a product message image
{' '} {' '}
Limited time offer
SAVE % on your upgrade

Page 1

FINAL PLAN

CITY OF BERKELEY

BICYCLE PLAN APPENDICES

Approved May 2, 2017 by Berkeley City Council

1


CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX A

A-1


FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX A.

Policy Review A.1 POLICY CONTEXT Five of the City’s most prominent documents— the City of Berkeley General Plan (2002),

• Improve the quality of life in Berkeley neighborhoods by calming and slowing traffic on all residential streets. • Maintain and improve the existing

the Berkeley Climate Action Plan (2009), the

infrastructure and facilities for the movement

Berkeley Complete Streets Policy (2012), the

of people, goods, and vehicles within and

Downtown Area Plan (2012), and the Downtown

through the city.

Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan (2012)—provide a policy framework for the BBP. These documents cut across multiple City planning efforts and City departments. The BBP will be consistent with the bicycle policies and actions, listed throughout the City’s General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Complete Streets Policy summarized below.

• Create a model bicycle- and pedestrianfriendly city where bicycling and walking are safe, attractive, easy, and convenient forms of transportation and recreation for people of all ages and abilities.

A.1.2 Climate Action Plan The Berkeley Climate Action Plan provides

The City of Berkeley General Plan: A Guide for Public Decision-Making (General Plan) was published in 2002. The purpose of the General Plan is to provide a long-range document of planning priorities and values to guide decision-making processes for future years. The Transportation Element of the General Plan has six primary objectives to guide transportation planning efforts, plus a list of policies and actions to reach the City’s goals. The recommendations in the BBP will support the following relevant

a supportive policy context for the BBP. The Berkeley Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in 2009 with an ambitious mission: reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 33 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, and 80 percent by 2050. The CAP assumes local governments and communities are uniquely capable of addressing the primary sources of GHG emissions: transportationrelated emissions resulting from vehicle-miles traveled, residential and commercial building energy use, and the generation of solid waste.

objectives of the General Plan’s Transportation

The CAP outlines a vision for meeting the

Element:

City’s GHG reduction goals, which prominently

• Reduce automobile use and vehicle miles traveled in Berkeley, and the related impacts, by providing and advocating for transportation alternatives and subsidies that facilitate voluntary decisions to drive less.

features the need to expand mobility options and to accelerate the implementation of the BBP and the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan. To meet that vision, the CAP lists the following policies:

APPENDIX A

A.1.1 General Plan

A-1


FINAL PLAN

• Continue to expand and improve Berkeley’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure • Partner with local and regional organizations and agencies to promote and market cycling and walking as attractive alternatives to driving • Partner with BART, AC Transit, and other

Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Alameda County Transportation Commission, and the policy helps connect the reduction of GHG emissions to transportation decisions. The BBP will support the Complete Streets Policy by identifying projects that make bicycling along and across City streets safer and more

trains and buses and at stations and stops

convenient.

operations by maintaining and expanding the fleet of bicycles available for City employees, encouraging City staff to take advantage of the fleet, considering the inclusion of electric bicycles and cargo bicycles into the fleet, providing mileage reimbursement for City’s employee’s personal bicycle use for work trips, and providing secure parking near City employment sites.

A.1.3 Complete Streets Policy

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Adoption of the policy was required by the

transit providers to improve bicycle access on

• Continue to incorporate bicycles into municipal

A-2

responders, seniors, youth, and families.

A.1.4 Downtown Area Plan The City of Berkeley’s 2012 Downtown Area Plan (DAP) serves as the specific guiding document for future development for Downtown Berkeley. Goals of the DAP include Economic Development, Housing and Community Health, Historic Preservation and Urban Design, Land Use, and Streetscapes and Open Space. Specific policies from the DAP that relate to the BBP include:

In December 2012, the Berkeley City Council

Policy ES-2.1: Promote a Green Downtown and

adopted a Complete Streets Policy (Resolution

Model Best Practices. Promote Downtown as

65,978-N.S.) to guide future street design and

a model of sustainability and place that will

repair activities. “Complete Streets” describes

attract visitors who want to see how “green”

a comprehensive, integrated transportation

a city can be. Increase public awareness

network with infrastructure and design that

of environmental features and programs

allows safe and convenient travel along and

Downtown.

across streets for all users, including people walking, people bicycling, persons with disabilities, people driving motor vehicles, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, emergency

»» d) Create educational programs that highlight best practices for sustainability, including: green buildings, transitoriented-development, adaptive re-use, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities and


FINAL PLAN

amenities. Consider establishing walking tours

character of each street, and emphasize the

to highlight sustainability features and the

needs and comfort of pedestrians, transit,

idea of “nature in the city” (such as by offering

and bicycles.

tours of songbird and butterfly habitat, examining the effects of trees and vegetation on microclimate, or considering fish habitat in Strawberry Creek).

–– Modifications should encourage traffic to flow at speeds under 25 miles per hour. »» c) Implement street improvements that benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit.

Policy ES-3.4: Alternative Modes. Enhance and expand transit service, walking, and bicycle use as an alternative to the use and ownership of private vehicles. Policy ES-4.2: Alternative Modes. Modify development standards to promote alternatives to the automobile by providing car share and bicycle facilities, transit passes for residents, and parking regulations that favor alternative modes.

Reallocate parts of public rights-of-way that give unneeded capacity to motor vehicles and can be repurposed to yield pedestrian, bicycle, and/or ecological benefits. Travel lanes should not be eliminated until analysis has determined that safety, transit, and traffic operation can be adequately addressed, however the DAP EIR has indicated that traffic lane reductions appear to feasible in the following locations: –– Shattuck Avenue and Shattuck Square

Policy AC-1.1: Street Modifications. Modify Downtown’s streets and street network to better serve the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. While recognizing that automobiles will be an important transportation mode for the foreseeable future, reduce and avoid negative impacts from the private automobile on pedestrians, transit, and bicycles. Development

between University Avenue and Allston; –– University Avenue between Shattuck Square and Oxford; –– Hearst Avenue between Shattuck and Oxford; and –– Closing Center Street to regular traffic between Shattuck and Oxford.

projects that are adjacent to designated street improvements should finance a fair-share of

»» a) Encourage potential motorists to access Downtown using other modes. »» b) Modify streets to slow automobile traffic

APPENDIX A

these improvements as condition of approval.

to speeds appropriate to the function and A-3


FINAL PLAN

»» d) Adopt a Downtown Streets & Open Space Improvement Plan that establishes policies

Discourage the use of single-occupant vehicles

and actions relating to street improvements

(SOVs) by commuters to Downtown and

that can occur throughout the Downtown

encourage commuting with transit, ridesharing,

Area (such as sidewalk bulb-outs, suitable

bicycles, and on foot.

travel lane widths, bicycle parking, street trees, street lighting, furnishings, etc.) as well as major projects (including Center Street Plaza, Center Street Greenway and Civic Center Park, Shattuck Square, University

»» c) Strengthen parking policies that discourage all-day SOV parking while encouraging alternative modes. »» d) Consistent with the Urban Environmental

Avenue Gateway, Shattuck Avenue, and

Accords endorsed by Berkeley, strive to

Hearst Street).

reduce single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to

»» e) Evaluate street network changes from the perspective of the needs, safety, and comfort of bicyclists and pedestrians, including changes to lanes and turning movements. Where accommodations for private automobiles and accommodations for pedestrians are in conflict, decisions should reflect the priority of the pedestrian. Accept that improvements may result in slowing down vehicular traffic. Reconfigure automobile traffic on Shattuck Square, so that the west side of Shattuck Square accommodates two-way traffic, and the east side of Shattuck Square can become a slow CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Policy AC-1.2: Single-Occupant Vehicles.

be no more than 40% of all commute trips by 2020. Monitor peak period trips to the extant feasible, and adjust measures to meet these targets. Policy AC-1.3: Alternative Modes & Transportation Demand Management (TDM). New development and on-going programs should reduce Downtown car use, support alternative travel modes, and consolidate publicly-accessible parking facilities and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. »» a) A fee requirement should be established

street or plaza with a high level of pedestrian

to support alternative modes (i.e. transit,

amenity.

walking, and bicycling) and Transportation Demand Management programs. Parking requirements for new development may be reduced by paying an in lieu fee into a fund to enhance transit, which might be contained within the Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP); in lieu payments for parking should be encouraged.

A-4


FINAL PLAN

»» e) Develop a TDM “toolbox” for new

Transit center improvements should result

development that explains TDM

in an inviting, pedestrian-friendly place with

requirements, and encourages other

negative impacts from buses mitigated to

TDM features such as: showers for bike

the extent possible.

commuters, bicycle sharing kiosks, and plugin facilities for electric vehicles. »» f) Encourage all Downtown businesses to reward customers and employees who arrive

»» b) Enhance access to BART on foot and by bike. Improve the BART Plaza’s function as a transit bug by implementing improvements that make it more pedestrian-friendly.

by transit, by bicycle, or on foot, or who use off-street garages instead of on-street

Policy AC-4.4: Transit and Bikes. Encourage

parking, such as with merchant validation

bicycle access to Downtown for local and

programs and other incentives.

regional transit trips.

Policy AC-3.1: Effective Parking. Manage parking more effectively to promote Downtown economic vitality while simultaneously discouraging all-day parking. Parking standards should support the continued health of Downtown’s retail and cultural uses.

»» a) Increase high-capacity bicycle parking near BART and other major transit stops. »» b) Support the expansion of the Downtown Berkeley bicycle station and high-quality bicycle storage facilities in other transitaccessible locations. »» c) Encourage transit providers to expand

Policy AC-4.3: Transit Center. Improve access to

bicycle access on transit vehicles, including

BART and enhance the Downtown BART Station

increased storage on trains and buses.

as a transportation hub for AC Transit and other transit providers. »» a) Explore alternatives for creating a Downtown Transit Center to link AC Transit to other modes, including shuttles, taxis, bicycles and bike rentals, arrival by car, and walking. Consider how bus turn-around, facilities might be incorporated. The transit center should speed boarding and transfers, but should not be used for bus layovers.

APPENDIX A

boarding platforms, and visitor information

A-5


FINAL PLAN

Policy AC-5.1: Bike Network Improvements. Give bicycles priority over personal vehicles on many streets Downtown. Make bicycling safer and more convenient in and through Downtown by making improvements to Berkeley’s and Downtown’s bicycle network. Provide bikeways on low-speed low-traffic streets and bike lanes where appropriate. Address the needs of bicyclists of all ages and abilities. »» a) Adopt a Downtown Streets & Open Space Improvement Plan with specific policies and actions relating to bike network improvements. »» b) Consider locations in Downtown where

»» d) Promote the creation of an at-grade attended or automated bicycle-parking service. Work with BART to consider replacing the existing bicycle station with a joint City/BART aboveground facility, perhaps in a storefront on Shattuck Avenue. »» e) Require the provision of secure bicycle parking facilities by new development projects (and major renovations), both public and private. Policy AC-5.3: Bike Sharing. Promote convenient “bike sharing” options (i.e., short-

safety and convenience along streets with

term bike rentals) and their use by employees,

higher levels of bicycle use.

residents, and visitors – especially near BART.

the availability of convenient, secure and attractive short- and long-term bicycle parking throughout Downtown. »» a) Increase the availability of secured bicycle parking throughout Downtown, particularly in areas of high use, including bicycle parking options that are sheltered and/or CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

transit centers and major destinations.

bike-activated traffic lights would improve

Policy AC-5.2: Bicycle Parking. Increase

A-6

»» c) Provide sufficient bicycle parking near

attended. »» b) Increase availability of bicycle racks throughout Downtown, especially where parking meter poles are removed.

»» a) Publicize available bike rentals in Downtown, such as at the Berkeley Bike Station. »» b) Identify criteria for design, program, and location of new bike sharing facilities. Solicit proposals from bike share providers for facilities consistent with these criteria. Give special consideration to locations near BART.


FINAL PLAN

Policy AC-5.4: Business & Institutional Support.

Policy OS-1.2: Street & Open Space

Make it easier for Downtown employees to

Opportunities. Develop appropriate design

commute by bike, especially employees of the

options for the following street segments, and

City, University, and BUSD.

existing and potential open spaces. »» e) Shattuck Avenue. Make Shattuck a

and substantial renovations to provide

world-class tree-lined “boulevard” that

showers and lockers for employees, so that

is exceptionally attractive, emphasizes

bicyclists can change work clothes at their

pedestrians and bicyclists, and models

destinations.

sustainability. Dedicated a significant portion

»» b) Study the feasibility of subsidizing the cost of bicycles for Downtown employees. Work with Downtown employers and bicycle

of Shattuck’s right-of-way to be park or similarly active space. »» f) Ohlone Greenway Extension. Extend the

merchants to explore the potential for

Ohlone Greenway from where it ends to

discounts for the purchase of bicycles.

the UC Berkeley Campus by adding bicycle

»» c) If bike sharing is established, consider reducing the cost of bike sharing for Downtown employees and others. »» d) Enhance the CIty’s own bicycle program for City employees. Policy HD-4.1. Pedestrian-Oriented Design.

facilities, street trees, and greenery. »» g) Allston Way as a Special Civic Street. Celebrate Allston Way and abutting community uses by installing decorative special features and making it more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly.

aesthetic quality of Downtown’s environments

A.1.5 Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan

through appropriate design. New construction

The 2012 Streets and Open Space Improvement

and building alterations should promote

Plan (SOSIP) serves as an implementing initiative

pleasing public open spaces and streets with

of the Downtown Area Plan. The SOSIP presents

frequent street-level entrances and beautiful

a shared vision for the future of Downtown

facades. In commercial areas, buildings

Berkeley’s public realm through strategies and

should encourage activity along the street and

implementing actions that include placemaking,

generally maintain the urban tradition of no

public life, health and comfort, access, and

street-level setbacks.

sustainability. Major bicycle-related projects in

Improve the pedestrian experience and the

»» Provide adequate lighting and safety

the SOSIP include:

APPENDIX A

»» a) Require new office and retail construction

features in garages, in bus shelters, and at bicycle parking.

