1,
Bikecentennial, P.O. Box 8311, Missoula, MT 59807.
6. "Commute Alternatives- A Manual for Transportation
+ Coordinators, " Second Edition January 1983, Metropolitan Transit
Commission, San Franciso, CA
7. Desimone, Vincent R. "Planning Criteria For Bikeways" American
Society of Civil Engineers National Transportation Engineering
Meeting, Milwaukee, WI July 17- 21, 1972.
i8. "Evaluating Bicycle Parking Racks; A Review of Criteria, "
Bikeway Products Co. , 1125 16th Street, Bellingham, WA 98225.
9. Fletcher, Ellen "A Bicycle-Friendly City," Bicycle USA, Vol. 25
No. 2, Feb. 1989
10. "Quarterly Question; Favorite Parking Devices," Bicycle Forum
18, Winter/Spring 1988, Page 6- 12.
11. Ross, Arthur "Madison's Bicycle Parking Ordinance," Bicycle
Forum 19, Spring/Summer 1988, page 10.
12. "Guide for Development of New Bicycle Facilities 1981," American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) 444 North Capital Street NW Suite 225, Washington, D.C.
1 20001
13. "Travel Behavior In The San Diego Region," SANDAG Info Bulletin
Number 2, March/April 1987.
14. "Bicycle Counts At Selected Intersections In San Diego County-
1985, " SANDAG report, 1200 Third Avenue Suite 524, San Diego,
CA 92101. (619- 236 5300)
15. The Pacific Highway Road Count Survey, August 1988. San Diego
` County Bicycle Coalition, P.O. Box 8653, San Diego, CA 92102-0653
1
39
APPENDIX
■
Exhibit 1. Table 3 of the SANDAG 1985 Bicycle Counts at
Selected Intersections in San Diego County. 1
Exhibit 2. List of bike security device manufacturers.
Exhibit 3. Suggested readings for urban bicycle system
design.
40
LUIBIT 2
Tt.3;.E 3
A'A RACE RIDERS ;C;t 1H;.`VR Dr STATION (cont 'o)
(Hlpr.est To Loves: Tot&! VsApe)
AOaTH - EXTk 2:-M ADUILTS fCPCD CMILD TOT:.1
CC:z
r D CC,*4MVr.:TY r:� c:.c•4 C- 7 0 4 7 :S 0
hovA�U F, �+:xS;;H ra 92i :o 9 7 0
0. A r 4, :b J
H ST FIFTH AVE 9;11: 5. 7 1. 0 E 4 ;� �•
IJA-:0 S7 921C' -
a.R A!C; WAY aa::! !4. 4 l
`1 � Q 14 1
r
J �
:r-
�%••-ter':-- n'. _ ZATALIN, ` _
t
S:.' '_
r
Source: Bicycle Counts At Selected Intersections In San Diego County- 1985,
San Diego Association of Governments, 1200 Third Ave. Ste. 524, San
I Diego, CA 92101. (619) 236- 5300
f
1
i
41
I
11 OWNMN�
0
EXHIBIT 2
MA NUFACTUgrg LIST
Bike Lockers Co. 916- 372 .6620
P.O. Box 445 Lockers
W. Sacramento, CA 95691
Bike Rack, Inc. 516- 348 6900
11 Contance Ct. ( not reviewed )
Happauge, NY 11788
Bike Security Racks Co. 617- 547 5755
Division of Space Lattice Co. Hoop-Ring, Skyhook
P.1O. Box 371
Cambridge, MA 02140
Bike-up America 613- 226 6452
P.O. Box 116
Oydensburg, NY 13669 ( not -reviewed )
Brandir International, Inc. 212- 505 6500
200 Park Avenue, Suite 303E Ribbon Rack
New York, NY 10166
Canterbury International 213- 936 7111
P.O. Box 5730 Not Coalition Recommended
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
Cycle-Sale, Inc. 616- 459 4556
141 Ionia Ave. NW Lockers
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Environmental Features, Inc. 313- 478 2775
21095 Halsted Concrete wheel blocks
Northville, MI 48167 Not Coalition Recommended
Hitch-2 Inc. 215- 387 4338
' O
P.O. Box 7342 side-down "U"p
Philadelphia, PA 19101
Hmane Equipment Co. 608- 356 8336
805 Moore Street Protective enamel
coatings
Baraboo, WI 53913
42
MANUFACTURERS LIST (Continued)
Miracle Recreation Equipment Co. 417- 235 6917
P.O. Box 420 Not Coalition recommended
Monett, MO 65708
Patterson-Williams Mfg Co. 408- 988 3066
P.O. Box 4040 Not Coalition recommended
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Rack III 415- 835 8059
3661 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
Rally Racks 707- 528 8083
P.O. Box 1675 Not Coalition recommended
Santa Rosa, CA 95402
Sunshine U-Lok Corp. 818- 707 0110
P.O. Box 7536 Ribbon rack, Lockers.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91359
Urban Accessories 206- 568 3143
First Street 6 Avenue A
Snohomish, WA 98290
I
43
EXHIBIT 3
For Further Reading.
