Berkeley Bicycle Plan by Billy Ray Johnson

CITY OF BERKELEY

BICYCLE PLAN

Approved May 2, 2017 by Berkeley City Council

FINAL PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

GOALS & POLICIES

EXISTING CONDITIONS

1.1 Bicycle Plan Update Summary and Purpose

2.1 Vision Statement

3.1 Bikeway Classifications

2.2 Goals

3.2 Existing Bikeway Network

2.3 Policies & Actions

3.3 Bicycle Boulevards

2.4 Policy Context

3.4 Existing Bicycle Support Facilities 3.5 UC Berkeley Connections 3.6 Land Use Patterns

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

3.7 Existing Programs

APPENDICES A

Policy Review

Project Recommendations & Prioritization

Collision Analysis

F Toolkit

Level Of Traffic Stress

Berkeley Market for Bicycling Survey Results

Proposed Programs

Complete Streets Corridor Studies Planning Maps

FINAL PLAN

NEEDS ANALYSIS

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NETWORK

IMPLEMENTATION

4.1. Census Data

5.1 Project Recommendations Categories

6.1 Project Evaluation Strategy

5.2 Bicycle Boulevard Network Improvements

6.2 Project Prioritization

4.2. Bicycle Counts 4.3. Bicycle Demand 4.4. Collision Analysis 4.5. Public Outreach 4.6. Bicycling Preference Survey 4.7. Level of Traffic Stress 4.8. Informing the Recommendations

5.3 Downtown and UC Berkeley Campus Recommendations 5.4 Ohlone Greenway Improvements 5.5 Upgrades to Existing Class II Bike Lanes and Class III Bike Routes

6.3 Pilot Projects 6.4 Capital Cost Estimate Assumptions 6.5 Maintenance Costs 6.6 Plan Implementation And Staffing Costs 6.7 Project Recommendations

5.6 Citywide Recommendations

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.7 Future Complete Streets Corridor Studies

Produced by Alta Planning + Design, www.altaplanning.com 3

CITY OF BERKELEY

BICYCLE PLAN Executive Summary

FINAL PLAN

Berkeley is a bicycle city. According to the US Census 2014 American Community Survey, Berkeley has the fourth highest bicycle commute mode share (8.5 percent) of any city in the United States. In practical terms, this means that nearly one out of every 10 Berkeley residents rides a bicycle to work as their primary transportation mode. As nearly any Berkeleyan can tell you, getting to work is not the only reason people ride bicycles in this city. In Berkeley, people ride bikes for a myriad of purposes – to shop at the store or the farmer’s market, to drop off or pick up their kids from school or day care, to visit the UC Berkeley campus, to go to concerts, restaurants, and social events, and for exercise. Cycling in Berkeley is not only an efficient, environmentally-friendly utilitarian mode of transport, but it is also a source of health and enjoyment. A central focus of this updated Bicycle Plan is how to improve the comfort, enjoyment, convenience, and fun of cycling as a viable strategy for achieving many of the City’s health and wellness goals. For nearly five decades, Berkeley has been a leader in the effort to promote the use of the bicycle for pleasant transportation and recreation. The first Berkeley Bicycle Plan—created in 1971—laid out a citywide network of bikeways which are still in use today. The purpose of this updated Bicycle Plan is to make Berkeley a model form of transportation and recreation for people of all ages and abilities. Because this plan is being produced by the Public Works Department, the focus is on physical infrastructure changes that support cycling as a way to achieve the City’s safety, health, and environmental goals.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is a safe, comfortable, and convenient

ES-1

FINAL PLAN

VISION AND GOALS Berkeley will be a model bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is a safe, comfortable, and

bicycle mode share by 100 percent by 2035,

convenient form of transportation and recreation

from approximately 10 percent to 20 percent.

for people of all ages and abilities. GOALS

• Performance Measure: Complete the Tier 1 Bikeway Network, including high-priority

goals which frame all of the policies, actions and

Bicycle Boulevards, Milvia Street Bikeway,

recommendations in the plan:

Complete Street Corridor Studies (including

• Performance Measure: Zero bicycle-involved fatalities by 2025. • Performance Measure: Zero bicycle-involved severe injuries by 2035. GOAL 2: STRENGTH IN NUMBERS • Performance Measure: Increase Berkeley’s bicycle mode share by 50 percent by 2025, from approximately 10 percent to 15 percent.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

GOAL 3: ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

The Berkeley Bicycle Plan has three overarching

GOAL 1: SAFETY FIRST

ES-2

• Performance Measure: Increase Berkeley’s

Downtown and UC Berkeley Campus perimeter streets and the Southside Pilot Project), and the Ohlone Greenway, by 2025. • Performance Measure: Complete the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Bikeway Network, including remaining Bicycle Boulevards, Complete Street Corridor Studies, and other bikeways by 2035.

FINAL PLAN

EXISTING BIKEWAYS paths. They provide completely separated, exclusive right-of-way for bicycling, walking, and other nonmotorized uses.

Table ES-1: Existing Bicycle Boulevard Network BIKEWAY TYPE

MILEAGE

Class IA: Paved Paths

13.9 miles

Ohlone Greenway

1.2 miles

San Francisco Bay Trail

7.4 miles

Aquatic Park Path

2.5 miles

buffers that add a few feet of separation

9th Street Path

0.1 miles

between the bicycle lane and traffic lane or

West Street Path

0.5 miles

parking aisle.

Other Paths

2.2 miles

Class II bicycle lanes are striped, preferential lanes on roadways for one-way bicycle travel. Some Class II bicycle lanes include striped

Class III bicycle routes are signed bicycle routes

Class IB: Unpaved Paths

5.3 miles

where people riding bicycles share a travel

Class IIA: Standard Bicycle Lane

11.7 miles

Class IIB: Upgraded Bicycle Lane

0.3 miles

lane with people driving motor vehicles. May include shared lane markings (sharrows) or other pavement stenciling. Because they are mixedflow facilities, Class III bicycle routes are only

Buffered Bicycle Lanes

0.3 miles

Class IID: Contraflow Bicycle Lane

0.4 miles

Class IIIA: Signage-only Bicycle Route

4.5 miles

A Class IV bikeway, also known as a cycle track or separated/protected bikeway, is an on-street

Class IIIC: Standard Sharrows

2.7 miles

bicycle lane that is physically separated from

Class IIIE: Bicycle Boulevard

11.9 miles

motor vehicle traffic by a vertical element or

Class IVA: One-way Cycle Track/ Protected Bikeway

0.1 miles

appropriate for low-volume streets with slow travel speeds.

barrier, such as a curb, bollards, or parking aisle.

Total Berkeley Bicycle Boulevard Network

50.8 miles 15.8 miles

*Berkeleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bicycle Boulevard network comprises segments of Class I, II and III facilities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Class I bikeways are multi-use or shared-use

ES-3

FINAL PLAN

BICYCLE BOULEVARDS Berkeleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing bikeway network includes nearly 16 miles of Bicycle Boulevards. A Bicycle Boulevard is a roadway intended to prioritize bicycle travel for people of all ages and abilities. The first seven Bicycle Boulevards in Berkeley were developed through community workshops in 1999 with the goal of providing safe, convenient, and low stress bikeways on pleasant neighborhood streets. In order to achieve this goal, Bicycle Boulevards are sited only on appropriate streets without large truck or transit vehicles, and where traffic volumes and speeds are already low, or can be further reduced through traffic calming. For convenience, Bicycle Boulevard routes should not require people bicycling to stop any more frequently than they would on a parallel major street.

Elements of Bicycle Boulevards

DISTINCT VISUAL IDENTITY

SAFE, CONVENIENT CROSSINGS

Unique pavement markings and wayfinding signs

Traffic controls, warning devices, and/or

increase visibility of Bicycle Boulevard routes,

separated facilities at intersections help facilitate

assist with navigation, and alert drivers that the

safe and convenient crossings of major streets

roadway is a priority route for people bicycling.

along the Bicycle Boulevard network.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

BICYCLE PRIORITY

ES-4

Traffic calming treatments such as traffic circles, diverters, and chicanes, sometimes in place of existing stop signs, can help prioritize bicycle through-travel and discourage cut-through motor vehicle traffic.

FINAL PLAN

PUBLIC OUTREACH The project involved an extensive public

The main themes public input indicated support

engagement process which included two public

for include:

Subcommittee of the Transportation Commission, information tables at nearly a dozen local community events (e.g., farmers’ markets, street

• Safer crossings at major streets along the Bicycle Boulevard network • Designated bikeways along major street

fairs), outreach at the 2015 and 2016 Bike to Work

corridors, especially those serving downtown

Day events, a project website with an ongoing

and campus area

comment page, and a bicycling preference survey.

• Physical separation in bikeway design

Over 1,000 comments were received throughout

along major streets, along corridors and at

the process from gathering existing conditions

intersections

through review of the public draft plan document.

• Improved pavement quality along the entire bikeway network

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

open houses, regular updates to the Bicycle

ES-5

FINAL PLAN

BERKELEY RESIDENT SURVEY As part of the public outreach, a survey was

Under Geller’s classification, the population

conducted of Berkeley residents asking about

of a city can be placed into one of the four

their interests, current habits, concerns, and

following groups based on their relationship to

facility preferences around bicycling. The survey

bicycle transportation: “Strong and Fearless,”

used address-based random sampling to ensure

“Enthusiastic and Confident,” and “Interested

responses were representative of the Berkeley

but Concerned.” The fourth group are non-

population. Survey staff interviewed 660

bicyclists, called the “No Way No How” group.

Berkeley residents between March 2 and March 28, 2015, yielding a margin of error of +/- 4 percent and a confidence level of 95 percent. From the survey results, the general population of Berkeley was classified into categories of transportation bicyclists by their differing needs and bicycling comfort levels given different roadway conditions, using typologies originally developed by Portland City Bicycle Planner Roger Geller. Geller’s typologies have been carried forward into several subsequent studies in cities outside Portland at the national level, and were used in the City of Berkeley analysis for consistency with national best practices and comparison to other top cycling cities.

These categories are meant to guide efforts to assess an area’s market demand for bicycling as a means of transportation, such as commuting to work and running errands. The survey found that three percent of Berkeley residents are Strong and Fearless bicyclists, 16 percent are Enthusiastic and Confident, 71 percent are Interested but Concerned, and 10 percent fall into the No Way No How category. In other words, 90 percent of Berkeley residents already bicycle or would consider bicycling if the right bikeway facility or roadway conditions were available. That is a larger percentage than any other city that has conducted a similar study, including Portland, as shown at right.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Table ES-2: Four Types of Bicyclists

ES-6

TYPE OF BICYCLIST

DESCRIPTION

Strong and Fearless

This group is willing to ride a bicycle on any roadway regardless of traffic conditions. Comfortable taking the lane and riding in a vehicular manner on major streets without designated bicycle facilities.

Enthusiastic and Confident

This group consists of people riding bicycles who are confident riding in most roadway situations but prefer to have a designated facility. Comfortable riding on major streets with a bike lane.

Interested but Concerned

This group is more cautious and has some inclination towards bicycling, but is held back by concern over sharing the road with cars. Not very comfortable on major streets, even with a striped bike lane, and prefer separated pathways or low traffic neighborhood streets.

No Way No How

This group comprises residents who simply are not interested at all in bicycling, may be physically unable, or don’t know how to ride a bicycle. They are unlikely to adopt bicycling in any way.

FINAL PLAN

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ANALYSIS Building on the bicycling preference survey and

A bicycle network will attract a large portion of

user typologies, a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)

the population if it is designed to reduce stress

analysis was conducted for Berkeley’s roadway

associated with potential motor vehicle conflicts

network. Traffic stress is the perceived sense of

and if it connects people bicycling with where

danger associated with riding in or adjacent to

they want to go. Bikeways are considered low

vehicle traffic; studies have shown that traffic

stress if they involve very little traffic interaction

stress is one of the greatest deterrents to

by nature of the roadway’s vehicle speeds and

bicycling. The less stressful – and therefore more

volumes (e.g., a shared, low-traffic neighborhood

comfortable – a bicycle facility is, the wider its

street) or if greater degrees of physical

appeal to a broader segment of the population.

separation are placed between the bikeway and traffic lane on roadways with higher traffic

Strong and Fearless Enthusiastic and Confident

or cycletrack on a major street). An LTS Analysis

7% 13%

16%

volumes and speeds (e.g., a separated bikeway

15%

is an objective, data-driven evaluation model which identifies streets with high levels of traffic stress, gaps in the bicycle network, and gaps between streets with low levels of traffic stress. The level of traffic stress scores were mapped

71%

60%

45%

39%

to illustrate the low stress connections and gaps throughout Berkeley. It is important to note that

Interested but Concerned

people tolerate different levels of stress; a strong and fearless bicyclist will feel less stress than an interested but concerned bicyclist. The LTS results map approximates the user experience for the majority of Berkeley residents, however people may have differing opinions of traffic

No Way, No How

10%

33%

38%

44%

Berkeley

Portland

Edmonton

Austin

Roger Geller’s “Four Types of Transportation Cyclists” distribution for Berkeley, Portland, OR, Edmonton, AB, and Austin, TX.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

stress depending on their own experiences.

ES-7

FINAL PLAN

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ANALYSIS

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ANALYSIS Traffic stress is the perceived sense of danger associated with riding in or adjacent to vehicle traffic.

Level of Traffic Stress

• LOW STRESS

LTS 1

LTS 2

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

LTS 3

ES-8

• SUITABLE FOR ALL AGES & ABILITIES, INCLUDING CHILDREN

• LOW STRESS, WITH ATTENTION REQUIRED • INDICATES TRAFFIC STRESS THAT MOST ADULTS WILL TOLERATE

• MORE STRESSFUL THAN LEVEL 2 • REQUIRES ATTENTION, SUITABLE FOR ADULTS WITH CONFIDENCE TO BICYCLE

• MOST STRESSFUL

LTS 4

• SUITABLE ONLY FOR MOST TRAFFIC-TOLERANT

Comfortable up to % of Berkeley Residents*

90%

Types of Cyclists

Interested, But Concerned

79%

16%

*According to the Berkeley Bicycle Plan Public Survey

Enthusiastic & Conﬁdent

Strong & Fearless

FINAL PLAN

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS FINDINGS Figure ES-1 on the following page depicts low stress (LTS 1 and 2) streets and intersections on Berkeley’s existing on-street bicycle network, along with high stress (LTS 4) gaps. This map helps illustrate how low stress streets in Berkeley’s bikeway network are often disconnected by high stress roadways and intersections. A continuous low stress network is essential for bicyclists of all abilities to travel

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

easily throughout the network.

ES-9

3 TRAIL FIRE

KENSINGTON

RD ON NY CA

LY BLZV I Z GR

TON LING

E AV

EY YL GA

OXFORD ST

EY YL GA

AV E

CL AR EM ON T

RD EL N N TU

24 RD EL N N TU

TELEGRAPH AVE

PIEDMONT AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HILLEGASS AVE

ST DEAKIN

ADE LINE ST

PIEDMONT AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HILLEGASS AVE

DANA ST

CH ST BOWDIT

DANA ST

ST ST TREMONT FULTON

ST WOOLSEY

L NIA EN NT E C

AV E

DANA ST

FULTON ST DANA ST

MILVIA ST

SHATTUCK AVE

T ST TREMON

OAKLAND TELEGRAPH AVE

KING ST

ADE LINE ST

N CE

D WDITCH ST RBO

OXFORD ST

University of DR L NIA California, Berkeley TEN

CL AR EM ON T

MO NTER EY A

EUCLID ST

WALNUT ST

SPRUCE ST

ELL ST

KING ST MILVIA ST

MLK JR WAY

EMERYVILLE

Y WATTU CK AVE MLK JR SHA

TO ST CRAMEN

ST RUSSELL

RUSS ST 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ

ST 65TH Z AVE ALCATRA

E ST SPRUC T

SUT TER

BERKELEY IA ST CALIFORN

SA GRANT ST

AVE ASHBY

University of California, Berkeley

CENTER ST

BERKELEY NIA ST CALIFOR

AY ST MURR

TO ST SACRAMEN

MABEL ST

RAIL BAY T

AVE ABLO SAN P

AVE HEINZ

WAY DWIGHT MABEL ST

AVE ABLO SAN P

RAIL BAY T

WAY DWIGHT

Tilden Regional Regional Park Park

CENTER ST

GRANT ST

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

G WAY CHANNIN

JOSEPHINE ST

AVE HEARST

FT WAY BANCRO

WALNUT ST

ST CEDAR ST

AVE HEARST

NG WAY CHANNI

AY ST MURR

IN AR M

E AV

SUT TER

A MED THE ALA

T 5TH S

TY AVE UNIVERSI

AVE HEINZ

JOSEPHINE ST

T 6TH S

Y AVE UNIVERSIT

AVE

D BLV

AVE COLUSA

T SS IN PK HO

E ST DELAWAR

ON ST ADDIS

CEDAR ST

ST VIRGINIA

RST RE EAST DELAWAH

E AV

Tilden

ROSE ST

ACTON ST

T 6TH S

ST AN AN CH BU

T SS IN PK O H

ROSE ST

ST VIRGINIA

E ST AV HEAR

A MED THE ALA

VE ALBANY

AN ST GILM

AV E

IN AR M

AVE COLUSA

E AV

SOLANO AVE

E IN AV MAR

ALBANY

PE AK

TON LING

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

A NA D SE

SOLANO AVE

E IN AV MAR

EN CO LU SA

A NA D SE

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

AV E

ILD W

WI LD CA T

PE AK

EN CO LU SA

FINAL PLAN

RD ON NY CA

LY IZZ GR

EL CERRITO

RD N YO AN RD N TC YO CA AN ILD TC W CA

WI LD CA T

KENSINGTON

3 TRAIL FIRE

EL CERRITO

FIGURE ES-1: LOW STRESS NETWORK & INTERSECTIONS WITH HIGH STRESS NETWORK & INTERSECTION GAPS CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

EMERYVILLE CORRIDORS

INTERSECTIONSOAKLAND

LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

INTERSECTION GAPS NETWORK GAPS LOW STRESS NETWORK & INTERSECTIONS LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT GH STRESS NETWORK & FEARLESS INTERSECTION LTS GAPS LTS 4 - STRONG AND 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS

CORRIDORS PARK/REC

LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

INTERSECTIONS RAILROAD

LTS 1 BART - ALLSTATION AGES AND ABILITIES AMTRAK STATION

LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED ES-10

LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

NETWORK GAPS LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT

INTERSECTION GAPS LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT

FINAL PLAN

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS As each project is taken up for possible

Safe bikeway connections are especially

implementation, stakeholder constituencies

important for parents riding with their children,

will be consulted and have the opportunity

or for older children riding independently. And

to provide input. In addition, in commercial

in terms of the potential for reducing traffic

and manufacturing districts, particularly in

congestion and helping to achieve the City’s

West Berkeley, the special needs and hazards

climate action goals, school trips account for

associated with these uses, including frequent

a significant portion of morning auto traffic,

passage and parking, loading and unloading

and yet are often less than a mile in length.

of trucks of all sizes, shall be considered such

Therefore it was important that the Low Stress

that everyday functioning and economic

Network connect to as many schools in Berkeley

vitality of these areas are not unduly burdened.

as possible to provide parents and children the

Furthermore, for the network to work, it must

option of a completely low stress bicycle trip

be complete, without gaps. Completing the low

from their residence to school. Figure ES-3

stress network is a priority for the city to meet

illustrates the Low Stress Network in relation to

our Climate Action Plan goals.

Berkeley’s schools; nearly all the city’s schools

This Plan’s recommended bikeway network supports a vision for Berkeley where bicycling is

are within one-eighth of a mile (approximately one block) from a Low Stress facility.

safe, comfortable, and convenient for people of

This Plan recommends nearly $34.5 million in

all ages and abilities. These recommendations

infrastructure recommendations to help Berkeley

were guided by the Plan’s goals and policies, a

achieve its vision of becoming a model bicycle-

data-driven safety and demand analysis, and

friendly city. Figure ES-4 displays the complete

extensive community input. An overarching

recommended bikeway network. Table ES-3 on

bikeway network vision emerged through this

the next page breaks down the recommended

process: a continuous and connected system of

network by facility type, with corresponding cost

Low Stress bikeways that provide safer and more

estimates.

comfortable travel for all users and link to all key destinations in Berkeley. Figure ES-2 illustrates low-traffic Bicycle Boulevards, protected majorstreet bikeways, and separated shared-use paths, all with safer intersection crossings, can form a network on which 79 percent of Berkeley’s population would feel comfortable bicycling.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

how the Low Stress Bikeway Network Vision of

ES-11

FINAL PLAN

Table ES-3: Summary of Project Recommendations and Cost Estimates TYPE

MILEAGE

COST ESTIMATE

Class 1A: Paved Path

1.5 miles

$5,285,700

Class 2A: Standard Bike Lane

0.1 miles

$10,700

Class 2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

3.0 miles

$541,500

Class 3C: Sharrows

13.9 miles

$71,600

Class 3E: Bicycle Boulevard

12.4 miles

$621,900

Class 4: Cycletrack

18.4 miles

$9,903,300

Complete Street Corridor Interim Treatments

17.0 miles

$1,181,400

â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

$16,855,000

66.3 miles

$34,471,100

Intersection and Traffic Calming Improvements

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Total

ES-12

FINAL PLAN

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES

other modes of transportation. These major and

As defined by the Berkeley Complete Streets

collector streets provide access to local Berkeley

Policy, “Complete Streets” describes a

businesses. Some facilitate direct cross-town

comprehensive, integrated transportation

or interjurisdictional travel not duplicated by

network with infrastructure and design that

a parallel street. They currently serve multiple

allows safe and convenient travel along and

modes of transportation and on-street parking,

across streets for all users, including people

requiring further consideration above and

walking, people bicycling, persons with

beyond that of bicycle travel. These streets are

disabilities, people driving motor vehicles,

therefore labeled as “Complete Street Corridor

movers of commercial goods, users and

Studies” on Figure ES-2 and other figures within

operators of public transportation, emergency

the Bicycle Plan.

responders, seniors, youth, and families.

Class IV Cycle Tracks and other bikeway types

Providing a complete network does not

that might impact transit operations, parking,

necessarily mean that every street will provide

or roadway capacity will not be implemented

dedicated facilities for all transportation modes,

without these Complete Street Corridor Studies

but rather that the transportation network will

that will include a traffic study, environmental

provide convenient, safe, and connected routes

analysis, public process, and coordination with

for all modes of transportation within and across

all affected State, County, and local transit

the City. For the purposes of bikeway planning,

agencies. Potential bikeways to be considered

the City of Berkeley considers both the major/

as part of future Complete Street Corridor

collector street and parallel streets part of a

Studies will be evaluated in the context of the

Complete Street Corridor; potential bikeways

modal priorities established by the Berkeley

on both the major/collector street bikeway and

General Plan Transportation Element and the

on parallel streets should be evaluated as part

Alameda County Transportation Commission

of a Complete Street Corridor Study. Of the

Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan. Studies

major and collector streets shown in Figures

to consider the inclusion of bikeways will be

ES-2, ES-3, and ES-4 as requiring a Class IV

coordinated with proposed improvements to

Cycletrack to meet LTS 1 or 2, most of them will

transit performance on Primary Transit Routes,

require further study in order to evaluate their

such as bus boarding islands, transit-only lanes,

suitability for this treatment and impacts on

transit signal priority/queue jump lanes, far-side

ES-13

FINAL PLAN

bus stop relocations, and other improvements as

These corridors may have interim treatments

described in the AC Transit Major Corridor Study.

installed while the corridor study and final

In addition, these studies should approach

recommended design are being completed.

Secondary Transit Routes as opportunities

Interim treatments are those that do not require

for transit improvements, such as bus stop

a full Complete Streets Corridor Study. Interim or

optimization and relocation, among other

phased treatments may still require traffic study,

potential improvements. At the conclusion of the

interagency coordination, and public process

Complete Streets Corridor Study process, design

if they impact roadway capacity, parking, or

alternatives which have a significant negative

transit operations. Interim or phased treatments

effect on transit on Primary Transit Routes will

should not negatively impact existing transit

not be recommended. Criteria to define what

operations; mitigations should accompany

constitutes a significant negative effect on

interim treatments to ensure no degradation of

transit will be developed and applied during the

transit service. For example, Shared Roadway

Study process for each corridor. Example criteria

Bicycle Markings may be installed, or existing

for evaluating transit impacts are provided

bike lanes may first be colored green, then later

in Section 5.7 of this Plan. Consideration of

converted into a Class IV Cycletrack if feasible

how to allocate limited public right-of-way

without negatively impacting existing or planned

among various travel modes will be made

transit operations on Primary or Secondary

consistent with Alameda County Transportation

Transit Routes.

Commission modal priorities and the City of

For more information about future Complete

Berkeley General Plan.

Street Corridor Studies, see Section 5.7, Section

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

6.7, Appendix E, and Appendix F.

ES-14

D BLV

A NA D SE

ROSE ST

CEDAR ST

EY ST WOOLS

AV E

Z AVE ALCATRA

TELEGRAPH AVE

KING ST

ST MABEL

ADE LINE ST

D ONT BLV CLAREM

WARRING ST NT AVE PIEDMO

COLLEGE AVE

PRINCE ST

N ST HARMO

R LD NIA N E NT CE

ST DEAKIN

VE ASHBY A

R ST WHEELE

ST RUSSELL

CH ST HILLEGASS AVE BOWDIT

DANA ST

FULTON ST

SHATTUCK AVE

AVE HEINZ

T 65TH S

MILVIA ST

MLK JR WAY

BERKELEY

NIA ST CALIFOR

TO ST SACRAMEN

DERBY ST WARD ST

AY ST MURR

FT WAY BANCRO

DERBY ST

ST OREGON

EMERYVILLE

GRANT ST

WAY DWIGHT

G WAY CHANNIN

MABEL ST

RAIL BAY T

ER ST PARK

FT WAY BANCRO

ST BONAR

AVE ABLO SAN P

T 4TH S

AR DR BOLIV

T 9TH S

Y AVE ERSIT UNIV

EY YL GA

T 5TH S

LVD AB RIN MA

ON ST ADDIS

CENTER ST

N ST ADDISO

OXFORD ST

AVE HEARST

TY AVE UNIVERSI

University of California, Berkeley

RE ST DELAWA E ST AV HEAR

ST VIRGINIA

CL AR EM ON T

JOSEPHINE ST

T 6TH S

ST VIRGINIA

SPRUCE ST

GILM AN S T

EUCLID ST

MO NTER EY A

MILVIA ST

S IN PK HO

WALNUT ST

SAN TA F E CUR AVE TIS S T PERA LTA A VE

SUT TER

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

LIA ST CAME

SON OMA AVE

ACTON ST

VE ELL A CORN

AN ST GILM

E AV IN AR M

T AVE TALBO

ST AN AN CH BU

S AVE KAIN

AV E

SOLANO AVE E IN AV MAR

ALBANY

E AV TON LING

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

FINAL PLAN

EN CO LU SA

OAKLAND

FIGURE ES-2: LOW-STRESS BIKEWAY NETWORK VISION PAVED PATH

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK

STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]*

CYCLETRACK [4]

PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]*

ES-15

D BLV

A NA D SE

EY ST WOOLS

OAKLAND

AV E

ADE LINE ST

BLVD CLAREMONT

Z AVE ALCATRA

COLLEGE AVE

N ST HARMO

HILLEGASS AVE

PRINCE ST

CH ST BOWDIT

ST DEAKIN

VE ASHBY A

DERBY ST

R ST WHEELE

ST RUSSELL

KING ST

ST MABEL

EMERYVILLE

T 65TH S

TO ST SACRAMEN

AVE HEINZ

NIA ST CALIFOR

MABEL ST

N ST OREGO

DANA ST

WAY DWIGHT

DERBY ST A W RD ST

AY ST MURR

MILVIA ST

ST BONAR AVE ABLO SAN P

RAIL BAY T

ER ST PARK

G WAY CHANNIN

FULTON ST

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

AR DR BOLIV

FT WAY BANCRO

L NIA EN NT E C

FT WAY BANCRO SHATTUCK AVE

GRANT ST

BERKELEY

University of California, Berkeley

WARRING ST NT AVE PIEDMO

CENTER ST MLK JR WAY

E ST AV HEAR

T 5TH S

LVD AB RIN MA

Y AVE ERSIT UNIV

TY AVE UNIVERSI

OXFORD ST

RE ST DELAWA

EY YL GA

T 6TH S

AVE HEARST

ST VIRGINIA

CL AR EM ON T

CEDAR ST

TELEGRAPH AVE

SAN TA F E CUR AVE TIS S T PERA LTA A VE

MO NTER EY A

JOSEPHINE ST

SPRUCE ST

ROSE ST

EUCLID ST

MILVIA ST

T SS KIN P HO

WALNUT ST

GILM AN S T

ST VIRGINIA

ON ST ADDIS

FINAL PLAN

SUT TER

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

LIA ST CAME

E AV IN R A M

AN ST GILM

SON OMA AVE

ACTON ST

VE ELL A CORN

ST AN AN CH BU

S AVE KAIN

T AVE TALBO

AV E

SOLANO AVE E IN AV MAR

ALBANY

E AV TON LING

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

EN CO LU SA

24 1/2 MI

FIGURE ES-3: LOW-STRESS BIKEWAY NETWORK VISION WITH BERKELEY SCHOOLS CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

PAVED PATH BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK CYCLETRACK [4]

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]* PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]*

SCHOOL WITH 1/8 MILE BUFFER

ENROLLMENT BOUNDARIES

ES-16

University of California, Berkeley

AV E

CL AR EM ON T

TELEGRAPH AVE

RD EL NN TU

THE UPLAND S

AL RE

ST WOOLSEY

O NI M CA EL

ADE LINE ST

ONT BLVD CLAREM

AVE ALCATRAZ

PIEDMONT AVE

KEY RTE BLV D

CAMEL

CURTIS

MO NTER EY A

N ST HARMO

ST WHEELER

PRINCE ST

DEAKIN ST

ST PRINCE

WARRING ST

HILLEGASS AVE

FULTON ST

E ASHBY AV

VE ONT A PIEDM

H ST BOWDITC

DERBY ST

COLLEGE AVE

DANA ST

SHATTUCK AVE

ST RUSSELL

KING ST

ST MABEL T 65TH S

MILVIA ST

AVE HEINZ

AY ST MURR

NG WAY CHANNI

TO ST SACRAMEN

WARD ST

MLK JR WAY

MABEL ST

RAIL BAY T

ER ST PARK

FT WAY BANCRO

IA ST CALIFORN

WAY DWIGHT

GRANT ST

FT WAY BANCRO

ST BONAR

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

AR DR BOLIV

AVE ABLO SAN P

BERKELEY

T 5TH S

ON ST ADDIS

ST ADDISON ST CENTER

TY AVE UNIVERSI

EY YL GA

OXFORD ST

AVE HEARST

E ST DELAWAR

E ST AV HEAR

SPRUCE ST

T 6TH S

ST VIRGINIA

WALNUT ST

ACTON ST

CEDAR ST

ST CALIFORNIA

T SE S RO

EUCLID ST

T SS IN PK HO

MILVIA ST

SAN TA F E CUR TIS S PER T ALTA AVE

SUTTER ST

ROSE ST

T LIA S CAME

D BLV

E AV IN AR M

JOSEPHINE ST

VE ELL A CORN

ST 10TH

ST AN AN CH BU

Y AD W KINKE

VE NA SE PO

PE AK

SOLANO AVE

EDA ALAM THE

SON OMA

Tilden Regional Park

AV EN E SE NA DA

VE IN A MAR

UTH ROE MON DARTMO

AN ST GILM

CO LU SA

AVE COLUSA

T AVE TALBO

S AVE KAIN

S ST ADAM T SON S JACK

E ST PIERC

LY IZZ GR

WASHINGTON AVE

AVE TON HING WAS

ALBANY

PORTLAND AVE

E N AV GTO ARLIN

VE TON A BRIGH

WARD

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

EL CERRITO

FINAL PLAN

ON NY CA

Y WA EEN GR NE LO OH

W ILD CA T

EMERYVILLE

OAKLAND

1/2 MI

FIGURE ES-4: RECOMMENDED NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS CLASS 1

CLASS 2 PAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A] UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

CLASS 3

CLASS 4 SHARROWS [3C] UPHILL CLIMBING LANE/ DOWNHILL SHARROWS [3C]

CYCLETRACK [4]

BIKE BOULEVARD [3E]

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES - LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

EXISTING FACILITIES PAVED PATH [1A] UNPAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A] UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

UPHILL CLIMBING LANE/ DOWNHILL SHARROWS [3C] SIGNAGE-ONLY [3A] SHARROWS [3C] BICYCLE BOULEVARD CYCLETRACK [4] AMTRAK STATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]* PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]*

ES-17

FINAL PLAN

SUPPORT FACILITIES Bicycle Detection Detection of bicyclists at actuated (not pretimed) traffic signals is important for safety of bicyclists and motorists. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) requires that all new and modified traffics signals be able to detect bicyclists with passive detection (rather than having to push a button). This Plan recommends that the City of Berkeley continue to adhere to this requirement by ensuring passive detection of bicyclists at all

Long-term bike parking includes bike lockers, bike rooms, or Bike Stations. Long-term parking serves people who intend to leave their bicycles for longer periods of time and is typically found at workplaces and in multifamily residential buildings, transit stations, and other commercial buildings. These facilities provide a high level of security but are less convenient than bicycle racks. Berkeley has bike lockers available citywide at BART and Amtrak stations.