A-7


FINAL PLAN

• Shattuck Avenue & park Blocks. Shattuck’s wide right-of-way makes dramatic

safer and more convenient in and through

transformations possible. A linear “park block”

Downtown by making improvements to the

between Allston & Kittredge would provide

bicycle network. Consider bicyclists of all ages

active uses, amenities, trees, and landscaping

and abilities.

near BART and Downtown cinemas. Between Durant and Haste, park blocks would provide activities and recreational options for area residents. Sidewalks would be widened where park blocks are absent, and would be accompanied by amenities and “rain gardens” to hold and remove pollutants from the urban runoff that washes off of streets. New bike lanes would offer easy access to local destinations and enhance safety. • Hearst Avenue & Ohlone Greenway Extension.

lanes along Milvia between University Avenue and Allston Way. Consider the elimination of the right-hand vehicle “slip lane” on the southwest corner of Milvia and Allston, and consider pavement markings for bicyclists at Milvia and University. In recognition of high motor vehicle volumes, accompany bicycle lane improvements with traffic calming features. Consider traffic calming features that also have ecological benefits (see Watershed Management &

pedestrian connection to Albany, El Cerrito,

Green Infrastructure). In the long term,

and Richmond, and would be extended to

create a shared street / plaza in front of

the UC Campus with landscaping, continuous

the Civic Center building. To establish bike

bicycle lanes, and pedestrian improvements.

lanes on Milvia between University and

Ohlone Greenway Phase I is listed as a tier II high priority and the Milvia Avenue Bike Lanes and Shattuck Avenue Bike Lanes are listed as tier III priorities. Other “minor opportunities” include CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

»» a) Milvia Street. Establish continuous bicycle

The Ohlone Greenway provides a bicycle/

Among the major projects, the Hearst Avenue/

A-8

Policy 3.1: Network Connectivity. Make bicycling

making Allston Way into a bicycle route with traffic calming and improving bicycle safety on Oxford Street. Bicycle-related policies and actions included in the SOSIP are listed below:

Center Street, on-street parking would need to be removed on the west side of the street where on-street spaces are also limited by multiple curb cuts and red zones. Avoid a net loss of parking by increasing the availability of nearby parking —such as by providing direct access from the Golden Bear parking lot to Milvia, and/or converting reserved spaces along Civic Center Park to metered spaces. »» b) Hearst Avenue. On Hearst Avenue, bike lanes should be extended from west of Shattuck Avenue to the UC campus.


FINAL PLAN

»» c) Fulton Street Contraflow Lane. Consider

vehicles, and mitigate potentially dangerous

establishing a northbound contraflow

conditions. Consider features such as “bike

lane on Fulton between Dwight Way

boxes” at intersections, queue jump signals

and Durant Avenue. Fulton Street is an

for bicyclists, bike lanes that pass behind

attractive bicycle/route south of Dwight

bus stops, dashing striped bike lanes, signing

Way, but bicyclists traveling north are

where vehicles blend to indicate where bikes

presently diverted before Dwight where

may not have the right-of-way, and using

they encounter one-way southbound traffic.

“farside” bus stops so that buses can always

Note also that Fulton bike lanes would

pull through intersections before stopping.

reduce bicycle traffic on Shattuck. On-street

Continue to enforce laws that prohibit

parking would need to be removed to create

bicycle riding on sidewalks.

a contraflow bicycle lane. Avoid a net loss of parking, consistent with Policy 1.16, ZeroNet Parking Strategy. »» d) Allston Way. Extend Class 2.5 Bike Route

»» f) Center Street Greenway. Evaluate how to best provide for the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians while also providing a greenway that establishes a landscaped connection

to Oxford in recognition of significant

between Civic Center Park, Center Street

bicycle volumes. Consider ways to calm

Plaza, and the UC Campus. The Major

vehicle traffic on Allston Way, such as

Projects chapter presents options for Center

through the use of “speed tables” and

Street between Shattuck and Milvia.

shared street features. Consider installing a bike-activated traffic signal at the Allston/ Oxford intersection and better connecting bike lanes and paths of travel near that intersection to support bicycle travel from Allston Way to the UC Campus.

»» g) Shattuck Square & University Avenue. Consider how bicycle facilities might be incorporated into eastside Shattuck Square and end of University Avenue improvements, so as to further enhance Berkeley’s bicycle network.

»» e) Shattuck Avenue. Shattuck should be reconfigured to become a “complete street” by adding bicycle lanes south of Center Street. Grade-separate these new bike lanes between bicyclists, buses, and other

APPENDIX A

where feasible. Consider probable conflicts

A-9


FINAL PLAN

Policy 3.2: Bicycle Parking. Increase the supply

Policy 3.3: Bike Sharing. Encourage the creation

of convenient, secure and attractive short-term

of “bike sharing” (i.e., convenient bike rental)

and long-term bicycle parking throughout the

programs in Downtown, and their use by

Downtown Area, but especially near major

employees, residents, and visitors, especially

destinations.

near BART.

»» a) Identify potential locations for new bicycle

»» a) Identify criteria for the design, program,

parking facilities and work with surrounding

and location of bike sharing facilities, by

stakeholders to determine preferred

examining existing programs in North

locations. Use this analysis when installing

American and Europe. Solicit proposals from

bicycle racks.

bike share providers for facilities consistent

»» b) Consider converting on-street car parking to bicycle parking in locations with high demand, since one 20-foot car stall can accommodate up to 12 bicycles without occupying sidewalk space. In these locations, bike racks should be placed such that parked bikes are perpendicular to the curb. Bollards should be used to delineate and protect bicycles from vehicle lanes. »» c) Position bicycle racks to avoid obstructing pedestrian flows and should conform to criteria contained in Berkeley’s Bicycle Plan and Bicycle Parking Specifications (2008). »» d) Consider ways that bike racks can be

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

used for artistic expression.

A-10

»» e) Provide adequate sheltered and attended parking options, and support their on-going operations.

with these criteria.


FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX A

This page intentionally left blank.

A-11


CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX B

B-1


FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX B.

Collision Analysis Bicycle-related collisions and collision locations

The analysis of reported bicycle-related

in Berkeley were analyzed over the most recent

collisions can reveal patterns and potential

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

sources of safety issues, both design

A bicycle-related collision describes a collision

and behavior-related. These findings can

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

provide the City of Berkeley with a basis for

motor vehicle, pedestrian, stationary object) or

infrastructure and program improvements

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

to enhance bicycle safety. A list of primary

a bicycle has a solo-crash due to slippery road

findings is below, and described in the

conditions or rider error). The term “collision

following sections.

at least one collision was recorded over the twelve-year period.

• Bicycle-involved collisions were concentrated along roadway segments without bikeway infrastructure near major activity centers

Collision data for this report was generated

such as commercial corridors, UC-Berkeley,

from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic

and Ashby BART station. This suggests that

Report System (SWITRS). Because SWITRS

people bicycling in Berkeley are willing to

combines records from all state and local police

ride on routes without bikeway infrastructure

departments, data varies due to differences in

if it is the most direct and accessible route to

reporting methods. It is important to note that

their destination.

the number of collisions reported to SWITRS is likely an underestimate of the actual number of collisions that take place because some parties do not report minor collisions to law enforcement, particularly collisions not resulting in injury or property damage. Although underreporting and omissions of “near-misses” are limitations, analyzing the crash data lets us look for trends both spatially and in behaviors

• On streets with bikeway infrastructure, Milvia Street had the highest number of total collisions between 2001 and 2012, which suggests that programmatic and design changes may be necessary to accommodate the mix of roadway users along Berkeley’s Downtown Bicycle Boulevards. • Along Bicycle Boulevards, the highest

(motorist and cyclist) or design factors that

density of collisions occurred where the

cause bicycle collisions in Berkeley.

Bicycle Boulevard crossed a major arterial such as Shattuck Avenue, University Avenue, College Avenue, and Martin Luther King Jr Way. This finding aligns with public input, which called for improved crossings of Bicycle Boulevards at major streets.

APPENDIX B

location” describes a geographic location where

B-1


FINAL PLAN

B.1. NUMBER, LOCATION, AND TRENDS • Collisions resulting in severe injuries were

Between 2001 and 2012, there were 1,773 total

concentrated at intersections, particularly

reported bicycle collisions in Berkeley, with a

along Ashby Avenue, Adeline Street, College

concentration of bicycle collisions occurring

Avenue, and Channing Way.

downtown, near the UC campus, and on major

• 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 who bicycle in Berkeley. This finding may also suggest that targeted programming for college students and young professionals could help reduce collisions for which the person bicycling is at fault. • The most common factors resulting in a bicycle-involved collision were a right-of-

roadways. Figure B-4 maps the density of bicycle collisions over the twelve-year study period. The streets with the highest number of bicycle collisions (see Table B-1) include: Shattuck Avenue, College Avenue, San Pablo Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Way, and University Avenue, all of which serve important functions as direct routes through the City and as commercial and retail service destinations. None of these streets have bikeways, which suggests that the absence of a bikeway will not necessarily deter a person who wants to bike the most direct route through the city or needs to access a local restaurant, store, or business.

way violation, hazardous violation, unsafe speed, and improper turning. Potential collision mitigation strategies to address these violations may include bikeway channelization along major arterials,

Table B-1: High Bicycle-Involved Collision Corridors, 2001-2012 CORRIDOR

distracted driving programming, additional strategies to slow people riding bicycles on

Shattuck Avenue

101

non-Bicycle Boulevards with steep downhill

College Avenue

66

San Pablo Avenue

64

Martin Luther King Jr Way

60

University Avenue

50

Milvia Street

48

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

slopes, and improved intersection design.

B-2

BICYCLEINVOLVED COLLISIONS

Further definition on these collision factors are included below.


FINAL PLAN

number of bicycle collisions, with a high density of collisions between Hearst Avenue and Derby Street. This location also received a high number of public comments, which is discussed in Section 4.6. Figure B-1 compares the number of collisions to bicycle counts conducted from 2001-2012. The City has conducted comprehensive counts for most years; however, due to staff shortages, limited or no counts were performed from 20062008. There has been an overall 73 percent

2,500

250

2,000

200

1,500

150

1,000

100

500

50

0

Bicyclist-involved Collisions per Year

Boulevard network, Milvia Street had the highest

Figure B-1: Trends of citywide bicycle counts compared with collisions Daily Bicycle Counts at Selected 10 Intersections

On streets with bikeways, including on the Bicycle

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

COUNTS

COLLISIONS

2011 2012

LINEAR (COUNTS)

increase in bicycle volumes and a 5 percent decrease in the number of reported bicycle collisions throughout Berkeley from 2001 to 2012. Although the rate of collisions compared to counts fluctuated from 2001 to 2005, in the more recent years there has been an 18 percent increase in bicycle volumes and a 27 percent decrease in the number of reported bicycle collisions throughout Berkeley, from 194 in 2009 to 141 in 2012 (Figure B-1). This trend is consistent with volume and collision statistics from other cities where the number of bicycle-related collisions correlates inversely with the number of people riding bicycles: the more people riding bicycles, the fewer collisions per bicyclist there are.1 It is important to note that changes in the collision rate may be a result of random variability

1 Jacobsen, P. L. “Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling� Injury Prevention (2003), 9:205-209. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205.full.

APPENDIX B

or other factors not included in the analysis.

B-3


3 TRAIL FIRE

KENSINGTON

EL CERRITO

!

!

!

!

PE AK

! ! ! !

!

! !

! BERKELEY !

!

MO NTER EY A

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !! ! !

! !

! !

ST WOOLSEY

OAKLAND

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

RD EL N N TU

!

!

ST DEAKIN

EMERYVILLE

!

!

!

T ST TREMON

!

ST ! 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ

!

KING ST

!

! !

MLK JR WAY

TO ST SACRAMEN

RAIL BAY T

AY MURR

!

IA ST CALIFORN

!

MABEL ST

!

! !

PIEDMONT AVE

!

HILLEGASS AVE

!

! !

!DWIGHT WAY

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

!

!

!

AVE ABLO SAN P

!