1. "Bicycling, Transportation, and Energy: A Handbook for
Planners, " by Gihon Jordan 1985. Available through the author,
4510 Chester Ave. , Philadelphia, PA 19143. College-level text on
transportation energy. A one-stop book for bicycle planning
information. Includes information on how to eliminate barriers,
bicycle policy, and international policy.
2. "A Comparative Study of Bicycle Parking Racks," by Thomas S.
Pendleton and Peter Lagerwey 1981. Bicycle Program, City Hall,
P.O. Box 8647, Ann Arbor, MI 48107
3. "Guide for the Development of New Bicycle Facilities- 1981, "
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) , 444 N. Capitol St. , N.W. , Suite 225,
Washington, D.C. 20001
4 . National Technical Information Service Publications. , 5285
Port Royal Rd. , Springfield, VA 22161 (703) 487-4780. NTIS
has several publications on file relating to bikeway designs and,
strategies.
5. "Bicycle Parking, " by Ellen Fletcher 1963. 777-108 San
Antonio Rd. , Palo Alto, CA 94303. Reviews several types of
bicycle security devices, recommends ordinances and policies to
'increase bicycle use, contains detailed descriptions of
facilities for use by planners.
6. "Bicycle Transportation, " by John Forester. Cambridge, Mass.
MIT Press, 1983. College-level discussion of transportation
design as it pertains to the bicycle mode.
44
CITY OF SAN BERW"RDINO - REQUEST i JR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Adoption of the Bicycle Facilities
Master Plan.
l.apt: Planning & Building Services
Date: December 23, 1993 MCC meeting of January 10, 1994
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted.
UGHEY atu re
Al Boughey 5057
Contact person: Phone:
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report; Resolution Ward: City-wide
N/A
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Cr, it Notes: 3
/GZGt. 97 Z
75-0262 Agenda Item No �/
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 10, 1994
REQUEST AND LOCATION
Adoption of the City of San Bernardino Bicycle Facilities Master Plan and Phase I, and defer
action on Phases II and III until a later date. This master plan will affect the entire incorporated
area of the City of San Bernardino.
BACKGROUND
The Mayor and Common Council determined that preparation of a Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
for the City of San Bernardino would be appropriate to implement General Plan goals for the
future.
The Plan includes an introduction to the terms involved with bikeways, goals and objectives of
the plan, and an outline of the phasing schedule. The Bicycle Facilities Master Plan was
undertaken in order to enhance the quality of life in the City, meet General Plan requirements,
conform to the trip reduction ordinance and to increase opportunities to receive federal, state and
local funding for bikeway improvements. For a more detailed discussion of the background of
this document refer to the Executive Summary Section of the Plan.
A task force was assembled to monitor the creation of this document. The Bicycle Facilities
Master Plan Task Force included representatives of the Parks and Recreation Department, Public
Works Department, City Administrator's Office and the Planning and Building Services
Division.
The City has applied for a grant to receive funds from the Department of Transportation under
it's 1994 Bicycle Lane Account. This grant would help the City to actually construct bicycle
paths, routes and lanes within the City, as identified in Phase I. Approval of that grant is
contingent upon an approved plan. Due to the grant submittal deadline, the application was
submitted prior to completion of environmental review and adoption of the plan. Therefore,
staff is recommending adoption of the Plan to include Phase I only and will return with Phases
II and III at a later date, after full environmental review has been completed.
KEY POINTS
o The proposed Bicycle Facilities Master Plan implements the General Plan. General Plan
Policy 6.4.3 addresses accommodating the needs of bicyclists by developing a plan for
safe bicycle facilities.
Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
January 10, 1994
Page 2
o Implementation Program I6.21 also discusses the need for a Bicycle Master Plan and its
specifics.
o The proposed Bicycle Facilities Master Plan also implements General plan Policy 6.4,
which addresses the need to accommodate for alternative modes of transportation to the
automobile in the City, including non-motorized transportation (bicycle and pedestrian).
o The proposed bike paths in Phase I will be incorporated into existing rights-of-way.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETER UNATION
Adoption of the proposed Bicycle Facilities Master Plan including Phase I, and excluding Phases
H and III, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section
15304(h). This section of CEQA refers to public, or private, alterations in the condition of land
and states the "the creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way" is exempt from CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan,
Phase I and defer action on Phases H and III.