Figure ES-5: Types of Bicycle Racks

signalized intersections.

Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking is available throughout Berkeley, but many locations do not provide an adequate

Circle

The City has developed specifications to

such, many bicyclists instead lock their bikes to

assist architects, engineers and contractors

street fixtures such as trees, telephone poles,

with bicycle rack placement and installation.

and sign poles.

These are available at www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/

Bicycle parking can be categorized into shortCIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Post & Ring

amount of bike parking to meet demand. As

RECOMMENDED TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF BICYCLE PARKING

ES-18

Inverted U-Rack

uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Level_3_ Transportation/Bike_Rack_Specs_Installation_ Sept2008.pdf.

term and long-term parking. Sidewalk bicycle

Expanded Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines

racks or bicycle corrals are preferred for short-

and recommended quantities by land use can be

term bike parking (less than two hours), serving

found in Appendix F: Design Guidelines.

people who leave their bicycles for relatively short periods of time â&#x20AC;&#x201C; typically for shopping, errands, eating or recreation. Short-term bicycle racks provide a high level of convenience but relatively low level of security.

FINAL PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION Project Prioritization The project recommendations were divided

Table ES-4 shows the planning-level cost

into three implementation tiers based on a

estimates to implement each tier.

set of evaluation criteria that included safety, community support and equity factors. Figure ES-6 shows the recommended project network

Table ES-4: Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimates TIER

PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE

Tier 1

$26,318,900

Tier 2

$4,658,400

corridor are included in Appendix E: Project

Tier 3

$3,493,800

Recommendations and Prioritization Tables.

Total

$34,471,100

by tier. Tables that show the projects in each

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Pilot projectsâ&#x20AC;? are a way to test the impacts

Short-term demonstration projects, sometimes

of changes to the transportation network

called tactical urbanism or temporary

by temporarily constructing improvements

installations, are typically for a few days in order

using non-permanent materials, in place for

to quickly evaluate a project and to gather

a specified, limited amount of time. These

feedback from the public. Demonstration

projects enable the City to study the real-world

projects usually use cones, temporary marking

efficacy of such changes, often at a relatively

tape, moveable planters, and other non-

modest cost due to the short-term materials

permanent materials that can easily be installed,

used. Utilizing before and after data collection,

modified, and removed, as needed. Longer-term

they are monitored to understand benefits and

pilot projects can be installed for a longer period

tradeoffs, with the goal of adjusting the final

of time, typically weeks or months, prior to

design before committing to a more expensive

potential permanent implementation. This allows

permanent capital project.

for extensive data collection and public input, especially for complex multi-modal projects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pilot Projects

ES-19

FINAL PLAN

Materials such as traffic paint, flexible traffic

transit, and driving. For example, pilot projects

delineator posts, and moveable planters are

on Primary or Secondary Transit Routes should

often used during pilot projects and then may

seek to test transit operations and access

be later upgraded to permanent treatments such

improvements whenever possible, utilizing the

as thermoplastic, asphalt, concrete, and rigid

latest national design best practices such as

bollards.

the National Association of City Transportation

Both Demonstration and Long-term Pilots should be approached from a Complete Street design perspective, in the context of the modal priorities established by the Berkeley General Plan Transportation Element and the Alameda County Transportation Commission Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan. Pilot Projects should integrate improvements for all modes of transportation whenever possible, including

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

consideration of people walking, biking, riding

ES-20

Officials (NACTO) Transit Street Design Guide and Urban Street Design Guide. Local guidance such as the forthcoming AC Transit Design Standards and Guidelines Manual for Safe and Efficient Multimodal Transit Stops and Corridors will also be consulted.

AIL 3 RE TR

EL CERRITO

E AV TON LING

A NA D SE

E AV IN AR M

VE JOSEPHINE ST

ST VIRGINIA

University of California, Berkeley

AVE HEARST

AV E

PIEDMONT AVE

TELEGRAPH AVE

D ONT BLV CLAREM

WARRING ST

COLLEGE AVE

ST WOOLSEY

THE UP LANDS

RD EL NN TU

ADE LINE ST

L NIA EN NT E C

VE ONT A PIEDM

Z AVE ALCATRA

KING ST

N ST HARMO

T ST TREMON

PRINCE ST

HILLEGASS AVE

ST RUSSELL

CH ST BOWDIT

DANA ST

DERBY ST ST DEAKIN FULTON ST R ST WHEELE

MLK JR WAY

NIA ST CALIFOR

TO ST SACRAMEN

MABEL ST

RAIL BAY T

T 65TH S

MILVIA ST

BERKELEY

SHATTUCK AVE

G WAY CHANNIN

AVE ASHBY

AY ST MURR

FT WAY BANCRO

GRANT ST

WAY DWIGHT

WARD ST

AVE HEINZ

EMERYVILLE

FT WAY BANCRO

ST BONAR

AVE ABLO SAN P

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

AR DR BOLIV

ER ST PARK

CENTER ST

ST ADDISON

T 5TH S

TY AVE UNIVERSI

OXFORD ST

RE ST DELAWA

ON ST ADDIS

EY YL GA

T 6TH S

ACTON ST

VE ELL A CORN

CEDAR ST

CL AR EM ON T

MO NTER EY A

PERA LTA A VE

SAN TA F EA CUR TIS S VE T

ROSE ST

EUCLID ST

T SS KIN P HO

Tilden Regional Park

SPRUCE ST

T AVE TALBO

ST AN AN CH BU

S AVE KAIN

WALNUT ST

SUT TER

SON OMA AVE

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

SOLANO AVE

ALBANY

AN ST GILM

CO LU SA AV E

E IN AV MAR

D BLV

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

PE AK

PORTLAND AVE

LY IZZ GR

ON NY CA

FINAL PLAN

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

W ILD CA T

OAKLAND 24

FIGURE PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CORRIDORS FIGURE ES-6: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CORRIDORS TIER 1 PRIORITY TIER 1 PRIORITY PROJECTS PROJECTS

TIER 2 PRIORITY TIER 2 PRIORITY PROJECTS PROJECTS

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION* COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION*

TIER 3 PRIORITY TIER 3 PRIORITY PROJECTS PROJECTS

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES PRIMARY TRANSIT COMPLETE STREETCORRIDOR* CORRIDOR STUDIES PRIMARY TRANSIT CORRIDOR*

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

*Complete Street Corridor Studies are proposed multimodal transportation studies, not planned projects. Class IV Cycle Tracks and other bikeway types that might transit operations, parking, or roadway capacity willstudies, not be implemented without Class Complete Street Corridor Studies that will *Complete Streetimpact Corridor Studies are proposed multimodal transportation not planned projects. IV Cycle Tracks and other bikeway include a traffic environmental analysis, publicor process, and coordination all affected State, County, and local transit agencies. Potential types that mightstudy, impact transit operations, parking, roadway capacity will notwith be implemented without Complete Street Corridor Studies that will bikeways to be considered as part of future Complete Street Corridor Studies will be all evaluated the context thelocal modal priorities established by include a traffic study, environmental analysis, public process, and coordination with affectedinState, County,ofand transit agencies. Potential the Berkeley General Plan Transportation Element and the Alameda County Transportation Commission Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan, as by well bikeways to be considered as part of future Complete Street Corridor Studies will be evaluated in the context of the modal priorities established as from Transportation AC Transit’s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 ofCountywide the BerkeleyMultimodal Bicycle Plan. therecommendations Berkeley General Plan Element and the Alameda County Transportation Commission Arterial Plan, as well as recommendations from AC Transit’s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.

ES-21

FINAL PLAN

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE The primary maintenance policy of this Plan

appropriate minimum paving surface standard

is to â&#x20AC;&#x153;maintain designated bikeways to be

for Bicycle Boulevards and other low stress

comfortable and free of hazards to bicycling,â&#x20AC;?

bikeways, and updating the repaving project

which includes incorporating a higher standard

selection methodology to prioritize Bicycle

of care for bikeways into guidelines and

Boulevards and other low stress bikeways

timetables for maintenance activities, including

to ensure that the minimum paving surface

repaving. Specific actions under this policy

standard is maintained.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

include developing and implementing an

ES-22

FINAL PLAN

Plan Implementation and Staffing Costs Capital project costs only capture a

project development and funding); Preliminary

portion of the resources needed to fully

Engineering (environmental clearance and

implement this Plan. In addition to base

design); Final Design; and Construction

capital costs, contingencies are added to

Management (contractor oversight, inspection,

capture unanticipated increases in the cost

and invoicing). Table ES-5 provides a planning-

of project materials and/or labor. The City

level estimate of these “soft costs” associated

will need to utilize a combination of staff and

with delivering Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects.

consultant resources for project delivery phases that include Planning (conceptual

Table ES-5: Total Planning-Level Implementation Cost Estimate CAPITAL COST

CAPITAL CONTINGENCY (10%)

TIER

YEARS

Tier 1

2016-2025

$26,318,900

$2,631,890

Tier 2

2025-2035

$4,658,400

$465,840

$5,124,240

Tier 3

2025-2035

$3,493,800

$349,380

$3,843,180

Totals

CAPITAL TOTAL $28,950,790

$34,471,100

$37,918,210

Table continues below

Tier 1

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (25%)

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15%)

TOTAL “SOFT COSTS”

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE

$7,237,700

$4,342,600

$18,818,000

$47,768,800 $8,455,000

Tier 2

$1,281,100

$768,600

$3,330,800

Tier 3

$960,800

$576,500

$2,498,100

$6,341,300

$24,646,900

$62,565,100

Totals

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TIER

PLANNING (25%)

ES-23

INTRODUCTION

FINAL PLAN

Berkeley is a bicycle city. According to the US Census 2014 American Community Survey, Berkeley has the fourth highest bicycle commute mode share (8.5 percent) of any city in the United States. In practical terms, this means that nearly one out of every 10 Berkeley residents rides a bicycle to work as their primary transportation mode. As nearly any Berkeleyan can tell you, getting to work is not the only reason people ride bicycles in this city. In Berkeley, people ride bikes for a myriad of purposes – to shop at the store or the farmer’s market, to drop off or pick up their kids from school or day care, to visit the UC Berkeley campus, to go to concerts, restaurants, and social events, and for exercise. Cycling in Berkeley is not only an efficient, environmentallyfriendly utilitarian mode of transport, but it is also a source of health and enjoyment. A central focus of this updated Bicycle Plan is how to improve the comfort, enjoyment, convenience, and fun of cycling as a viable strategy for achieving many of the City’s health and wellness goals. For nearly five decades, Berkeley has been a leader in the effort to promote the use of the bicycle for pleasant transportation and recreation. The first Berkeley Bicycle Plan—created in 1971—laid out a citywide network of bikeways which are still in use today. The purpose of this updated Bicycle Plan is to make Berkeley a model bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is a safe, comfortable, and convenient form of transportation and recreation for people of all ages and abilities. Because this plan is being produced by the Public Works Department, the focus is on physical infrastructure changes that support cycling as a way to

INTRODUCTION

achieve the City’s safety, health, and environmental goals.

1-1

FINAL PLAN

Berkeley has been a leader in the effort to

This Plan recommends a core network of “Low

promote the use of the bicycle for pleasant

Stress” bikeways, a continuous and connected

transportation and recreation for nearly five

system of safe and comfortable bikeways that

decades. Many of Berkeley’s bicycle lanes date

serve all types of people riding bicycles in

from the 1970s, the era of the “Bicycle Boom.”

Berkeley. The core Low Stress network is part

In 1970, the City of Berkeley conducted a survey

of a larger overall bikeway system in Berkeley

of existing bicycle usage patterns, asking

that is supported by wayfinding signage, bike

respondents to draw their most common bike

parking, a high standard of maintenance,

trip route on a map to help the City understand

and education, encouragement and outreach

where cyclists were riding at that time. This

programs.

survey was the basis for the first Berkeley Bicycle Plan of 1971, which laid out a citywide network of bikeways that are still in use today. One of the goals of this Plan was to replicate this outreach in the digital age, using a door-todoor tablet-based survey in order to understand where and why Berkeley residents are cycling – and what it would take to get them to bicycle

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

more or to try cycling for the first time.

1-2

FINAL PLAN

The Plan is organized as follows: Chapter 2 Goals and Policies – from high-level goals to nuts-and-bolts actions, this chapter captures the vision and policy framework for Berkeley’s Bicycle Program. The chapter includes performance metrics because what fails to be measured fails to get done. Chapter 3 Existing Conditions – an inventory of present-day bicycling in Berkeley, including physical conditions like bikeways as well as education, enforcement, and encouragement programs. Chapter 4 Needs Analysis – what is it like to bicycle in Berkeley? What are the barriers to cycling? This chapter uses both stated preference data—a statistically significant public survey—and observational data—an innovative Level of Traffic Stress analysis as well as data about collisions, land use, and a geographic Demand Model—to help us answer these

Chapter 6 Implementation – a practical roadmap for implementing the proposals in this Plan, including project details, cost estimates, and project bundles grouped for the purpose of successful grant funding applications, and evaluation and staffing needs for a measurable and successful Bicycle Program. Appendices – resources critical to the implementation of the proposed projects, including detailed Design Guidelines based on the latest State and Federal guidelines and national best practices from organizations such as the National Association of City Transportation Officials; a thorough Collision Analysis based on State of California data; complete Level of Traffic Stress methodology; and recommendations for the Enforcement, Education, and Encouragement programs necessary to support the physical infrastructure recommendations of this Plan.

questions. Chapter 5 Recommendations – proposals to support Berkeley residents who already ride a bicycle, eliminate barriers to bicycling more, and to encourage others to try cycling for the first

INTRODUCTION

time.

1-3

GOALS & POLICIES

FINAL PLAN

The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is organized around a Vision Statement, three overarching goals, and a series of specific policies and actions.

Berkeley Bike Plan

VISION

GOALS

POLICIES

ACTIONS

A strong statement

Broad, long-range

What we want to

Specific strategies for

that serves as an

targets for making

achieve in terms of

how to achieve the

aspirational guide

the vision a reality

outcomes

goals and policies

2.1 VISION STATEMENT

GOALS & POLICIES

Berkeley will be a model bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is a safe, comfortable, and convenient form of transportation and recreation for people of all ages and abilities.

2-1

FINAL PLAN

2.2 GOALS

2.3 POLICIES & ACTIONS

The Berkeley Bicycle Plan has three overarching

Specific policies and actions to achieve the

goals that frame all of the policies, actions and

above goals are organized by the various phases

recommendations in the plan.

of project delivery to align with the City process of implementing this Plan.

Goal 1: Safety First Performance Measure: Zero bicycle-involved

Planning

fatalities by 2025. Performance Measure: Zero bicycle-involved

Policy PL-1. Integrate bicycle network and

severe injuries by 2035.

facility needs into all City planning documents

Goal 2: Strength in Numbers Performance Measure: Increase Berkeley’s bicycle mode share1 by 50 percent by 2025,

• Review the City’s Capital Improvement Program list on an annual basis to ensure that

Performance Measure: Increase Berkeley’s

recommended bikeway network projects are

bicycle mode share by 100 percent by 2035,

incorporated at the earliest possible stage of

from approximately 10 percent to 20 percent.

both new capital projects and maintenance of

Performance Measure: Complete the Tier 1 Bikeway Network, including high-priority Bicycle Boulevards, Milvia Street Bikeway, Complete Street Corridor Studies (including Downtown and UC Berkeley Campus perimeter streets and the Southside Pilot Project), and the Ohlone Greenway, by 2025. Performance Measure: Complete the Tier 2 and CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

ACTIONS:

from approximately 10 percent to 15 percent.

Goal 3: All Ages and Abilities

2-2

and capital improvement projects.

Tier 3 Bikeway Network, including remaining Bicycle Boulevards, Complete Street Corridor Studies, and other bikeways by 2035. 2

existing facilities. • Follow a multi-disciplinary project scoping process that incorporates the needs of all modes and stakeholders, both internal and external; the design process should include the City divisions, departments, and staff responsible for emergency response, parking, law enforcement, maintenance, and other affected areas. • Ensure that all traffic impact studies, analyses of proposed street changes, and development projects address impacts on bicycling and bicycling facilities. Specifically, the following should be considered:

1 As measured by US Census American Community Survey and by City of Berkeley Bicycle Counts 2 As defined by the Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan and the Alameda County Transportation Commission Countywide Transportation Plan and Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan.

»» Consistency with General Plan, Area Plan, and Bicycle Plan policies and recommendations;

FINAL PLAN

»» Degree to which bicycle travel patterns are altered or restricted by the projects; and »» Safety of future bicycle operations (based on project conformity to Bicycle Plan design guidelines and City, State, and Federal design standards). • Amend the Berkeley Municipal Code to update bicycle parking specifications and requirements to current best practice for both short- and long-term bicycle parking as part of both commercial and residential development projects and major renovations. • Capital project planning should include bikeways, consistent with the City’s adopted Complete Streets Policy and Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan.

Policy PL-2. When considering transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, the City shall consider how a plan or project affects bicyclists per Berkeley General Plan Policy T-18. ACTIONS: • Integrate Vehicle Miles Traveled transportation impact analysis thresholds as a Statemandated alternative to Level of Service. Work with the Alameda County Transportation Commission and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to ensure conformity with County and Regional travel models. • Establish new City traffic analysis standards that consider all modes of transportation, including pedestrians, bicycles, and transit in addition to automobiles, consistent with a comprehensive, integrated transportation network for all users as described in the City of Berkeley Complete Streets Policy. Utilize Level of Traffic Stress to quantify bicycle transportation in this network-based Complete Streets Policy context.

GOALS & POLICIES

»» Impact on the existing bikeway network;

2-3

FINAL PLAN

Design Policy PL-3. Coordinate with other agencies to

Policy D-1. Design a Low Stress Bikeway

incorporate Berkeley Bicycle Plan elements.

Network suitable for the “Interested but

ACTIONS: • Work with adjacent governmental entities, public service companies, coordinating agencies and transit agencies, and the

Concerned,” to include people all ages and ability levels riding bicycles in Berkeley. ACTIONS: • Design a network of continuous Low Stress

University of California, to ensure that Bicycle

Bikeways as identified in the Berkeley Bicycle

Plan recommendations are incorporated into

Plan and Appendix F: Design Guidelines.

their planning and areas of responsibility. • Work with partner government agencies

• Adopt the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban

to incorporate other agencies’ plans and

Bikeway Design Guide as the primary design

studies into the funding, study, design, and

guide for citywide bicycle facility design.

construction of Bike Plan projects, whenever feasible within the scope of the particular project. • Work with transit providers to improve bicycle access to transit stations and stops and onboard transit vehicles, especially during peak commute hours, and to provide secure bike parking at stations and stops.

• Utilize the most recent State and Federal design standards and guidelines. • Follow a multi-disciplinary design process that incorporates and balances the needs of all modes and stakeholders, both internal and external; the design process should include the City divisions, departments, and staff responsible for emergency response, parking, law enforcement, maintenance, and other

Policy PL-4. Support a successful bike share

affected areas, as well as outside agencies

system in Berkeley.

such as AC Transit, BART, UC Berkeley,

ACTIONS:

Caltrans and other responsible external

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

• Promote bike share use by Berkeley employees

2-4

(including the City of Berkeley), residents and

stakeholder agencies. • Work with AC Transit, UC Berkeley, and

visitors, especially as an access strategy for

other transit providers to design bikeways to

BART and AC Transit riders.

minimize transit-vehicle interactions, optimize

• Ensure proper funding and staffing levels for development and operations for the entire length of the bike share contract.

transit service and operations, and provide low

FINAL PLAN

»» Ensure both the City Engineer and City

areas heavily served by transit. In designing

Traffic Engineer approve Bicycle Parking

for both bicycles and transit, utilize the latest

Specifications prior to implementation.

national design best practices, such as the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Transit Street Design Guide and Urban Street Design Guide. Local guidance, such as the forthcoming AC Transit Design Standards and Guidelines Manual for Safe and Efficient Multimodal Transit Stops and Corridors will also be consulted. Policy D-2. Through good design practices, continue to expand citywide bike parking

»» Ensure the Planning Department approves Bicycle Parking Requirements for development projects. • Distribute bicycle parking specifications and requirements to all affected City divisions, departments, and staff, particularly Engineering and Streets Divisions of Public Works, Parks Department, and Planning Department. • As part of the citywide bicycle rack and corral

supply including short-term and long-term

design process, continue to support the city’s

facilities for both commercial and residential

bicycle parking information webpage including

land uses.

the bicycle parking map.

ACTIONS: • Regularly review and update the City’s bicycle parking specifications and requirements, with input from affected City divisions, departments, and staff. »» Design short-term parking for maximum convenience, accessibility, and visibility, per City specifications for bicycle racks and

Funding Policy F-1. Continue and enhance the City’s annual commitment of City-controlled funds for bicycle project implementation. ACTIONS: • On an annual basis, conduct an internal audit

corrals, including siting and placement on

of dedicated bicycle program funds to ensure

the sidewalk or in the street.

they are being expended in the most effective

»» Design long-term parking for maximum security and weather-protection, per City specifications for high-capacity bicycle racks, bicycle cages, bicycle rooms, and other secure enclosures.

way possible to achieve the goals of this Plan: »» Measure B Ped/Bike (Alameda County Transportation Commission, CTC) »» Measure BB Ped/Bike (Alameda CTC)

GOALS & POLICIES

stress bike-to-transit access environments in

2-5

FINAL PLAN

Project Delivery »» Transportation Funds for Clean Air (BAAQMD) »» Transportation Development Act Article III (MTC) »» Bicycle Plan Capital Improvement Program (City of Berkeley General Fund) • Maintain an annual Bicycle Program budget to track and evaluate expenditure of program funding on both capital and staff costs. • Through the City CIP process, assess and prepare for upcoming staffing, consultant, and capital funding needs as projects arise. Policy F-2. Leverage existing funding to maximize project delivery.

Policy PD-1. Construct projects within the Bicycle Plan utilizing all available internal and external resources. ACTIONS: • Develop, fund, and deploy a staffing plan consisting of City staff and consultant support at a level and quantity sufficient to implement recommended bikeway projects, including necessary internal (City) and external (public) engagement processes. • Through the Bicycle Subcommittee and the City Transportation Commission, continue to support a representative bicycle advisory committee to assist City staff in the planning, design, and implementation of projects that positively impact bicycle travel and safety.

ACTIONS: • Utilizing city-controlled funds as local match, aggressively pursue funding from any and all

accommodation in work zones.

available grant sources.

ACTIONS:

• Actively develop projects from the Bicycle Plan to position the City to best compete for grant funding. • Follow the Bicycle Plan’s prioritization CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

recommendations, which include equity and

2-6

Policy PD-2. Ensure that bicyclists have

other funder-determined factors in scoring. • Seek to submit grant applications for projects that most competitively match with funder criteria.

• Develop a set of mandatory bicycle accommodations for work zones, including standards for rerouting or detours.

FINAL PLAN

Operations & Maintenance Policy OM-1. Maintain designated bikeways to

Policy OM-2. Maintain bicycle parking.

be comfortable and free of hazards to bicycling.

ACTIONS:

• Promptly replace damaged bicycle racks

• Incorporate a higher standard of care for bikeways into guidelines and timetables for maintenance activities, including repaving. • In partnership with Public Works and the

utilizing contractor or corporation yard resources. • Continue to remove abandoned bicycles from bicycle racks and donate to local non-profit

cycling community, develop and implement an

community bicycle shops for use in youth

appropriate minimum paving surface standard

education programs.

for Bicycle Boulevards and other low stress bikeways.

Programs

• Update repaving project selection methodology to prioritize Bicycle Boulevards

Policy PR-1. Educate bicyclists, motorists, and

and other low stress bikeways to ensure that

the public about bicycle safety and the benefits

the minimum paving surface standard is

of bicycling.

maintained.

ACTIONS:

• Identify and regularly update annual

• Develop a comprehensive Vision Zero strategy

maintenance costs for bikeways; ensure proper

that outlines Engineering, Enforcement,

funding levels for routine bicycle-related

Education and Encouragement actions.

maintenance activities. • Incorporate maintenance needs into design of physically protected bikeways to ensure proper maintenance after construction. • Include other operational issues such as

• Support the continuation and expansion of bicycle safety education programs such as those taught by Bike East Bay. • Support UC Berkeley and the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) to continue and

parking, traffic enforcement, and traffic

expand bicycle safety education programs for

operations during design of physically

students.

ensure proper operation and enforcement.

GOALS & POLICIES

protected bikeways and intersections to

2-7

FINAL PLAN

Policy PR-2. Encourage all Berkeley Public

Policy PR-3. Support police enforcement

Schools to participate in the Alameda County

activities targeted at both bicyclists and

Safe Routes to School program.

motorists that educate and reinforce proper and

ACTIONS: • Continue to support walk audits at Berkeley public schools and utilize improvement plans to pursue grant funding for implementation. • Continue City staff participation in citywide SR2S Task Force meetings run by Alameda County’s SR2S program. • Encourage the Alameda CTC to expand funding for the SR2S program to include all Berkeley public schools.

safe behaviors. ACTIONS: • Collaborate with the Berkeley Police Department to establish a bicycling module in the Berkeley Police Department’s Training Academy curriculum. • Partner with Bike East Bay and the Berkeley Police Department to establish a bicycle ticket diversion program per Bicycle Traffic School bill (AB 902) that allows bicyclists who are ticketed for certain infractions to attend a class on safe bicycle riding to reduce or eliminate their fines. • Focus data-driven enforcement efforts on behaviors with greatest crash risk and/or injury severity such as vehicle speeding or bicyclist

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

wrong-way riding.

2-8

FINAL PLAN

Evaluation Policy PR-5. Increase bicycle use through

Policy E-1. Improve the reporting and analysis

targeted marketing and promotion.

of bicycle collisions.

ACTIONS:

• Provide current and easily accessible

• Collaborate with the Berkeley Police

information about the Berkeley bicycle

Department to update current reporting

network, bicycle programs, and bicycle

methodologies to improve the amount and

parking. This includes distribution of free

quality of reported bicycle collisions.

bicycle maps, maintaining up-to-date City web pages, and providing opportunities for continued public feedback. • Encourage major employers including UC

• Identify locations with a high number of bicycle collisions; determine the primary factors contributing to these collisions; evaluate whether current engineering,

Berkeley, the City of Berkeley, and the BUSD

education, and enforcement countermeasures

to continue, develop, or expand bicycle

have been effective; recommend alternative

promotion programs for their employees.

countermeasures as needed.

• Encourage the use of bicycles for City

• Report annually to the City’s Bicycle

employee commute and work travel purposes

Subcommittee on bicycle collision trends and

so that the City is seen as a model employer,

analyses.

including employee access to Bay Area Bike

GOALS & POLICIES

Share.