G WAY CHANNIN

FULTON ST

!

!

!

!

!

MILVIA ST

!

!!

OFT WAY BANCR! !

COLLEGE AVE

!

!

!

DANA ST

!!

! !

!

!

SHATTUCK AVE

T 4TH S

!

! !!

CENTER ST

DR

AV E

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

!

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

RD

! !

!

!

CEDAR ST

!

!

EY YL GA

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

OXFORD ST

!

T 6TH S

!

!

! !! ! ROSE ST ! !! !

! !

CL AR EM ON T

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Tilden Regional Park

!

!

!

ADE LINE ST

!

!

!

! EUCLID ST

!

! !

!

SPRUCE ST

!

AN ST GILM

! ! ! ! !

!

WALNUT ST

!

!

! ! !

T SS IN PK O H

!

JOSEPHINE ST

!

!

!

!

!

ACTON ST

ST AN AN CH BU

!

!

!

!

!

VE

ST

!

!

!

!

E AV

! SUT TER

ALBANY 80

!

!

! !

!

A MED THE ALA

E IN AV MAR

!RIN A M

!

! !

!

AVE COLUSA

!

!

TELEGRAPH AVE

!

! SOLANO AVE

AV E

!

E AV

A

TON LING

A NA D SE

!

!

!

VE

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

EN ! COL! US A

!

! D BLV

A

R

RD

!

!

LY IZZ GR

!

RD ON NY CA

!

FINAL PLAN

WI LD CA T

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

!

!

!

24

N 0

1/2 MI

FIGURE B-1: BICYCLE COLLISION DENSITY

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

NUMBER OF BICYCLE-INVOLVED COLLISIONS, 2001 to 2012

!

!

!

!

!

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

B-4

PARK/REC

CYCLETRACK [4A]

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION


FINAL PLAN

B.1.1. Highest Incidence Locations

The ten intersections with the highest number

Table B-2 illustrates the ten intersections where

with the exception of the two intersections on

the most bicycle collisions have occurred between 2001 and 2012 as recorded in SWITRS, indicating intersections that may warrant priority study for safety improvements.

of collisions are located in downtown Berkeley, College Avenue and the intersection on Adeline Street. The majority of the roadways for these intersections either lack any bicycle infrastructure or are designated as a Bicycle Boulevard and the collisions occurred where the Bicycle Boulevard crosses a major roadway or arterial.

Table B-2: Locations with the Highest Number of Collisions, 2001-2012 NUMBER OF COLLISIONS

1

Martin Luther King Jr Way

University Avenue

22

2

Hearst Avenue

Between Oxford Street and Spruce Street

22

3

Adeline Street

Alcatraz Avenue

22

4

College Avenue

Woolsey Street

21

5

Shattuck Avenue

Durant Avenue

20

6

Shattuck Avenue

University Avenue

19

7

College Avenue

Haste Street

17

8

Milvia Street

Between Allston Way and Kittredge Street

16

9

Channing Way

Shattuck Avenue

16

10

Martin Luther King Jr Way

Hearst Street

15

APPENDIX B

INTERSECTION

B-5


FINAL PLAN

B.1.2. Severity of Collisions

Figure B-2: Summary of collision severity, 2001-2012

52%

Of the 1,773 reported bicycle collisions over the twelve year period, 52 percent (929) of reported bicycle collisions resulted in an

36%

injury categorized as “other visible injury,” 36 percent (633) of reported collisions resulted in a “complaint of pain,” and 7 percent (116) of collisions did not result in an injury. Two collisions, or 0.1 percent of all bicycle collisions, resulted in a fatality. The city has a low proportion of collisions that resulted in a

0.1%

7%

5%

fatality or severe injury. Figure B-3 summarizes collisions by severity of injury and Figure B-3 shows the location of the collisions by severity. The two fatal collisions occurred at the intersection of Adeline Street and Fairview Street, and at the intersection of Bancroft Way

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

and Fulton Street.

B-6

FATALITY

SEVERE INJURY

OTHER VISIBLE INJURY

COMPLAINT OF PAIN

NO INJURY


RD RD BLVDBLVD ON ON NY NY CA CA LY LY IZZ IZZ GR GR PE AK PE AK

A

R

E E AV AV TONTON LINGLING A

MO MO NTERNTER EY EY A A

LID ST EUCLID EUCST RD RD EY EY YL YL GA GA

RD RD ST FOST OXFO OX

R LD NIA EN R NT LD A I CE N EN NT E C

TELETE GRLE GR AP HAP AVH E AVE

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

ST WOOLSEY ST WOOLSEY

RD RD EL EL N N N N TU TU

ADE ADE LINELINE ST ST

AVE NT AVE MONT MO PIEDPIED

ASS AVE LEGAVE HILLEG HILASS

N ST KIN ST DEAKI DEA

ST NTO NT ST OEM TREM TR

STG ST KINGKIN

EMERYVILLE EMERYVILLE

AVE E AVE COLLEG COLELEG

A ST NA ST DANDA

ST RUSSELL ST RUSSELL

STH ST HTC TCDI DIW BOWBO

STA ST AAN DAND

ON ON ST LTST FULTFU

VIA ST MILVIA MILST

JR WA JRYWAY MLKMLK

ST TO TO ST EN AM AM CREN SACRSA

BERKELEY BERKELEY

STIA ST IARN RN FOLI FO CALICA

STEL ST ELAB MABM

AVE AVE ABLO ABLO SAN SPAN P

RAILRAIL BAY T BAY T

ST 65TH E TRAZ AV STALCA 65TH AVE AZ TR CA AL

CENTER ST

AVE CK AVE TTU SHATTU SHACK

ST TH ST 9TH 9

T T 4TH S 4TH S

WAY DWIGHT

AVE ASHBY AVE Y B ASH

AY ST MURR AY ST MURR

University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley

CENTER ST

NT ST NT ST GRAGRA

ST TH ST 5TH 5

AVE HEARST AVE HEARST

FT WAY BANCRO OFT WAY NCR BA AY W G CHANNIN G WAY CHANNIN IGHT WAY DW

AVE HEINZ AVE Z HEIN

Tilden Regional Tilden Park Regional Park

ST ST SPRUCE SPRUCE

T T 6TH S 6TH S E ST AV HEAR T AVE S R A HE ON ST ADDIS ON ST ADDIS

ST VIRGINIA ST VIRGINIA ST E DELAWAR E ST DELAWAR TY AVE SI ER IV UN TY AVE UNIVERSI

CEDAR ST CEDAR ST

INE ST EPHST JOSEPH JOSINE

ROSE ST

AN ST GILM AN ST GILM

ON ST ACTON ACTST

ST ST AN AN AN AN CH CH BU BU

T SS IN PK T HO INS S PK HO ROSE ST

ST T ST LNU WALNU WAT

80

VE VE

E AV IN AR AVE M N I AR M

ST ST ERT TER SUT T SU

ALBANY ALBANY

DA DA LA AH ALEAME EM THE T

SOLANO AVE E IN AV MAR E IN AV R A M

E AVE AV SALU SA COLU CO

VE VE A A NA DNA D SE SE

AY AY EEGNRW EENW RE NE GN OHLO OHLO

SOLANO AVE

R

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

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

WI LD CA T WI LD CA T

FINAL PLAN

80

3 3 TRAIL TRAIL FIRE FIRE

KENSINGTON KENSINGTON

EL CERRITO EL CERRITO

24

OAKLAND OAKLAND

24

N N

0

1/2 MI

0

1/2 MI

FIGURE BICYCLE COLLISION SEVERITY FIGURE B-3: BICYCLE COLLISION SEVERITY MINOR INJURY MINOR INJURY PAVED PATH [1A] PAVED PATH [1A] UNPAVED PATH [1B] UNPAVED PATH [1B]

SEVERE INJURY SEVERE INJURY

FATALITY FATALITY

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

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK PARK/REC PARK/REC

RAILROAD RAILROAD

BART STATION BART STATION

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

AMTRAK STATION AMTRAK STATION

B-7


FINAL PLAN

B.1.3. Collisions: Time of Day and the Year As shown in Figure B-5, bicycle collisions peak

Figure B-6 shows that collisions occur

during the evening commute period. Thirty-

throughout the year and peak in September and

seven percent of collisions occurred between

October. This peak in September and October

3 pm and 7 pm. The high number of bicycle

correlates with favorable fall weather and the

collisions in the evening period is consistent with

start of the school year, which also corresponds

the national trend for when bicycle-involved

to the highest levels of cycling during a given

fatalities occur. 2

year, and may bring with it an influx of new people bicycling.

2 NHTSA, 2013 http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812151.pdf.

200B-5: Bicycle collision events by hour (all collision Figure events), 2001-2012 180

160

Collision Events

140

120 100

80 60 40

20

150

Collision Eventrs

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Figure B-6: Bicyclist-involved collisions by month of year, 2001-2012 200

100

50

0

JAN

B-8

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

11 PM

10 PM

9 PM

8 PM

7 PM

6 PM

5 PM

4 PM

3 PM

2 PM

1 PM

12 PM

11 AM

10 AM

9 AM

8 AM

7 AM

6 AM

5 AM

4 AM

3 AM

2 AM

1 AM

12 AM

0


FINAL PLAN

B.1.4. Age of Collision Involved Parties Thirty-three percent of bicycle collisions involved bicyclists aged 20-29 followed by 17 percent of collisions involving bicyclists aged 30-39, and 14 percent of collisions with bicyclists aged 10-19. Figure B-7 illustrates the age distribution of all Berkeley residents according to the 2010 US Census as well as the age distribution of people riding bicycles involved in collisions between 2001 and 2012.

Figure B-7: Age distribution of bicyclist collisions, 20012012 and all residents, 2010

33%

35%

30%

25%

17%

20%

14%

15%

13%

10%

5%

10%

4%

5%

People riding bicycles aged 20-29 and 30-39 are overrepresented in bicycle collisions in Berkeley as compared to their distribution among the

2% 1%

0 0-9

10-19

20-29

COLLISIONS

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70-79

80 AND OVER

BERKELEY AGE DISTRIBUTION

Berkeley population, which may be explained by

APPENDIX B

higher rates of bicycling among young adults.

B-9


FINAL PLAN

B.2. COLLISION FACTORS Table B-3 lists the six most common primary collision factors attributed to bicycle collisions. The primary collision factor can provide insight into people’s behavior or roadway feature(s) that may account for the collision. Twenty-eight percent of collisions were attributed to a rightof-way violation; other hazardous violations and unsafe speed were each attributed to 18 percent of collisions, and improper turning was attributed to 17 percent of collisions. This Plan will consider how improvements can reduce the most common collision factors.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Table B-3: Primary Collision Factor Definitions

B-10

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR

EXAMPLE

Right-of-way

Driver or person on a bicycle fails to yield to and then collides with a vehicle, pedestrian or bicyclist already in an intersection

Other Hazardous Violation

Driver or person on a bicycle is talking on a cell phone

Unsafe Speed

Driver or a person on a bicycle travels above the posted speed limit or at an unsafe speed for the existing roadway conditions

Improper Turning

Driver or a person on a bicycle makes a U-turn at an intersection without a four way stop that resulted in a collision with bicyclist or other vehicle

Traffic Signals and Signs

Driver or a person on a bicycle fails to stop at a stop sign and collides with a vehicle, pedestrian, or person on a bicycle

Wrong Side of Road

Drive or a person on a bicycle is traveling on wrong side of road (against the flow of traffic)


FINAL PLAN

B.2.1. Collision Factors and Fault

PERSON RIDING BICYCLE AT FAULT

Figure B-8 presents a breakdown of collisions by

A right-of-way violation is the most common

the five most common primary collision factors and the party (person riding bicycle or driving motor vehicle) at fault. Figure B-9 and Figure B-10 present collisions by primary collision factor and the party (person riding bicycle or driving motor vehicle) at fault. The collision factors and party at fault may reveal trends along certain intersections or corridors that could benefit from improvements. Overall, people riding bicycles were determined to be at fault for 55 percent of bicycle-involved collisions, and people

type of collision involving a person riding a bicycle. Right-of-way collisions have occurred throughout the city with concentrations on San Pablo Avenue, Shattuck Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, Sacramento Avenue (between Russell Street and Alcatraz Avenue) and along the southern border of the UC Berkeley campus. When a person riding a bicycle is at fault, rightof-way violation occurs when the person riding a bicycle fails to yield to another roadway user who has the right-of-way.

driving, people walking, and other factors were at fault for the remaining 45 percent of bicycleinvolved collisions.