Prepared by: Scott D. Donaghe, Assistant Planner
for Al Boughey, AICP, Director
Department of Planning and Building Services
Attachments: Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
1 RESOLUTION NO.
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE BICYCLE
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN, PHASE I.
3 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
4 OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
5 SECTION 1. Recitals
6 (a) Whereas, the General Plan for the City of San Bernardino
7 was adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-
7 159 on June 2 , 1989 .
9 (b) W17sreas, The adoption of the Bicycle Facilities Master
10 Plan is deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the
11 City and is consistent with, and implements the goals, objectives
12 and policies of the existing General Plan.
13 (c) Whereas, the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan was fully
14 reviewed and considered by the Mayor and Common Council on January
15 10, 1994 at a noticed public hearing.
16 (d) Whereas, the Mayor and Common Council propose to adopt
17 the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan, Phase I and defer action on
18 Phases II and III.
19 SECTION 2 . Environmental Determination
20 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor
21 and Common Council that the proposed Bicycle Facilities Master
22 Plan, Phase I, is exempt from CEQA and the exemption of this phase
23 is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted.
24
25
26
27
28
3 a,
1 SECTION 3 . Findings
2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT:
4 A. The proposed master plan is not in conflict with the goals,
5 objectives and policies of the General Plan.
6 B. The proposed master plan will not be detrimental to the public
7 interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
8 SECTION 4 . Notice of Exemption
9 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of
10 Exemption with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino
11 certifying that the adoption of the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan,
12 including Phase I, is exempt from CEQA, per Section 15304 (h) .
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ///// 2
28
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE BICYCLE
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN, PHASE I.
2
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
5 Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on
6 the day of 1994 , by the following vote, to
7 wit:
8 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
9 NEGRETE
10 CURLIN
11 HERNANDEZ
12 OBERHELMAN
13 DEVLIN
14 'OPE-LUDLAM
15 MILLER
16
17 CITY CLERK
is The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
19 day of 1994 .
20
21 TOM MINOR, MAYOR
22 City of San Bernardino
23 Approved as to form
and legal content:
24 JAMES F. PENMAN,
25 City Attorney
26 By: r
27 3
28
CIT Y OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 10, 1994
REQUEST AND LOCATION
Adoption of the City of San Bernardino Bicycle Facilities Master Plan and Phase I, and defer
action on Phases II and III until a later date. This master plan will affect the entire incorporated
area of the City of San Bernardino.
BACKGROUND
The Mayor and Common Council determined that preparation of a Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
for the City of San Bernardino would be appropriate to implement General Plan goals for the
future.
The Plan includes an introduction to the terms involved with bikeways, goals and objectives of
the plan, and an outline of the phasing schedule. The Bicycle Facilities Master Plan was
undertaken in order to enhance the quality of life in the City, meet General Plan requirements,
conform to the trip reduction ordinance and to increase opportunities to receive federal, state and
local funding for bikeway improvements. For a more detailed discussion of the background of
this document refer to the Executive Summary Section of the Plan.
A task force was assembled to monitor the creation of this document. The Bicycle Facilities
Master Plan Task Force included representatives of the Parks and Recreation Department, Public
Works Department, City Administrator's Office and the Planning and Building Services
Division.
The City has applied for a grant to receive funds from the Department of Transportation under
it's 1994 Bicycle Lane Account. This grant would help the City to actually construct bicycle
paths, routes and lanes within the City, as identified in Phase I. Approval of that grant is
contingent upon an approved plan. Due to the grant submittal deadline, the application was
submitted prior to completion of environmental review and adoption of the plan. Therefore,
staff is recommending adoption of the Plan to include Phase I only and will return with Phases
II and III at a later date, after full environmental review has been completed.
KEY POINTS
o The proposed Bicycle Facilities Master Plan implements the General Plan. General Plan
Policy 6.4.3 addresses accommodating the needs of bicyclists by developing a plan for
safe bicycle facilities.
Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
January 10, 1994
Page 2
o Implementation Program 16.21 also discusses the need for a Bicycle Master Plan and its
specifics.
o The proposed Bicycle Facilities Master Plan also implements General plan Policy 6.4,
which addresses the need to accommodate for alternative modes of transportation to the
automobile in the City, including non-motorized transportation (bicycle and pedestrian).
o The proposed bike paths in Phase I will be incorporated into existing rights-of-way.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Adoption of the proposed Bicycle Facilities Master Plan including Phase I, and excluding Phases
II and III, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section
15304(h). This section of CEQA refers to public, or private, alterations in the condition of land
and states the "the creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way" is exempt from CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan,
Phase I and defer action on Phases II and III.
Prepared by: Scott D. Donaghe, Assistant Planner
for Al Boughey, AICP, Director
Department of Planning and Building Services
Attachments: Bicycle Facilities Master Plan