2-9

FINAL PLAN

Policy E-2. Continue and expand the City’s

Policy E-3. Report annually on the

Annual Bicycle Count Program.

implementation of this Plan.

ACTIONS:

• Review and modify the manual count

• Prepare and present a report to the Berkeley

methodology on an annual basis, while

Transportation Commission or Berkeley City

ensuring consistency with previous years’ data.

Council describing the progress in:

• Consider transitioning from volunteer counters to a professional data collection firm. • Expand locations to broaden the geographic significance of the count program. • Consider adding automated counters at key locations around the city. • Consider adding an automated bicycle counter with digital display at a particularly high-volume, high-profile location such as the Milvia Bicycle Boulevard in front of City Hall. The high-visibility digital display will allow the public to see the total number of cyclists that have passed the counter on that day, over the course of the past year, and access the count data online. • Prepare and publish an annual report summarizing each year’s bicycle count data

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

and analyzing it in terms of this Plan’s Goals,

2-10

Policies, Actions, and Recommendations.

»» Achieving the three Goals of the Plan in terms of their specific performance measures, »» Implementing the Policies and Actions of this Plan.

FINAL PLAN

2.4 POLICY CONTEXT The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is supported and influenced by existing plans, policies, and ordinances that support safe, high-quality bicycle environments and encourage greater bicycle mode share for all types of trips. This Plan builds on and translates these documents and initiatives into recommendations for future bicycle-related improvements. All of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s adopted plans were reviewed as part of the development of the Bicycle Plan. A list of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plans and bicycle-related policies and actions are located in Appendix A: Policy

GOALS & POLICIES

Review.

2-11

FINAL PLAN

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS

3-1

FINAL PLAN

This chapter details the existing state of bicycle infrastructure in Berkeley and gives an update on the status of the recommendations

3.1 BIKEWAY CLASSIFICATIONS The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) designates four classes of bicycle

set forth in the 2005 Berkeley

facilities: Classes I, II, III, and IV. In addition, the

Bicycle Plan.

Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) has adopted a set of sub-classifications for each Caltrans classification. These subclassifications were designed to harmonize previously existing local classification systems within Alameda County and to incorporate emerging bikeway typologies.

Class I Multi-Use Paths Class I bikeways are multi-use or shared-use paths. They provide completely separated, exclusive right-of-way for bicycling, walking and other nonmotorized uses.

SHARED USE PATH

2’ horizontal clearance

NO MOTOR VEHICLES OR MOTORIZED BICYCLES

14’min. to (10‘ p 8

10’ vertical clearance

SHARED ALAMEDA USE PATH COUNTY SUB-CLASS DESCRIPTION NO MOTOR IA VEHICLESPaved Paths OR IB MOTORIZEDUnpaved BICYCLESPaths

MILES IN BERKELEY

12.4 miles 5.3 miles

2’

10’ 2’ Multi-use path 14’min. total width recommended/preferred (10‘ paved width, 2’ clear shoulders) 8’ min. paved width required 2’ shoulders required 12’ min. total width required

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Table 3-1: Existing Class I Facility Mileage

3-1

FINAL PLAN

Class II Bicycle Lanes Class II bicycle lanes are striped, preferential lanes for one-way bicycle travel on roadways. Some Class II bicycle lanes include striped buffers that add a few feet of separation between the bicycle lane and traffic lane or parking aisle. Caltrans requires a minimum of four feet of paved surface for Class II bikeways on roadways without gutters and five feet for roadways with gutters or adjacent to on-street parking.

CLASS II Bike Lane CLASS II Lane Provides Bike a striped lane for

one-way bike travel on a Provides a striped lane for street or highway. one-way bike travel on a street or highway.

Bike lane sign

Bike lane 3’-5’ horizontal sign clearance Bike lane 3’-5’ horizontal sign 7’ vertical clearance clearance 7’ vertical clearance BIKE LANE

BIKE LANE

BIKE LANE BIKE LANE

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Parking and bike lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike lane 11’ min. with rolled curb 4’ min. without gutter Parking and bike lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike lane 12’ min. with vertical curb 5’ min. with gutter 11’ min. with rolled curb 4’ min. without gutter 12’ min. with vertical curb 5’ min. with gutter 6” solid 6” solid white stripe white stripe 6” solid 6” solid Table 3-2: Existing Class II Facility Mileage white stripe white stripe ALAMEDA COUNTY SUB-CLASS

DESCRIPTION

MILES IN BERKELEY

IIA

Conventional bicycle lane

11.7 miles

IIB

Upgraded bicycle lane (striped bicycle lanes with striped buffer between the bicycle lane and traffic lane)

0.3 miles

Upgraded bicycle lane (bicycle lanes with green conflict markings)

0.0 miles*

IIC

Climbing bicycle lane (a bicycle lane in the uphill direction and a bicycle route in the downhill direction)

0.0 miles

IID

Contraflow bicycle lane (a striped bicycle lane that allows people to bicycle in the opposite direction of motor vehicle traffic, mainly used on streets that are designated as one-way for motor vehicle traffic)

0.4 miles

* 0.02 miles of bicycle lanes with green conflict markings were installed on Oxford Way between Addison Street and Center Street in 2015. 3-2

FINAL PLAN

Class III Bicycle Routes Class III bicycle routes are signed bicycle routes where people riding bicycles share a travel lane with people driving motor vehicles. Because they are mixed-flow facilities, Class III bicycle routes are only appropriate for low-volume streets with slow travel speeds.

Bike route sign

Bike route sign BIKEROUTE

BIKEROUTE

Shared use travel lane 14’ min. recommended

ALAMEDA COUNTY SUB-CLASS

DESCRIPTION

IIIA

Signage-only routes

4.5 miles

IIIB

Wide curb lane or shoulder (may include signage)

0.0 miles

IIIC

Route with standard shared lane markings (sharrows) or other pavement stenciling (may also include signage)

2.7 miles

IIID

Route with green-backed shared lane markings (sharrows), also known as “super sharrows”

0.0 miles

IIIE

Bicycle Boulevards (signed, shared travelways with low motor vehicle volumes and low speed limits that prioritize convenient and safe bicycle travel through traffic calming strategies, wayfinding signage, and traffic control adjustments)

11.9 miles

MILES IN BERKELEY

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Table 3-3: Existing Class III Facility Mileage

Sidewalk Shared use travel lane 14’ min. recommended

3-3

FINAL PLAN

Class IV Cycletrack A Class IV bikeway, also known as a cycletrack or separated/protected bikeway, is an on-street bicycle lane that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by a vertical element or barrier, such as a curb, bollards, or parking aisle. The passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 1193 required Caltrans to establish minimum safety design criteria for Class IV bikeways by January 1, 2016. The bill also CLASS IV authorized local agencies to use other safety design Cycletrack criteria established by a national association of Provides a separated path for officials, one-way such as public agency transportation bicycle travel adjacent to a street or thehighway. NationalBicycles Association of Cityfrom Transportation are separated Officials Urban Design Guide, motor (NACTO) vehicle traffic by a Bikeway raised curb, bollards, parking with a painted buffer, provided that the respective city adopts the criteria other vertical barrier. One-way Class by or resolution at a physical public meeting. IV bikeways are typically five to seven feet wide, with a three-foot-wide buffer from motor traffic that includes within it a vertical barrier, or with a three-foot-wide buffer zone for the opening of motor lane Sidewalk Cycletrack Travel lane vehicle passenger doors if theTravel bikeway is protected 5-7’ typical from motor vehicle traffic by a parking aisle. width

Table 3-4: Existing Class IV Facility Mileage

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN 3-4

DESCRIPTION

Provides a separated path for one-way bicycle travel adjacent to a street or highway. Bicycles are separated from motor vehicle traffic by a raised curb, bollards, parking with a painted buffer, or other vertical physical barrier.

Sidewalk

Cycletrack 5-7’ typical width

Travel lane

MILES IN BERKELEY

IVA

One-way cycletrack/ protected bikeway

0.1 miles

IVB

Two-way cycletrack/ protected bikeway

0.0 miles

Travel lane

Bollards or other barrier 3’ buffer Travel lane

Travel lane

Cycletrack 5-7’ typical width

Bollards or other barrier 3’ buffer

ALAMEDA COUNTY SUB-CLASS

CLASS IV Cycletrack

Sidewalk

Trave

FINAL PLAN

3.2 EXISTING BIKEWAY NETWORK in Berkeley and Table 3-5 below lists the total miles of bicycle facilities by classification and sub-classification. Berkeley’s Bicycle

Table 3-5: Existing Bicycle Boulevard Network BIKEWAY TYPE

MILEAGE

Class IA: Paved Paths

13.9 miles

Ohlone Greenway

1.2 miles

stress backbone network throughout the city,

San Francisco Bay Trail

7.4 miles

are discussed in greater detail in the following

Aquatic Park Path

2.5 miles

section.

9th Street Path

0.1 miles

West Street Path

0.5 miles

Other Paths

2.2 miles

Boulevards, which are intended to form a low

Class IB: Unpaved Paths

5.3 miles

Class IIA: Standard Bicycle Lane

11.7 miles

Class IIB: Upgraded Bicycle Lane

0.3 miles

Buffered Bicycle Lanes

0.3 miles

Class IID: Contraflow Bicycle Lane

0.4 miles

Class IIIA: Signage-only Bicycle Route

4.5 miles

Class IIIC: Standard Sharrows

2.7 miles

Class IIIE: Bicycle Boulevard

11.9 miles

Class IVA: One-way Cycle Track/ Protected Bikeway

0.1 miles

Total Berkeley Bicycle Boulevard Network

50.8 miles 15.8 miles

*Berkeley’s Bicycle Boulevard network comprises segments of Class I, II and III facilities. EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 3-1 shows the existing bicycle network

3-5

3 3 TRAIL TRAIL FIRE FIRE

49 MILES OF 49MILES MILES OF OF 51 EXISTING EXISTING BIKEWAYS BIKEWAYS

KENSINGTON

FINAL PLAN

KENSINGTON

WI LD CA T WI LD CA T

D D RD RD BLV BLV ON ON NY ANY CA C LY LY IZZ IZZ GR GR

EL CERRITO

RD RD N ON YO Y AN CAN TC T CA DCA ILD IL W W

EL CERRITO

PE AK

E E AV AV TON TON LING LING A CEDAR ST

TELEGR TEAP LEH GR AP AV EH AVE

ADE ADE LINE LINE ST ST

24 24

EMERYVILLE

OAKLAND

EMERYVILLE

N OAKLAND N

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FIGURE FIGURE 3-1:

EXISTING BIKEWAY NETWORK EXISTING BIKEWAY NETWORK

PAVED PATH [1A] PAVED PATH [1A][1B] UNPAVED PATH UNPAVED PATH [1B]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK

3-6

PARK/REC PARK/REC

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A] STANDARD UPGRADED BIKE BIKE LANE LANE [2A] [2B] UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B] CONTRAFLOW BIKE LANE [2D] CONTRAFLOW BIKE LANE [2D]

RAILROAD RAILROAD

RD L RD EL E N N N N TU TU

ST WOOLSEY

R LD NIA EN T N R CE LD NIA EN NT CE

AVE NTMO NT AVE PIEDMO PIED

ST WOOLSEY

E AVE LEGE AVE COLLEG COL

AVE ASS ASS AVE LEG STTCH ST HILLEGHIL HDI TCW BOWDI BO

STKIN ST NEA DEAKID

N ST HARMO AVE ALCATRAZ MON ST HAR ST 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ ST 65TH

ST NA ST DANADA

AY ST MURR

AVE ASHBY

LTON ST FULTON FUST

AY ST MURR

ST RUSSELL T ST NEM ONT ST TREMO TR

AVE HEINZ

ST RUSSELL

KING ST KING ST

AVE ASHBY

WAY JR WAY MLK JRMLK

BERKELEY

ST ST RN FORNIA LIIA CALIFO CA

ST TO ST TO EN ENAM SACRAM SACR

ABEL ST MABELMST

AVE AVE ABLO ABLO SAN P SAN P

RAIL RAIL BAY T BAY T

AVE HEINZ

WAY DWIGHT

BERKELEY STVIA ST MILVIAMIL

G WAY HT WAY CHANNINDWIG

ST ANA ST DANAD

FT WAY BANCRO

WAY OFT WAY ING NCR CHANNBA

CENTER ST

AVE CKTTU CK AVE SHATTU SHA

T T 4TH S 4TH S

ON ST ADDIS

TY AVE UNIVERSI T T 9TH S 9TH S

E STOANVST RIS HAEDAD

CENTER ST

ST NT ST GRANT GRA

T T 5TH S 5TH S

E ST AV HEAR

AVE HEARST

E ST DELAWAR TY AVE UNIVERSI

RD Y RD EY E YL AYL GA G

AVE HEARST

INIA STST VIRG LAWARE DE

University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley

ST RD ST OXFORD OXFO

STON ST ACTON ACT

T T 6TH S 6TH S

ST VIRGINIA

CEDAR ST

CL C AR LAR EM EM ON ON TA TA VE VE

MO MO NTER NTER EY E A YA

ROSE ST

AN ST GILM

STLID ST EUCLID EUC

STINE ST INE EPH JOSEPH JOS

ST ST AN AN AN AN CH CH BU BU

AN ST GILM

T SS IN PK HO T SS IN PK ROSE ST HO

Tilden Regional Tilden Park Regional Park

STUCE ST SPRUCE SPR

T ST LNUT ST WALNU WA

ALBANY

E AV IN AR E M AV IN AR M

ST ST SUT TESRUT TER

ALBANY

A A MED MED THE ALA THE ALA

AVE AVE COLUSA COLUSA

SOLANO AVE E IN AV MAR E IN AV MAR

PE AK

VE VE A A NA D ENA D SE S

AY AY EENWEENW NE GRNE GR OHLOOHLO

EN CO LU SA AV EN CO E LU A SA AV E A SOLANO AVE

BART STATION BART STATION

1/2 MI

SIGNAGE-ONLY [3A] SIGNAGE-ONLY SHARROWS [3C][3A] SHARROWS [3C] BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E] BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E] CYCLETRACK [4A] CYCLETRACK [4A]

AMTRAK STATION AMTRAK STATION

FINAL PLAN

3.3 BICYCLE BOULEVARDS 3.3.1 What is a Bicycle Boulevard? A Bicycle Boulevard is a roadway intended to prioritize bicycle travel and provide a low stress experience for people on bikes of all ages and abilities. The goal of Bicycle Boulevards are to provide low stress bikeways on pleasant neighborhood streets that are both safe and convenient. In order to achieve these goals, Bicycle Boulevards are only appropriate on streets without large truck or transit vehicles, and where traffic volumes and speeds are already low, or can be further reduced through traffic calming. For convenience, Bicycle

bicycling to stop any more frequently than they would on a parallel route. The first seven Bicycle Boulevards in Berkeley were developed through community workshops in 1999, from which a set of design tools and guidelines were created. The guidelines outlined three phases of implementation: (1) signs and markings, (2) traffic calming and stop sign removal, and (3) intersection crossings. The first phase of implementation was finished in 2003. The second and third phases, which focus on safety and convenience, are being addressed as part of this Plan.

Boulevard routes should not require people

Distinct Visual Identity: Unique pavement

Safe, Convenient Crossings: Traffic controls,

markings and wayfinding signs increase

warning devices, and/or separated facilities at

visibility of Bicycle Boulevard routes, assist with

intersections help facilitate safe and convenient

navigation, and alert drivers that the roadway is

crossings of major streets along the Bicycle

a priority route for people bicycling.

Boulevard network.

Bicycle Priority: Traffic calming treatments such as traffic circles, diverters, and chicanes, sometimes in place of existing stop signs, can help prioritize bicycle through-travel and discourage cutthrough motor vehicle traffic.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

ELEMENTS OF BICYCLE BOULEVARDS:

3-7

FINAL PLAN

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK The Bicycle Boulevard Network consists of four north-south routes and three east-west routes: North-South Routes • Ninth Street • California Street/King Street • Milvia Street • Hillegass Avenue/Bowditch Street East-West Routes • Virginia Street • Channing Way • Russell Street Figure 3-2 shows this existing network.

3.3.2 Signage and Marking System Berkeley pioneered a unique Bicycle Boulevard signage and marking system. The distinct purple signs are instantly recognizable and provide greater wayfinding information than standard Class III Bike Route signs. Signage and markings used along Berkeley’s Bicycle Boulevards

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

include: • Destination and Distance Information Signs • Route and Off-Route Guidance Signs • Street and Advance Street Identification Signs • Pavement Markings (“BIKE BLVD” stencils) Each of these signs provides one or more of the 4 D’s of a complete wayfinding system: destination, direction, distance, and distinction. 3-8

3.3.3 Traffic Calming Berkeley’s Bicycle Boulevards use traffic calming and bicycle priority to achieve a safe, comfortable and convenient experience for people who bicycle. Traffic calming treatments used along Berkeley’s Bicycle Boulevard network include those shown below:

AV E

ST WOOLSEY

OAKLAND TELEGRAPH AVE

ADE LINE ST

RD EL N N TU

PIEDMONT AVE

T T T TT

COLLEGE AVE

CH ST HILLEGASS AVE BOWDIT

ST RUSSELL

ST DEAKIN

MO NTER EY A

ST 65TH Z AVE ALCATRA

T T

T ST TREMON

AY ST MURR

FULTON ST

MLK JR WAY

AVE ASHBY

EMERYVILLE

NIA ST CALIFOR

TO ST SACRAMEN

MABEL ST

AVE ABLO SAN P

RAIL BAY T

AVE HEINZ

MILVIA ST

WAY DWIGHT

DANA ST

SHATTUCK AVE

G WAY CHANNIN T

GRANT ST

T 4TH S

FT WAY BANCRO

L NIA EN NT E C

CENTER ST

EY YL GA

BERKELEY

EUCLID ST

TY AVE UNIVERSI

University of California, Berkeley

OXFORD ST

T T

D AVE HEARST

RE ST DELAWA

T 9TH S

ON ST ADDIS

WALNUT ST

T 5TH S

E ST AV HEAR

CEDAR ST

ST VIRGINIA

D T

JOSEPHINE ST

T 6TH S

ACTON ST

ST AN AN CH BU

ROSE ST

AN ST GILM

T SS KIN P HO

SPRUCE ST

ALBANY

E AV

Tilden Regional Park SUT TER

E IN AV MAR

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

SOLANO AVE

IN AR M

CL AR EM ON T

A NA D SE

12 MILES OF OF BIKE BOULEVARDS

ON AVE GT ARLIN

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

FINAL PLAN

EN CO LU SA

1/2 MI

FIGURE 3-2: EXISTING BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK PAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E]

TRAFFIC CALMING FACILITIES SPEED HUMPS

PARK/REC

TRAFFIC CIRCLES

RAILROAD

BART STATION

TRAFFIC DIVERTERS

AMTRAK STATION

3-9

FINAL PLAN

3.4 EXISTING BICYCLE SUPPORT FACILITIES 3.4.1 Wayfinding

3.4.2 Bike Parking

A high quality bicycling environment includes

Bicycle parking is an essential supporting

not only bicycle facilities, but also an easily

element of a complete bikeway network. Figure

navigable network. Bicycle wayfinding assists

3-4 shows the existing bike parking locations in

residents, tourists and visitors in finding key

Berkeley. Bicycle parking is generally classified

community destinations by bicycle. Signs may

into short-term or long-term facilities.

also include â&#x20AC;&#x153;distance toâ&#x20AC;? information, which displays mileage to community destinations, as seen below.

Short-term bicycle parking refers to traditional bike racks which may be located on public or private property. Bike racks serve people who need to park their bikes for relatively short durations, approximately two hours or less.

Existing Bicycle Boulevard wayfinding in Berkeley

Short-term bicycle parking does not provide additional security, so locked bicycles and their accessories exposed to potential theft or vandalism. However, short-term bike racks are more numerous and often more conveniently located near a destination. Short-term parking should be within constant visual range of a building or destination or located in welltraveled pedestrian areas to deter theft or vandalism. Within Berkeley there are over 1,300 on-street bike racks (providing over 2,600 spaces). Bicycle Parking Corrals are groups of on-street bike racks that make efficient use of limited

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

space where bicycle parking is in high demand.

3-10

Corrals typically consist of five bicycle racks lined in a row which typically accommodate ten bicycles in a space otherwise occupied by one to two on-street motor vehicle parking spaces. Berkeley currently has seven bike corrals providing 70 spaces. Berkeley residents, local employees, and business and property owners

FINAL PLAN

can request a bike corral through the City’s Bike

LONG-TERM PARKING

Allows long-distance commuters the security of mind to store their bikes without worry of theft.

• Enclosed Bike Cages. A fenced enclosure

Corral Program. Requests are evaluated by City

containing multiple bike racks. Entry to the

staff and, if a location is feasible, the location is

enclosure is secured with a lock or key code,

added to the City’s bicycle rack request list for

but within the cage, bicycles are exposed and

installation as resources allow.

secured to racks with the owner’s own lock.

Long-term bicycle parking is the most secure form of parking and is ideal for individuals who need to park their bikes for more than a few hours or overnight. Long-term bike parking requires more space than short-term racks, may be located farther away from the ultimate destination, and is generally more costly due to added security or space requirements. Longterm parking can consist of: • Bike Lockers. Fully enclosed and generally weather-resistant space where a single bicycle can be parked, secured by key or electronic lock. Bike lockers within Berkeley are located at Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, the Berkeley Amtrak station, and the UC Berkeley campus. These lockers utilize the BikeLink system, which is an electronic payment card that allows individuals to park in any available locker and pay a nominal hourly fee ($0.05 per hour).

Cages can be outside (ideally with a roof for weather resistance), or located inside building areas such as parking garages or utility rooms. Because contents are visible through the cage and bikes inside are accessible, the security of a bike cage is dependent on managing who has access to the entry key or code. Bike cages are most appropriate for closed environment such as a business, office building, or multifamily development with access limited to owners, tenants, or employees. • Bike Room. Bicycle racks located within an interior locked room or a locked enclosure. Similar to a bike cage, but with increased security of being in a fully enclosed room without visibility. As with a bike cage, the security of a bike room is dependent on managing who has access to the entry key or code, and bike rooms are most appropriate where access is limited to owners, tenants, or employees.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

SHORT-TERM PARKING

Allows for quick visits to stores, restaurants, schools, and other daylight-hour operations.

3-11

FINAL PLAN

Figure 3-3: Bicycle Parking Space Comparison

â&#x20AC;˘ Bike Station. A full-service bike parking facility offering controlled access and typically offering other supporting services such as attended parking, repairs, and retail space. The Berkeley Bike Station is located in a retail space on Shattuck Avenue adjacent to the Downtown Berkeley BART station and offers free attended valet parking, 24 hour accesscontrolled bike parking, bike repairs, sales of

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

bike accessories, bike rentals, and classes.

3-12

LY IZZ GR

3,334 TOTAL FINAL PLAN BIKE PARKING SPACES OR 1 SPACE FOR EVERY 34 BERKELEY RESIDENTS

RD ON NY CA

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

WI LD CA T

PE AK

D BLV

SOLANO AVE

! !

! ! ! ! !

WHOLE

! FOODS !

! ! !

BERKELEY

! !

! ! !

TO ST SACRAMEN

RAIL BAY T

! ! ! ! !

AVE ABLO SAN P

MLK JR WAY

STARBUCKS

! ! ! !

! ! !

COLLEGE AVE

! ! !

! !

SHATTUCK AVE

! !

! ! ! ! !!

ADE LINE ST

! !

BERKELEY ! AMTRAK

! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

University of California, Berkeley

! ! ! !! ! !

! !! ! ! ! DOWNTOWN BART ! ! BERKELEY BERKELEY ! ! ! ! ! ! PUBLIC LIBRARY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ST ! RUSSELL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ASHBY ! ! ! AVE BART ! ASHBY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ALCHEMY !

! ! TY AVE! UNIVERSI ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

GUERILLA CAFE

TRIPLE ! ROCK BREWERY !

NORTH BERKELEY BART

! !

BERKELEY MARINA

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

TELEGRAPH AVE

S IN PK HO

! ! ! ! ! ! !

AV E

Tilden Regional Park

CL AR EM ON T

ALBANY

OAKLAND

EMERYVILLE

CAFE

! !!

N 0

1/2 MI

! ! BIKE BIKE RACK RACK

BIKE BIKE CORRAL CORRAL

BIKE BIKE LOCKER LOCKER

BIKE BIKE STATION STATION

EXISTING CONDITIONS

FIGURE 3-4: EXISTING BICYCLE SUPPORT FACILITIES STING BICYCLE SUPPORT FACILITIES

3-13

FINAL PLAN

3.5 UC BERKELEY CONNECTIONS The University of California, Berkeley, located adjacent to downtown, had an enrollment of approximately 37,500 students in 2014. The most recent transportation report from the University states that 49 percent of the UC Berkeley community (students, faculty, and staff) reports using a non-auto mode of transportation to commute to campus.1 The bikeway connections between the UC Berkeley campus and the City’s bikeway network are important for supporting the community’s bicycle mode share of all trip purposes. Figure 3-6 shows the existing bicycle network on and around campus. Bicycle theft is an increasing problem at UC Berkeley. In January 2015, the campus Police Department enacted a “bait bike” program where bikes are equipped with tracking systems that enable officers to locate the bikes after they are stolen. Seven months later, bike thefts are down 45 percent and 31 thieves have been arrested.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

1 Campus Bicycle Plan (2006). University of California, Berkeley. http://pt.berkeley.edu/sites/ default/files/UCB_BikePlanFinal.pdf

3-14

Figure 3-5: Summary of UC Berkeley and bicycles

Bicycle parking at UC Berkeley.

Henry St

FINAL PLAN Rose St

ALTHOUGH THE UC BERKELEY CAMPUS HAS MANY ACCESS POINTS, NOT ALL CONNECT WITH CITY BIKEWAYS

Cedar St

Oxford St

Walnut St

Shattuck Ave

Virginia

d yR yle Ga

Foothill Student Housing

Ave Hearst

The Greek Theatre

Memorial Glade Moffitt Undergraduate Doe Library Memorial

y Ave Universit

Library

Valley Life Sciences Building

t Center S

Sather Gate

Haas School of Business

Hearst Memorial Gym

Recreational Multicultural Sports Zellerbach Community Edwards Facility Hall Center Stadium

Downtown Berkeley BART

Chemistry Department

P i ed m o

Witter Field

Ave College

St Bowditch

Telegraph Ave

Milvia St

ay Dwight W

Dana St

Way

California Memorial Stadium

School of Law

Way Bancroft Channing

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

N 0

1/4 MI

FIGURE 3-6: EXISTING BIKEWAYS, UC BERKELEY CAMPUS CONNECTIONS PRIMARY CAMPUS ACCESS POINTS

PAVED PATH [1A] STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

SIGNAGE-ONLY [3A] SHARROWS [3C] BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E] CYCLETRACK [4A]

BART STATION 3-15

FINAL PLAN

3.6 LAND USE PATTERNS The Berkeley Bicycle Plan will support Berkeley’s

3.6.1 Communities of Concern

Priority Development Areas (PDAs), the areas

As part of the San Francisco Bay Area’s long-

where the City plans to focus development

range integrated transportation and land-use/

into denser, mixed land-use areas along

housing strategy, Plan Bay Area, the Association

Primary Transit Routes, shown in Figure 3-7.

of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the

In conjunction with improved transit service,

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

quality bicycle infrastructure within PDAs is

(MTC) analyzed the distribution of benefits and

intended to offer improved alternatives to

burdens that would result from implementation

driving. The existing and planned land uses in

of the region’s preferred planning scenario. To

Berkeley have informed the recommendations

conduct this analysis, ABAG and MTC, along with

of the Plan in an effort to maximize the number

extensive input from the Equity Working Group

of residents who will have access to bicycle

and other stakeholders, identified the location of

infrastructure.