Figure B-8: Six most prevalent primary collision factors for bicycle collisions (out of 1,345 total collisions), 2001-2012

64%

Right of Way

92%

Other Hazardous Violation

26%

8% 74%

68%

Improper Turning

28%

Traffic Signals and Signs

72%

20% 0

32%

80% 50

100

150

200

250

Total Collisions BICYCLIST NOT AT FAULT

300

350

400

APPENDIX B

Unsafe Speed

Wrong Side of Road

36%

BICYCLIST AT FAULT

B-11


FINAL PLAN

The second most common type of bicycle-

There is a pattern of people riding bicycles on

involved collision is one caused by the person

the wrong side of the road on major roads and

riding a bicycle traveling at an unsafe speed. The

commercial streets, including San Pablo Avenue,

majority of the collisions that have occurred in

Shattuck Avenue, and Telegraph Avenue. In

the hills of Berkeley were due to unsafe speed,

general, these types of violations are occurring

which may be due to the steep topography. It

along roadways that lack bicycle infrastructure,

is important to note that most of the collisions

which suggests that the roadway configuration

caused by a person riding a bicycle traveling at

in these areas may not be conducive to riding

unsafe speeds were also solo-collisions, in which

directly to the person’s destination.

the person riding a bicycle did not collide with any other party, such as a vehicle, pedestrian or

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

other person riding a bicycle.

B-12


3 TRAIL FIRE

FINAL PLAN

KENSINGTON

EL CERRITO

RD

RD ON NY CA LY IZZ GR

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

WI LD CA T

PE AK

D BLV

A

R

AV E

IN AR M

E AV

A

TON LING

A NA D SE

L NIA EN NT CE

MO NTER EY A

CENTER ST

TELEGRAPH AVE

AV E CL AR EM ON T

ST WOOLSEY

RD EL N N TU

ST DEAKIN

ST TREMONT

ADE LINE ST

PIEDMONT AVE

HILLEGASS AVE

COLLEGE AVE

FULTON ST

ST RUSSELL

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

MILVIA ST

WAY DWIGHT

DANA ST

NG WAY CHANNI

DR

H ST BOWDITC

FT WAY BANCRO

SHATTUCK AVE

T 4TH S

T 9TH S

GRANT ST

BERKELEY

DANA ST

Y AVE UNIVERSIT

AVE HEINZ

RD

T 5TH S

ON ST ADDIS

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

Tilden Regional Park

SPRUCE ST

T SS IN PK HO

WALNUT ST

ST

80

VE

SUT TER

ALBANY

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

SOLANO AVE E IN AV MAR

E ST AV HEAR

E AV

VE

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

EN CO LU SA

24

OAKLAND

EMERYVILLE

N 0

1/2 MI

FIGURE B-9: BICYCLE COLLISIONS, BICYCLIST AT FAULT

RIGHT OF WAY

UNSAFE SPEED

IMPROPER TURN

SIGNAL VIOLATION

WRONG SIDE OF ROAD

PAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A]

SIGNAGE-ONLY [3A]

UNPAVED PATH [1B]

UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

SHARROWS [3C] CYCLETRACK [4A]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

APPENDIX B

BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E]

AMTRAK STATION B-13


FINAL PLAN

PERSON DRIVING MOTOR VEHICLE AT FAULT

Sixty-eight percent of the 231 violations due

As shown in Figure B-10, a right-of-way violation

motor vehicle. An example of an improper turn

is the most common type of collision for which

violation is when a vehicle does not merge into

the motorist is at fault. An example of a right-

the bike lane to complete a right turn. The traffic

of-way violation is when a motorist fails to

law requires that the approach to a right turn be

yield when turning left and hits a person who

made from the far right portion of the road. A

is bicycling straight in the opposite direction.

motorist right turn collision occurs when a right-

The motorist may not have seen the person

turning motorist collides with a cyclist to his or

riding a bicycle, may have underestimated the

her right. It can occur when the motorist tries to

bicycle’s speed, or may have assumed that the

make a right turn from too far to the left, but it

person riding a bicycle would stop. Right-of-way

can also be caused by a bicyclist who passes on

collisions have occurred throughout the city with

the right, in the motorist’s blind spot. Common

concentrations on Gilman Street/Hopkins Street,

locations for improper turning collisions include

Virginia Street, Channing Way, and Telegraph

Shattuck Avenue, Ashby Avenue, and San Pablo

Avenue.

Avenue. In general, these types of violations

The second most common type of motorist-atfault collision is “other hazardous violation.” This includes any type of collision which does not fall under the other set categories, such as a motorist

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

being on a mobile phone while driving.

B-14

to improper turning were the fault of the

occur along roadways that have many turns or driveways, but lack bicycle infrastructure. This could mean that drivers are not expecting a person riding a bicycle and therefore not using caution prior to turning. Figure B-10 shows the collision locations where motorists were at fault.


3 TRAIL FIRE

FINAL PLAN

KENSINGTON

EL CERRITO

PE AK

D BLV

A

R

AV E

IN AR M

E AV

A

TON LING

A NA D SE

R LD NIA EN NT CE

MO NTER EY A

CENTER ST

TELEGRAPH AVE

AV E CL AR EM ON T

ST WOOLSEY

RD EL N N TU

ST DEAKIN

T ST TREMON

ADE LINE ST

PIEDMONT AVE

HILLEGASS AVE

COLLEGE AVE

FULTON ST

ST RUSSELL

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

MILVIA ST

WAY DWIGHT

DANA ST

NG WAY CHANNI

H ST BOWDITC

FT WAY BANCRO

SHATTUCK AVE

T 4TH S

T 9TH S

GRANT ST

BERKELEY

DANA ST

Y AVE UNIVERSIT

AVE HEINZ

RD

T 5TH S

ON ST ADDIS

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

Tilden Regional Park

SPRUCE ST

T SS IN PK HO

WALNUT ST

ST

80

VE

SUT TER

ALBANY

A MED THE ALA

AVE COLUSA

SOLANO AVE

E IN AV MAR

E ST AV HEAR

E AV

VE

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

EN CO LU SA

RD

LY IZZ GR

RD ON NY CA

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

WI LD CA T

24

OAKLAND

EMERYVILLE

N 0

1/2 MI

FIGURE B-10: BICYCLE COLLISIONS, MOTORIST AT FAULT

RIGHT OF WAY

UNSAFE SPEED

IMPROPER TURN

SIGNAL VIOLATION

WRONG SIDE OF ROAD

PAVED PATH [1A]

STANDARD BIKE LANE [2A]

SIGNAGE-ONLY [3A]

UNPAVED PATH [1B]

UPGRADED BIKE LANE [2B]

SHARROWS [3C] BICYCLE BOULEVARD [3E] CYCLETRACK [4A]

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION B-15


FINAL PLAN

B.2.2. Collisions within 1/4-Mile of UC Berkeley Campus In 2014, the UC Berkeley Safe Transportation

Bicycle collisions occurred along major traffic

Research and Education Center (SafeTREC)

corridors surrounding the campus, especially

published a report on bicyclist and pedestrian

Shattuck Avenue, although many were located

safety around the UC Berkeley campus. The

in the interior of campus. The purple circles

researchers asked students to identify locations

represent locations perceived as hazardous by

where they had been involved in a collision or

students, most notably along Bancroft Avenue

areas perceived to be dangerous for pedestrians

and Hearst Avenue. Bicycle-involved collisions

or people bicycling. This data is supplemental

did not occur at every intersection on Bancroft

to SWITRS data and gives a more complete

Way along the board of campus, however

picture of where collisions are occurring or

every intersection is perceived as hazardous by

could occur around the UC Berkeley campus

students. This data suggests that the absence of

so that countermeasures can be considered

bicycle-involved crashes does not eradicate the

as preventative measures. Figure B-11 shows

potential or perceived danger of the location.

a map of the bicycle collisions pulled from the

Further, the perception of a location may

SafeTREC survey and SWITRS data.

influence a person’s decision to bicycle more so than the location’s collision history.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Figure B-11: Top 15 bicycle collision clusters on and adjacent to UC Berkeley (2002-2011)

B-16

Source: “A Comparative Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety around University Campuses.” University of California Transportation Center. (2014) http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/UCTC-FR-2014-03.pdf.


FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX B

This page intentionally left blank.

B-17


CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX C

C-1


FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX C.

Level of Traffic Stress Building on the bicycling preference survey and

gaps in the bicycle network, and gaps between

user typologies, a Level of Traffic Stress analysis

streets with low levels of traffic stress. The LTS

was conducted for Berkeley’s roadway network.

analysis applied the methodology developed by

“Traffic stress” is the perceived sense of danger

the Mineta Transportation Institute Report II-19:

associated with riding in or adjacent to vehicle

Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity

traffic; studies have shown that traffic stress is

(2012). The Mineta LTS methodology was

one of the greatest deterrents to bicycling.1 The

adapted to provide an objective data-driven

less stressful – and therefore more comfortable

approach to scoring the comfort of bicycle travel

– a bicycle facility is, the wider its appeal to a

on shared roadways.

network is likely to attract a large portion of the population if it is designed to reduce stress associated with potential motor vehicle conflicts and connect 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 / volumes (e.g. a shared low-traffic neighborhood street) or, as traffic volumes and speeds increase, if greater degrees of physical separation are placed between the bikeway and traffic lane (e.g. a separated bikeway or cycle track on a major street). A Class I shared use pathway is completely separated from motor vehicles traffic and therefore a low stress facility,

Models serve as an effective means to understand how factors in a complex system interact by providing a simplified version of the system for study. However, by definition, models are representations of reality and are constrained by the quality of available data and the complexity of the system under consideration. Throughout the modelling process, significant effort was made to collect the best data possible and follow existing methods while making small adaptations to existing methodologies to best reflect conditions in Berkeley.

C.1.1. Inputs

although within an urbanized bikeway network

The street network is made up of two

there are limited opportunities for these facilities

components: corridors and intersections.

and they also serve multiple non-motorized

Corridors are the sections of uninterrupted

recreational users.

roadway, and intersections are where two (or

A Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis is an objective, data-driven evaluation model which identifies streets with high levels of traffic stress,

more) corridors cross. Using available data, corridors and intersections were classified into one of four LTS scores that can be used as a proxy to represent the top travel tolerance different types of people riding

1 M. Winters, G. Davidson, D.N. Kao and K. Teschke, “Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: comparing influences on decisions to ride”, Transportation 38, 153-168 (2011).

bicycles are willing to use: 1) All people riding

APPENDIX C

broader segment of the population. A bicycle

C-1


FINAL PLAN

bicycles (including children), 2) Interested but

acceptable for bicycle travel by “enthusiastic

Concerned, 3) Enthusiastic and Confident, and

and confident” bicyclists; and LTS 4 represents

4) Strong and Fearless.

roads that are only acceptable to “strong

The most desirable bicycling score, LTS 1, is assigned to roads and intersections that would be suitable for inexperienced adults riding bicycles, families with small children, and older children who have begun riding in the street; LTS 2 roads are those that could be comfortably

and fearless” bicyclists who better tolerate roadways with higher motorized traffic volumes and speeds. There are some limitations to the methodology; LTS analysis does not take steep slope, availability of sidewalks, or side paths into account. The LTS factors are shown in Table C-1.

ridden by the mainstream adult population; LTS 3 is the level assigned to roads that would be

Table C-1: LTS Methodology Inputs and Factors INTERSECTIONS

Unsignalized 1.

Average daily traffic (ADT) of cross-traffic

2.

Number of travel lanes

3.

Bicycle/pedestrian refuge islands

4.

Presence of a traffic signal

5.

Right turn lanes

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Signalized

C-2

1.

Segment LTS criteria for bikeway approach

2.

ADT

3.

Number of travel lanes

4.

Presence and character of bicycle lanes

SEGMENTS

1.

Average daily traffic (ADT)

2.

Number of travel lanes

3.

Presence and character of bicycle lanes


FINAL PLAN

After conducting the preliminarily Berkeley LTS analysis (using the published MTI methodology), our team compared the results to our own local experience of using the Berkeley bikeway network. The Project Team found numerous locations where the LTS output scores did not align with levels of stress actually experienced in the field. In all cases these were locations where the analysis results gave a lower LTS score than actually experienced by users; for example a location identified as an LTS 1 (suitable for all users including children) whereas local experience indicates it is appropriate only for more confident adult riders (LTS 2/3). Thus, the initial LTS analysis results did not accurately reflect the experience of bicycling in Berkeley. One explanation for why the initial Berkeley LTS results (using the MTI report input criteria) did not reflect the reality of cycling in Berkeley is local context. The MTI report was developed using the city of San Jose’s roadway and bikeway network, and used street database inputs readily available in San Jose. Number of lanes, speed limit, and functional classification were primary data sources, and in San Jose these generally follow a traditional road classification hierarchy with residential streets being two lanes and posted 25 mph, and many arterial streets being multi lane and posted 40-45 mph. However, Berkeley does not have

a traditional roadway hierarchy. Almost every street in Berkeley has a 25 mph posted speed limit, and a number of major streets like College Avenue or Dwight Way serve in an arterial function and carry high traffic volumes and higher speeds, but have a local residential street cross-section. 2 Thus in order to more objectively compare the differences between the LTS model output and the actual user experience in Berkeley, our team recognized the need to “calibrate” the initial LTS results. The Project Teamused the community bike tour conducted on September 12, 2015 as an opportunity to obtain input from local cyclists on their own perceptions of stress using the Berkeley bike network so that the project team could look at ways to adjust the initial LTS analysis results. At a number of locations along the bike tour representing different roadway and intersection crossing types, the project team polled participants on their perceived level of stress using the same general categories as the LTS analysis (LTS 1 through 4). The greatest discrepancy between the LTS results and user experience was found in the unsignalized arterial crossings along the Bike Boulevard network. The initial LTS results classified most of these locations as LTS 2, indicating suitability for the majority of the population. Input from the bike tour classified 2 This is consistent with the exceptions noted in the MTI report for cities with a low statutory speed limit of 30 mph in Boston and 25 mph in Berkeley. In this case, it is noted that an alternative measure to operating speed should be considered to more accurately quantify stress.