“communities of concern.” These communities included four or more of the factors listed in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6: Community of Concern Factors and Thresholds* PERCENT OF REGIONAL POPULATION

CONCENTRATION THRESHOLD

Minority Population

54%

70%

Low Income (<200% of Poverty) Population

23%

30%

Limited English Proficiency Population

20%

Zero-Vehicle Households

10%

Seniors 75 and Over

10%

Population with a Disability

18%

25%

Single-Parent Families

14%

20%

Cost-Burdened Renters

10%

15%

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FACTOR

3-16

*Appendix A: Detailed Methodology, Plan Bay Area (2013). http://planbayarea.org/pdf/Draft_Plan_Bay_Area/Appendices_to_Draft_ Equity_Analysis_Report.pdf

e Ke ler e Av

BICYCLE ACCESS FOR FINAL PLAN PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS HELPS SHIFT TRAVEL TOWARD LOWER-IMPACT MODES LIKE BICYCLING

Solano Ave Tilden Regional Park

ALBANY

ins

pk Ho

Cedar St

UC BERKELEY

nt Av e

Telegraph A ve

are

Ave

College Ave

Sacramento

ve blo A

a San P

Ashby

ne S t

BERKELEY

Ade li

Ave

Shattuck Ave

g Jr Way Martin Luther Kin

y Universit

d yR yle Ga

OAKLAND EMERYVILLE

Ave Alcatraz

1/2 MI

FIGURE 3-7: LAND USE AND PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT LAND USE INTENSITY

EXISTING BIKEWAY NETWORK PAVED PATH [1A] UNPAVED PATH [1B]

PARK/REC

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS I

LOW DENSITY II

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK

HIGH DENSITY +LOW MIX USE IV

1/2 MI

RAILROAD

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A] UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

MED DENSITY III

COMMERCIAL + HIGH MIX USE V

BART STATION SIGNAGE-ONLY [3A] SHARROWS [3C] AMTRAK STATION INDUSTRIALVI BIKE BOULEVARD [3E]

I - THE DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA CALLS FOR MORE INTENSE, MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT NEAR BART AND AC TRANSIT HUBS AS PART OF A LONG-TERM STRATEGY TO ENCOURAGE NON-AUTOMOBILE-BASED GROWTH PATTERNS II - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1), LIMITED TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1A), SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (R-1H), SPECIFIC PLAN (SP), ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY - RESIDENTIAL (ES-R), UNCLASSIFIED (U), RESTRICTED TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2), RESTRICTED TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (R-2H), RESTRICTED MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2A), RESTRICTED MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (R-2AH), III - MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTRIAL (R-3), MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (R-3H)

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

IV - MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-4), MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (R-4H), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-5), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (R-5H), RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY SUBAREA (R-S), RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY SUBAREA HILLSIDE (R-SH), RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE SUBAREA (R-SMU), MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL (MUR) V - GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-1), C-DMU BUFFER, C-DMU CORE, C-DMU OUTER CORE, C-DMU CORRIDOR, C-DMU BUFFER, ELMWOOD COMMERICAL (C-E), NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-N), NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL HILLSIDE (C-NH), NORTH SHATTUCK COMMERCIAL (C-NS), NORTH SHATTUCK COMMERCIAL HILLSIDE (C-NSH), SOUTH AREA COMMERCIAL (C-SA), SOLANO AVENUE (C-SO), TELEGRAPH AVENUE COMMERCIAL (C-T), WEST BERKELEY COMMERCIAL (C-W) VI - MANUFACTURING (M), MIXED MANUFACTURING (MM), MIXED USE - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (MULI)

3-17

FINAL PLAN

corridors. See Figure 3-8 for a map of Berkeleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

communities of concern were concentrated in

communities of concern. The proposed bikeway

south Berkeley near UC Berkeley and the Adeline

network should include particular consideration

Street corridor as well as west Berkeley around

of how the projects will benefit and burden

the San Pablo Avenue and University Avenue

these communities. R A

D BLV

With the City of Berkeley, the identified

AV E

IN AR M

E AV

A NA D SE A

TON LING

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

EN CO LU SA

VE MO NTER EY A

CEDAR ST

AV E CL AR EM ON T

ST DEAKIN

ST TREMONT

ADE LINE ST

PIEDMONT AVE

HILLEGASS AVE

COLLEGE AVE

DANA ST

FULTON ST

MILVIA ST

SHATTUCK AVE

KING ST

ST 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ

MLK JR WAY

TO ST SACRAMEN

AY ST MURR

IA ST CALIFORN

MABEL ST

AVE ABLO SAN P

RAIL BAY T

AVE ASHBY

ST RUSSELL

H ST BOWDITC

DANA ST

GRANT ST

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

WAY DWIGHT

ST WOOLSEY

OAKLAND TELEGRAPH AVE

T 5TH S

FT WAY BANCRO

NG WAY CHANNI

EMERYVILLE

L NIA EN NT CE

CENTER ST

Y AVE UNIVERSIT

AVE HEINZ

EY YL GA

BERKELEY

E ST DELAWAR

ON ST ADDIS

University of California, Berkeley

OXFORD ST

ST VIRGINIA

JOSEPHINE ST

T 6TH S

ACTON ST

ST AN AN CH BU

ROSE ST AN ST GILM

EUCLID ST

T SS IN PK HO

Tilden Regional Park

SPRUCE ST

WALNUT ST

SUT TER

ALBANY

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

SOLANO AVE

E IN AV MAR

E ST AV HEAR

E AV

1/2 MI

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FIGURE 3-8: MTC COMMUNITIES OF CONCERN

BERKELEY COMMUNITY OF CONCERN PAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A]

SIGNAGE-ONLY [3A]

UNPAVED PATH [1B]

UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

SHARROWS [3C] BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK

PARK/REC

3-18

NON-BERKELEY COMMUNITY OF CONCERN

CYCLETRACK [4A]

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

FINAL PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Page intentionally left blank.

3-19

FINAL PLAN

3.7 EXISTING PROGRAMS Bicycle education, encouragement, and enforcement programs are an integral part of a bicycle-friendly city. The City of Berkeley supports and participates in bicycling education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs, which are described below. Program recommendations will be included in Chapter 6.

3.7.1 Safe Routes to School Alameda County Safe Routes to School (SR2S) is a program of the Alameda County Transportation Commission that encourages students to get to school using active or shared forms of transportation including bicycling, walking and carpooling. The SR2S program funds and supports a variety of bicycle and pedestrian safety education activities, encouragement events, and school outreach and coordination. Program services are offered free for enrolled schools, and the program currently serves approximately 170 schools across Alameda County. Bicycle-specific programming within SR2S includes bike rodeos for grades K-5, a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Drive Your Bikeâ&#x20AC;? cycling skills program for middle school students, and the BikeMobile van which offers mobile bicycle repairs at schools and community events. Multiple Berkeley schools participate in the Alameda County SR2S

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

program each year.

3-20

Alameda County SR2S programs use different educational and encouragement tactics depending on the grade level.

FINAL PLAN

3.7.2 Bicycle Safety Education

3.7.3 Bike to Work Day

The Alameda County Transportation

Each year, the City of Berkeley participates in

Commission administers a countywide Bicycle

the Bay Area’s Bike to Work Day activities. As

Safety Education program which includes

bicycling has grown in popularity in the region,

various classes and workshops promoting safe

the event has continued to attract more and

cycling skills. These events include: Traffic Skills

more residents and commuters. Berkeley’s 2015

101 classes, road riding class workshops, family

Bike to Work Day energizer station allowed

cycling workshops, and bike rodeos. Classes are

commuters to test a temporary protected

held throughout Alameda County.

bikeway. In 2015 and 2016, and the City hosted

Bike East Bay, which is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting bicycling as an everyday means of transportation and recreation for communities in the Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, also works with the City of Berkeley to host and coordinate education and encouragement activities and events in the City.

major post-work celebrations by closing down a segment of Derby Street east of Milvia for live music, food trucks, and recognition of this year’s Bike Friendly Business and Bike Commuters of the Year awards. Outreach for the Bicycle Plan update was conducted at both the 2015 and 2016 Bike to Work Day celebration events.

3.7.4 Bicycle Registration and Reporting Theft The City of Berkeley Police Department does not offer any means of bicycle registration, but refers residents to www.bikeindex.org which is used by other Bay Area bike owners. This free website allows bicycle owners to register their bicycle, transfer ownership, and list a stolen bicycle. In the event that a bicycle is lost or offers an online portal for reporting theft.

Residents and visitors biked through a temporary protected bikeway on Milvia Street during Bike to Work Day 2015

EXISTING CONDITIONS

stolen, the City of Berkeley Police Department

3-21

FINAL PLAN

Signs for Walk Bikes on Sidewalk, Ride Bikes on Street pilot program

3.7.5 Walk Bikes on Sidewalk, Ride Bikes on Street Pilot Program In 2003, the City of Berkeley implemented a pilot program to attempt to increase public safety and reduce conflicts between people

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

walking, bicycling, and driving. The project’s

3-22

goal was to better inform people walking, bicycling, and driving that the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) and the California Vehicle Code require bicycles be walked on the sidewalk and bicycles ridden on the street must go in the direction of motor vehicle traffic (unless in a contraflow bicycle lane).

The Shattuck Avenue corridor between University Avenue and Kittredge Street in downtown Berkeley was the pilot area. The program included mounted traffic signs (shown above), sidewalk stencils at curb ramps, posters, and police enforcement. The “Walk Bikes on Sidewalk, Ride Bikes on Street” Pilot Program was developed by the Transportation Division of the City of Berkeley’s Public Works Department in conjunction with the Berkeley Police Department, the Bicycle and Pedestrian subcommittees of the Transportation Commission, and the Commission on Aging and Disability. The pilot program ended in 2004.

FINAL PLAN

3.7.6 Community Bike Shops

3.7.7 Helmet Distribution

Street Level Cycles and Biketopia Community

The Berkeley Health and Human Services

Workshop are two community bicycle retails

Department partnered with the Berkeley Police

shops that offer full-service bike repair, classes

Department to offer free helmets for children

for do-it-yourself repair, and bike education

as a means of encouraging children to wear

programs. The City of Berkeley donates all

helmets while bicycling. Between 1995 and

abandoned bicycles to local community bike

2011, over 3,000 helmets were distributed. The

shops for use in youth education programs.

helmet distribution program ended due to a lack of continued grant funding and staff time to

EXISTING CONDITIONS

administer the activities.

3-23

NEEDS ANALYSIS

FINAL PLAN

The needs of people bicycling within Berkeley are diverse and dependant on an individuals’ level of experience, comfort, and confidence, to name a few factors. To understand the needs of people bicycling in Berkeley, this chapter examines a number of data sources including: • Bicycle counts of the number of people bicycling at selected locations on the Berkeley bikeway network, collected annually • Estimated bicycle trips of the number of residents who bicycle to work, school, shopping, and other nonrecreational trips • Bicycle-related collisions to understand locations potentially in need of bicycle related improvements • Community input on challenges to bicycling in Berkeley gathered from public outreach events and the project website • The “Four Types of Cyclists” typologies applied to people who bicycle in Berkeley based on a citywide resident survey • Level of Traffic Stress analysis to identify locations within the existing street network that may attract or deter people • Bicycle demand analysis to identify existing and potential origin and destination locations for people riding bicycles • Gap analysis to identify potential missing links in the citywide bikeway network

NEEDS ANALYSIS

from riding bicycles in Berkeley

4-1

FINAL PLAN

4.1. CENSUS DATA United States Census data provides an overall

Table 4-1 shows the commute mode share as

context for bicycling activity in Berkeley. The

reported in the 2014 ACS five-year estimates.

US Census American Community Survey (ACS)

Based on this multi-year sample, Berkeley has

commute data is a consistent source for tracking

the fourth highest commute mode share of any

long-term journey-to-work commute trends.

city in the United States with 8.5 percent of

However, the Census only collects data on the

residents commuting by bicycle to work. Table

primary mode that Berkeley residents use to

4-2 shows the percentage of commute trips

travel to work, and does not count residents who

by bicycle for the top ten United States cities,

use a bicycle as part of their commute (linking

according to the 2014 ACS five-year estimates.

to a longer transit trip, for example). The Census count also excludes trips made for recreation, to run errands, or to commute to school. Census data, therefore, only tracks a portion of the total bicycle trips in Berkeley.

Table 4-1: Mode Share for Work Commute (2014 ACS, 5-Year) MODE

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Bicycle

4-2

PERCENTAGE

8.5%

Car, truck, or van

42.7%

Public Transportation (excluding taxicab)

20.8%

Walked

16.2%

Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means Worked at home

1.4% 10.4%

FINAL PLAN

Table 4-2: Top US Bicycle Cities, Commute Trips by Bicycle (2014 ACS, 5-Year) TOTAL COMMUTE BY BICYCLE

POPULATION

Davis, CA

21.8%

66,093

Boulder, CO

10.1%

102,002

Palo Alto, CA

9.0%

65,998

Berkeley, CA

8.5%

115,688

Somerville, MA

5.3%

77,560

Cambridge, MA

6.9%

106,844

Portland, OR

6.3%

602,568

Eugene, OR

7.7%

158,131

Fort Collins, CO

6.5%

149,627

Santa Barbara, CA

6.0%

89,669

NEEDS ANALYSIS

CITY

4-3

FINAL PLAN

4.2 BICYCLE COUNTS The City of Berkeley has been conducting

Counts have been conducted at the following

bicycle counts along the bikeway network

ten intersections located along the bikeway

annually since 2000. The City’s bicycle counts

network:

supplement the ACS data, which collects data on the primary mode of travel to work on an

• Bowditch & Channing

ongoing basis but does not consider those who

• Colusa & Marin

use a bicycle as only a part of their commute

• Hillegass & Ashby

trip, for recreation, or to run errands. Following national best practices, trained volunteers conduct manual counts during the

• Milvia & Channing • Milvia & Hearst

afternoon peak period from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm

• MLK & Russell

on midweek days (Tuesday, Wednesday, and/

• Ninth & University

or Thursday) during the fall season. At each location, observers count bicyclists as they enter the intersection and note their movement (left turn, right turn, or straight through) as well as helmet use, sidewalk riding, and observed

• Spruce & Rose • Telegraph & Woolsey • Virginia & California

gender of the rider to the degree possible given

Manual counts were conducted at select

the limitations of observational counts.

locations from 2000 to 2005 and consistently at all ten locations from 2009 to 2015. Due to staff shortages, limited or no counts were conducted from 2006 to 2008. Bicycle counts have been conducted at additional locations in various years, but the ten intersections listed above form the core subset of ongoing annual count locations. Having the same combination of

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

intersections and data collection methods across

4-4

consecutive years allows for effective analysis of changes and trends in bicycle volumes and behaviors in the city.

FINAL PLAN

The City began manual counts at three

Table 4-3 shows the manual bicycle counts

additional locations in 2015:

collected at all locations and years since 2000. Overall, the average number of bicyclists at the

• 9th St Path

ten intersections has increased over the years, as

• West St Path & Virginia

shown in Figure 4-1.

• Hearst & Oxford

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

224

258

214

229

272

187

296

305

254

274

216

308

268

Hillegass & Ashby

116

105

114

138

160

144

159

125

164

Milvia & Channing

344

275

336

294

312

469

510

531

536

528

573

536

Milvia & Hearst

302

356

350

337

290

230

402

343

436

403

460

419

MLK & Russell

110

115

119

113

289

240

261

280

306

288

252

Ninth & University

110

107

152

146

150

135

149

146

145

227

187

214

212

194

225

184

108

140

166

202

175

204

229

Avg. of 10 intersections

114

132

126

120

138

126

194

219

217

229

225

246

229

Total of 10 intersections

570

1,321

1,390

1,197

1,474

1,453

1,935

2,185

2,165

2,286

2,247

2,457

2,291

116

113

105

Hearst & Oxford

284

9th Street Path

153

Virginia & West St Path

160

600

1,383

1,449

1,313

1,565

1,566

2,040

2,185

2,165

2,286

2,247

2,457

2,888

INTERSECTION Bowditch & Channing Colusa & Marin

Spruce & Rose Telegraph & Woolsey Virginia & California

California & Russell

Grand total

NEEDS ANALYSIS

2000

Table 4-3: Total Counted Bicyclists, 2-Hour Evening Peak Period, 2000-2015

4-5

FINAL PLAN

Figure 4-2 shows the existing bicycle counts at

The following subsections describe trends

various locations in Berkeley. The counts indicate

regarding bicyclist gender, helmet use, and

that, between 2005 and 2015, there has been a

sidewalk riding based on information gathered

58 percent increase of people bicycling at the

during the annual counts.

ten selected intersections.

Figure 4-1: Change in Annual Average Bicycle Counts, 2000-2015 250

200

150

100

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

2000

4-6

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

LY IZZ GR

PE AK

D BLV

AV E

ST WOOLSEY

184 (+27%)

TELEGRAPH AVE

ADE LINE ST

PIEDMONT AVE

COLLEGE AVE

MO NTER EY A

ST 65TH Z AVE ALCATRA

164 (+56%)

ST DEAKIN

153*

ST RUSSELL

T ST TREMON

AVE ASHBY

268 (+43%) HILLEGASS AVE

252 (+123%)

FULTON ST

MLK JR WAY

TO ST SACRAMEN

IA ST CALIFORN

MABEL ST

EMERYVILLE

BERKELEY MILVIA ST

WAY DWIGHT

DANA ST

G WAY CHANNIN

AVE ABLO SAN P AY ST MURR

536 (+72%)

FT WAY BANCRO

SHATTUCK AVE

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

RAIL BAY T

AVE HEINZ

R LD NIA EN NT E C

CENTER ST

TY AVE UNIVERSI

150 (+83%)

University of California, Berkeley

284*

EY YL GA

T 5TH S

ON ST ADDIS

419 (45%)

ST VIRGINIA

AVE HEARST

E ST DELAWAR

E ST AV HEAR

CEDAR ST

OXFORD ST

T 6TH S

160*

229 (+112%)

60 (-18%)

JOSEPHINE ST

ST AN AN CH BU

ROSE ST

AN ST GILM

EUCLID ST

WALNUT ST

T SS IN PK HO

SPRUCE ST

SUT TER

DA ME THE ALA

Tilden Regional Park

OAKLAND

AV E

E IN AV MAR

ALBANY

E AV

29 (-24%)

SOLANO AVE

IN AR M

E AV

A NA D SE A

TON LING

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

BETWEEN 2005 AND 2015 (1,453 TO 2,291 BICYCLISTS)

EN CO LU SA

CL AR EM ON T

THEFINAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF PLAN BICYCLISTS DURING THE 2-HOUR EVENING PEAK PERIOD INCREASED 58%

RD ON NY CA

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

WI LD CA T

N 0

1/2 MI

FIGURE 4-2: BICYCLE COUNTS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS BIKES PER 2-HOUR PEAK PERIOD [2015]

29 to 60

61 to 284

285 to 536

*NEW 2015 COUNT LOCATION

PAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A]

SIGNAGE-ONLY [3A]

UNPAVED PATH [1B]

UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

SHARROWS [3C] BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK

PARK/REC

CYCLETRACK [4A]

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

4-7

FINAL PLAN

4.2.1. Gender The gender of people bicycling has remained

This is reflected in the observations of bicyclist

consistent between 2009 and 2015 (see

gender in Berkeley, with the lowest proportion

Figure 4-3). In 2015, 63 percent of bicyclists

of women bicycling occurring at Spruce Street

were observed to be male (1,441 out of 2,291

and Rose Street (22 percent) and Hearst Avenue

bicyclists) which is almost identical to the 62

and Oxford Street (28 percent), streets with

percent of bicyclists who were observed to be

limited bicycle accommodations. The highest

male in 2009. Recent research suggests that

proportion of women bicycling occurred at

women may have a greater perception of safety

Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and Russell Street

concerns for streets without bicycle facilities1.

(41 percent), Colusa Avenue and Marin Avenue (41 percent), and Milvia Street and Channing

1 Baker, L. 2009 - “How to get more bicyclists on the road: To boost urban bicycling, figure out what women want,” Scientific American Magazine, October 16, 2009; Twaddle, H., et al., 2011 - Latent bicycle commuting demand and effects of gender on commuter cycling and accident rates, Transportation Research Record, 2190/2010, 28-36; Reeves, H. 2012 - “Spokes & soles // As infrastructure improves, more Twin Cities women bike,” Southwest Journal, 11 June 2012; Akar, G., Fischer, N., and Namgung, M. 2013 - Bicycling Choice and Gender Case Study: The Ohio State University, Int. J. of Sust. Trans., Volume 7, Issue 5.

Way (40 percent), streets with more robust bicycle infrastructure.

Figure 4-3: Bicyclist gender at 10 selected intersections (2009-2015) 100%

80%

37%

35%

37%

38%

37%

62%

63%

65%

63%

62%

63%

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

60%

40%

20%

MALE

4-8

FEMALE

FINAL PLAN

4.2.2. Helmet Usage In 2015, 72 percent of observed bicyclists at the ten selected intersections were wearing a helmet (1,649 of 2,291 bicyclists). While the percent of bicyclists wearing helmets has fluctuated since counts began in 2009, the overall trend has been a steady 16 percent increase between 2009 and 2015 (see Figure 4-4). The intersections with the greatest observed helmet use between 2009 and 2015 were Spruce Street at Rose Street (80 to 90 percent) and Marin Avenue at Colusa Avenue (76 to 95 percent).

Figure 4-4: Helmet use at 10 selected intersections (2009-2015) 80%

60%

56% 44%

40%

60%

37%

66%

34%

71%

70%

72%

61%

39% 29%

30%

28%

2009

HELMET

2010

NO HELMET

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

NEEDS ANALYSIS

20%

4-9

FINAL PLAN

4.2.3. Sidewalk Riding Between 2009 and 2015, the number of people riding their bicycles on the sidewalk instead of in the street was low relative to the total number of bicyclists observed at the 10 selected intersections, remaining consistently between four and five percent of all observed bicyclists. This is much lower than 16 percent observed in 20001. However, observations at the intersection of 9th Street and University Avenue revealed that 15 percent of bicyclists rode on the sidewalk, with most of the sidewalk riding taking place on University Avenue, an arterial street with many activity centers and no bicycle facilities (see Figure 4-5).

1 Observations of sidewalk riding in 2000 included only five intersections instead of the ten intersections tracked between 2009-2015 (Bowditch and Channing, Hillegass and Ashby, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Russell, 9th and University, and Telegraph and Woolsey).

Figure 4-5: Observed Sidewalk Riding

4-10

Percent of Bicyclists Riding on Sidewalk

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

16%

15%

14%

12%

10%

8% 7%

3% 2%

BOWDITCH & CHANNING

COLUSA & MARIN

HILLEGRASS MILVIA & & ASHBY CHANNING

MILVIA & HEARST

MLK & RUSSELL

NINTH & UNIVERSITY

SPRUCE & ROSE

TELGRAPH VIRGINIA & & WOOLSEY CALIFORNIA

FINAL PLAN

4.2.4. Automated Counters In addition to the ten selected intersections, 24-hour automated count data was collected along two paths: the West Street Path near Virginia Street and the 9th Street Path near the south Berkeley city limits. While manual bicycle counts provide a snapshot of bicycling on a single day, automated counters provide a continuous stream of ridership data to identify daily, monthly, and yearly trends. The automated counters are not able to distinguish between bicyclists and pedestrians; therefore, separate modal split factors were developed through manual observations of the count locations. On average, the West Street Path near Virginia Street experiences just over 300 people bicycling per day and the 9th Street Path near the south Berkeley city limits experience almost 700 bicyclists per day (See Table 4-4).

WEST STREET PATH

9TH STREET PATH

Total Annual Bike/Ped

197,903

344,527

Total Annual Bike

108,253

252,194

Monthly Average

9,634

7,700

317

691

113

Daily Average Annual Average PM Peak (4-6 PM)

NEEDS ANALYSIS

Table 4-4: Interpolated Bike Counts at Selected Path Locations (October 2014 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; September 2015)

4-11

FINAL PLAN

4.3. BICYCLE DEMAND A two-part bicycle demand analysis was conducted to provide a more accurate estimate of total bicycling in Berkeley as well as the geographic distribution of existing and potential bicycle trips.

Amtrak, assuming that five percent of transit patrons use bicycles to access the station and/or their destination Based on this model, there are an estimated

The first part of the bicycle demand calculation

made by Berkeley residents. This number

was run using additional Berkeley-specific

includes people who bike for work, errands,

travel data from the ACS, the Alameda County

personal trips, and school trips. It does not

Safe Routes to School Program, and a recent

account for purely recreational trips. Together

UC Berkeley travel survey. The demand model

with the ACS commute data, as well as the City

inputs are outlined below, and the results and

of Berkeley’s ongoing bicycle count data, this

• Number of bicycle commuters, derived from the ACS • Work at home bicycle mode share • Number of those who work from home and likely bicycle (derived from assumption that five percent of those who work at home make at least one bicycle trip daily) • Bicycle to school mode share: »» Number of students biking to school, derived from multiplying the K-8 student population by the Alameda County bicycle CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

»» Number of people who bicycle to BART or

4.3.1. Total Daily Bicycle Trips

full list of data sources are shown in Table 4-5:

4-12

• Number of those who bicycle to transit:

to school average rate of four percent

37,069 total daily bicycle transportation trips

analysis can be used to track citywide bicycle use and demand in Berkeley over time.

FINAL PLAN

Table 4-5: Interpolated Bike Counts at Selected Path Locations (October 2014 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; September 2015) FIGURE

CALCULATION AND SOURCE

Existing number of bike-to-work commuters

4,640

Existing bike-to-work mode share

8.5%

2014 ACS, 5-Year Estimates

54,583

2014 ACS, 5-Year Estimates

Existing employed population Existing number of work-at-home bike commuters Existing work-at-home mode share Existing employed population

284

Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share

Employed persons multiplied by work-at-home mode share. Assumes 5% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle trip

10.4%

2014 ACS, 5-Year Estimates

54,583

2014 ACS, 5-Year Estimates

Existing transit bicycle commuters

568

Existing transit-to-work mode share

21.0%

Existing employed population

54,183

Existing school children bike commuters

278

Existing school children bicycling mode share

4.0%

Existing school children, ages 5-14 (grades K-8th)

6,938

Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 5% of transit riders access transit by bicycle (Average of BART and AC Transit bike access volumes - BART Bicycle Plan Modeling Access to Transit (2012) and Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan (2012)) 2014 ACS, B08301 5-Year Estimates 2014 ACS, 5-Year Estimates School children population multiplied by school children bike mode share Alameda County SR2S Program (Berkeley elementary and middle school only) 2014 ACS, S0101 5-Year Estimates

Existing college/graduate bike commuters

12,778

College/graduate student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share

Existing estimated college/graduate bicycling mode share

34.0%

UC Berkeley 2014 (includes graduate students who live in and outside of Berkeley)

Existing number of college/graduate students in study area

37,581

UC Berkeley 2014 (includes graduate students who live in and outside of Berkeley)

Existing total number of bike commuters

18,548

Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation.

Total daily bicycling trips

37,096

Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)

This is an order-of-magnitude estimate based on available American Community Survey data and does not include recreational trips, nor does it include trips made by people who live in other cities and work or attend school in Berkeley. It can be used as a secondary analysis method to track bicycle usage estimates over time.

NEEDS ANALYSIS

VARIABLE

4-13

FINAL PLAN

Figure 4-6 overlays trips generators and trip

4.3.2. Bicycle Demand Map

attractors into a single composite sketch of

The estimate of daily bicycle trips shown in

bicycling demand in Berkeley: the darker the

Table 4-4 is a useful metric to track over

color, the higher the demand for bicycling.

time; however, for planning purposes it is also important to understand the geographic potential for bicycle trips. Spatial analysis of the proximity and density of trip generators (where people live) and trip attractors (where people work, shop, play, access public transit, and go to school) can help identify areas with high

The current bikeway network is overlaid on the demand map to illustrate how well current bikeways provide coverage and connectivity to high demand areas. The results can be used to identify network gaps and to prioritize bicycle projects in areas of high trip demand.

potential demand for bicycle activity in Berkeley. The list of data inputs is shown in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6: Bicycle Demand Map Inputs DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

• Population Density • % of Bike/Ped Commuters • % of Households Without Vehicles

EMPLOYMENT DATA

• Retail Employment Density • Educational Services Employment Density • Health Care and Social Assistance Employment Density • Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Employment Density

SHOPPING AND RECREATION DATA

• Retail Corridors

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

• Parks

4-14

• Schools • Libraries • Museums TRANSIT DATA

• Bus Stops • Train Stops • Transit Hubs

FINAL PLAN

As shown, the majority of the downtown and major street corridors have high demand for bicycling, including Shattuck Avenue, University Avenue, Sacramento Street (north of Allston Way), Telegraph Avenue, portions of San Pablo Avenue, and the areas around the BART and Amtrak stations. Berkeley’s system of bikeways has historically been developed around a lowerstress residential street Bicycle Boulevard network, with many major streets lacking bikeways. Figure 4-1 shows that the current bikeway network, while providing coverage across most parts of the city, doesn’t directly connect to many of the highest demand areas for bicycling, including commercial street corridors and the perimeter of the UC Berkeley campus. In many cases, only a block or two separates the designated bikeway from the high demand commercial street destinations; however, that “last block” gap can be a significant barrier to residents accessing their destination and choosing to make a trip by bicycle. Last block gaps may force people to ride along high-stress streets without bikeways, and can contribute to unsafe cycling behaviors such as wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding as people seek to take the most direct route to

NEEDS ANALYSIS

their destination.

4-15

3 TRAIL FIRE

EL CERRITO

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

WI LD CA T

IN AR M

E AV

A NA D SE

TON LING

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

AV E

VE RD

CH ST BOWDIT

TELEGRAPH AVE

OAKLAND

CL AR EM ON T

ST WOOLSEY

RD EL N N TU

ST DEAKIN

AV E

PIEDMONT AVE

HILLEGASS AVE

COLLEGE AVE

FULTON ST

MO NTER EY A

AVE ALCATRAZ

T ST TREMON

EMERYVILLE

ST 65TH

ST RUSSELL

KING ST

AY ST MURR

MLK JR WAY

IA ST CALIFORN

TO ST SACRAMEN

MABEL ST

AVE ABLO SAN P

RAIL BAY T

AVE ASHBY

DANA ST

BERKELEY MILVIA ST

WAY DWIGHT

SHATTUCK AVE

G WAY CHANNIN

DANA ST

GRANT ST

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

FT WAY BANCRO

ADE LINE ST

T 5TH S

R LD NIA EN NT E C

CENTER ST

TY AVE UNIVERSI

AVE HEINZ

EY YL GA

AVE HEARST

E ST DELAWAR

University of California, Berkeley

OXFORD ST

ST VIRGINIA

EUCLID ST

CEDAR ST

JOSEPHINE ST

T 6TH S

ACTON ST

ST AN AN CH BU

ROSE ST AN ST GILM

WALNUT ST

T SS IN PK HO

Tilden Regional Park

SPRUCE ST

SUT TER

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

ALBANY

ON ST ADDIS

E AV

SOLANO AVE E IN AV MAR

E ST AV HEAR

PE AK

D BLV

EN CO LU SA

LY IZZ GR

RD ON NY CA

FINAL PLAN

N 0

1/2 MI

FIGURE 4-6: COMPOSITE BICYCLE DEMAND

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

BICYCLE DEMAND PROFILE

4-16

LOW DEMAND

EXISTING BIKEWAYS

HIGH DEMAND

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

FINAL PLAN

4.4. COLLISION ANALYSIS Bicycle-related collisions and collision locations

combines records from all state and local police

in Berkeley were analyzed over the most recent

departments, data varies due to differences in

twelve-year period of available data, 2001-2012.

reporting methods. It is important to note that

A bicycle-related collision describes a collision

the number of collisions reported to SWITRS

involving a bicycle with a second party (e.g.

is likely an underestimate of the actual number

motor vehicle, pedestrian, stationary object) or

of collisions that take place because some

without a second party (e.g., the person riding

parties do not report minor collisions to law

a bicycle has a solo-crash due to slippery road

enforcement, particularly collisions not resulting

conditions or rider error). The term “collision

in injury or property damage. Although under-

location” describes a geographic location where

reporting and omissions of “near-misses”

at least one collision was recorded over the

are limitations, analyzing the crash data can

twelve-year period.

illustrate trends both spatially and in behaviors

from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Report System (SWITRS). Because SWITRS

(motorist and cyclist) or design factors that cause bicycle collisions in Berkeley. A map of bicycle-related collision density from 2001 to 2012 is shown in Figure 4-6.