APPENDIX C

C.1.2. Identified Issues from Preliminary LTS Results

C-3


FINAL PLAN

these locations generally as LTS 3/4, indicating that users experience them at a much higher stress level suitable for more experienced cyclists only. Based on our bike tour calibration, the project team found that the primary factor influencing the discrepancy between the LTS results and the actual user perception in Berkeley was traffic volumes. The standard MTI methodology does not use traffic volumes as an input. Instead it uses posted speed limit (or observed travel speed) as well as number of lanes. As noted above, under a traditional roadway functional classification system this is logical: local roads (two lane, posted 25 mph) carry the least traffic, collectors (2-4 lanes, posted 30-35 mph) carry medium volumes, and arterials (generally multilane, posted 40-45 mph) carry the highest volumes. However, nearly all streets in Berkeley have a 25 mph posted speed limit, and a number of two-lane major streets serve in an arterial function and carry high traffic volumes Therefore relying on posted speed limits as a primary Berkeley LTS input did not sufficiently differentiate between the higher volume (and

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

higher stress) major roadways and those truly

C-4

local and low-volume streets. Unsignalized crossings along the Bike Boulevard network that the model showed as LTS 2 are in some cases multi-lane crossings of roads with 15,000+ vehicles per day – a very high-stress situation.

C.1.3. Calibrated Level of Traffic Stress Methodology Based on the discrepancy in the comparison, the Project Team calibrated the LTS results using average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. The Calibrated Level of Traffic Stress analysis built on the MTI approach by incorporating the impact of traffic volumes on level of comfort. This Calibrated LTS methodology replaced speed limit (MPH) with average daily traffic volumes (ADT) to calibrate the level of traffic stress for unsignalized intersections, signalized intersections, and bikeway links to conditions observed in Berkeley. Descriptions for each calibration are described in the sections below. At its core, the LTS scores show an increase in level of stress on segments and at intersections as motor vehicle traffic volumes increase and the separation between a person bicycling and motor vehicle traffic decreases. Likewise, the level of stress decreases as the amount of separation between a person bicycling and motor vehicle traffic increases.


FINAL PLAN

INTERSECTIONS

with less than 1,500 ADT) that do not exist in Berkeley. Additionally, the bike tour did not

For this Plan, the LTS analysis for key

survey LTS scores for intersections with less than

intersections were calibrated: bikeway/ bikeway intersections and bikeway/major street intersections. These were the intersections that garnered the most public comments, including during the bike tour and field observations.

5,000 ADT. However, the bike tour calibration increased the scores for streets with up to three lanes and ADT higher than 5,000. As such, calibration is assumed to be needed for similar streets below 5,000 ADT.

Unsignalized Intersections

Finally, LTS score is context sensitive. LTS 1 or

Table C-2 shows the relationship between a

LTS 2 intersections are determined on a case-by-

typical posted speed limit, the posted speed

case basis based on the specific traffic volume of

limit in Berkeley, and the average daily traffic

the street being crossed.

volume that will be used in substitution. Table C-4 shows the LTS score for unsignalized crossings without a median refuge island, and Table 4 shows the LTS score for unsignalized

Table C-4 will not be consistent with those in the MTI report; the scores have been calibrated based on feedback received from the Bike Tour. The calibrations are shown in Table C-3.

crossings with a median refuge island. The LTS scores in Table C-5 are based on Table 7 in the MTI report. The MTI report Table 7 includes street configurations (i.e. 6 lane streets

Table C-2: Street Typology, Speed Limit and Average Daily Traffic Range TYPICAL POSTED MPH

BERKELEY POSTED MPH

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) RANGE 2

LOCAL EXAMPLE

Local

25

25

0-1,500

Channing Way

Collector

30

25

1,501-5,000

Euclid Avenue

Minor Arterial

35

25

5,001 – 12,500

Major Arterial

>40

25

>12,500

Cedar Street Sacramento Street

1. Street classifications are based on current Berkeley GIS data typology (local, connector, minor and major) and may differ from classifications in the Berkeley General Plan. 2. Traffic volume range is based on average daily traffic data for Berkeley. The street class and the traffic volume range are generally consistent, but there may be exceptions in each category.

APPENDIX C

STREET CLASSIFICATION 1

C-5


FINAL PLAN

Table C-3: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Unsignalized Crossings Bike Tour Calibration TRAFFIC VOLUME

WIDTH*

MTI SCORE

LTS+ SCORE

2

3

BIKE TOUR INTERSECTION AND BIKE TOUR SURVEYED SCORE

Without a Crossing Island 5,001 – 12,500

Up to 3 lanes

Bowditch Street and Bancroft Way (4) Average LTS = 3.275

>12,500

Up to 3 lanes

3

4

Ashby Avenue and Hillegass Avenue (3.8) Virginia Street and MLK Jr. Way (3.2) Hillegass Avenue and Dwight Way (2.8) Shattuck Avenue and Russell Street (3.1)

5,001 – 12,500

4-5 lanes

3

N/A

>12,500

4-5 lanes

4

4

(No calibration data from Bike Tour) Telegraph and Woolsey (X.X) MLK and Channing (X.X)

With a Crossing Island 5,001 – 12,500

Up to 3 lanes

N/A

(No calibration data from Bike Tour)

>12,500

Up to 3 lanes

N/A

(No calibration data from Bike Tour)

5,001 – 12,500

4-5 lanes

Oxford and Hearst (X.X)**

>12,500

4-5 lanes

Sacramento and Virginia (X.X) Shattuck and Virginia (X.X)***

* Streets below 5,000 ADT were not considered as part of this Collector/Arterial street crossing analysis. ** Crossing island and four lanes on south leg of intersection only.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

*** Influence of RRFB at this location is not yet fully understood; more study is required. This analysis assumes that because of the increased gaps in traffic it provides, it is equivalent to a crossing island.

C-6


FINAL PLAN

Table C-4: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Unsignalized Crossings without a Crossing Island WIDTH OF STREET BEING CROSSED

Traffic Volume (ADT)

Up to 3 lanes

4-5 lanes

6+ lanes1

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 4

LTS 1 or 23

LTS 2

LTS 4

5,001 – 12,500

LTS 3

LTS 3

LTS 4

>12,500

LTS 43

LTS 4

LTS 4

<1,5002 1,501-5,0002

1 This table is based on Table 7 in the MTI report, and some of these street configurations (i.e. 6 lane streets with less than 1,500 ADT) do not exist in Berkeley. 2 The Bike Tour did not survey LTS scores for intersections with less than 5,000 ADT. As such there is no data to calibrate these <5,000 ADT intersections. However, calibration increased the scores for those streets with up to three lanes and ADT higher than 5,000. As such, calibration is assumed to be needed for similar streets below 5,000 ADT. 3 LTS score is context sensitive. In these cases LTS 1 or LTS 2 should be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the specific traffic volume of the street being crossed, including if there are breaks in the flow of traffic. A suggested break-point between LTS 1 and LTS 2 is 3,250 vehicles, median of 1the 1,501-5,000 range.

Table C-5: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Unsignalized Crossings with a Crossing Island at Least Six Feet Wide WIDTH OF STREET BEING CROSSED

Traffic Volume (ADT)

Up to 3 lanes

4-5 lanes

6+ lanes*

<1,500

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 2

1,501-5,000

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 3

5,001 – 12,500

LTS 2

LTS 3

LTS 4

>12,500

LTS 3

LTS 4

LTS 4

APPENDIX C

* This table is based on Table 8 in the MTI report, and some of these street configurations (i.e. 6 lane streets with less than 1,500 ADT) do not exist in Berkeley.

C-7


FINAL PLAN

Unsignalized Intersection: Bikeway and

Unsignalized Intersection: Bikeway and

Collector/Arterial Street. At the unsignalized

Bikeway. At the unsignalized intersection of two

intersection of a bikeway and a major street

bikeways, the bikeway with the highest ADT will

(>5,000 ADT), the ADT of the major street will

influence the intersection’s level of traffic stress

influence the intersection’s level of traffic stress

score.

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

score.

C-8


FINAL PLAN

Table C-6 shows an example of the Calibrated

the project team replaced the posted speed

LTS scoring methodology for an unsignalized

limit with the ADT (26,500) of the cross-street

intersection of a bikeway (Channing Way) and

(San Pablo Avenue), the intersection receives an

an arterial street (San Pablo Avenue). With the

LTS score of 4. For more detail about the other

posted speed limit factor, this intersection would

factors listed in Table C-6, please see the MTI

have scored a LTS 2, which would suggest it is

Report.

appropriate for most bicyclists. However, when

Table C-6: Sample Scoring of Unsignalized Intersection Bikeway (Channing Way) and Other Street (San Pablo Avenue) CHANNING WAY AND SAN PABLO STREET

Cross-street posted speed

LTS (MTI)

CALIBRATED LTS

VARIABLE

SCORE

VARIABLE

SCORE

25 MPH

2

26,500 ADT

4

limit / ADT Number of travel lanes Bicycle/pedestrian refuge

4

2

4

4

No

n/a

No

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

None

n/a

None

n/a

islands Right turn lane Intersection Score

LTS 2

LTS 4

APPENDIX C

Presence of a traffic signal

C-9


FINAL PLAN

Signalized Intersections The LTS scoring criteria from Tables C-7, C-8, and C-9 were used to calibrate signalized intersections. The segment scoring criteria was used as a substitution for the pocket bike lane criterion used in the MTI Report because Berkeley has so few right turn lanes. The purpose of the pocket bike lane criterion was to evaluate the stress associated with the level of interaction between bicycles and motorvehicles at an intersection approach. Interactions are precipitated by the need for bicyclists to

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

merge across or into a motor-vehicle lane (or

C-10

vice-versa). The LTS segment criteria on the approach served as a proxy for the pocket bike lane criterion because it measures the level of interaction between bicyclists and cars on an intersection approach. If the intersection includes the crossing of two bikeways, the intersection considered the leg with the highest LTS score. There are always other factors that affect the appeal and comfort of an intersection. The impact of additional elements not explicitly outlined here (e.g., wayfinding and striping) were assessed on a case-by-case basis.


FINAL PLAN

Signalized Intersection: Bikeway and Other

Signalized Intersection: Bikeway and Bikeway.

Street. At the signalized intersection of a

At the signalized intersection of two bikeways,

bikeway and non-bikeway street, the LTS criteria

the bikeway with the highest ADT determined

for segments was used to evaluate the bikewayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

the level of traffic stress score.

approach to the intersection and the overall

APPENDIX C

intersection LTS score.

C-11


FINAL PLAN

SEGMENTS For the analysis, speed limit was replaced with ADT to calibrate the LTS of streets with bicycle facilities (the segments between intersections). For segments, level of comfort decreases with an increase in ADT. Level of comfort increases with an increase in separation between a person bicycling and adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Class I and Class IV bikeways are assumed to have the lowest level of traffic stress between intersections and are not listed in the tables below.

for Class II Bicycle Lanes. The Calibrated LTS analysis results will show that any four-lane street with a bike lane in Berkeley is an LTS 4 because all of Berkeley’s four-lane, bike lane streets are above 12,500 ADT and thus will fall into the LTS 4 category. However, in the Public Survey, the highest LTS score (the most stressful score) for a Class II Bicycle Lane on a four lane street was 2.8, not 4. LTS is context-sensitive, so some of these LTS 4 Class II Bicycle Lane streets will be manually calibrated to a lessstressful LTS score based on the responses from

speed limit will provide Calibrated LTS results

the Public Survey that show that a bike lane –

which confirm the Level of Comfort responses

while not offering the highest level of comfort

from the City of Berkeley: Market for Bicycling

– is far better than nothing at all, especially on

Survey. This survey asked respondents to score

Berkeley’s busiest streets.

roadway conditions. It should be noted that some of the scores in Tables C-7, C-8, and C-9 will be different than those reported in the

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

This discrepancy will be particularly noticeable

Generally speaking, the use of ADT in place of

their level of comfort when bicycling in various

C-12

City of Berkeley: Market for Bicycling Survey.

The tables below provide more detail on the criteria for determining the LTS for various types of bikeways.


FINAL PLAN

Table C-7: Criteria for Class II Bikeways alongside a Parking Lane

Street width (through lanes per direction) Sum of bike lane parking lane width (includes marked buffer and paved gutter) Average daily traffic (ADT) volume* Bike lane blockage (typically applies in commercial areas)

LTS > 1

LTS > 2

LTS > 3

LTS > 4

1

(no effect)

2 or more

(no effect)

15 ft. or more

14 or 14.5 ft.

13.5 ft. or less

(no effect)

<1,500 ADT

1,501-5,000 ADT

5,001-12,500

>12,500 ADT

(no effect)

frequent

rare

ADT (no effect)

(no effect) = factor does not trigger an increase to this level of traffic stress.

APPENDIX C

* ADT replaces speed limit or prevailing speed from the MTI Report.

C-13


FINAL PLAN

Table C-8: Criteria for Class II Bikeways Not Alongside a Parking Lane LTS > 1

LTS > 2

LTS > 3

LTS > 4

1

2, if directions are separated by a raised median

More than 2, or 2 without a separating median

(no effect)

Bike lane width (includes marked buffer and paved gutter)

6 ft. or more

5.5 ft. or less

(no effect)

(no effect)

Average daily traffic (ADT) volume*

1,501-5,000 ADT or less

(no effect)

5,001-12,500 ADT

>12,500 ADT

Bike lane blockage (typically applies in commercial areas)

rare

(no effect)

frequent

(no effect)

Street width (through lanes per direction)

(no effect) = factor does not trigger an increase to this level of traffic stress. *ADT replaces speed limit or prevailing speed from the MTI Report.

Table C-9: Criteria for Class III Bikeways TRAFFIC VOLUME (ADT)

2-3 LANES

4-5 LANES

6+ LANES

<1,500

1 or*

2

3

4

1,501-5,000

2 or*

3

4

4

5,001 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 12,500

4

4

4

>12,500

4

4

4

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

*Use lower value for streets without marked centerlines or classified as residential and with fewer than 3 lanes; use higher value otherwise.

C-14


FINAL PLAN

C.1.4. Calibrated LTS Factor Summary

replaces right-turn lane and pocket bike lane variables with the segment criteria. Table C-10

For analyzing unsignalized intersections and

shows a comparison of methodology factors

segments, the Calibrated LTS methodology

between the original MTI LTS analysis and

replaces posted speed limit from the original

Calibrated LTS.

MTI LTS analysis with ADT. For signalized intersections, the Calibrated LTS methodology

Table C-10: LTS Methodology Factors for Original LTS and Calibrated LTS LTS (MTI)

CALIBRATED LTS

INTERSECTIONS Unsignalized 1. Posted speed limit

1. Average daily traffic (ADT) of cross-traffic

2. Number of travel lanes

2. Number of travel lanes

3. Bicycle/pedestrian refuge islands

3. Bicycle/pedestrian refuge islands

4. Presence of a traffic signal

4. Presence of a traffic signal

5. Right turn lanes

5. Right turn lanes

Signalized 1. Pocket bike lane

1. Segment LTS criteria for bikeway approach a. ADT b. Number of travel lanes c. Presence and character of bicycle lanes

2. Right turn lane

-

1. Posted speed limit

1. Average daily traffic (ADT)

2. Number of travel lanes

2. Number of travel lanes

3. Presence and character of bicycle lanes

3. Presence and character of bicycle lanes APPENDIX C

SEGMENTS

C-15


FINAL PLAN

Table C-11: Level of Traffic Stress Definitions and Types of Bicyclists

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

WILL THIS TYPE OF BICYCLIST RIDE ON THIS LTS FACILITY?

C-16

LTS LEVEL

DESCRIPTION

Strong & Fearless

Enthusiastic & Confident

Interested but Concerned

LTS 1

Presenting little traffic stress and demanding little attention from people riding bicycles, and attractive enough for a relaxing bicycle ride. Suitable for almost all people riding bicycles, including children trained to ride in the street and to safely cross intersections. On corridors, people riding bicycles are either physically separated from traffic, or are in an exclusive bicycling zone next to a slow traffic stream with no more than one lane per direction, or are on a shared road where they interact with only occasional motor vehicles (as opposed to a stream of traffic) with a low speed differential. Where people ride bicycles alongside a parking lane, they have ample operating space outside the zone into which car doors are opens. Intersections are easy to approach and cross.

Yes

Yes

Yes

LTS 2

Presenting little traffic stress and therefore suitable to most adults riding bicycles but demanding more attention than might be expected from children. On corridors, people riding bicycles are either physically separated from traffic or are in an exclusive bicycling zone next to a well-confined traffic stream with adequate clearance from a parking lane, or are on a shared road where they interact with only occasional motor vehicles (as opposed to a stream of traffic) with a low speed differential. Where a bicycle lane lies between a through lane and a right-turn lane, it is configured to give people riding bicycles unambiguous priority where cars cross the bicycle lane and to keep car speed in the right-turn lane comparable to bicycling speeds. Crossings are not difficult for most adults.

Yes

Yes

Sometimes

LTS 3

More traffic stress than LTS 2, yet markedly less than the stress of integrating with multilane traffic. Offering people riding bicycles either an exclusive riding zone (lane) next to moderate-speed traffic or shared lanes on streets that are not multilane and have moderately low speed. Crossings may be longer or across higher-speed roads than allowed by LTS 2, but are still considered reasonably safe for many adult pedestrians.

Yes

Sometimes

No

LTS 4

A level of stress beyond LTS 3. Includes roadways that have no dedicated bicycle facilities and moderate to higher vehicle speeds and volumes, as well as those with an exclusive riding zone (lane) but on a high speed and high volume road where there is a significant speed differential. Crossings are challenging and involve multiple lanes of traffic at higher speeds and volumes where gaps may be infrequent and motorists may not readily yield. Suitable for the â&#x20AC;&#x153;strong and fearlessâ&#x20AC;? only.

Yes

No

No


FINAL PLAN

The level of stress scores, or relative user

network in Berkeley. Major roadways, such as

comfort, were mapped to illustrate the low

San Pablo Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr.

stress connections and gaps throughout the

Way have a high LTS score, which indicates

City of Berkeley. It is important to note that

they are the most stressful for people riding

people tolerate different levels of stress; a

bicycles. Low-speed and low-volume streets

strong and fearless bicyclist will feel less stress

such as Channing Way and Russell Street

than an interested but concerned bicyclist.

have low LTS scores, which indicates they are

The LTS results map is trying to capture the

more comfortable for younger people riding

user experience for the majority of Berkeley

bicycles and cautious adults riding bicycles. The

residents, however people may have differing

following maps show a breakdown of the results

opinions of traffic stress depending on their own

and the implications of the high stress streets on

experience.

the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s generally low stress bikeway network. The low stress streets that have an LTS score of 1 or 2 are shown in Figure C-2. These are

Many of the existing bicycle network segments

the streets on which nearly all types of people

in the City of Berkeley score in the LTS 1 or LTS

riding bicycles should feel comfortable. As

2 classification, in other words relatively low

shown, Berkeley has a well-connected network

stress streets that are acceptable for travel by

of low stress bikeways. California Street, 9th

some children (LTS 1) and the majority of adults

Street and Hillegass Avenue provide north-

(LTS 2). These are primarily neighborhood

south connections; Virginia Street, Channing

street Bicycle Boulevards. However, high stress

Way and Russell Street provide east-west

roadways and intersections bisect this low stress

connections. However, there are gaps in the low

network and create barriers for people who

stress network, including a section on the Milvia

bike along the Bicycle Boulevards, cross major

Street Bicycle Boulevard, and a lack of low stress

roadways, or want to access major service and

connections north and south of Virginia Street,

commercial corridors, effectively lowering the

and between Channing Way and Russell Street,

corridor LTS score and dramatically reducing

and surrounding the UCB campus.

comfort.

Figure C-3 shows high-stress (LTS 3 or 4) streets

Figure C-1 shows the Level of Traffic Stress

and intersections along the existing bikeway

(LTS) results of the major roadways and bicycle

network. High-stress intersections are often a result of a bikeway crossing a major roadway

APPENDIX C

C.1.5. LTS Findings

C-17


FINAL PLAN

where the intersection design or stop-control is

individuals traveling on the bike network, and

insufficient. For example, Channing Way, an LTS

likely inhibit the 16 percent of “enthusiastic and

2 Bicycle Boulevard, crosses Sacramento Street,

confident” and the 71 percent of “interested

which is a high-volume roadway. Sacramento

but concerned” residents from biking more

Street traffic does not stop, and people riding

frequently, or at all. As is, there are very few

bicycles must traverse multiple lanes of traffic

continuous low stress segments that provide

to continue. As such, an “Interested but

access entirely across Berkeley.

Concerned” cyclist may feel comfortable biking on Channing Way, but his/her journey becomes far more stressful upon reaching Sacramento Street. While many “enthusiastic and confident” or “interested but concerned” Berkeley residents endure such stressful crossing conditions out of necessity, only the three percent of Berkeley residents who identify as “strong and fearless” would actually feel comfortable bicycling on Channing Way across Sacramento Street. High-

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

stress intersections become impediments for

C-18

Finally, Figure C-4 shows low stress (LTS 1 and 2) streets and intersections with high stress (LTS 4) gaps. This map helps illustrate how low stress streets in Berkeley’s network are often disconnected by high stress roadways and intersections. A continuous low stress network is essential for bicyclists of all abilities to travel easily throughout the street network.


3 TRAIL FIRE

FINAL PLAN

KENSINGTON

VD BL AK PE LY IZZ GR

SPRUCE ST JOSEPHINE ST

OXFORD ST

EUCLID ST

SPRUCE ST

WALNUT ST

ST

MO NTER EY A

RD

VE HA ET KI

SUT TER

Tilden Regional Park

ST VIRGINIA E AVE LE CONT

EY YL GA

RD

AV E CL AR EM ON T

ST WOOLSEY

RD EL NN TU

ST DEAKIN

AVE ALCATRAZ

ST TREMONT

KING ST

AY ST MURR

PIEDMONT AVE

HILLEGASS AVE

COLLEGE AVE

FULTON ST

MLK JR WAY

MILVIA ST

IA ST CALIFORN

TO ST SACRAMEN

MABEL ST

AVE ABLO SAN P

RAIL BAY T

ST RUSSELL

AVE ASHBY

65TH ST

SHATTUCK AVE

BERKELEY

WAY DWIGHT

H ST BOWDITC

DANA ST

GRANT ST

T 9TH S

T 4TH S

NG WAY CHANNI

TELEGRAPH AVE

T 5TH S

FT WAY BANCRO

ADE LINE ST

T 6TH S

WAY ALLSTON

AVE HEINZ

R LD NIA EN NT CE

CENTER ST

Y AVE UNIVERSIT

EMERYVILLE

VE AA M LO E L

AVE HEARST

E ST DELAWAR

ON ST ADDIS

RD TA AS SH

University of California, Berkeley

ST VIRGINIA

E ST AV HEAR

MLK JR WAY

ACTON ST

ST AN AN CH BU

CEDAR ST

N YO AN TC CA ILD W

E AV TON LING

T SS IN PK HO ROSE ST

AN ST GILM

D BLV

A

80

VE

E AV IN AR M

LOS AN GEL ES A VE

A MED THE ALA

E IN AV MAR

AVE COLUSA

SOLANO AVE

PE AK

R

A MED ALA THE

AY EENW NE GR OHLO

CO LU SA AV E

LY IZZ GR

SUNSET DR

RD ON NY CA

EL CERRITO

ALBANY

WI LD CA T

OAKLAND 24

N 0

1/2 MI

FIGURE C-1: LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS INTERSECTIONS

LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT

LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT

LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS

LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS

(Up to 90% of Berkeley residents) (Up to 79% of Berkeley residents) (Up to 16% of Berkeley residents) (Up to 3% of Berkeley residents)

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

(Up to 90% of Berkeley residents) (Up to 79% of Berkeley residents) (Up to 16% of Berkeley residents) (Up to 3% of Berkeley residents)