NEEDS ANALYSIS

Collision data for this report was generated

4-17

3 TRAIL FIRE

KENSINGTON

EL CERRITO

PE AK

! !

! BERKELEY !

MO NTER EY A

! !

! ! !

! !! ! !

ST WOOLSEY

OAKLAND

! !

! ! ! !

RD EL N N TU

ST DEAKIN

T ST TREMON

ST ! 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ

EMERYVILLE

KING ST

! !

MLK JR WAY

TO ST SACRAMEN

IA ST CALIFORN

RAIL BAY T

AY MURR

MABEL ST

! !

PIEDMONT AVE

HILLEGASS AVE

! !

!DWIGHT WAY

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! L ST! ! ! ! RUSSEL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! AVE ! ! ! HEINZ ! ! ASHBY AV!E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ST ! ! !

AVE ABLO SAN P

FULTON ST

G WAY CHANNIN

MILVIA ST

COLLEGE AVE

OFT WAY BANCR! !

DANA ST

SHATTUCK AVE

T 4TH S

! !

AV E

! !!

CENTER ST

CL AR EM ON T

N ST !ISO ! ADD

L NIA EN NT CE

CH ST BOWDIT

UNIV

DANA ST

!HEA!RST AV!E

GRANT ST

! !!

! !

! !HEARST AVE ! ! E ST DELAWAR ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !ERSITY!AVE !

! !

!! ! University of California, Berkeley !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

ST VIRGINIA !

T 9TH S

T 5TH S

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

CEDAR ST

! !

EY YL GA

! !

! ! !

OXFORD ST

T 6TH S

! !! ! ROSE ST ! !!

ADE LINE ST

! !

Tilden Regional Park

EUCLID ST

SPRUCE ST

! !

WALNUT ST

AN ST GILM

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

T SS IN PK O H

JOSEPHINE ST

ACTON ST

ST AN AN CH BU

E AV

! SUT TER

! !

A MED THE ALA

ALBANY

AVE COLUSA

E IN AV MAR

!RIN A M

! ! ! !

TELEGRAPH AVE

! SOLANO AVE

AV E

E AV

TON LING

A NA D SE

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

EN ! COL! US A

D BLV

RD ON NY CA LY IZZ GR

FINAL PLAN

WI LD CA T

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

1/2 MI

FIGURE 4-7: BICYCLE COLLISION DENSITY

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

NUMBER OF BICYCLE-INVOLVED COLLISIONS,

1-3

4-6

7 - 10

11 - 14

15 - 22

PAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A]

SIGNAGE-ONLY [3A]

UNPAVED PATH [1B]

UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

SHARROWS [3C] BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK

4-18

2001 to 2012

PARK/REC

CYCLETRACK [4A]

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

FINAL PLAN

The analysis of reported bicycle-related

finding aligns with public input, which called

collisions can reveal patterns and potential

for improved crossings of Bicycle Boulevards

sources of safety issues, both design and

at major streets.

City of Berkeley with a basis for infrastructure and program improvements to enhance bicycle safety. A list of primary findings is below, and described in the following sections. A more detailed collision analysis is included in Appendix B. • Between 2001 and 2012, there were 1,773 total reported bicycle collisions in Berkeley. • Bicycle-involved collisions were concentrated

• Collisions resulting in severe injuries were concentrated at intersections, particularly along Ashby Avenue, Adeline Street, College Avenue, and Channing Way. • Approximately 50 percent of reported collisions involved bicyclists between the ages of 20 and 39, over representing the Census’ reported total number of residents within this age range by roughly 10 percent. This may be the most common age of people

along roadway segments without bikeway

who bicycle in Berkeley. This finding may

infrastructure near major activity centers

also suggest that targeted programming for

such as commercial corridors, UC Berkeley,

college students and young professionals

and Ashby BART station. This suggests that

could help reduce collisions for which the

people bicycling in Berkeley are willing to ride

person bicycling is at fault.

on routes without bikeway infrastructure if it is the most direct and accessible route to their destination. • On streets with bikeway infrastructure, Milvia

• The most common factors resulting in a bicycle-involved collision were a right-ofway violation, hazardous violation, unsafe speed, and improper turning. Potential

Street had the highest number of total

collision mitigation strategies to address these

collisions between 2001 and 2012, which

violations may include bikeway channelization

suggests that programmatic and design

along major arterials, distracted driving

changes may be necessary to accommodate

programming, additional strategies to

the mix of roadway users along this downtown

slow people riding bicycles on non-Bicycle

Bicycle Boulevard.

Boulevards with steep downhill slopes,

• Along Bicycle Boulevards, the highest density of collisions occurred where the Bicycle Boulevard crossed a major arterial such as Shattuck Avenue, University Avenue, College Avenue, and Martin Luther King Jr Way. This

and improved intersection design. Further definition on these collision factors are included below.

NEEDS ANALYSIS

behavior-related. These findings can provide the

4-19

FINAL PLAN

4.5. PUBLIC OUTREACH The project involved an extensive public

The main themes public input indicated support

engagement process which included two public

for include:

open houses, regular updates to the Bicycle

• Safer crossings at major streets along the

Subcommittee of the Transportation Commission, information tables at nearly a dozen local community events (e.g., farmers’ markets, street fairs), outreach at the 2015 and 2016 Bike to Work Day events, a project website with an ongoing comment page, and a bicycling preference survey.

Bicycle Boulevard network • Designated bikeways along major street corridors, especially those serving downtown and campus area • Physical separation in bikeway design

Over 1,000 comments were received throughout

along major streets, along corridors and at

the process from gathering existing conditions

intersections

through review of the public draft plan document.

• Improved pavement quality along the entire

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

bikeway network

4-20

FINAL PLAN

4.6. BICYCLING PREFERENCE SURVEY As part of the public outreach, a survey was

groups, especially commuters who would be

conducted of Berkeley residents asking about

returning home from work. During the weekday

their interests, current habits, concerns, and

evenings, interviewers were careful to stop

facility preferences around bicycling. The survey

before it became too dark outside so as not to

used address-based random sampling to ensure

appear threatening.

responses were representative of the Berkeley population.1 Survey staff interviewed 660 Berkeley residents between March 2 and March 28, 2015, yielding a margin of error of +/- 4 percent and a confidence level of 95 percent. 2

One goal of the survey was to include UC Berkeley students in the respondent pool, as they compose a large percentage the city’s population. In addition to the interviews with students that occurred as a result of door-to-

The survey was modeled closely after Four

door interviewing, outreach representatives

Types of Bicyclists? Testing a Typology to Better

conducted interviews at several of the

Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential,

university’s dormitories.

a study completed by Professor Jennifer Dill from Portland State University. 3 Surveys were administered door-to-door and were presented on tablet computers which included pictures to better convey different street types and other concepts relevant to the survey.

4.6.1. Categorizing People Who Bicycle in Berkeley To understand the potential demand for bicycling in Berkeley, respondents were sorted into groups based both on their current bicycling

Interviews were conducted during the evening

behavior and their bicycling comfort level on

hours of 4:00 PM through 7:30 PM on weekdays

different facility types and roadway conditions.

and during the afternoon on weekends to ensure

This allowed for comparing responses between

greater participation among all demographic

groups to help reveal which factors affect one’s decision to ride a bicycle, particularly related

2 A 95% confidence interval means that if the same population is sampled on numerous occasions and interval estimates are made on each occasion, the resulting intervals would bracket the true population parameter in approximately 95% of the cases. 3 Dill, J. and N. McNeil. (2012) Four Types of Cyclists? Testing a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential. http://web.pdx.edu/~jdill/Types_of_Cyclists_PSUWorkingPaper. pdf.

to different roadway conditions and bikeway facility types. These categories of bicyclists are described below.

NEEDS ANALYSIS

1 The survey firm Civinomics used the publicly available zoning map of the City of Berkeley to categorize each street based upon its zoning designation. Streets were then randomly selected from each zoning category in proportion to the number of residents who live within each category. Each street within a certain zoning designation had an equal chance of being selected compared to other similarly zoned streets in the same area. Some streets have multiple zoning designations through multiple jurisdictions. In such a case, the street is separated out by designation and jurisdictional area and treated as multiple streets.

4-21

FINAL PLAN

BICYCLING COMFORT LEVEL Bicycling comfort level is based on a

and comparison to other top cycling cities.

classification system originally developed by

Under Geller’s classification, the population

Portland City Bicycle Planner Roger Geller.

of a city can be placed into one of the four

Geller’s “Four Types of Transportation Cyclists”

following groups based on their relationship to

classified the general population of the city

bicycle transportation: “Strong and Fearless,”

into categories of transportation bicyclists by

“Enthusiastic and Confident,” and “Interested

their differing needs and bicycling comfort

but Concerned.” The fourth group are non-

levels given different roadway conditions.

bicyclists, called the “No Way No How” group.

Geller’s typologies have been carried forward into several subsequent studies in cities outside Portland at the national level, and were used in the City of Berkeley analysis for consistency with national best practices

These categories are meant to guide efforts to assess an area’s market demand for bicycling as a means of transportation, such as commuting to work and running errands.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Table 4-7: Four Types of Bicyclists

4-22

TYPE OF BICYCLIST

DESCRIPTION

Strong and Fearless

Enthusiastic and Confident

This group consists of people riding bicycles who are confident riding in most roadway situations but prefer to have a designated facility. Comfortable riding on major streets with a bike lane.

Interested but Concerned

No Way No How

This group comprises residents who simply are not interested at all in bicycling may be physically unable or don’t know how to ride a bicycle, and they are unlikely to adopt bicycling in any way.

FINAL PLAN

4.6.2. Survey Results The survey found that three percent of Berkeley residents are Strong and Fearless bicyclists, 16 percent are Enthusiastic and Confident, 71 percent are Interested but Concerned, and 10

Figure 4-8: Four Types of Bicyclists Strong and Fearless Enthusiastic and Confident

13%

15%

7% 16%

percent fall into the No Way No How category. In other words, 90 percent of Berkeley residents already bicycle or would consider bicycling if the right bikeway facility or roadway conditions were available. That is a larger percentage than any

71%

60%

45%

39%

10%

33%

38%

44%

Berkeley

Portland

Edmonton

Austin

other city that has conducted a similar study, including Portland, as shown in Figure 4-8. In Four Types of Bicyclists? Testing a Typology

Interested but Concerned

to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential, Professor Dill outlines a method for creating a profile of a city’s population based on Geller’s categories. Having done this, planners can then analyze responses to a number of other questions by the different types of bicyclists to better understand the factors that motivate people to bicycle. A respondent’s assignment to one of the four

No Way, No How

groups depended on their answers to how comfortable they would feel bicycling on various hypothetical street scenarios, e.g. a paved path separate from the street, a two lane commercial street with no bikeway, a four lane commercial someone indicated that they would like to bicycle more than they currently do, as well as whether they had bicycled in the last month and whether they were physically able to bicycle also determined how some respondents were sorted.

NEEDS ANALYSIS

street with buffered bicycle lanes, etc. Whether

4-23

FINAL PLAN

Figure 4-9: Bicyclist Level of Comfort

Level of Comfort Participants were asked to rate how comfortable they felt riding in different environments, from a 1 (very comfortable) to a 4 (very uncomfortable). The results are below.* Residents feel the most comfortable biking on this facility

VERY COMFORTABLE

SOMEWHAT UNCOMFORTABLE

SOMEWHAT COMFORTABLE

VERY UNCOMFORTABLE

1 1.1

A four-lane street with a separated bike lane

A two-lane commercial street with a separated bike lane

1.2 1.3 1.4

A paved path separate from the street

A street with two lanes in each direction and a center divider with a separated bike lane

1.5 A two-lane commercial street with a buffered bike lane

1.8 A residential street with Bicycle Boulevard markings

1.9

A quiet, residential street with light traffic

2 A four-lane street with a buffered bike lane

A two-lane commercial street with a bike lane

A street with two lanes in each direction and a center divider with a buffered bike lane

2.7 2.8

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

A two-lane commercial street with â&#x20AC;&#x153;sharrowsâ&#x20AC;?

4-24

A four-lane street with a bike

A street with two lanes in each direction and a center divider with a striped bike lane

3.3

A two-lane commercial shopping street

A street with two lanes in each direction and a center divider

Residents feel the least comfortable biking in this environment

3.6

A four-lane street with faster, heavier traffic

*Level of comfort on bicycle facilities as reported by survey respondents who were identified as Interested but Concerned

FINAL PLAN

4.7. LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED BICYCLISTS IN BERKELEY

Building on the bicycling preference survey and

Seventy-one percent of Berkeley residents were

analysis was conducted for Berkeley’s roadway

classified as Interested but Concerned, which

network. Traffic stress is the perceived sense

means the majority of Berkeley residents would

of danger associated with riding in or adjacent

be willing to bike if the right bikeway facilities

to vehicle traffic; studies have shown that

were provided. Addressing barriers from this

traffic stress is one of the greatest deterrents

group would yield the greatest return on bicycle

to bicycling. The less stressful—and therefore

facility investment.

more comfortable—a bicycle facility is, the

comfort riding on different types of streets, survey results showed that Interested but Concerned bicyclists become significantly more comfortable as separated bicycle facilities were added to roadways. For example, when asked about riding on a two lane commercial shopping street, the Interested but Concerned riders responded that they would be very uncomfortable if there were no bicycle facility, somewhat comfortable if a bicycle lane was added, and very comfortable if there were a bicycle lane separated from traffic by a curb or parked cars. Taken altogether, the Report’s findings indicate the potential for significant ridership growth. With carefully planned infrastructure investments and outreach campaigns that target the needs of the Interested but Concerned group of bicyclists, Berkeley has the potential to experience a substantial increase in bicycle riding.

wider its appeal to a broader segment of the population. A bicycle network will attract a large portion of the bicycling population if it is designed to reduce stress associated with potential motor vehicle conflicts and if it connects people bicycling with where they want to go. Bikeways are considered low stress if they involve very little traffic interaction by nature of the roadway’s vehicle speeds and volumes (e.g., a shared low-traffic neighborhood street) or if greater degrees of physical separation are placed between the bikeway and traffic lane on roadways with higher traffic volumes and speeds (e.g., a separated bikeway or cycletrack on a major street). An LTS Analysis is an objective, data-driven evaluation model which identifies streets with high levels of traffic stress, gaps in the bicycle network, and gaps between streets with low levels of traffic stress. Figure 4-10 shows a summary of LTS analysis factors. More information about the LTS Analysis can be found in Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress.

NEEDS ANALYSIS

Asked to describe their subjective level of

user typologies, a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)

4-25

FINAL PLAN

Figure 4-10: LTS analysis factors

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ANALYSIS Traffic stress is the perceived sense of danger associated with riding in or adjacent to vehicle traffic.

Level of Traffic Stress

Comfortable up to % of Berkeley Residents*

• LOW STRESS

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 3

• SUITABLE FOR ALL AGES & ABILITIES, INCLUDING CHILDREN

• LOW STRESS, WITH ATTENTION REQUIRED • INDICATES TRAFFIC STRESS THAT MOST ADULTS WILL TOLERATE

• MORE STRESSFUL THAN LEVEL 2 • REQUIRES ATTENTION, SUITABLE FOR ADULTS WITH CONFIDENCE TO BICYCLE

• MOST STRESSFUL

LTS 4

• SUITABLE ONLY FOR MOST TRAFFIC-TOLERANT

90%

Types of Cyclists

Interested, But Concerned

79%

16%

Enthusiastic & Conﬁdent

Strong & Fearless

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

*According to the Berkeley Bicycle Plan Public Survey

4-26

The level of traffic stress scores were mapped

an interested but concerned bicyclist. The LTS

to illustrate the low stress connections and gaps

results map approximates the user experience

throughout Berkeley. It is important to note that

for the majority of Berkeley residents, however

people tolerate different levels of stress; a strong

people may have differing opinions of traffic

and fearless bicyclist will feel less stress than

stress depending on their own experiences.

FINAL PLAN

4.7.1. LTS Findings Figure 4-11 shows the LTS results of the major

High-stress intersections are often a result of a

roadways and on-street bicycle network in

bikeway crossing a major roadway where the

Berkeley. Major roadways, such as San Pablo

intersection design or stop-control is insufficient.

Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Way, have

For example, Channing Way, an LTS 2 Bicycle

high LTS scores, indicating they are the most

Boulevard, crosses Sacramento Street, which is a

stressful for people riding bicycles. Many of the

high-volume roadway. Sacramento Street traffic

existing on-street bicycle network segments in

does not stop, and people riding bicycles must

Berkeley consist of relatively low stress streets

traverse multiple lanes of traffic to continue.

that are acceptable for travel by some children

As such, an “Interested but Concerned” cyclist

(LTS 1) and the majority of adults (LTS 2). These

may feel comfortable biking on Channing Way,

are primarily neighborhood street Bicycle

but this journey becomes far more stressful

Boulevards. However, high stress roadways and

upon reaching Sacramento Street. While many

intersections bisect this low stress network and

“enthusiastic and confident” or “interested

create barriers for people who bike along the

but concerned” Berkeley residents endure

Bicycle Boulevards or want to access major

such stressful crossing conditions out of

service and commercial corridors, effectively

necessity, only the three percent of Berkeley

lowering the corridor LTS score and dramatically

residents who identify as “strong and fearless”

reducing comfort.

would actually feel comfortable bicycling on

of 1 or 2 are shown in Figure 4-12. These are the streets on which nearly all types of people should feel comfortable riding bicycles. As shown, Berkeley has good coverage with a network of low stress bikeways. California Street, 9th Street and Hillegass Avenue provide northsouth connections; Virginia Street, Channing Way and Russell Street provide east-west

Channing Way across Sacramento Street. Highstress intersections become impediments for individuals traveling on the bike network, and likely inhibit the 16 percent of “enthusiastic and confident” and the 71 percent of “interested but concerned” residents from biking more frequently, or at all. As is, there are very few continuous low stress segments that provide access entirely across Berkeley.

connections. However, there are gaps in the low

Figure 4-13 shows low stress (LTS 1 and 2)

stress network, including a section on the Milvia

streets and intersections with high stress (LTS

Avenue Bicycle Boulevard, a lack of low stress

4) gaps. This map helps illustrate how low stress

connections north and south of Virginia Street

streets in Berkeley’s on-street network are often

and between Channing Way and Russell Street,

disconnected by high stress roadways and

and surrounding the UCB campus.

intersections. A continuous low stress network is essential for bicyclists of all abilities to travel

NEEDS ANALYSIS

The low stress streets that have an LTS score

easily throughout the street network. 4-27

SPRUSP SPCE RUST CERU CE ST ST

ADE ADEADE LINE LINE LIN ST STE ST

CL CL CL AR AR AR EM EM EM ON ON ON TA TA TA VE VE VE

MO MOMO NTERNTENRTER EY EY EY A A A

TELEGR TELE TEGR LEAV GREH AP AP AP H HEAVE AV

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN 4-28

CORRIDORS CORRIDORS LTS 1 -CORRIDORS ALL AGES AND ABILITIES LTSto1 -90% ALL ABILITIES (Up of AGES BerkeleyAND residents) (Up to of AGES BerkeleyAND residents) 1 -90% ABILITIES LTS 2 - ALL INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED (Up to to 90% of Berkeley Berkeley residents) residents) LTS 2 79% - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED (Up of (Up of Berkeley residents) LTSto2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED 3 79% ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT LTSto3 79% - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT (Up of Berkeley Berkeley residents) residents) 16% of (Up to 16% of Berkeley residents) LTS AND CONFIDENT LTS 3 4 -- ENTHUSIASTIC STRONG AND FEARLESS (Up ofBerkeley Berkeley residents) LTS 416% - STRONG AND FEARLESS (Up to to 3% of residents) (Up of BerkeleyAND residents) LTSto43% - STRONG FEARLESS (Up to 3% of Berkeley residents)

PARK/REC PARK/REC PARK/REC

RAILROAD RAILROAD RAILROAD

24 24 24

N N

FIGURE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS FIGURE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS FIGURE 4-11: LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS

RD RD RD EL EL EL NN NN NN TU TU TU

ST WOOLSEY OAKLAND OAKLAND OAKLAND

AVE AVEE AVE E ELEG LEGLEG COL COL COL

STN ST ST NKI EA DEA DKI DEAKIN

T ST T ST N ONTR O ONT ST EM TREM TREM

ST G ST G STGKIN KINKIN

ST WOOLSEY ST WOOLSEY

N EN AL DR I NT CE ENN T R N LD CE NIA N E NT E C

AVE NT AVE NT NT AVE MOMO MO PIED PIED PIED

STLT STON ST ON LTON FULT FU FU

AVE CK AVE CK CK AVE TTUTTU TTU SHA SHA SHA

Y JR Y WAY WA JR WA JR MLK MLK MLK

ST RUSSELL

ST ST VIAVIA VIA ST MILMIL MIL

ST ST IA ST IA IARN FO FO LIRN LIFO CALI CA CARN

ST RUSSELL ST RUSSELL

STA AN ANA ST DAN DA DST

CENTER ST

AVE AVE ASS ASS ASS AVE LEGLEG LEG STDIST ST HIL HIL TC TCHHIL DIH WTC WH BOW BODI BO

STNT ST NT ST NT GRA GRA GRA

CENTER ST CENTER ST

BERKELEY BERKELEY BERKELEY

AY ST ST MURR 65TH AVE CATRAZ T 65TH S AL AVE ALCATRAZ T 65TH S AVE AZ TR CA AL

RD RD RD N N N YO YO YO AN AN AN TC TC TC CA CA CA ILD ILD ILD W W W

California, Berkeley University of DR California, Berkeley IAL

AVE HEARST

ST STTO ST TO TOEN ENCR EN AM AM CRSA SACR SAAM

AY ST MURR ST AY MURR

ST EL ST EL ABST MAB MEL MAB

EMERYVILLE EMERYVILLE EMERYVILLE

E AVE VEAVLO LO A LO PA NBPSAABN PAB SANSA

AVE HEINZ

AVE ASHBY AVE ASHBY AVE ASHBY

VD VD VD BL BL BL AK AK AK PE PE PE LY LY LY IZZ IZZ IZZ GR GR GR

CEDAR ST

T T T 9TH9STH S9TH S

T T T 4TH4STH S4TH S

RAIL RAIL RAIL BAYBTAY TBAY T

AVE HEINZ E AV HEINZ

Tilden Tilden Regional Regional Park Tilden Park Regional Park

ST VIRGINIA E AVE IA ST INNT CO RG VILE E AVE NT LE CO ST University of VIRGINIA E AVE NT CO LE University of California, Berkeley

AVE HEARST AVE HEARST

E ST ST AV LAWARETY AVE HEAR E DE UNIVERSI ST AV TY AVE HEAR UNIVERSI E AV E ARSST HEO SITY AV N T WAY UNIVER ALLSTON ADDIS ST N AY O W N IS TO D ALLS AD FT WAY BANCRO AY ON ST TON W FT WAY ALLSNC ADDIS BA RO NG WAY CHANNI WAY FT RO NCANNING WAY BACH AY HT WW AY DWIG N NI G WAY CHAN DWIGHT WAY DWIGHT

RD TA D AS R SH STA A D SH A R T AS SVHE AA M VE LO A A E M L O VE L LE AA OM L LE

RD RD RD EY EY EY YL YL YL GA GA GA

ST VIRGINIA ST VIRGINIA ARE ST DELAW STE ST IAAR IN RG VI W DELA

ROSE ST

CEDAR ST CEDAR ST

ST STLID ST LIDLID EUC EUC EUC

AN ST GILM

ST STON ST ONON ACTACT ACT

AN ST GILM AN ST GILM ST ST ST T T T 6TH6STH S6TH S 5TH5TH 5TH

ST ST ST AN AN AN AN AN AN CH CH CH BU BU BU

ST VE INS PK S ST HO KIN P T HO SS IN ROSE ST PK ROSE ST HO

LOS A LOS NGEL AN ES A GEL VE ES A LOS VE AN GEL ES A VE

VE VE VE HA HA HA ET ET ET KI KI KI

80 80

VE VE

RD RD RD ON ON ON BLVBDLVDBLVD NY NY NY CA CA CA

ALBANY ALBANY ALBANY

LY LY LY IZZ IZZ IZZ GR GR GR

SOLANO AVE

ST UCE UCE UCE ST SPRSPR SPRST STFO STRD ST RD FOOX OXFO OXRD STTLNU ST T ST TWA LNU LNU WAWA

E IN AV MAR E IN AV MAR E IN AV R A M

PE A PE K AK PE AK

E AV IN E AR N AV M RI A E M AV IN AR M

ST ST ST SUTST UETRTSEURT TER

Y AY Y AW ENW EN ENWA EG EEGRNEE GRE NR LO LO HN OHO OHLO

CO SUNSET DR COLUS LU A A S V CO A A E LU VE SA AV SOLANO AVE E SOLANO AVE

R R

E E E Y JR Y WAY WA JR WA JR MLK MLK MLK AV AV AV TON TON TON ST STINE ST INE EPHEPH EPH JOSJOS JOSINE LING LING LING A DA DAELD EM A A A LAM LA A A A A A A AME E E E MED MED MEDTH TH TH ALAALA ALA THETHE THE E AVE AV AVSA SAE LUCO LU COLU COSA

SUNSET DR SUNSET DR

FINAL PLAN

WI LD WI CAT LD CA T WI LD CA T

KENSINGTON

EL CERRITO EL CERRITO EL CERRITO

3 3 3 RAILTRAIL TRATIL FIREFIRE FIRE

KENSINGTON KENSINGTON

0 0

1/2 MI 1/2 MI

1/2 MI

INTERSECTIONS INTERSECTIONS LTS 1 - INTERSECTIONS ALL AGES AND ABILITIES LTSto1 -90% ALL ABILITIES (Up of AGES BerkeleyAND residents) (Up to of AGES BerkeleyAND residents) 1 -90% ABILITIES LTS 2 - ALL INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED (Up to to 90% of Berkeley Berkeley residents) residents) LTS 2 79% - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED (Up of (Up to of Berkeley residents) LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED 3 79% ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT LTSto3 79% - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT (Up of Berkeley Berkeley residents) residents) 16% of (Up to 16% of Berkeley residents) LTS AND CONFIDENT LTS 3 4 -- ENTHUSIASTIC STRONG AND FEARLESS (Up ofBerkeley Berkeley residents) LTS 416% - STRONG AND FEARLESS (Up to to 3% of residents) (Up of BerkeleyAND residents) LTSto43% - STRONG FEARLESS (Up to 3% of Berkeley residents)

BART STATION BART STATION BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION AMTRAK STATION AMTRAK STATION

EL CERRITO

WI LD CA T

KENSINGTON

VD RD BLRD ON ON NY NY CA CA LY LY IZZ IZZ GR GR

EL CERRITO

RD RD N N YO YO AN AN TC TC CA CA ILD ILD W W

3 3 TRAIL IRE TRAIL FIRE F

KENSINGTON

FINAL PLAN

WI LD CA T

PE AK

EY YL GA

RD EY YL GA

TELEGRAPTE HLE AVGR E APH AVE

OAKLAND

RD RD EL EL N N N N TU TU

OAKLAND ST WOOLSEY

R LD NIA EN NT E C

AVE MONT AVE PIEDMONT PIED

ST WOOLSEY

AVELEGE AVE COLLEGE COL

AVE LEGASS AVE HILLEGASS HIL H ST H ST BOWDITCBOWDITC

ADE A LINE DELINE ST ST

E NT CE

ST ST DEAKIN DEAKIN

MO M NTER O NTER EY EY A A

ST 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ

ST RUSSELL

FULTON ST FULTON ST

EMERYVILLE

ST RUSSELL

T ST T ST TREMON TREMON

ST 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ

AVE TTUCK AVE SHATTUCK SHA

EMERYVILLE Y ST URRA

MILVIA STMILVIA ST

AVE ASHBY

BERKELEY

KING ST KING ST

AVE ASHBY

University of DR IAL California, Berkeley NN

CENTER ST

Y JR WAY MLK JR WA MLK

TO ST TO ST SACRAMEN SACRAMEN

WAY DWIGHT

University of California, Berkeley

CENTER ST

BERKELEY IA ST IA ST CALIFORNCALIFORN

AVE HEINZ AY ST MURR

MABEL STMABEL ST

G WAY CHANNIN FT WAY BANCRO WAY DWIGHT AY W G CHANNIN

AVE AVE ABLOAN PABLO SAN P S

T 4TH S

RAIL AY TRAIL BAY T B

AVE HEINZ

FT WAY BANCRO

Tilden Regional Park Tilden Regional Park

DANA ST DANA ST DANA ST DANA ST

TY AVE UNIVERSI

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

ON ST ADDIS

AVE HEARST

E E ST ARAV SITY ERW IVLA DE UN

T 9TH S

ON ST ADDIST AVE S HEAR

AVE HEARST

GRANT STGRANT ST

T 5TH S

E ST AV HEAR

CEDAR ST

E AV

EUCLID STEUCLID ST

E ST DELAWAR ST VIRGINIA

CEDAR ST

PE AK

OXFORD ST OXFORD ST

ST T 6TH S 5TH

ST VIRGINIA

ST ROSE ST ROSE ST

ACTON STACTON ST

AN ST GILM

S IN PK HO

STEPHINE ST JOSEPHINE JOS

AN ST GILM

T 6TH S

ST ST AN AN AN AN CH CH BU BU

S VE PKIN HO

E AV

SPRUCE ST SPRUCE ST

ALBANY

IN AR M

WALNUT ST WALNUT ST

AV E

ST ST SUT TER SUT TER

ALBANY

E IN AV MAR

AV E

IN AR M

D BLV

E E AV AV TON INGTON LING L A A MED MED A THE ALA THE ALA

E IN AV MARSOLANO AVE

EN CO A LU SA

AVE AVE COLUSA COLUSA

SOLANO AVE

VE VE A A NA D NA D SE SE

AY AY EENW EENW NE GR NE GR OHLO OHLO

EN CO LU SA

CL CL AR AR EM EM ON ON TA TA VE VE

24 24

N 0

1/2 MI

FIGURE

LOW STRESS NETWORK COVERAGE

FIGURE 4-12: LOW STRESS NETWORK COVERAGE INTERSECTIONS CORRIDORS CORRIDORS LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

INTERSECTIONS LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

4-29

EL CERRITO

WI LD CA T

KENSINGTON

WI LD CA T PE AK

EUCLID ST EUCLID ST EY YL GA

OXFORD STOXFORD ST

University of California, Berkeley

ADE ADE LINE LINE ST ST

EMERYVILLE

RD EL N N TU

ST WOOLSEY

R LD NIA EN NT CE

RD EL N N TU

ST ST DEAKIN DEAKIN

ST WOOLSEY

AVE MONT AVE PIEDMONTPIED

DANA ST DANA ST DANA ST DANA ST

FULTON ST FULTON ST

KING ST

T ST T ST TREMON TREMON

ST RUSSELL

COLLEGE AVE COLLEGE AVE RD EY AVE AVE YL STLEGASS HILLEGASS H ST HHIL GA BOWDITC BOWDITC

University of AL DR NI California, Berkeley EN NT

TELEGRAPHTELEGRAPH AVE AVE

MO MO NTER NTER EY EY A A

Tilden Regional Park Tilden Regional Park

SPRUCE ST SPRUCE ST

ST RUSSELL

AVETTUCK AVE SHATTUCKSHA

BERKELEY

KING ST

EMERYVILLE

MLK JR WAYMLK JR WAY

TO ST TO ST SACRAMENSACRAMEN

ST 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ

BERKELEY IA ST IA ST CALIFORN CALIFORN

MABEL ST MABEL ST

AVE AVE ABLO AN PABLO SAN P S

AVE ASHBY ST 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ

E AV

CENTER ST

MILVIA ST MILVIA ST

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

RAIL AY TRAIL BAY T B

WAY DWIGHT

AVE ASHBY

WALNUT STWALNUT ST

FT WAY BANCRO

PE AK

CENTER ST

AVE HEARST

G WAY CHANNIN

AY ST MURR

CEDAR ST AVE HEARST

OFT WAY NCR BADW IGHT WAY

AVE Y ST HEINZMURRA

SUT TER

ROSE ST CEDAR ST

G WAY CHANNIN

AVE HEINZ

ROSE ST ST

GRANT ST GRANT ST

T 4TH S

T 9TH S

T 5TH S

ON ST ADDIS

TY AVE UNIVERSI

SUT TER

T ST 6TH S5TH

ON ST ADDIS E ST AV HEAR

E ST DELAWAR ST VIRGINIA E ERSITY AV UNIVLA E ST DE WAR

S IN PK HO

ST EPHINE ST JOSEPHINEJOS

ST VIRGINIA

T SS KIN VHEOP

ACTON ST ACTON ST

AN ST GILM

T 6TH S

ST ST AN AN AN AN CH CH BU BU

AN ST GILM

E ST AV HEAR

AVE AVE COLUSA COLUSA

ALBANY

IN AR M

E AV

D BLV

A NA D SE

E IN AV MAR

IN AR M

AV E

A EN CO LU SA SOLANO AVE AV E A E V A IN MAR SOLANO AVE

ALBANY

E E AV AV TON INGTON LING L A A MED MED A THE ALA THE ALA

A NA D SE

AY AY EENW EENW NE GR HLONE GR OHLO O

EN CO LU SA

CL CL AR AR EM EM ON ON TA TA VE VE

FINAL PLAN

D RD BLVRD ON ON NY NY CA CA LY LY IZZ IZZ GR GR

EL CERRITO

RD RD N N YO YO AN AN TC TC CA CA ILD ILD W W

3 3 TRAIL IRE TRAIL FIRE F

KENSINGTON

OAKLAND OAKLAND

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FIGURE 4-13: LOW STRESS NETWORK & INTERSECTIONS WITH HIGH STRESS NETWORK & INTERSECTION GAPS FIGURE LOW STRESS NETWORK & INTERSECTIONS CORRIDORS WITH HIGH STRESS NETWORK & INTERSECTION INTERSECTIONS GAPS

4-30

LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES CORRIDORS LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES INTERSECTIONS LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

NETWORK GAPS LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT GAPSFEARLESS LTS 4 NETWORK - STRONG AND LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT

INTERSECTION GAPS LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT LTS 4INTERSECTION - STRONG ANDGAPS FEARLESS LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT

LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS RAILROAD PARK/REC PARK/REC

RAILROAD

LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS BART STATION AMTRAK STATION BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

FINAL PLAN

4.8. INFORMING THE RECOMMENDATIONS 4.7.2. LTS Conclusion The Level of Traffic Stress results demonstrate the importance of assessing a citywide bikeway not only for connectivity, but also for its ability to serve the diverse needs of its users. Although the current Berkeley bikeway network provides good overall coverage of low stress bikeways through the Bicycle Boulevards, the presence of high-stress gaps (segments and intersections) along these routes likely inhibit many Berkeley residents who identify as “enthusiastic and confident” and “interested but concerned” from bicycling. To serve all types of people riding bicycles, an on-street bikeway network must provide continuous low stress LTS 1 and LTS 2 segments and intersections, from end to end. A single high stress gap on an otherwise low stress facility can deter use. By pinpointing and prioritizing the exact high-stress locations that likely dissuade people riding bicycles, this Plan can focus on identifying the improvements that will bring the high-stress LTS 3 and LTS 4 gaps down to low stress LTS 1 and LTS 2 levels, thereby removing

The findings of the needs analysis chapter in terms of demand, collisions, and particularly the Level of Traffic Stress provide quantitative data that directly inform the project recommendations in the next chapter. This Plan focuses on making improvements to address identified gaps in the network: 1. High-stress gaps occur on the bikeway network where a bikeway segment or intersection has a high-stress score of LTS 3 or LTS 4. On the Bicycle Boulevard network, any bikeway segment or intersection with a score of LTS 2 or above is considered a high-stress gap. The Bicycle Boulevard network is presumed to be a primarily low stress network for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. 2. Bikeway network demand gaps are missing bikeway segments where there is high demand but no existing bikeway. Examples include a neighborhood with a deficiency of bikeway access, or a commercial street that has a density of destinations but lacks a bikeway.

the barriers to bicycling for a larger proportion

NEEDS ANALYSIS

of Berkeley residents.

4-31

FINAL PLAN

Project recommendations in the following chapter focus on making crossing improvements and segment upgrades along the existing LTS 1 and 2 network (primarily Bike Boulevards) to ensure a continuous low stress experience from end-to-end of the facility, as well as upgrading existing higher stress segments of bikeways (primarily Class II bike lanes on major streets) to a lower-stress facility type. Several additional facility segments are recommended CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

in order to provide better network coverage and

4-32

connectivity in high demand areas.

FINAL PLAN

NEEDS ANALYSIS

Page intentionally left blank.

4-33

FINAL PLAN

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NETWORK

FINAL PLAN

This chapter presents the recommended bikeway network, which supports a vision for Berkeley where bicycling is safe, comfortable, and convenient for people of all ages and abilities. Recommendations were guided by the Plan’s goals and policies, a datadriven safety and demand analysis, and extensive community input. Through this process emerged an overarching bikeway network vision: a continuous and connected system of “Low Stress” bikeways that provide safe and comfortable travel for all users and link to all key destinations in Berkeley. Figure 5.1 illustrates the Low Stress Bikeway Network Vision showing how low-traffic bicycle boulevards, separated major-street bikeways and multi-use paths, all with safe intersection crossings, can form a network that 79% of Berkeley’s population would feel comfortable bicycling on. Safety considerations are especially important for parents riding with their children, or for older children riding independently. And in terms of the potential for reducing traffic congestion and helping to achieve the City’s climate action goals, school trips account for a significant portion of morning auto traffic and yet are often less than a mile in length. Therefore it was important that the Low Stress Network connect to as many schools in Berkeley as possible, and allow parents and children within a given enrollment area to have the option of a completely low stress trip from their residence to school. Figure 5.2 illustrates the Low Stress Network in relation to Berkeley’s schools; as shown nearly all the city’s schools are PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

within 1/8 of a mile (approximately 1 block) from a Low Stress facility.

5-1

D BLV

A NA D SE

AV E

Z AVE ALCATRA

EY ST WOOLS

CL AR EM ON T

KING ST

ST MABEL

ADE LINE ST

D ONT BLV CLAREM

WARRING ST NT AVE PIEDMO

COLLEGE AVE

PRINCE ST

N ST HARMO

R LD NIA N E NT CE

ST DEAKIN

VE ASHBY A

R ST WHEELE

ST RUSSELL

CH ST HILLEGASS AVE BOWDIT

DANA ST

FULTON ST

SHATTUCK AVE

AVE HEINZ

T 65TH S

MILVIA ST

MLK JR WAY

BERKELEY

NIA ST CALIFOR

TO ST SACRAMEN

RAIL BAY T

DERBY ST WARD ST

AY ST MURR

FT WAY BANCRO

DERBY ST

ST OREGON

EMERYVILLE

G WAY CHANNIN

MABEL ST

WAY DWIGHT

GRANT ST

ST BONAR

AVE ABLO SAN P

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

FT WAY BANCRO

OXFORD ST

T 5TH S AR DR BOLIV

ER ST PARK

CENTER ST

N ST ADDISO

EY YL GA

T 6TH S

LVD AB RIN MA

Y AVE ERSIT UNIV

University of California, Berkeley

AVE HEARST

TY AVE UNIVERSI

ST VIRGINIA

TELEGRAPH AVE

SAN TA F E CUR AVE TIS S T PERA LTA A VE

MO NTER EY A

JOSEPHINE ST

CEDAR ST

RE ST DELAWA E ST AV HEAR

EUCLID ST

ROSE ST

SPRUCE ST

GILM AN S T

MILVIA ST

WALNUT ST

S IN PK HO

ST VIRGINIA

ON ST ADDIS

FINAL PLAN

SUT TER

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

LIA ST CAME

SON OMA AVE

ACTON ST

VE ELL A CORN

AN ST GILM

E AV IN AR M

T AVE TALBO

ST AN AN CH BU

S AVE KAIN

AV E

SOLANO AVE E IN AV MAR

ALBANY

E AV TON LING

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

EN CO LU SA

OAKLAND

FIGURE 5-1:

LOW-STRESS BIKEWAY NETWORK VISION

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

PAVED PATH

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK

STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]*

CYCLETRACK [4]

PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]*

5-2

D BLV

A NA D SE

Z AVE ALCATRA

EY ST WOOLS

OAKLAND

AV E

ADE LINE ST

N ST HARMO

BLVD CLAREMONT

PRINCE ST

HILLEGASS AVE

PRINCE ST

COLLEGE AVE

DANA ST ST DEAKIN

VE ASHBY A

DERBY ST

R ST WHEELE

T 65TH S

ST RUSSELL

KING ST

ST MABEL

AY ST MURR

TO ST SACRAMEN

AVE HEINZ

NIA ST CALIFOR

MABEL ST

DERBY ST A W RD ST

FULTON ST

WAY DWIGHT

N ST OREGO

EMERYVILLE

G WAY CHANNIN MILVIA ST

ST BONAR AVE ABLO SAN P

RAIL BAY T

ER ST PARK

FT WAY BANCRO SHATTUCK AVE

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

AR DR BOLIV

FT WAY BANCRO

L NIA EN NT E C

CH ST BOWDIT

MLK JR WAY

GRANT ST

BERKELEY

University of California, Berkeley

WARRING ST NT AVE PIEDMO

CENTER ST

T 5TH S

LVD AB RIN MA

E ST AV HEAR

ON ST ADDIS

Y AVE ERSIT UNIV

TY AVE UNIVERSI

EY YL GA

RE ST DELAWA

OXFORD ST

AVE HEARST

ST VIRGINIA

CL AR EM ON T

CEDAR ST

TELEGRAPH AVE

SAN TA F E CUR AVE TIS S T PERA LTA A VE

MO NTER EY A

JOSEPHINE ST

T 6TH S

ST VIRGINIA

EUCLID ST

ROSE ST

SPRUCE ST

GILM AN S T

MILVIA ST

T SS KIN P HO

WALNUT ST

SUT TER

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

LIA ST CAME

SON OMA AVE

ACTON ST

VE ELL A CORN

AN ST GILM

E AV IN R A M

T AVE TALBO

ST AN AN CH BU

S AVE KAIN

AV E

SOLANO AVE E IN AV MAR

ALBANY

E AV TON LING

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

FINAL PLAN

EN CO LU SA

24 1/2 MI

FIGURE 5-2: LOW-STRESS BIKEWAY NETWORK VISION WITH BERKELEY SCHOOLS PAVED PATH BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK CYCLETRACK [4]

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]* PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]*

SCHOOL WITH 1/8 MILE BUFFER

ENROLLMENT BOUNDARIES

5-3

FINAL PLAN

5.1 PROJECT RECOMMENDATION CATEGORIES Berkeleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bikeway network recommendations are described in detail on the following pages and have been grouped into five categories: 1. Bicycle Boulevards a. New and Enhanced Bicycle Boulevard Segments b. Bicycle Boulevard Crossing Improvements 2. Downtown and UC Berkeley Campus Area Projects 3. Ohlone Greenway Improvements 4. Upgrades to Existing Class II Bike Lanes and Class III Bike Routes 5. Citywide Recommendations 6. Complete Street Corridors Figures 5-3 and 5-4 display the recommended bicycle network and future studies. The associated costs for each project and description of the implementation process can be found in Chapter 6: Implementation. Table 5-1 summarizes the miles of recommended

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

bikeways by project type.

5-4

Table 5-1: Summary of Project Recommendations TYPE

MILEAGE

Class 1A: Paved Path

1.5

Class 2A: Standard Bike Lane

0.1

Class 2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

3.0

Class 3C: Sharrows

13.9

Class 3E: Bicycle Boulevard

12.4

Class 4: Cycletrack

18.4

CAMEL AVE

KEY RTE BLVD

CURTIS

VE SOLANO AVE

CEDAR ST

AV E CL AR EM ON T

TELEGRAPH AVE

MO NTER EY A

PERA LTA A VE

CUR SANTA F TIS S E AV T E

EMERYVILLE

AL RE

THE UPLAND S

ST WOOLSEY

RD EL NN TU

O NI M CA EL

ADE LINE ST

ONT BLVD CLAREM

WARRING ST PIEDMONT AVE

AVE ALCATRAZ

HILLEGASS AVE

ST DEAKIN

R ST WHEELE

PRINCE ST

VE ONT A PIEDM

COLLEGE AVE

DERBY ST

PRINCE ST

N ST HARMO

H ST BOWDITC

DANA ST

SHATTUCK AVE

E ASHBY AV

KING ST

T 65TH S

FULTON ST

ST RUSSELL

ST MABEL

AY ST MURR

L NIA EN NT CE

FT WAY BANCRO

MILVIA ST

AVE HEINZ

TO ST SACRAMEN

WARD ST

MLK JR WAY

MABEL ST

RAIL BAY T

ER ST PARK

GRANT ST

WAY DWIGHT

NG WAY CHANNI

IA ST CALIFORN

ST BONAR

AVE ABLO SAN P

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

AR DR BOLIV

FT WAY BANCRO

T 5TH S

CENTER ST

TY AVE UNIVERSI

EY YL GA

OXFORD ST

AVE HEARST

BERKELEY

SEE FIGURE 5-4 DOWNTOWN INSET

University of California, Berkeley

E ST DELAWAR

E ST AV HEAR

EUCLID ST

SPRUCE ST

WALNUT ST

JOSEPHINE ST

T 6TH S

ACTON ST

VE ELL A CORN

ST AN AN CH BU

ST 10TH

T SS IN PK HO

ST MILVIA ST

VE NA SE PO

SUT TER

SON OMA AVE

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

E IN AV MAR

ST VIRGINIA

ON ST ADDIS

E AV IN AR M

ROSE ST

LIA ST CAME

PE AK

D BLV

E AV TON LING

WASHINGTON AVE

AV E

Tilden Regional Park

LY IZZ GR

PORTLAND AVE

H ST ROE RTMOUT MON DA

AN ST GILM

EN CO LU SA

A NA D SE

S AVE KAIN

Y AD W KINKE

ALBANY

S ST ADAM

E ST PIERC

T SON S JACK

AVE TON HING WAS

AY EENW NE GR T AVE OHLO TALBO

VE TON A BRIGH

WARD AVE

ON NY CA

EL CERRITO

FINAL PLAN

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

W ILD CA T

24 N

OAKLAND

1/2 MI

FIGURE 5-3: RECOMMENDED NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS CLASS 1

CLASS 2 PAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A] UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

CLASS 3

CLASS 4 SHARROWS [3C] UPHILL CLIMBING LANE/ DOWNHILL SHARROWS [3C]

CYCLETRACK [4]

BIKE BOULEVARD [3E]

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES - LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]* PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]*

UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

EXISTING FACILITIES PAVED PATH [1A] UNPAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A] UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

UPHILL CLIMBING LANE/ DOWNHILL SHARROWS [3C] SIGNAGE-ONLY [3A] SHARROWS [3C] BICYCLE BOULEVARD CYCLETRACK [4A] AMTRAK STATION

EUCLID

HILGAR

D AVE

SPRUCE ST

RO N CYCLOT

D PL

A AVE

HEARST

N HIGHLA

LA LOM

RIDGE R

LEROY A

AV SCENIC

HEARST

TE AVE

ARCH ST

RE S DELAWA

WALNUT ST

SHATTUCK AVE

MILVIA ST

CO ST

VIRGINIA

LE CON

ST VIRGINIA

FRANCIS

FINAL PLAN

AVE

OXFORD ST

N ST

LINCOL

SPRUCE ST

HENRY ST

BONITA AVE

ST CEDAR

VINE ST

AVE

University of

AVE

California, Berkeley BE R

AVE

T ST

HASTE S

WARRING ST

ETNA ST

BENVENUE AVE

REGENT ST

HILLEGASS AVE

T DANA S

RTH ST

ELLSWO

SHATTUCK AVE

WAY

G WAY

AVE COLLEGE

IN CHANN

FULTON

KING JR WAY

AVE

PROSPEC

MILVIA ST

MARTIN LUTHER

FIGURE

FT WAY

BANCRO

IN CHANN

T DURAN

T DWIGH

DGE ST

MONT AVE PIED

N WAY

S LN

DOWNTOWN BERKELEY BART

ALLSTO

KITTRE

BARROW

RIM W AY

N ST S CENTER

G AY LE Y

OXFORD ST

ADDISO

ITY UNIVERS

TELEGRA PH AVE

AY KELEY W

1/4 MI

IMPROVEMENTS, 5-4: RECOMMENDED NETWORK KER ST

T LAKE SBERKELEY BUC

PAR CAMPUS AND DOWNTOWN AREA

CLASS 1

CLASS 2 PAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A] UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

ON CAR3LET CLASS

DERBY ST

CLASS 4

SHARROWS [3C] UPHILL CLIMBING LANE/ DOWNHILL SHARROWS [3C] BIKE BOULEVARD [3E]

CYCLETRACK [4]

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES - LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION

5-6

STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]* PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]*

UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

EXISTING FACILITIES PAVED PATH [1A] UNPAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A] UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

UPHILL CLIMBING LANE/ DOWNHILL SHARROWS [3C] SIGNAGE-ONLY [3A] SHARROWS [3C] BICYCLE BOULEVARD CYCLETRACK [4A] AMTRAK STATION

FINAL PLAN

5.2 BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS Berkeley’s Bicycle Boulevards form the core

bicycle travel. Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3

of the city’s low stress bikeway network, and

describe the Bicycle Boulevard enhancements

as such should offer a safe, comfortable and

in greater detail. Figures 5-3 and 5-4 depict the

convenient experience for people who bicycle.

Bicycle Boulevard network within the overall

Bicycle Boulevards accomplish this through:

bikeway network, while Figures 5-13 and 5-14

• Traffic control or warning devices to help people on bicycles cross major streets; • Low traffic volumes and speeds, which in some cases are achieved through traffic calming devices that discourage or limit non-local

depict intersection control improvements along Bicycle Boulevard and low stress bikeway network. Figure 5-15 presents proposed traffic calming enhancements on the Bicycle Boulevard network. Table E-4 in Appendix E lists specific improvements and costs.

vehicle through traffic;

right-of-way to the Bicycle Boulevard at intersections wherever possible; and • Traffic control to help bicycles cross major streets. Existing Bicycle Boulevard corridors are: North-South Bicycle Boulevards

5.2.1 New Bicycle Boulevards This Plan recommends five new Bicycle Boulevard corridors. These additional corridors are intended to fill gaps in the low stress network, particularly in south Berkeley. Addison Street - This east-west corridor runs parallel to University Avenue and connects downtown Berkeley to West Berkeley,

• Ninth Street

connecting to Strawberry Creek Park, the I-80

• California Street/King Street

overcrossing. It also links to 9th Street and Milvia

• Milvia Street • Bowditch Street/Hillegass Avenue

Street Bicycle Boulevards. Derby Street/Parker Street - This east-west corridor follows Parker Street and Derby

East-West Bicycle Boulevards

Street, linking the residential, industrial and

• Virginia Street

commercial areas of West Berkeley to the

• Channing Way • Russell Street This Plan proposes several new Bicycle Boulevards and enhancements to the existing seven Bicycle Boulevards to provide greater traffic calming and convenience for through

UC Clark Kerr Campus. It connects to several existing and proposed north-south Bicycle Boulevards, and provides access to Longfellow Middle School, Moellering Field, Berkeley Tech Academy, Willard Middle School, Willard Park, and Emerson Elementary along with numerous

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

• Prioritized travel for bikes by assigning the

residential areas. 5-7

FINAL PLAN

Fulton Street - South of Dwight Way, Fulton

Mabel Street - This north-south corridor

Street is designated as a Bicycle Boulevard. This

runs parallel to San Pablo Avenue, provides a

north-south route extends from the proposed

signalized crossing of Ashby Street in south

Class IV bikeway along Fulton Street through

Berkeley, links to San Pablo Park, and connects

the campus area, provides access to LeConte

north to Strawberry Creek Park. It would also

Elementary, and connects with the existing

Link to Russell Street and Channing Way and

Russell Street and proposed Derby Street and

proposed Harmon Street/65th Street Bicycle

Woolsey Street Bicycle Boulevards. It links the

Boulevards.

downtown/campus area through residential areas and provides a connection south onto the City of Oakland’s bikeway network via Woolsey Street.

Rose Street/Camelia Street - This east-west corridor follows Camelia Street, Cornell Avenue, Rose Street and Walnut Street. It links the residential and retail areas of the Gilman District

Harmon Street/65th Street - This east-west

with Cedar-Rose Park, Jefferson Elementary,

corridor in south Berkeley runs parallel to

Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School, Live Oak

Alcatraz Avenue and provides a connection

Park, and Oxford Elementary. This bikeway

between the Adeline Street corridor / Lorin

connects with the 9th Street, California Street,

District and the 65th Street bikeway corridor

and Milvia Street Bicycle Boulevards, as well as

which connects into Emeryville. It links to

the Ohlone Greenway.

existing King Street and proposed Mabel Street Bicycle Boulevards.

Woolsey Street - This existing signed Class III route is proposed to be upgraded to a Bicycle

Kains Avenue - This route extends north from

Boulevard. This east-west route along Berkeley’s

the Virginia Street Bicycle Boulevard and

south border extends between the Hillegass

provides a connection into the city of Albany’s

Avenue and King Street Bicycle Boulevards,

bikeway network east of San Pablo Avenue.

providing direct access to the Ashby BART station. It provides connections south into the

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

City of Oakland’s bikeway network at Colby

5-8

Street and King Street.

FINAL PLAN

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

Bicycle Boulevards make riding a bicycle feel safer and more intuitive for all ages and abilities.

5-9

FINAL PLAN

5.2.2 Bicycle Boulevard Major Street Crossings Major street crossings are a critical piece of the

was assigned a recommended treatment based

Bicycle Boulevard network. One of the three

on the Unsignalized Bikeway Crossing Treatment

goals for Bicycle Boulevards is to “develop a

Progression shown in Table 5-2. This treatment

network of efficient routes for bicyclists,” which

progression shows the LTS score achieved by

means reducing the number of times that a

implementing specific warning devices or traffic

cyclist must stop along the route, and improving

controls at currently unsignalized crossings

the ability to cross major intersections.

along the Bicycle Boulevard network. The higher

As discussed in Chapter 4: Needs Analysis,

the major street volume and greater number of

many Bicycle Boulevard corridors are low stress within the neighborhood until a person on bike must cross a major street such as Sacramento

lanes, the higher intensity of warning devices or traffic controls necessary to achieve a low stress (LTS 1 or 2) crossing.

Street or San Pablo Avenue. These high stress

The goal is for all Bicycle Boulevards to achieve

crossings are barriers to more people bicycling,

a score of LTS 1 or LTS 2, with LTS 2 being the

and a single high-stress crossing point along an

level of traffic stress that most adults are willing

otherwise low stress Bicycle Boulevard route can

to tolerate. Upgrading all crossing treatments

be a major deterrent to use.

to an LTS 2 would mean that approximately

All major street crossings of the existing and proposed Bicycle Boulevard network were studied as part of this Plan, and each location

79 percent of Berkeley’s population would be comfortable using them. The following pages discuss and illustrate the different crossing treatments outlined in

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Table 5-2.

5-10

FINAL PLAN

Table 5-2: Unsignalized Bikeway Crossing Treatment Progression CROSSING TREATMENT

TRAFFIC VOLUMES

VERY LOW

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

Up to 3 lanes

4 lanes

Up to 3 lanes

4 or 5 lanes

Up to 3 lanes

4 or 5 lanes

Marked Crossing

LTS 1

LTS 1 or 2

LTS 2

LTS 3

LTS 4

Median Refuge Island1

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 3

LTS 4

RRFB2, 3

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 3

RRFB with median1, 2, 3

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 3

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)2

LTS 1

Traffic Signal2

LTS 1

X No additional benefit 1. Minimum 6-ft wide median 2. Subject to successful warrant analysis 3. 4-Way Stop Signs may be considered as an alternative to RRFBs

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

LTS refers to Level of Traffic Stress

5-11

FINAL PLAN

MARKED CROSSINGS

RRFB CROSSING

Marked crossings by themselves are appropriate

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)

on low and very low traffic streets with one

are user-actuated amber LEDs that supplement

lane in each direction. Marked crossings should

warning signs at uncontrolled intersections and

always include advance warning signage and

mid-block crosswalks. They can be activated

advance yield lines, and can be enhanced with

by people walking and bicycling by manually

curb extensions to shorten the crossing distance

pushing a button or passively by a video

and increase visibility. On streets with one lane

detection or detector loop system.

each direction and moderate traffic volumes, the addition of a median refuge is necessary to achieve LTS 2. Figure 5-5 shows an example of a marked crossing.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Figure 5-5: Marked Crossing

5-12

RRFBs by themselves can achieve LTS 1 on streets up to 4 lanes with low traffic volumes. Figure 5-6 shows an example of an RRFB at an LTS 1 location.

FINAL PLAN

Figure 5-6: RRFB at LTS 1 Location

W11-15, W16-7P

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

Figure 5-7: Median Island Refuge

5-13

FINAL PLAN

For crossings of roadways with one lane in each

a median refuge island, this Plan recommends

direction and higher traffic volumes (12,500+

consideration of curb extensions as a way to

ADT), or on 4-lane streets with medium volumes,

shorten the crossing distance and improve

a median refuge island is recommended to

visibility of people bicycling and walking across

achieve LTS 2, as shown in Figure 5-7.

the street, given that there is only one lane of

A phased crossing treatment approach is

crossing in each direction.

recommended in these locations: In Phase 1,

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON CROSSING

install an RRFB and monitor the effectiveness (e.g., driver yield rate to people bicycling). If the yield compliance appears to be unacceptable according to standards established by the City Traffic Engineer, the City should consider installing a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (see below) as a Phase 2. Note that the Bike Crossing Treatment Progression table notes that these locations should have an RRFB with a median â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it may be infeasible to install a sufficiently wide median in some of these locations. Although they do not serve precisely the same function as

A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), also known as a High-Intensity Activated crosswalk (HAWK) beacon, is a traffic control device used to stop roadway traffic and allow people to walk or bike across an intersection. They can be activated by people walking and bicycling by manually pushing a button or passively by a video detection or detector loop system. A PHB creates the lowest level of stress (LTS 1) for people crossing major streets on a bicycle (see Figure 5-8 and Figure 5-9).

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Figure 5-8: PHBs Help Create an LTS 1 Environment for Bicyclists

5-14

FINAL PLAN

On Bicycle Boulevard segments where the

Traffic diversion can also be accomplished

Bicycle Boulevard approach has higher volumes

by installing a continuous median across the

or significant right turn movements, creating

intersection with a bicycle pass-through channel,

a channelized lane for the Bicycle Boulevard

as shown in Figure 5-10.

can reduce potential conflicts on the approach, and also provide an opportunity for a forced motorist right turn to eliminate through traffic.

Figure 5-9: PHB with a Channelized Approach

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

Figure 5-10: PHB with Median Diverter

5-15

FINAL PLAN

TWO-WAY CYCLETRACK CONNECTOR (AT INTERSECTION)

reaches San Pablo Avenue, then continues east

A cycletrack connector is proposed for offset

200 feet to the north of Heinz Avenue). A

major intersection crossings along the Bicycle

cycletrack connector will offer protected travel

Boulevard network. This treatment provides a

space and physical separation from adjacent

protected, low stress crossing on the bikeway

vehicle traffic along San Pablo Avenue and allow

approach, and a low stress two-way facility

cyclists to utilize designated crossing points to

on the cross-street parallel to the bikeway

best handle offset major street crossings.

approach. An example of this is on eastbound Heinz Avenue, where the Bicycle Boulevard

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Figure 5-11: Two-Way Cycle Track Connector

5-16

on Oregon Street (which is offset approximately

FINAL PLAN

PROTECTED INTERSECTION With a protected intersection, the Bicycle Boulevard approach has a physical barrier separating the bikeway from the adjacent travel lane. Protected intersections may be physically protected and/or protected using signal timing. This protection could be in the form of a fully protected cycletrack extending to the intersection, or in the case of Bicycle

such as seen on Channing Way at Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Protected intersections typically require the use of bicycle signals to isolate bicycle movements from conflicting vehicle movements. Bicycle signal phases can be added to the traffic signals to isolate bicycle movements from conflicting vehicle movements. Figure 5-12 shows an example of a protected intersection at a Bicycle Boulevard crossing.