BART STATION

APPENDIX C

CORRIDORS

AMTRAK STATION

C-19


3 3 TRAIL IRE TRAIL FIRE F

KENSINGTON

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

EL CERRITO

WI LD CA T PE AK

Tilden Regional Park Tilden Regional Park EUCLID ST EUCLID ST

SPRUCE ST SPRUCE ST

University of California, Berkeley

EY YL GA

RD

ADE ADE LINE LINE ST ST

WOOLSEY

OAKLAND

DR

RD EL N N TU

OAKLANDST

L NIA EN NT CE

RD EL N N TU

ST ST DEAKIN DEAKIN

T ST T ST TREMON TREMON

ST WOOLSEY

N CE

AVEMONT AVE PIEDMONTPIED

DANA ST DANA ST DANA ST DANA ST

FULTON STFULTON ST

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

University of L DR NIA California, Berkeley TEN

TELEGRAPHTELEGRAPH AVE AVE

MO MO NTER NTER EY EY A A

D BLV

E AV

OXFORD STOXFORD ST

MILVIA ST MILVIA ST

ST 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ

ST RUSSELL

AVETTUCK AVE SHATTUCKSHA

EMERYVILLE

AY MURR

ST RUSSELL

KING ST

EMERYVILLE ST

AVE ASHBY ST H T 5 6 AVE ALCATRAZ

BERKELEY

KING ST

AVE ASHBY

MLK JR WAY MLK JR WAY

WAY DWIGHT

PE AK

CENTER ST

BERKELEY IA ST IA ST CALIFORN CALIFORN

TO ST TO ST SACRAMENSACRAMEN

ST AVE HEINZMURRAY

MABEL ST MABEL ST

RAIL AY TRAIL BAY T B

AVE AVE ABLO AN PABLO SAN P S

T 4TH S

G WAY CHANNIN OFT WAY NCR BADW IGHT WAY AY GW CHANNIN

AVE HEINZ

WALNUT STWALNUT ST

T 4TH S

ON ST ADDIS

FT WAY BANCRO

E AV

CENTER ST

AVE HEARST

GRANT ST GRANT ST

TY AVE UNIVERSI

CEDAR ST AVE HEARST

T 9TH S

ON ST ADDIS AVE T S R HEA

ROSE ST CEDAR ST

T 9TH S

E ERSITY AV E ST UNIVLA DE WAR

T 5TH S

E ST AV HEAR

ST

T ST 6TH S5TH

E ST DELAWAR ST VIRGINIA

ST

ST VIRGINIA

SE ST T RO SS KIN P HO ST EPHINE ST JOSEPHINEJOS

T 6TH S

AN ST GILM

T SS KIN VHEOP

ACTON ST ACTON ST

ST ST AN AN AN AN CH CH BU BU

AN ST GILM

SUT TER

ALBANY

VE

IN AR M

SUT TER

E IN AV MAR

A A MED MED THE ALA THE ALA

VE

ALBANY

80

AV E

AVE AVE COLUSA COLUSA

A

E IN AV MAR SOLANO AVE

E E AV AV TON INGTON LING L

VE

A EN CO LU SA

A NA D SE

SOLANO AVE

IN AR M

R

AV E

A

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

A

R

80

FINAL PLAN

WI LD CA T

KENSINGTON

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

EL CERRITO

24 24

N 0

1/2 MI

0

1/2 MI

N

FIGURE

LOW STRESS NETWORK COVERAGE

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FIGURE C-2: LOW STRESS NETWORK COVERAGE INTERSECTIONS CORRIDORS

C-20

LTS 1 -CORRIDORS ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

LTS 1 - INTERSECTIONS ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

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

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

LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION


EL CERRITO

KENSINGTON

WI LD CA T

RD LVD BRD 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 TRAILIRE TRAIL FIRE F

KENSINGTON

FINAL PLAN

WI LD CA T

PE AK

EY YL GA EY YL GA

RD

TELEGRAP TEHLEGRAPH AVE AVE

RD RD EL EL N N N N TU TU

ST WOOLSEY

R LD NIA EN NT CE

AVE MONT AVE PIEDMONT PIED

ST WOOLSEY

AVELEGE AVE COLLEGECOL

LEGASS AVE HILLEGASS HILAVE H ST H ST BOWDITC BOWDITC

ST ST DEAKIN DEAKIN

ADE A LINE DELINE ST ST

EN NT CE

RD

DANA STDANA ST

MO M NTER O NTER EY EY A A

EMERYVILLE

ST RUSSELL

FULTON ST FULTON ST

ST 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ

ST RUSSELL

T ST T ST TREMONTREMON

ST 65TH AVE ALCATRAZ

MILVIA STMILVIA ST

AY ST MURR

AVE ASHBY

AVE TTUCK AVE SHATTUCK SHA

AVE HEINZ AY ST MURR

BERKELEY

KING ST KING ST

AVE ASHBY

University of R LD California, Berkeley NIA

CENTER ST

Y JR WAY MLK JR WA MLK

WAY DWIGHT

University of California, Berkeley

CENTER ST

BERKELEY IA ST IA ST CALIFORN CALIFORN

AVE HEINZ

TO ST TO ST SACRAMEN SACRAMEN

RAIL RAIL BAY T BAY T

AVE AVE ABLO ABLO SAN P SAN P

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

Tilden Regional Park Tilden Regional Park

DANA STDANA ST

FT WAY BANCRO

E AV

EUCLID ST EUCLID ST

TY AVE UNIVERSI

MABEL STMABEL ST

T T 4TH S 4TH S

ON ST ADDIS

AVE HEARST

E ST E ARAV SITY DE ERW IVLA UN

T T 9TH S 9TH S

ON SET ADDIS ST AV HEAR

AVE HEARST

GRANT ST GRANT ST

E ST AV HEAR

CEDAR ST

D BLV

ARE ST DELAW ST VIRGINIA

CEDAR ST

PE AK

ST FORD ST OXFORDOX

ST VIRGINIA

ROSE ST

ACTON ST ACTON ST

AN ST GILM

EPHINE ST JOSEPHINE JOSST

AN ST GILM

ST 5TH ST T T 6TH S 6TH S 5TH

ST ST AN AN AN AN CH CH BU BU

80

ST VE KINS P HO T S S ROSE ST IN PK O H

E AV

SPRUCE ST SPRUCE ST

ALBANY

VE

IN AR M

ST LNUT ST WALNUTWA

80

AV E

IN AR M

ST ST SUT TER SUT TER

ALBANY

E IN AV MAR

AV E

A A MED MED THE ALA THE ALA

A

E E AV AV TON INGTON LING L A

E IN AVNO AVE MARSOLA

EN CO A LU SA

AVE AVE COLUSA COLUSA

SOLANO AVE

R

VE VE A A NA D ENA D SE S

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

A

R

24 24

OAKLAND

EMERYVILLE

OAKLAND

FIGURE HIGH STRESS NETWORK & HIGH STRESS INTERSECTIONS along the Existing Bikeway Network FIGURE C-3: HIGH HIGH STRESS INTERSECTIONS FIGURE HIGHSTRESS STRESSNETWORK NETWORKAND & HIGH STRESS INTERSECTIONS INTERSECTIONS

CORRIDORS LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT

INTERSECTIONS LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT

LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS

LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS

LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS

LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS

APPENDIX C

along the Existing Bikeway Network CORRIDORS

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

PARK/REC

RAILROAD

BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION

C-21


EL CERRITO EL CERRITO

D RD R EYLEY YLAY GAG

EMERYVILLE EMERYVILLE

D RDL R EL E N N N UN TU T

CL CLA AR R EMEM ONON T AT A VE VE

T AVE MON T AVE PIED MON PIED

AVE ASS AVE LEG ASS LEG HILHIL

N ST KINKIST DEA DEA

ST WOOLSEY ST WOOLSEY

AVE LEGE AVE COL LEGE COL

STST NANA DADA

STST ONT ONT EMEM TRTR

STST KING KING

ADAEDEL LINEINE ST ST

H ST H ST DITC WTC WDI BOBO

A ST NANST DADA

STST LTON LTON FUFU

ST RUSSELL ST RUSSELL

R LD NIA DR TEN NIAL N CE TEN N CE

TEGR LEGR TELE H AV APAP H AV E E

MOMO NTN ERTEERE Y AY A

STST EUC LIDLID EUC

STST RDRD FOFO OXOX

STST MIL VIAVIA MIL

WAY WAY MLK JR JR MLK

STST TOTO ENEN AMAM SACR SACR

AVE AVE TTU CKCK SHA TTU SHA

BERKELEY BERKELEY IA ST IA ST ORN ORN LIFLIF CACA

STST EL EL MAB MAB

EVE AVA BLO LO BA AP SAPN SAN

ST 65TH AVE ST 65TH ALCATRAZ AVE ALCATRAZ

University of University of California, Berkeley California, Berkeley

CENTER ST CENTER ST

STST GRA NTNT GRA

T ST 9TSH 9TH

T ST 4TSH 4TH ARILAIL YATYRT BAB

AVE ASHBY AVE ASHBY

Tilden Tilden Regional Regional Park Park

UCE STST SPR UCE SPR

T ST 5TSH 5TH

FT WAY BANCRO WAY FT BANCRO AY W NG CHANNI AY W NG CHANNI WAY DWIGHT AY W DWIGHT

AY ST MURR AY ST MURR

T ST T ST LNU WA LNU WA

AVE HEARST E AV HEARST

Y AVE UNIVERSIT Y AVE UNIVERSIT

AVE HEINZ AVE HEINZ

T ST RESR SUSTUTTET

CEDAR ST CEDAR ST

E AV IN VE AR A M RIN A M

STST EPH INEINE JOS EPH JOS

T ST 6TSH 6TH

ST VIRGINIA ST VIRGINIA E ST AR DELAW E ST DELAWAR

T SS IN T PK S S HO PKIN HO ROSE ST ROSE ST

STST ACT ONON ACT

ST ST ANAN ANAN CHCH BUBU

AN ST GILM N ST A GILM

VE VE

DEADA MEM ALA THTEHAELA

ALBANY ALBANY

E E AVAV SASA LULU COCO

SOLANO AVE SOLANO AVE

D RD R NON YONY ANCA T CAT CADC ILDIL WW

E E AVAV OTNON INTG LINLG A A

EN CO EN COLU LUSA A SA V AVE A E A E VE V A A NANDA D SE SE

YAY NAW EEW RN EE NENGERG HLO OHOLO

LVD RDRD BLVBD N ON YO NYAN CA C LYZLY IZRZIZ GRG PE A PE K AK

R R

80 80

FINAL PLAN

WI L WI DCA LD T CA T

E IN AV MAR AVE IN MAR

E ST AV HEAR T AVE S HEAR ON ST ADDIS ON ST ADDIS

3 ARILA3IL TERT FIRFEIR

KENSINGTON KENSINGTON

24 24

OAKLAND OAKLAND

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

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

C-22

CORRIDORS CORRIDORS LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

INTERSECTIONS INTERSECTIONS LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES LTS 1 - ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED LTS 2 - INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

NETWORK GAPS NETWORK GAPS LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS

INTERSECTION GAPS INTERSECTION GAPS LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT LTS 3 - ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS LTS 4 - STRONG AND FEARLESS

PARK/REC PARK/REC

RAILROAD RAILROAD

BART STATION BART STATION

AMTRAK STATION AMTRAK STATION


FINAL PLAN

C.2. BIKEWAY NETWORK GAPS C.1.6. LTS Conclusion

A well-connected bikeway network has low

The Level of Traffic Stress results demonstrate

the City, including schools, libraries, parks, major

the importance of assessing a citywide bikeway

commercial corridors, and employment centers.

not only for connectivity but also for its ability

This section assesses the connectivity and

to serve the diverse needs of its users. Although

continuity of the low stress bikeway network by

the current Berkeley bikeway network has a

identifying high-stress gaps within that network.

seemingly well-connected network of low stress

There are two types of gaps when considering a

bikeways, the high-stress gaps (segments and

citywide bikeway network.

Berkeley residents who identify as “enthusiastic and confident” and “interested but concerned” from bicycling. The implications of this finding are significant. To serve all types of people riding bicycles, a bikeway network should consist of continuous low stress LTS 1 and LTS 2 segments and intersections. By pinpointing and prioritizing the exact locations that likely dissuade people riding bicycles, this Plan can focus on identifying the improvements that will bring the high-stress

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 highstress gap; the Bicycle Boulevard network is presumed to be a primarily low stress network for bicyclists of all ages. 2. Bikeway network demand gaps are missing

LTS 3 and LTS 4 gaps down to low stress LTS 1

bikeway segments where there is high

and LTS 2 levels, thereby removing the barriers

demand but no existing bikeway. Examples

to bicycling for a large proportion of Berkeley

include a neighborhood with a deficiency

residents. The following section identifies the

of bikeway access, or a commercial street

gaps in the low stress Berkeley bikeway network.

that has a density of destinations but lacks a bikeway. These activity generators are the locations that generate the highest demand for bicycling.

APPENDIX C

intersections) likely inhibit the 87 percent of

stress bikeways that link to destinations across

C-23


FINAL PLAN

In comparing the City’s bikeway LTS results,

The most notable network gaps include the

existing bikeway network extents and existing

bikeway segments that score as LTS 3 and LTS

land uses, the project team can identify if the

4 in the LTS analysis, and the major commercial

existing network is serving major land uses and

and retail corridors and areas, including Shattuck

destinations for all types of bicyclists. The gaps

Avenue, University Avenue, San Pablo Avenue,

in the existing low stress bikeway network and

Telegraph Avenue, and Adeline Street.

bikeway demand gaps are listed in Table C-12 and Table C-13. Subsequent chapters of this plan will prioritize these gaps for implementation.