Boulevards with channelized bikeway treatments

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

Figure 5-12: Protected Intersection

5-17

EY YL GA RD

ADE LINE ST

Y ST WOOLSE

AV E

RUSSELL ST

CL AR EM ON T

HH S

D ONT BLV CLAREM

ST PRINCE

WARRING ST

R LD NIA N E NT CE

VE ONT A PIEDM

COLLEGE AVE

H RM

HILLEGASS AVE

ST DEAKIN

T DERBY S

ITCH ST BOWD

DANA ST

ER ST WHEEL

RM RM

P 2w P

T FULTON S

N ST HARMO

OXFORD ST

FT WAY BANCRO

SHATTUCK AVE

SPRUCE ST OXFORD ST

MILVIA ST

University of California, Berkeley

TELEGRAPH AVE

MO NTER EY A

SAN TA F E CUR AVE TIS S T PERA LTA A VE

WALNUT ST

VE ASHBY A

T PRINCE S

T 65TH S

SHATTUCK AVE

ST RUSSELL

KING ST

AY ST MURR

NTO ST SACRAME

EMERYVILLE

ST MABEL

S S

AVES HEINZ

S RM

T CENTER S

G WAY S CHANNIN

NIA ST CALIFOR

T MABEL S

WARD ST

ST BONAR

RAIL BAY T

AVE ABLO SAN P

WAY DWIGHT

MLK JR WAY

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

AR DR BOLIV

FT WAY BANCRO

ST VIRGINIA

P P P

ST ADDISON

BERKELEY

ER ST PARK

SEE FIGURE 5-14 DOWNTOWN INSET

H R

AVE HEARST

SUT TER

ITY AVE UNIVERS

FINAL PLAN

RE ST DELAWA

T CEDAR S

GRANT ST

ON ST RM ADDIS

ACTON ST

E ST AV HEAR

AVE ABLO SAN P

T 6TH S T 5TH S

ST VIRGINIA

T SS IN K P HO ROSE ST

RM RM RM

JOSEPHINE ST

LIA ST CAME

SON OMA AVE

GILM AN S T

ELL CORN

A MED THE ALA

S AVE KAIN

AN ST GILM

T AVE TALBO

ALBANY

VE OLUSA A

E IN AV MAR

See tables (E- 8, E-9, E-10) in Appendix E for more information on recommended improvements.

R ALCATRAZAVE

OAKLAND

N 1/2 MI

FIGURE 5-13: RECOMMENDED LOW STRESS BIKEWAY INTERSECTION CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS

EXISTING INTERSECTION CONTROL

INTERSECTION CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS 2w

PROTECTED INTERSECTION

2-WAY CYCLETRACK CONNECTOR

RRFB

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

RRFB + MEDIAN

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

RRFB

NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E] CYCLETRACK [4]

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES - LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]* PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE - STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]* EXISTING BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK PAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E]

VINE ST

N ST

LINCOL

WARRING ST

ETNA ST

BENVENUE AVE

PARKER

BLAKE S

HILLEGASS AVE

HASTE S

REGENT ST

T DANA S

RTH ST

WAY

FULTON

SHATTUCK AVE

T DWIGH

G WAY

AVE COLLEGE

IN CHANN

ELLSWO

KING JR WAY

T AVE DURAN

T ST

FT WAY

BANCRO

RIM W AY

PROSPEC

DGE

TELEGRA PH AVE

N WAY

KITTRE

SPRUCE ST

DOWNTOWN BERKELEY BART

ALLSTO

MILVIA ST

MARTIN LUTHER

G AY LE Y

MONT AVE PIED

S CENTER

University of

See tables (E- 8, E-9, E-10) in Appendix E for more information on recommended improvements.

RO N CYCLOT

ADDISO

N D PL

HIGHLA

ITY A UNIVERS

AVE

BE R

AVE

California, Berkeley

OXFORD ST

AY KELEY W

HEARST

A LA LOM

AVE

LEROY A

HEARST

RIDGE R

DELA

VIRGINIA

TE AVE

ARCH ST

T WARE S

WALNUT ST

SHATTUCK AVE

CO ST

FRANCIS

D AVE

LE CON

MILVIA ST

HILGAR

AV SCENIC

ST VIRGINIA

OXFORD ST

ST CEDAR

AVE EUCLID

SPRUCE ST

HENRY ST

BONITA AVE

FINAL PLAN

FIGURE 5-14: RECOMMENDED LOW STRESS INTERSECTION DERBY ST N ST OBIKEWAY CARLET CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS, UC BERKELEY CAMPUS & DOWNTOWN AREA

PROTECTED INTERSECTION

2-WAY CYCLETRACK CONNECTOR

RRFB

EXISTING INTERSECTION CONTROL

RRFB + MEDIAN

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

RRFB

NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E] CYCLETRACK [4]

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES - LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]* PRIMARY TRANSIT ROUTE - STUDY CYCLETRACK [4]* EXISTING BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK PAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E]

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

INTERSECTION CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS

5-19

FINAL PLAN

5.2.3 Bicycle Boulevard Traffic Calming and Bicycle Priority Berkeleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bicycle Boulevards use traffic

recommended as a traffic calming feature to

calming and bicycle priority to achieve a

slow and discourage non-local vehicle traffic.

safe, comfortable and convenient experience

Diverters are recommended to direct vehicles off

for people who bicycle. Intersections along

the Bicycle Boulevards and onto larger roadways,

Bicycle Boulevards will be evaluated as part

decreasing vehicle speeding and cut-through

of neighborhood-level public outreach and

traffic. New recommended diverter locations

involvement, to see whether traffic calming

were generally selected to provide at least one

treatments would be more effective than stop

diversion point between each major street along

signs in establishing bicycle priority while

the Bicycle Boulevard network. Recommended

reducing the speed and volume of motor

traffic circle and diverter locations in this Plan

vehicles cut-through traffic. While these plan

may be changed based on traffic studies, public

recommendations focus on traffic circles and

process, and/or neighborhood feedback. The

diverters as primary Bicycle Boulevard traffic

City may pilot these locations with temporary

calming strategies, the City should utilize the full

installations to understand their traffic impacts

range of traffic calming options when needed.

before making them permanent. Table E-4 in

Examples of other traffic calming treatments

Appendix E lists specific locations where traffic

that have been found effective in Berkeley

circles and diverters are proposed in this Plan.

and Bay Area cities include speed tables,

SPEED TABLES AND HUMPS

raised crosswalks, corner sidewalk bulbouts, and chicanes. Pilot projects using temporary materials may be developed at some locations to test effectiveness before longer-term installations are pursued.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

TRAFFIC CIRCLES AND DIVERTERS

5-20

The City should continue to utilize speed tables where appropriate to reduce vehicle speeds, and consider them for inclusion on Bicycle Boulevards where additional traffic calming is needed. It is recommended that the City of Berkeley continue its practice of replacing existing speed humps

Figure 5-15 shows recommended conceptual

on Bicycle Boulevards when these streets are

traffic calming improvements along the Bicycle

repaved. These replacement speed humps

Boulevard network. New traffic circles are

should be designed with gentle transitions on the approach and departure ramps, in the form of a sinusoidal curve. In partnership with Berkeleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s accessibility community, the City should evaluate these newer speed hump design standards for use on Bicycle Boulevards.

A NA D SE

EY YL GA

T T TRAFFIC CIRCLE TRAFFIC TRAFFIC CIRCLE CIRCLE

OAKLAND

PARK/REC PARK/REC PARK/REC

SAN TA F E CUR AVE TIS S T PERA LTA A VE

MO NTER EY A

T T

See tables (E- 8, E-9, E-10) in Appendix E for more information on recommended improvements.

24 1/2 MI

TRAFFIC TRAFFIC CIRCLE CIRCLE

SPEED SPEED HUMP HUMP

D TRAFFIC DIVERTER TRAFFIC DIVERTER D DIVERTER D TRAFFIC

DIVERTER TRAFFIC TRAFFIC DIVERTER DIVERTER

BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E]

EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING FACILITIES EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING FACILITIES SPEED HUMP T TRAFFIC CIRCLE

D D TRAFFIC

NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E]

RUSSELL ST

CL AR EM ON T

Y ST WOOLSE D

0 FIGURE RECOMMENDED LOW STRESS BIKE BOULEVARD FIGURE RECOMMENDED LOW STRESS BIKE BOULEVARD TRAFFIC5-15: CALMING IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS

AV E

TELEGRAPH AVE

ADE LINE ST

WARRING ST

Z AVE ALCATRA

VE ONT A PIEDM

HILLEGASS AVE

T T

COLLEGE AVE

CH ST BOWDIT

PRINCE ST

T T T T

DANA ST

ST DEAKIN

EMERYVILLE

EUCLID ST

T T

R LD NIA N E NT CE

VE ASHBY A

PRINCE ST

HARMON ST

ER WHEEL

KING ST

T 65TH S

D D

FULTON ST

AY ST MURR

SPRUCE ST

ST MABEL

T T T

ST RUSSELL D

T T

SHATTUCK AVE

University of California, Berkeley

OXFORD ST

WALNUT ST

DERBY ST T D WARD ST

MILVIA ST

WAY DWIGHT

MLK JR WAY

GRANT ST

G WAY CHANNIN NIA ST CALIFOR

D T AVE HEINZ

DT T

TO ST SACRAMEN

RAIL BAY T

ER ST PARK

T FT WAY T BANCRO

ST VIRGINIA

ST ADDISON D CENTER ST

T MABEL S

T 9TH S

D T T

ST BONAR

AVE ABLO SAN P

T 4TH S

MILVIA ST

T 6TH S T 5TH S

AR DR BOLIV

AVE HEARST

TY AVE ST UNIVERSI ADDISON

T D

BERKELEY

E ST AV T HEAR

JOSEPHINE ST

ACTON ST

CEDAR ST

RE ST DELAWA

SUT TER

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

VE ELL A CORN

T T T

T SS KIN P HO

ST VIRGINIA

T D

SON OMA AVE

Tilden Regional Park

ROSE ST

D TT

VE NA I AR M

S AVE KAIN

T AVE TALBO

T NS NA HA UC

AN ST GILM

AV E

SOLANO AVE E IN AV MAR

ALBANY

E AV GTON

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

FINAL PLAN

EN CO LU SA

EXISTING BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK PAVED PATH [1A] STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A] EXISTING BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK EXISTING BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK PAVED PAVED PATH PATH [1A] [1A]

RAILROAD RAILROAD RAILROAD

STANDARD STANDARD BIKE BIKE LANE LANE [2A] [2A]

BART STATION BART STATION BART STATION

BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E] BICYCLE BICYCLE BOULEVARD BOULEVARD [3E] [3E]

AMTRAK STATION AMTRAK STATION AMTRAK STATION 5-21

FINAL PLAN

BICYCLE RIGHT-OF-WAY EVALUATION Prioritizing travel for people riding bicycles can be accomplished by assigning the right-ofway to the Bicycle Boulevard at intersections, wherever possible. This right-of-way assignment is a critical design element of Bicycle Boulevards and offers a similar level of flow and connectivity to what is offered on major streets, yet without forcing people riding bicycles to share the road with high-volume vehicle traffic. Before assigning right-of-way to the Bicycle Boulevard, intersections will be evaluated as part of neighborhood-level traffic study, public outreach, and involvement, to ensure that the

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

needs of local residents are also being met.

5-22

FINAL PLAN

5.3 DOWNTOWN AND UC BERKELEY CAMPUS RECOMMENDATIONS This Plan includes several recommendations

designs for implementing the cycletrack through

surrounding the UC Berkeley campus and

the downtown area as well as a new protected

around the Downtown area, shown in Figure

intersection at Milvia Street/University Avenue.

5-14, and listed in Table E-5 in Appendix E.

Note that these are illustrative concepts only and

One key project in the downtown area is the

specific project design details, including facility

Milvia Street corridor, which is proposed for

geometrics, travel or parking lane modifications,

a Class IV two-way cycletrack between Blake

signage and pavement markings, and signal

Street and Hearst Avenue. Figures 5-16 through

phasing, will be considered during the design

Figure 5-20 provide an overview of the Milvia

phase and associated public outreach for each

Street Corridor project, including conceptual

recommended project.

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

Figure 5-16: Milvia Street Bicycle Boulevard Recommended Improvement Concept Overview Map

5-23

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FINAL PLAN

Figure 5-17: Milvia Street at Hearst Avenue Recommendations 5-24

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

FINAL PLAN

Figure 5-18: Milvia Street at University Avenue Recommendations 5-25

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FINAL PLAN

Figure 5-19: Milvia Street at Kittredge Street recommendations 5-26

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

FINAL PLAN

Figure 5-20: Milvia Street at Blake Street Recommendations 5-27

FINAL PLAN

5.4 OHLONE GREENWAY IMPROVEMENTS The Ohlone Greenway is an existing shared

Crossing enhancements are also recommended

use path that runs north-south from Richmond

for roadway crossings along the Ohlone

to Berkeley. This Plan recommends a series

Greenway. For all uncontrolled crossings a

of pathway widening, enhanced lighting, and

standard crossing treatment is proposed,

roadway crossing improvements along the

consisting of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons

Ohlone Greenway corridor within Berkeley.

(RRFBs) and a raised crosswalk and shown

The Ohlone Greenway is approximately eight feet wide for much of its length through Berkeley. Design standards for shared use paths like the Ohlone Greenway (which receive heavy recreational and commuter use by bicyclists

the Gilman Street / Curtis Street crossing, and installing a two-way cycletrack connector at Peralta Avenue. Lighting improves the safety and security of path

at least a 12-foot width with separated areas

users by increasing visibility during non-daylight

for pedestrians and bicyclists if possible. North

hours. Given the Ohlone Greenwayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s function

of Santa Fe Avenue into Albany, sufficient

as a major year-round recreation and commute

width below the elevated BART tracks exists

corridor, having adequate lighting is essential.

to provide separated bicycle and pedestrian

Lighting upgrades are recommended along the

space. However, within Berkeley, adjacent

full corridor. Per AASHTO recommendations,

uses including fenced portions of the BART

average maintained horizontal illumination levels

right-of-way, residential property lines, tennis

should be 5 lux to 22 lux. Higher illumination

courts, and parking areas constrain much of the

levels should be considered at crossing

Ohlone Greenway alignment between Gilman

approaches, drinking fountains, benches, or any

Street and the North Berkeley BART station,

location where potential security problems exist.

and limit possibilities for widening. Where

Lighting should be downcast to minimize light

possible opportunities to widen the pathway

pollution.

area where widening is feasible is where the CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

include studying a fully raised intersection at

and other non-motorized users) recommend

should be evaluated through this section. One

5-28

in Figure 5-21. Other crossing enhancements

Ohlone Greenway extends through Cedar- Rose Park. Through the park a minimum 12 foot wide greenway width is recommended, with a separate soft-surface pedestrian path.

Landscaping along the corridor should be trimmed back to provide for additional clear path space and to increase visibility, security, and effectiveness of lighting.

FINAL PLAN

Along the Ohlone Park segment (parallel

Figures 5-21 through 5-26 illustrate conceptual

to Hearst Avenue) a widened pathway is

improvements to the Ohlone Greenway. These

recommended along with the creation of mixing

improvements are also listed in Table E-6 in

zones at the cross-streets where pedestrian

Appendix E.

cross traffic can be expected. Mixing zones can

Note that these are illustrative concepts only and

be designed through the use of different paving

specific design details will be considered during

materials such as pavers as well as with signage

the design phase and associated public outreach

and markings.

for each recommended improvement.

Figure 5-21: Ohlone Greenway Recommended Improvement Locations

LEGEND

Uncontrolled crossing locations - Install RRFB and raised crosswalk (see crossing detail)

GILM AN ST

ALTA AVE

2 3

I PK

Gilman St / Curtis St - Study for raised intersection

3 4 5 6

Hopkins St / Peralta Ave - Install raised crosswalk

Hearst Ave / M.L.K. Jr Way - Install signage and eastbound bike box for transition from pathway to on-street bike lanes on Hearst

Peralta Ave - Long-term: two-way cycle track connector with enhanced marked crosswalk; Short-term: add sharrows, improve wayfinding Acton St / Virginia St - Upgrade diverter with curb extensions and landscaping Acton St - Install Shared Lane Markings Delaware St - Study Class IV cycle track option and buffer with stanchions between cycle track and travel lane at California St

Shared street

S RO

Pedestrian crossing locations at Ohlone Park - Install mixing zone pavement treatment and signage Class IV - Cycle Track

T ES

ST CEDAR

MLK JR W Y

Segment 3

GRANT ST

Ohlone Park

MCGEE AVE

North Berkeley

5 BART Station 6

A ST CALIFORNI

ARE ST DELAW

C 4

IA ST VIRGIN

TO SACRAMEN

B Cedar Rose Park Segment 2

1 2

T HEARS

AVE

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

Segment 1

Class I separated path - Widen path to minimum of 12â&#x20AC;&#x2122; and provide separated soft surface pedestrian path where feasible, upgrade pathway lighting

PER

SAN TA F E

AVE

y City of Alban ey City of Berkel

5-29

FINAL PLAN

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Figure 5-22: Path Improvements to the Ohlone Greenway

5-30

FINAL PLAN

Figure 5-23: Peralta and Hopkins Streets improvements

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

Figure 5-24: Improvements around Cedar-Rose Park

5-31

FINAL PLAN

Figure 5-25: Improvements Around North Berkeley BART Station

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Figure 5-26: Improvements Around Ohlone Park

5-32

FINAL PLAN

5.5 UPGRADES TO EXISTING CLASS II BIKE LANES AND CLASS III BIKE ROUTES 5.5.1 New / Upgraded Class II Bike Lanes

5.5.2 New / Upgraded Class III Bike Routes

A bike lane is a striped lane that provides a

Class III bicycle routes are signed bicycle routes

designated space within the roadway for people

where people riding bicycles share a travel lane

who bike. Design guidelines require a minimum

with people driving motor vehicles. Because they

5-foot-width for standard bike lanes striped next

are mixed-flow facilities, Class III bicycle routes

to curbs or parking lanes, but 6 to 7 feet is the

are only appropriate for low-volume streets with

preferred width and the addition of a painted

slow travel speeds. Many of Berkeley’s Class III

buffer between traffic and/or parking lanes is

bike routes are part of the Bicycle Boulevard

desired where traffic volumes are high or there is

Network and discussed as part of the Bicycle

high parking turnover.

Boulevard network projects below.

This Plan recommends both new and upgraded

This project category includes enhancements to

Class II bike lanes. Upgrades include adding

existing Class 3A signage-only facilities to add

painted buffers between the vehicle lane and

shared lane markings (upgrading to Class 3C), as

bike lane or painting conflict areas of the

well as some new Class 3C facilities to complete

existing bike lanes green.

the network. There is also a project segment

5-3 and 5-4, and are listed in Tables E-3 and E-5 in Appendix E.

along Spruce Street in the Berkeley hills to install an uphill “climbing lane” with a Class 2A bike lane in the uphill direction and Class 3C sharrows in the downhill direction, to provide better separation for the slower moving uphill cyclist. These improvements are depicted on Figures 5-3 and 5-4, and are listed in Tables E-3 and E-5 in Appendix E.

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

These improvements are depicted on Figures

5-33

FINAL PLAN

5.6 CITYWIDE RECOMMENDATIONS

5.6.1 Bicycle Detection Detection of bicyclists at actuated (not pretimed) traffic signals is important for safety of bicyclists and motorists. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) requires that all new and modified traffics signals be able to detect bicyclists with passive detection (rather than having to push a button). This Plan recommends that the City of

serves people who intend to leave their bicycles for longer periods of time and is typically found at workplaces and in multifamily residential buildings, transit stations, and other commercial buildings. These facilities provide a high level of security but are less convenient than bicycle racks. Berkeley has bike lockers available citywide at BART and Amtrak stations.

Figure 5-27: Types of Bicycle Racks

Berkeley continue to adhere to this requirement by ensuring passive detection of bicyclists at all signalized intersections.

5.6.2 Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking is available throughout Berkeley, but many locations do not provide an adequate amount of bike parking to meet demand. As such, many bicyclists instead lock their bikes to street fixtures such as trees, telephone poles, and sign poles. RECOMMENDED TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF BICYCLE PARKING Bicycle parking can be categorized into shortterm and long-term parking. Sidewalk bicycle

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

racks or bicycle corrals are preferred for short-

Post & Ring

Circle

The City has developed specifications for architects, engineers and contractors on how and where bike racks should be placed and installed. These are available at http://www. ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/ Level_3_Transportation/Bike_Rack_Specs_ Installation_Sept2008.pdf. Expanded Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines and recommended quantities by land use can be found in Appendix F: Design Guidelines.

term bike parking (less than two hours), serving

CITYWIDE BICYCLE PARKING PROGRAM

people who leave their bicycles for relatively

More than 1,000 bicycle racks exist throughout

short periods of time, typically for shopping,

Berkeley, as well as Bike Station and high-

errands, eating or recreation. Bicycle racks

capacity, in-street Bicycle Corrals. The locations

provide a high level of convenience but relatively

where bike parking is available are described

low level of security.

in Chapter 3 and shown on an interactive map

Long-term bike parking includes bike lockers, bike rooms, or Bike Stations. Long-term parking

5-34

Inverted U-Rack

on the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website. This website is updated frequently and can be found at http://www. cityofberkeley.info/bikeparkingmap/.

FINAL PLAN

It is recommended the City continue its highly

including capabilities for charging bicycle

successful request-based bicycle rack and corral

batteries and enhanced safety/anti-theft options.

program, and continue to proactively install bike parking in commercial areas. As noted in Chapter 3, bicycle corrals typically take up unused red curb area or a vehicle parking space

5.7 COMPLETE STREETS CORRIDOR STUDIES

and can accommodate up to 12 bicycles. They can be placed at intersection corners (where

As defined by the Berkeley Complete Streets

vehicles are not allowed to park) because they

Policy, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Complete Streetsâ&#x20AC;? describes a

do not inhibit sight distances for roadway users.

comprehensive, integrated transportation

Business owners can apply for free bike corral

network with infrastructure and design that

installation. More information can be found at

allows safe and convenient travel along and

http://cityofberkeley.info/bikecorral/.

across streets for all users, including people

The City should work with BART to plan, fund, design, and construct a new Bike Station at North Berkeley BART, where demand for bicycle parking is exceptionally high and BART has documented recurring theft and vandalism issues.

walking, people bicycling, persons with disabilities, people driving motor vehicles, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, emergency responders, seniors, youth, and families. Providing a complete network does not necessarily mean that every street will provide

The City should begin to consider the needs

dedicated facilities for all transportation modes,

of electric bicycle users in any study of the

but rather that the transportation network will

provision of bike parking. The needs of e-bike

provide convenient, safe, and connected routes

users are different than typical bicyclists,

for all modes of transportation within and across the City. For the purposes of bikeway planning, the City of Berkeley considers both the major/ Complete Street Corridor; potential bikeways on both the major/collector street bikeway and on parallel streets should be evaluated as part of a Complete Street Corridor Study. Of the major and collector streets shown in the map figures as requiring a Class IV Cycletrack

On-street bike corrals can take the place of a vehicle parking space and be installed at street corners

to meet LTS 1 or 2 (see Figures 5-1, 5-2, 5-3,

PROPOSED BIKEWAY NET WORK

collector street and parallel streets part of a

5-4, 5-13, 5-14, 6-1, and 6-2), most of them will 5-35

FINAL PLAN

require further study in order to evaluate their

studies and/or capital projects on a number

suitability for this treatment and impacts on

of other Complete Street Corridors, including

other modes of transportation. These major

Hearst Avenue, Bancroft Way, Fulton Street,

and collector Streets provide access to local

and Adeline Street, in coordination with outside

Berkeley businesses. Some facilitate direct cross-

partner agencies, including UC Berkeley, AC

town or interjurisdictional travel not duplicated

Transit, BART, and others.

by a parallel street. They currently serve multiple modes of transportation, on-street parking, and many are commercial corridors that have goods movement needs related to deliveries and loading/unloading at businesses, which are vital to the economic vitality of these areas. As such, they require further consideration above and beyond that of bicycle travel. These streets are therefore labeled as “Complete Street Corridor Studies” on Figures 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-13, 5-14,

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

6-1, and 6-2.

5-36

As defined by the City of Berkeley General Plan Transportation Element, most of the future Complete Street Corridor Studies are either Primary or Secondary Transit Routes. General Plan Policy T-4 “Transit-First Policy” gives priority to alternative transportation and transit over single-occupant vehicles on Transit Routes. The Alameda County Transportation Commission Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan identifies many of the future Complete Street Corridor Studies as part of the Transit

Class IV Cycle Tracks and other bikeway types

Emphasis modal priority network. In this

that might impact transit operations, parking,

planning and policy context and given the

or roadway capacity will not be implemented

importance of approaching Complete Streets

without these Complete Street Corridor Studies

from an integrated, layered network perspective,

that will include a traffic study, environmental

it is critically important to consider how transit

analysis, public process, and coordination with

service can be maintained and improved as an

all affected State, County, and local transit

outcome of future Complete Street Corridor

agencies. Potential bikeways to be considered as

Studies. Studies to consider the inclusion of

part of future Complete Street Corridor Studies

bikeways will be coordinated with proposed

will be evaluated in the context of the modal

improvements to transit performance on

priorities established by the Berkeley General

Primary Transit Routes, such as bus boarding

Plan Transportation Element and the Alameda

islands, transit-only lanes, transit signal priority/

County Transportation Commission Countywide

queue jump lanes, far-side bus stop relocations,

Multimodal Arterial Plan. Corridor studies on

and other improvements as described in the

San Pablo Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, University

AC Transit Major Corridor Study. In addition,

Avenue, and Ashby Avenue will be led by the

these studies should approach Secondary

Alameda County Transportation Commission

Transit Routes as opportunities for transit

(CTC). The City of Berkeley has already initiated

improvements, such as bus stop optimization

FINAL PLAN

and relocation, among other potential

modes of transportation; maintaining minimum

improvements. At the conclusion of the

lane widths; and other criteria to be identified

Complete Streets Corridor Study process, design

through the study process.

alternatives which have a significant negative effect on transit on Primary Transit Routes will not be recommended. Criteria to define what constitutes a significant negative effect on transit will be developed and applied during the Study process for each corridor. Consideration of how to allocate limited public right-of-way among various travel modes will be made consistent with Alameda County Transportation Commission modal priorities and the City of Berkeley General Plan.

These corridors may have interim treatments installed while the corridor study and final recommended design are being completed. Interim treatments are those that do not require a full Complete Streets Corridor Study. Interim or phased treatments may still require traffic study, interagency coordination, and public process if they impact roadway capacity, parking, or transit operations. Interim or phased treatments should not negatively impact existing transit operations; mitigations should accompany

Future Complete Street Corridor Studies

interim treatments to ensure no degradation of

should be undertaken in the context of national

transit service. For example, Shared Roadway

design best practices such as the National

Bicycle Markings may be installed, or existing

Association of City Transportation Officials

bike lanes may first be colored green, then later

(NACTO) Transit Street Design Guide and Urban

converted into a Class IV Cycletrack if feasible

Street Design Guide. Local guidance such as

without negatively impacting existing or planned

the forthcoming AC Transit Design Standards

transit operations on Primary or Secondary

and Guidelines Manual for Safe and Efficient

Transit Routes. Table 6-8 shows the extent of

Multimodal Transit Stops and Corridors will also

the Complete Street Corridor Study projects and

be consulted. Studies should carefully consider

provides the recommended interim treatments.

the potential impacts and trade-offs of including

Some corridors list multiple interim treatment

bikeways on Primary and Secondary Transit

types that would be implemented along

Routes, including potential median reductions,

different segments of the same corridor. Table

repurposing of parking or travel lanes, and the

E-7 in Appendix E presents a more detailed

need to avoid impacts to transit operations

breakdown of the recommended Complete

that could otherwise occur. Example transit

Street Corridor Studies and interim treatments.

performance criteria that may be considered as part of future Complete Street Corridor Studies could include: on-time performance and reliability; gapping/bunching; transit travel

For more information about future Complete Street Corridor Studies, see Section 6.7, Appendix E, and Appendix F.

time; operational and safety conflicts with other 5-37

FINAL PLAN

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

FINAL PLAN

This chapter presents the strategies Berkeley should use when implementing this Plan. The chapter includes the evaluation criteria and scoring method, project cost estimates, and a map of prioritized projects. Full project lists can be found in Appendix E:

IMPLEMENTATION

Project Recommendation and Prioritization Tables.

6-1

FINAL PLAN

6.1 PROJECT EVALUATION STRATEGY

6.2 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

This plan provides a vision, goals, policies and

The prioritization corridors were organized into

recommendations for building out a network of

three tiers based on the evaluation scoring.

bikeways and support facilities through the year

Figure 6-1 shows the Tier 1 priority projects, and

2035. In order to provide a strategy for which

Figure 6-2 shows projects in all tiers.

projects to implement first, the infrastructure recommendations from Chapter 5 were evaluated against a set of criteria that prioritized each project based on safety, community support, and equity factors. Based on the

E: Project Recommendations and Prioritization Tables. Table 6-2 shows the planning-level cost

priority), Tier 2 (mid-term), and Tier 3 (longer

estimates to implement each tier.

The prioritization tiers recommended in this plan are intended to serve as general guidelines. Implementation priorities may change as a result of a variety of factors including funding opportunities or integration with other planning efforts or development. Changes in bicycling patterns, demand or community support may also affect implementation priorities over time.

6.1.1 Evaluation Criteria Recommended projects were scored against evaluation criteria listed in Table 6-1. Prior to being scored, individual project segments and intersections were consolidated and organized CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

prioritization corridor are included in Appendix

scoring, projects were sorted into Tier 1 (high term).

6-2

Tables that show the projects in each

into logical implementation corridors based on their location and extents.

FINAL PLAN

Table 6-1: Evaluation Criteria CRITERIA

DESCRIPTION

Safety

Combination of safety, LTS, and demand analysis

Community Support

Projects are scored based on whether the project or area was identified for improvement during the initial community input phase

Equity

Projects are scored based on whether they are located within a MTC designated Community of Concern.

Total Possible Score

100

Figure 6-1 shows (and Table 6-3 lists) the Tier 1 (high priority) projects including planning level cost estimates.

Table 6-2: Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimates TIER

PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE

Tier 1

$26,318,900

Tier 2

$4,658,400

Tier 3

$3,493,800

Total

$34,471,100

IMPLEMENTATION

TIER 1 PROJECTS

MAX SCORE

6-3

EY YL GA

RD FT WAY BANCRO

AV E

RUSSELL ST

Y ST WOOLSE

OAKLAND TELEGRAPH AVE

ADE LINE ST

WARRING ST PIEDMONT AVE

MO NTER EY A

Z AVE ALCATRA

HILLEGASS AVE

ST DEAKIN

R ST WHEELE

PRINCE ST

COLLEGE AVE

DANA ST

SHATTUCK AVE

FULTON ST

DERBY ST

CL AR EM ON T

SAN TA F E CUR AVE TIS S T PERA LTA A VE

EUCLID ST

OXFORD ST

T ST TREMON

KING ST

N ST HARMO

MILVIA ST

MLK JR WAY

NIA ST CALIFOR

TO ST SACRAMEN

MABEL ST

AVE ABLO SAN P

FIGURE 6-1:

PRINCE ST

G WAY CHANNIN

BERKELEY

L ST RUSSEL

AVE ASHBY

T 65TH S

SHATTUCK AVE

ST BONAR

RAIL BAY T

WARD ST

L NIA EN NT E C

GRANT ST

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

AR DR BOLIV

WAY DWIGHT

AY ST MURR

EMERYVILLE

MILVIA ST

AVE ABLO SAN P

T 5TH S

CENTER ST

G WAY CHANNIN

AVE HEINZ

Park

University of California, Berkeley

TY AVE UNIVERSI

FT WAY BANCRO

ER ST PARK

Tilden

FINAL PLAN Regional

AVE HEARST

RE ST DELAWA

ON ST ADDIS

JOSEPHINE ST

T 6TH S

ACTON ST

ST AN AN CH BU

CEDAR ST

SPRUCE ST

ROSE ST

ST VIRGINIA

WALNUT ST

S IN PK HO

AN ST GILM

E ST AV HEAR

SUT TER

SON OMA AVE VE

A MED THE ALA

T AVE VE TALBO ELL A CORN S AVE KAIN

ALBANY

AVE COLUSA

Y E IN AV MAR

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CORRIDORS TIER 1 PRIORITY PROJECTS

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION*

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES PRIMARY TRANSIT CORRIDOR*

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

6-4

Table 6-3: Tier 1 Projects

CORRIDOR

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

LOCATION

CROSS ST A CROSS ST B NOTES

TOTAL COST MILES ESTIMATE

9th St

RRFB

9th St

Cedar St

$50,000

Traffic Signal

Ashby Ave

9th St

Future trail project

$500,000

1A: Paved Path

Addison St

Curtis St

Browning St

Connector

0.06

3C: Sharrows

Bolivar Dr

Aquatic Park Path

Addison St

3E: Bike Boulevard

Addison St

Bolivar Dr

Oxford St

Cycletrack Crossing

Addison St

San Pablo Ave

PHB

Addison St

Sacramento St

RRFB + Median

Addison St

RRFB + Median

$201,500

0.12

$2,800

Class I Path 1.96 between Curtis St and Browning St

$98,000

$60,000

$250,000

MLK Jr Way

$70,000

Addison St

Oxford St

$70,000

RRFB + Median

Addison St

6th St

$70,000

Traffic Circle

Addison St

7th St

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Addison St

5th St

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Addison St

Grant St

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Addison St

10th St

$50,000

Adeline St

Study Cycletrack (4)

Adeline St

King St

Shattuck Ave

Alcatraz Ave

RRFB + Median

Alcatraz Ave

King St

$70,000

California St

RRFB

Dwight St

California St

$50,000

RRFB + Median

Ashby Ave

California St

$70,000

PHB

San Pablo Ave

Camelia St

$250,000

RRFB + Median

Cornell Ave

Hopkins St

$70,000

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

Channing Way

MLK Jr Way

Piedmont Ave

1.13

PHB

Channing Way

San Pablo Ave

$250,000

PHB

Channing Way

Sacramento St

$250,000

Protected Intersection

Channing Way

Shattuck Ave

$650,000

Protected Intersection

Channing Way

Telegraph Ave

$650,000

Camelia St

Channing Wy

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.99

$710,800

$204,100

Complete Street Corridor Studies are proposed multimodal transportation studies, not planned projects. Class IV Cycle Tracks and other bikeway types that might impact transit operations, parking, or roadway capacity will not be implemented without these Complete Street Corridor Studies that will include a traffic study, environmental analysis, public process, and coordination with all affected State, County, and local transit agencies. Potential bikeways to be considered as part of future Complete Street Corridor Studies will be evaluated in the context of the modal priorities established by the Berkeley General Plan Transportation Element and the Alameda County Transportation Commission Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.

IMPLEMENTATION

Addison St

6-5

FINAL PLAN Table 6-3: Tier 1 Projects Continued

CORRIDOR

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

LOCATION

CROSS ST A CROSS ST B NOTES

TOTAL COST MILES ESTIMATE

Channing Wy

RRFB + Median

Channing Way

6th St

$70,000

Traffic Circle

Channing Wy

7th St

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Channing Wy

Browning St

$50,000

Traffic Circle

9th St

Channing Wy

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Bonar St

Channing Wy

$50,000

Traffic Circle

California St

Channing Wy

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Channing Wy

Dana St

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Channing Wy

Ellsworth St

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Channing Wy

Fulton St

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Channing Wy

10th St

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Channing Wy

Curtis St

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Channing Wy

Bowditch St

$50,000

Claremont Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

Claremont Ave

City Limits South

Warring St

Complete Street Corridor Study

1.10

$675,800

Dana St

Study Cycletrack (4)

Dana St

Bancroft Way

Dwight Way

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.25

$195,100

Derby St

PHB

San Pablo Ave

Parker St

$250,000

PHB

Shattuck Ave

Derby St

$250,000

Traffic Diverter

Derby St

Fulton St

$50,000

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Fulton St, Bancroft Way, Hearst Ave

6-6

2A: Standard Bike Lane Center St

Shattuck Ave

Oxford St

3C: Sharrows

Hearst Ave

Arch St/Le Conte Ave

Euclid Ave

3E: Bike Boulevard

Fulton St, Prince St, Deakin St, Wheeler St

Dwight Way

Woolsey St

Study Cycletrack (4)

Bancroft Way

Milvia St

Piedmont Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

Fulton St, Oxford St

Dwight Way

Study Cycletrack (4)

Hearst Ave

Cycletrack Crossing

Climbing route

0.12

$10,700

0.21

$2,100

0.98

$49,200

Complete Street Corridor Study

1.00

$607,200

Virginia St

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.89

$726,700

California St

Arch St/Le Conte Ave

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.91

$659,300

Bancroft Way

Barrow Ln/ Bowditch St

$60,000

Protected Intersection

Hearst Ave

Shattuck Ave

$650,000

Protected Intersection

Hearst Ave

Oxford St

$650,000

Protected Intersection

Hearst Ave

Arch St/Le Conte Ave

$650,000

FINAL PLAN Table 6-3: Tier 1 Projects Continued

Fulton St, Bancroft Way, Hearst Ave

Hillegass Ave

Hopkins St

Milvia St

Ohlone Greenway

LOCATION

CROSS ST A CROSS ST B NOTES

TOTAL COST MILES ESTIMATE

Protected Intersection

Fulton St

Bancroft Way

$650,000

Protected Intersection

Bancroft Way

Telegraph Ave

$650,000

Protected Intersection

Fulton St

Dwight Way

$650,000

Traffic Circle

Fulton St

Parker St

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Fulton St

Oregon St

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Prince St

Wheeler St

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Prince St

Deakin St

$50,000

PHB

Ashby Ave

Hillegass Ave

$250,000

RRFB + Median

Dwight Way

Hillegass Ave/ Bowditch St

$70,000

Traffic Circle

Hillegass Ave

Russell St

$50,000

Study Cycletrack (4)

Hopkins St

9th St

Milvia St

Complete Street Corridor Study

1.50

$1,014,100

Study Cycletrack (4)

Gilman St

2nd St

Hopkins St

Complete Street Corridor Study

1.19

$926,800

4: Two-Way Cycletrack

Milvia St

Hearst Ave

Blake St

0.75

$451,500

Protected Intersection

University Ave

Milvia St

$650,000

RRFB

Milvia St

Rose St

$50,000

RRFB

Milvia St

Hopkins St

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Milvia St

Oregon St

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Milvia St

Parker St

$50,000

1A: Paved Path

Ohlone Greenway

City Limits North

Peralta Ave

Off-street

0.34

$1,190,000

1A: Paved Path

Ohlone Greenway

Hopkins St

Virginia St

Off-street

0.36

$1,276,900

1A: Paved Path

Ohlone Greenway

Sacramento St

MLK Jr Way

Off-street

0.50

$1,742,000

3E: Bike Boulevard

Acton St

Delaware St

Virginia St

Study Cycletrack (4)

Delaware St

Acton St

Sacramento St

Study Cycletrack (4)

Peralta Ave

Hopkins St

Protected Intersection

Delaware St

Sacramento St

Raised Intersection

Ohlone Greenway

Gilman St

0.13

$6,300

0.13

$101,800

Ohlone Greenway

0.05

$30,000

Complete Street Corridor Study

$650,000 $125,000

IMPLEMENTATION

CORRIDOR

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

6-7

FINAL PLAN

Table 6-3: Tier 1 Projects Continued

CORRIDOR

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

LOCATION

CROSS ST A CROSS ST B NOTES

Ohlone Greenway

RRFB + Median + Raised

Ohlone Greenway

Santa Fe

$85,000

RRFB + Median + Raised

Ohlone Greenway

Hopkins St

$85,000

RRFB + Median + Raised

Ohlone Greenway

Rose St

$85,000

RRFB + Median + Raised

Ohlone Greenway

Cedar St

$85,000

RRFB + Median + Raised

Ohlone Greenway

Franklin St

$85,000

RRFB + Median + Raised

Ohlone Greenway

Peralta

$85,000

Cycletrack Crossing

San Pablo Ave

Heinz Ave/ Russell St

PHB

Russell St

Sacramento St

PHB

Russell St

RRFB + Median

Russell St

Short term Sidewalk

TOTAL COST MILES ESTIMATE

$60,000

$250,000

Adeline St

$250,000

Russell St

Shattuck Ave

$70,000

RRFB + Median

Russell St

Claremont Ave

$70,000

Traffic Circle

Russell St

King St

$50,000

Traffic Signal

San Pablo Ave

Heinz Ave/ Russell St

$500,000

San Pablo Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

San Pablo Ave

City Limits South

City Limits North

Complete Street Corridor Study

2.35

$1,434,100

Shattuck Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

Shattuck Ave

City Limits South

Rose St

Complete Street Corridor Study

2.08

$147,100

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

6-8

FINAL PLAN

Table 6-3: Tier 1 Projects Continued

CORRIDOR

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

LOCATION

CROSS ST A CROSS ST B NOTES

TOTAL COST MILES ESTIMATE

Virginia St

PHB

San Pablo Ave

Virginia St

$250,000

PHB

Sacramento St

Virginia St

$250,000

PHB

Shattuck Ave

Virginia St

$250,000

RRFB

Oxford St

Virginia St

$50,000

RRFB + Median

MLK Jr Way

Virginia St

$70,000

PHB

Adeline St

Woolsey St

$250,000

RRFB + Median

Woolsey St

Shattuck Ave

$70,000

Woolsey St

Total $26,318,900

IMPLEMENTATION

6-9

3 TRAIL

EL CERRITO

JOSEPHINE ST

University of California, Berkeley

AVE HEARST

AV E

TELEGRAPH AVE

PIEDMONT AVE

ST WOOLSEY

THE UP LANDS

RD EL NN TU

ADE LINE ST

D ONT BLV CLAREM

WARRING ST

COLLEGE AVE

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

L NIA EN NT E C

VE ONT A PIEDM

HILLEGASS AVE

PRINCE ST

CH ST BOWDIT

KING ST

Z AVE ALCATRA

T ST TREMON

PRINCE ST

DERBY ST ST DEAKIN FULTON ST R ST WHEELE

ST RUSSELL

DANA ST

SHATTUCK AVE

MLK JR WAY

NIA ST CALIFOR

TO ST SACRAMEN

MABEL ST

RAIL BAY T

T 65TH S

MILVIA ST

BERKELEY

N ST HARMO

GRANT ST

ST BONAR

AVE ABLO SAN P

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

AR DR BOLIV

WAY DWIGHT

FT WAY BANCRO

G WAY CHANNIN

AVE ASHBY

AY ST MURR

FIGURE FIGURE 6-2:

FT WAY BANCRO

WARD ST

AVE HEINZ

CENTER ST

ST ADDISON

OXFORD ST

T 5TH S

TY AVE UNIVERSI

ER ST PARK

EY YL GA

T 6TH S

ACTON ST

VE ELL A CORN

CEDAR ST

CL AR EM ON T

MO NTER EY A

PERA LTA A VE

SAN TA F EA CUR TIS S VE T

ROSE ST

EUCLID ST

WALNUT ST

T AVE TALBO

ST AN AN CH BU

S AVE KAIN

T SS KIN P HO

Tilden Regional Park

SPRUCE ST

SUT TER

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA VE

RE ST DELAWA

EMERYVILLE

E AV IN AR M

VE SON OMA AVE

ST VIRGINIA

ON ST ADDIS

E AV TON LING

A NA D SE

SOLANO AVE

ALBANY

AN ST GILM

CO LU SA AV E

E IN AV MAR

D BLV

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

FINAL PLAN

ON NY CA

LY IZZ GR

PE AK

PORTLAND AVE

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

W ILD CA T

OAKLAND 24

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CORRIDORS PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CORRIDORS

TIER 1 PRIORITY PROJECTS TIER 1 PRIORITY PROJECTS COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES -

TIER 2 PRIORITY PROJECTS TIER 2 PRIORITY PROJECTS

LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION* COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES LOW STRESS BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATION*

TIER 3 PRIORITY PROJECTS TIER 3 PRIORITY PROJECTS COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES PRIMARY TRANSIT CORRIDOR* COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR STUDIES PRIMARY TRANSIT CORRIDOR*

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

*Complete Street Corridor Studies are proposed multimodal transportation studies, not planned projects. Class IV Cycle Tracks and other bikeway types that might impact transit operations, parking, or roadway capacity will not be implemented without Complete Street Corridor Studies that will *Complete Street Corridor Studies areanalysis, proposed multimodal studies, planned State, projects. Classand IV Cycle and other Potential bikeway include a traffic study, environmental public process,transportation and coordination with not all affected County, local Tracks transit agencies. types thatto might impact transit operations, or Street roadway capacity will not without Complete Street priorities Corridor Studies that by will bikeways be considered as part of futureparking, Complete Corridor Studies willbe beimplemented evaluated in the context of the modal established include a traffic study,Plan environmental analysis, public process, and coordination with all affected State, County, and local transit agencies. Potential the Berkeley General Transportation Element and the Alameda County Transportation Commission Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan, as well bikeways to be considered as part of future Studies will be evaluated in the of the modal priorities as recommendations from AC Transit’s MajorComplete CorridorsStreet Study.Corridor For further information, see Section 5.7context of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan. established by the Berkeley General Plan Transportation Element and the Alameda County Transportation Commission Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan, as well as recommendations from AC Transit’s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan. 6-10

FINAL PLAN

6.3 PILOT PROJECTS “Pilot projects” are a way to test the impacts

Longer-term pilot projects can be installed

of changes to the transportation network

for a longer period of time prior to permanent

by temporarily constructing improvements

implementation. This allows for extensive

using non-permanent materials, in place for

data collection and public input, especially for

a specified, limited amount of time. These

potentially contentious projects. Materials such

projects enable the City to study the real-world

as traffic paint, flexible traffic delineator posts,

efficacy of such changes, often at a relatively

and moveable planters are often used during

modest cost due to the short-term materials

pilot projects and then may be later upgraded

used. Utilizing before and after data collection,

to permanent treatments such as thermoplastic,

they are monitored to understand benefits and

asphalt, concrete, and rigid bollards. Long-term

tradeoffs, with the goal of adjusting the final

pilot projects could include but are not limited to

design before committing to a more expensive

the following: • Southside Pilot Project (in partnership with

Short-term demonstration projects, sometimes

AC Transit), including bikeway, pedestrian, and

called tactical urbanism or temporary

transit improvements:

installations, are installed for one or two days in order to quickly evaluate a project and to gather feedback from the public. Demonstration projects usually use cones, temporary marking tape, moveable planters, and other nonpermanent materials that can be easily be installed, modified, and removed, as needed. Short-term demonstration projects could include but are not limited to the following: • Complex Bike Boulevard crossings: »» Addison Street/San Pablo Avenue »» Oregon Street/Heinz Avenue/San Pablo Avenue »» Hillegass Avenue/Bancroft Way

»» Telegraph Avenue from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way »» Bancroft Way from Piedmont Avenue to Milvia Street »» Dana Street from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way »» Fulton Street from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way • Downtown Milvia Street Bikeway including University Avenue intersection • High-priority Bike Boulevard corridors, such as: »» Channing Way »» Milvia Street »» Addison Street »» King Street

IMPLEMENTATION

permanent capital project.

»» Russell Street 6-11

FINAL PLAN

Both demonstration and long-term pilots

on Primary or Secondary Transit Routes should

should be approached from a Complete Streets

seek to test transit operations and access

design perspective, in the context of the modal

improvements whenever possible, utilizing the

priorities established by the Berkeley General

latest national design best practices, such as

Plan Transportation Element and the Alameda

the National Association of City Transportation

County Transportation Commission Countywide

Officials (NACTO) Transit Street Design Guide

Multimodal Arterial Plan. Pilot Projects should

and Urban Street Design Guide. Local guidance,

integrate improvements for all modes of

such as the forthcoming AC Transit Design

transportation whenever possible, including

Standards and Guidelines Manual for Safe and

consideration of people walking, biking, riding

Efficient Multimodal Transit Stops and Corridors

transit, and driving. For example, pilot projects

will also be consulted.

6.4 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS Table 6-4 gives the 2016 planning level cost assumptions used to determine project cost estimates. Unit costs are typical or average costs in the Bay Area. While they reflect typical costs, unit costs do not consider project-specific

UNIT

Bicycle Boulevard

Mile

Sharrow Marking*

Each

COST ESTIMATE $50,000 $350

Paved Path

Mile

$3,500,000

Two-Way Cycletrack

Mile

$600,000

grading, landscaping, or other location-specific

Standard Class II Bike Lanes

Mile

$90,000

factors that may increase actual costs. For some

Upgraded Bike Lanes

Mile

$180,000

2-Way Cycletrack Connector

Intersection

$60,000 $50,000

greater. CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

TREATMENT

factors such as right-of-way acquisition, intensive

segments, project costs may be significantly

6-12

Table 6-4: Planning-Level Cost Estimates

RRFB

Intersection

RRFB + Median

Intersection

$70,000

RRFB + Median + Raised Crosswalk

Intersection

$85,000

Raised Intersection

Intersection

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Crossing

Each

$250,000

Traffic Signal

Intersection

$500,000

Protected Intersection

Each

$650,000

$125,000

Traffic Circle/Diverter

Each

$50,000

Bike Station

Each

$1,500,000

*Assume 2 sharrow markings per intersection

FINAL PLAN

6.5 MAINTENANCE COSTS Maintenance costs are important to factor in during the annual budgeting process. Table 6-5 shows the estimated total annual costs of maintaining the bikeway facility types discussed in this Plan.

Table 6-5: Total Annual Maintenance Costs COST PER MILE PER YEAR

PROPOSED LENGTH (MILES)

TOTAL ANNUAL COST

Class I Shared-Use Path

$8,500

1.5

$12,750

Lighting, debris cleanup, and removal of vegetation overgrowth

Class II Bicycle Lanes (two sides)

$1,500

3.1

$4,650

Repainting lane stripes and stencils; sign replacement as needed

Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides)

$1,000

26.3

$26,300

Sign and shared-lane stencil replacement as needed

Class IV Separated Bikeways (two sides)

$4,000

18.4

$73,600

Debris removal; repainting stripes and stencils; sign replacement; replacing damaged barriers

49.3

$117,300

FACILITY TYPE

Total

NOTES

6.6 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND STAFFING COSTS Capital project costs only capture a portion of the resources needed to fully implement this plan. In addition to base capital costs, contingencies are added to capture unanticipated increases in the cost of project materials and/or labor. The City will need to utilize a combination of staff and consultant resources for project delivery phases that include Planning (conceptual project development and funding); Preliminary Engineering (environmental clearance and design); Final Design; and Construction Management (contractor oversight, inspection, and invoicing). Table 6-6 provides a planning-level estimate of these “soft costs” associated with delivering Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects.

Table 6-6: Total Planning-Level Implementation Cost Estimate CAPITAL COST

CAPITAL CONTINGENCY (10%)

TIER

YEARS

Tier 1

2016-2025

$26,318,900

$2,631,890

Tier 2

2025-2035

$4,658,400

$465,840

$5,124,240

Tier 3

2025-2035

$3,493,800

$349,380

$3,843,180

Totals

CAPITAL TOTAL $28,950,790

$34,471,100

$37,918,210

PLANNING (25%)

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (25%)

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15%)

Tier 1

$7,237,700

$4,342,600

$18,818,000

$47,768,800

Tier 2

$1,281,100

$768,600

$3,330,800

$8,455,000

Tier 3

$960,800

$576,500

TIER

Totals

TOTAL “SOFT COSTS”

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE

$2,498,100

$6,341,300

$24,646,900

$62,565,100

IMPLEMENTATION

Table continues below

6-13

FINAL PLAN

6.7 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS This Plan recommends nearly $34.5 million in infrastructure recommendations to help Berkeley

Complete Street Corridor Studies

achieve its vision of becoming a model bicycle-

As defined by the Berkeley Complete Streets

friendly city. Table 6-7 shows the mileage or

Policy, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Complete Streetsâ&#x20AC;? describes a

count along with total cost estimate by type

comprehensive, integrated transportation

of recommendation. Appendix E: Project

network for all users. Providing a complete

Recommendation Tables and Prioritization

network does not necessarily mean that every

provides the full project lists and their locations.

street will provide dedicated facilities for all transportation modes, but rather that the

Table 6-7: Summary of Project Recommendations and Cost Estimates TYPE

1.5 miles

$5,285,700

Class 2A: Standard Bike Lane

0.1 miles

$10,700

Class 2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

3.0 miles

$541,500

Class 3C: Sharrows

13.9 miles

$71,600

Class 3E: Bicycle Boulevard

12.4 miles

$621,900

Class 4: Cycletrack

18.4 miles

$9,903,300

Complete Street Corridor Interim Treatments

17.0 miles

$1,181,400

4 ct.

$240,000

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)

16 ct.

$4,000,000

Protected Intersection

10 ct.

$6,500,000

Raised Intersection

1 ct.

$125,000

RRFB

5 ct.

$250,000

14 ct.

$980,000

6 ct.

$510,000

Traffic Circle

42 ct.

$2,100,000

Traffic Diverter

13 ct.

$650,000

3 ct.

$1,500,000

66.3 miles/114 ct

$34,471,100

RRFB + Median CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

COST ESTIMATE

Class 1A: Paved Path

Two-Way Cycletrack Crossing Connector

6-14

MILEAGE/COUNT

RRFB + Median + Raised Crosswalk

Traffic Signal Total

FINAL PLAN

transportation network will provide convenient,

as part of future Complete Street Corridor

safe, and connected routes for all modes of

Studies will be evaluated in the context of the

transportation within and across the City. For

modal priorities established by the Berkeley

the purposes of bikeway planning, the City of

General Plan Transportation Element and the

Berkeley considers both the major/collector

Alameda County Transportation Commission

street and parallel streets part of a Complete

Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan. Studies

Street Corridor; potential bikeways on both

to consider the inclusion of bikeways will be

the major/collector street bikeway and on

coordinated with proposed improvements to

parallel streets should be evaluated as part of

transit performance on Primary Transit Routes,

a Complete Street Corridor Study. Of the major

such as bus boarding islands, transit-only lanes,

and collector streets shown on Figure 6-1 and

transit signal priority/queue jump lanes, far-side

Figure 6-2 as requiring a Class IV Cycletrack to

bus stop relocations, and other improvements as

meet LTS 1 or 2, most of them will require further

described in the AC Transit Major Corridor Study.

study in order to evaluate their suitability for

In addition, these studies should approach

this treatment and impacts on other modes of

Secondary Transit Routes as opportunities

transportation. These major and collector streets

for transit improvements, such as bus stop

provide access to local Berkeley businesses

optimization and relocation, among other

or opportunities for direct cross-town or

potential improvements. At the conclusion of the

interjurisdictional travel not duplicated by a

Complete Streets Corridor Study process, design

parallel street. They currently serve multiple

alternatives which have a significant negative

modes of transportation, requiring further

effect on transit on Primary Transit Routes will

consideration above and beyond that of bicycle

not be recommended. Criteria to define what

travel. These streets are therefore labeled as

constitutes a significant negative effect on

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Complete Street Corridor Studiesâ&#x20AC;? on the map

transit will be developed and applied during the

figures.

Study process for each corridor. Example criteria

that might impact transit operations, parking, or roadway capacity will not be implemented without these Complete Street Corridor Studies that will include a traffic study, environmental analysis, public process, and coordination with all affected State, County, and local transit agencies. Potential bikeways to be considered

for evaluating transit impacts are provided in Section 5.7 of this Plan. Consideration of how to allocate limited public right-of-way among various travel modes will be made consistent with Alameda County Transportation Commission modal priorities and the City of Berkeley General Plan.

IMPLEMENTATION

Class IV Cycle Tracks and other bikeway types

6-15

FINAL PLAN

These corridors may have interim treatments

negatively impacting existing or planned transit

installed while the corridor study and final

operations on Primary or Secondary Transit

recommended design are being completed.

Routes. Table 6-8 shows the extent of the

Interim treatments are those that do not require

Complete Street Corridor Study projects and

a full Complete Streets Corridor Study. Interim

provides the recommended interim treatments.

and phased treatments may still require traffic

Some corridors list multiple interim treatment

study, interagency coordination, and public

types that would be implemented along

process if they impact roadway capacity,

different segments of the same corridor. Table

parking, or transit operations. Interim and

E-7 in Appendix E presents a more detailed

phased treatments should not negatively

breakdown of the recommended Complete

impact existing transit operations; mitigations

Street Corridor Studies and interim treatments.

should accompany interim treatments to ensure no degradation of transit service. For example, Shared Roadway Bicycle Markings may be installed, or existing bike lanes may first be colored green, then later converted

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

into a Class IV Cycletrack if feasible without

6-16

For more information about future Complete Street Corridor Studies, see Section 5.7, Appendix E, and Appendix F.

FINAL PLAN

Table 6-8: Complete Street Corridor Studies INTERIM TREATMENT

MILES

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE

LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

RECOMMENDED STUDY

4th St

Virginia St

University Ave

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

3C: Sharrows

0.31

$58,500

Adeline St

King St

Shattuck Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane, 3C: Sharrows

0.99

$710,800

Bancroft Way

Milvia St

Piedmont Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

3C: Sharrows

1.00

$607,200

Claremont Ave

City Limits - South

Warring St

Study Cycletrack (4)

3C: Sharrows

1.10

$675,800

Colusa Ave

Solano Ave

Tacoma Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.13

$104,800

Dana St

Bancroft Way

Dwight Way

Study Cycletrack (4)

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.25

$195,100

Delaware St

Acton St

Sacramento St

Study Cycletrack (4)

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.13

$101,800

Euclid Ave

Virginia St

Hearst Ave

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

3C: Sharrows

0.19

$36,800

Fulton St, Oxford St

Dwight Way

Virginia St

Study Cycletrack (4)

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane, 3C: Sharrows, Study Cycletrack (4)

0.89

$726,700

Gilman St

2nd St

Hopkins St

Study Cycletrack (4)

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

1.19

$926,800

Hearst Ave

California St

Arch St/Le Conte Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.91

$659,300

Hopkins St

9th St

Milvia St

Study Cycletrack (4)

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane, 3C: Sharrows

1.50

$1,014,100

Piedmont Ave, Warring St

Bancroft Way

Derby St

Study Cycletrack (4)

3C: Sharrows

0.54

$327,000

San Pablo Ave

City Limits - South

City Limits North

Study Cycletrack (4)

3C: Sharrows

2.35

$1,434,100

Shattuck Ave

City Limits - South

Rose St

Study Cycletrack (4)

3C: Sharrows

2.08

$147,100

Solano Ave

City Limits - West

Northbrae Tunnel

Study Cycletrack (4)

3C: Sharrows

0.52

$317,500

Telegraph Ave

Woolsey St

Bancroft Way

Study Cycletrack (4)

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

1.09

$851,100

The Alameda

Hopkins St

Solano Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

2A: Standard Bike Lane

0.44

$303,400

University Ave

Oxford St

4th St

Study Cycletrack (4)

3C: Sharrows

1.88

$1,144,400 Total $10,342,300

6-17

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FINAL PLAN

6-18