Table C-12: Low Stress Bikeway Corridor Gaps LOCATION

BIKEWAY FACILITY

BIKE BLVD

EXTENTS

From

To

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS SCORE

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Corridors

C-24

Gilman Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

I-80

San Pablo Avenue

LTS 3

Gilman Street

Class IIIC - Sharrows

San Pablo Avenue

Hopkins Street

LTS 4

6th Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Gilman Street

Hearst Avenue

LTS 3

Monterey Avenue

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Hopkins Street

Posen Avenue

LTS 3

Marin Avenue

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Sutter Street

The Alameda

LTS 3

Marin Avenue

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

The Alameda

Tulare Avenue

LTS 4

Hopkins Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Monterey Avenue

The Alameda

LTS 3

Hopkins Street

Class IIIA – Signage-only

Gilman Street

Monterey Avenue

LTS 4

Sutter Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Eunice Street

Los Angeles Avenue

LTS 3

Rose Street

Class IIIA – Signage-only

Monterey Avenue

Spruce Street

LTS 4

The Alameda

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Solano Avenue

Hopkins Street

LTS 3

Hearst Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Sacramento Street

McGee Avenue

LTS 4

Hearst Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

McGee Avenue

Milvia Street

LTS 3

Hearst Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Milvia Street

Shattuck Avenue

LTS 4


FINAL PLAN

Table C-12: Low Stress Bikeway Corridor Gaps Continued LOCATION

BIKEWAY FACILITY

BIKE BLVD

EXTENTS

From

To

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS SCORE

Delaware Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

9th Street

Sacramento Street

LTS 3

Oxford Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Bancroft Way

Hearst Street

LTS 3

Center Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Milvia Street

Shattuck Avenue

LTS 3

Gayley Road

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Bancroft Way

Stadium Rim Way

LTS 3

Tunnel Road

Class IIB – Upgraded bike lane

Bridge Road

Tunnel Road

LTS 3

Tunnel Road

Class IIIC - Sharrows

Vicente Road

Bridge Road

LTS 4

Telegraph Avenue

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Ashby Avenue

Dwight Way

LTS 3

Telegraph Avenue

Class IIIC - Sharrows

Woolsey Street

Ashby Avenue

LTS 4

Milvia Avenue

Class IIA – Standard bike lane, Bicycle Boulevard

Bike Blvd

Allston Way

Channing Way

LTS 4

Milvia Avenue

Class IIIA – Bicycle Boulevard

Bike Blvd

University Avenue

Allston Way

LTS 4

4th Street

Class IIIC - Sharrows

Hearst Ave

Channing Way

LTS 4

Hearst Avenue

Class IIIC - Sharrows

4th Street

5th Street

LTS 4

9th Street

Class IIIA – Bicycle Boulevard

Anthony Street

Ashby Avenue

LTS 3

Adeline Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Alcatraz Avenue

Shattuck Avenue

LTS 3

Dana Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Dwight Way

Channing Way

LTS 3

Bowditch Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Bike Blvd

Bancroft Way

LTS 2

Channing Way

Class IIIA – Bicycle Boulevard

Bike Blvd

4th Street

Piedmont Avenue

LTS 2

Milvia Street

Class IIIA – Bicycle Boulevard

Bike Blvd

Hopkins Street

University Avenue

LTS 2

Milvia Street

Class IIIA – Bicycle Boulevard

Bike Blvd

Dwight Way

Russell Street

LTS 2

9th Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Bike Blvd

Delaware Street

Bancroft Way

LTS 2

Heinz Avenue

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Bike Blvd

7th Street

San Pablo Avenue

LTS 2

9th Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Bike Blvd

Heinz Avenue

Anthony Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Dwight Way

APPENDIX C

Corridors

C-25


FINAL PLAN

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Table C-13: Low Stress Bikeway Intersection Gaps

C-26

LOCATION

BIKEWAY FACILITY

CROSS STREET

LTS

BIKE BLVD

6th Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Cedar Street

LTS 4

6th Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Hearst Street

LTS 4

9th Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Hearst Avenue

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

9th Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

University Avenue

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

9th Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Delaware Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

9th Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Dwight Way

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

9th Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Cedar Street

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

9th Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Ashby Avenue

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Adeline Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Ashby Avenue

LTS 4

Adeline Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Russell Street

LTS 4

Bancroft Way

Class IIIA – Signage-only

4th Street

LTS 4

Bancroft Way

Class IIIA – Signage-only

6th Street

LTS 4

Bancroft Way

Class IIIA – Signage-only

7th Street

LTS 4

Bowditch Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Bancroft Way

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Bowditch Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Dwight Way

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

California Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Hopkins Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

California Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Rose Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

California Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Cedar Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

California Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Hearst Avenue

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

California Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

University Avenue

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

California Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Dwight Way

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

California Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Alcatraz Avenue

LTS 3

California Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Ashby Avenue

LTS 4

Center Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Shattuck Avenue

LTS 4

Channing Way

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Milvia Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Channing Way

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

College Avenue

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Channing Way

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

4th Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd


FINAL PLAN

LOCATION

BIKEWAY FACILITY

CROSS STREET

LTS

BIKE BLVD

Channing Way

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Shattuck Avenue

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Channing Way

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Fulton Street

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Channing Way

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Dana Street

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Channing Way

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Telegraph Avenue

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Channing Way

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Piedmont Avenue

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Channing Way

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

6th Street

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Channing Way

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

San Pablo Avenue

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Channing Way

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Sacramento Street

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Colusa Avenue

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Solano Avenue

LTS 4

Colusa Avenue

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Marin Avenue

LTS 4

Dana Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Bancroft Way

LTS 4

Dana Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Dwight Way

LTS 4

Deakin Street

Class IIIA – Signage-only

Ashby Avenue

LTS 4

Delaware Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Sacramento Street

LTS 3

Delaware Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

San Pablo Avenue

LTS 3

Gilman Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

6th Street

LTS 3

Gilman Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

9th Street

LTS 3

Gilman Street

Class IIIC – Sharrows

Hopkins Street

LTS 3

Gilman Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

San Pablo Avenue

LTS 4

Hearst Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Shattuck Avenue

LTS 4

Hearst Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Milvia Avenue

LTS 4

Hearst Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Martin Luther King Jr Way

LTS 4

Heinz Avenue

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

San Pablo Avenue

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Hillegass Avenue

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Ashby Avenue

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Hopkins Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

The Alameda

LTS 4

Hopkins Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Sutter Street

LTS 4

Hopkins Stree

Class IIIA – Signage-only

Sacramento Street

LTS 4

King Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Alcatraz Avenue

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

APPENDIX C

Table C-13: Low Stress Bikeway Intersection Gaps Continued

C-27


FINAL PLAN

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Table C-13: Low Stress Bikeway Intersection Gaps Continued

C-28

LOCATION

BIKEWAY FACILITY

CROSS STREET

LTS

BIKE BLVD

Marin Avenue

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Sutter Street

LTS 4

Milvia Avenue

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Cedar Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Milvia Avenue

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Channing Way

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Milvia Avenue

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Dwight Way

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Milvia Avenue

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Allston Way

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Milvia Avenue

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Hearst Avenue

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Milvia Avenue

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

University Avenue

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Milvia Avenue

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Center Street

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Milvia Avenue

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Russell Street

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Milvia Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Hopkins Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Milvia Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Rose Street

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Oxford Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Hearst Avenue

LTS 4

Oxford Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Bancroft Way

LTS 4

Oxford Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

University Avenue

LTS 4

Rose Street

Class IIIA – Signage-only

Shattuck Avenue

LTS 3

Rose Street

Class IIIA – Signage-only

Spruce Street

LTS 4

Rose Street

Class IIIA – Signage-only

Oxford Street

LTS 4

Rose Street

Class IIIA – Signage-only

Martin Luther King Jr Way

LTS 4

Russell Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Claremont Avenue

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Russell Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

College Avenue

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Russell Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Shattuck Avenue

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Russell Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Martin Luther King Jr Way

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Russell Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Telegraph Avenue

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Russell Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Adeline Street

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Russell Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Sacramento Street

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Russell Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

San Pablo Avenue

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Sutter Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Eunice Street

LTS 4

Sutter Street

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Los Angeles Street

LTS 4

C-28


FINAL PLAN

Table C-13: Low Stress Bikeway Intersection Gaps Continued BIKEWAY FACILITY

CROSS STREET

LTS

BIKE BLVD

The Alameda

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Solano Avenue

LTS 4

The Alameda

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Marin Avenue

LTS 4

The Alameda

Class IIA – Standard bike lane

Monterey Avenue

LTS 4

Tunnel Road

Class IIIC – Sharrows

The Uplands

LTS 4

Virginia Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Oxford Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Virginia Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Acton Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Virginia Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

San Pablo Avenue

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Virginia Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

6th Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Virginia Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

5th Street

LTS 2

Bike Blvd

Virginia Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Martin Luther King Jr Way

LTS 3

Bike Blvd

Virginia Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Shattuck Avenue

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Virginia Street

Class IIIE – Bicycle Boulevard

Sacramento Street

LTS 4

Bike Blvd

Woolsey Street

Class IIIA – Signage-only

College Avenue

LTS 4

Woolsey Street

Class IIIA – Signage-only

Shattuck Avenue

LTS 4

APPENDIX C

LOCATION

C-29


FINAL PLAN

The bikeway demand gaps are locations where there is high demand but no existing bikeway facility. The bikeway demand gaps have been identified based on the demand analysis and public feedback discussed in Chapter 4. These are locations where bicyclists are likely already traveling (potentially unsafely or unlawfully).

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Table C-14: Bikeway Demand Gaps

C-30

LOCATION

EXTENTS

DEMAND

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC SCORE

University Avenue

I-80 to Oxford Street

High demand commercial corridor

LTS 4

Shattuck Avenue

Rose Street to Adeline Street

High demand commercial corridor

LTS 4

Sacramento Street

Allston Way to Hopkins Street

High demand commercial corridor

LTS 4

Ashby Avenue

King Street to Claremont Avenue

High demand commercial corridor

LTS 4

Bancroft Avenue

Bowditch Street to Oxford Street

High demand commercial corridor, UCB Access

LTS 4

San Pablo Avenue

Albany City limits to Oakland City limits

High demand commercial corridor

LTS 4

College Avenue

Bancroft Way to Alcatraz Avenue

High demand commercial corridor

LTS 4

Hearst Avenue

Shattuck Avenue to Gayley Road

UCB Access

LTS 4


FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX C

This page intentionally left blank.

C-31


CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX D

D-1


FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX D.

Proposed Programs This appendix presents the recommended bicycle-related programs for the City of Berkeley. The recommendations are organized in four E’s: • Education programs are designed to improve

D.1. EDUCATION D.1.1. Bike Rental Sidewalk Safety Brochure and Form Berkeley sidewalks tend to be too narrow to accommodate bicyclists and walkers at the same time. Residents and community members who

safety and awareness. They can include

already bicycle may know that the City Municipal

programs that teach students how to safely

Code requires that bicycles be walked on the

ride or teach drivers to expect bicyclists. They

sidewalk or ridden on the street, but visitors and

may also include brochures, posters, or other

new bicyclists may not be aware of this.

information that targets bicyclists or drivers. • Encouragement programs provide incentives and support to help people leave their car at home and try biking instead. • Enforcement programs enforce legal and

RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends the City develop an informational brochure for bicycle merchants to give to their customers on the rules of riding a bicycle in Berkeley. Additionally, a form can

respectful bicycling and driving. They include

be developed to be given out by bicycle-rental

a variety of tactics, ranging from police

merchants for their customers to read and sign

enforcement to neighborhood signage

after reading the brochure and prior to renting a

campaigns.

bicycle.

• Evaluation programs are an important component of any investment. They help

*This supports Goal 1: Safety First (from Chapter 2: Goals and Policies).

measure success at meeting the goals of this plan and to identify adjustments that may be necessary. It is recommended that Berkeley continue the existing bicycle-related programs described education, encouragement, evaluation, and enforcement programs are an integral part of a bicycle-friendly city.

APPENDIX D

in Chapter 3: Existing Conditions. Bicycle

D-1


FINAL PLAN

D.2. ENCOURAGEMENT D.1.2. Law Enforcement Education

D.2.1. Bicycle Friendly Community

Frequently, new laws are passed nationwide and

The League of American Bicyclists recognizes

in California that directly impact bicyclist safety.

communities that improve bicycling

Sometimes, information about these laws may

conditions through education, encouragement,

not be clearly conveyed to law enforcement

enforcement, and evaluation programs.

officials, so violators may not be cited for their

Communities can achieve diamond, platinum,

transgression.

gold, silver, or bronze status, or an honorary

RECOMMENDATION

schools and attractive downtowns, bicycle

safety, this Plan recommends the City work with

friendliness can increase property values, spur

law enforcement to ensure that officers fully

business growth, and increase tourism.

or warn violators. *This supports Goal 1: Safety First (from Chapter 2: Goals and Policies).

D.1.1. Sidewalk Safety Campaign Berkeley sidewalks tend to be too narrow to

RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends the City apply for a Bicycle Friendly Community designation after implementation of the priority projects identified in this Plan. This Plan is a valuable resource for completing the LAB application efficiently.

accommodate bicyclists and walkers at the same

More information and application steps:

time. Residents and community members who

http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/

already bicycle may know that the City Municipal

bicyclefriendlyamerica/communities/.

Code requires that bicycles be walked on the sidewalk or ridden on the street, but visitors and new bicyclists may not be aware of this. RECOMMENDATION CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

a community is healthy and vibrant. Like good

When a new law is passed regarding bicycle

understand the new laws and will work to ticket

D-2

mention. Bicycle friendliness can indicate that

It is recommended the City work with local merchants and UC Berkeley to develop and hang posters that encourage bicyclists to ride on the street instead of the sidewalks. *This supports Goal 1: Safety First (from Chapter 2: Goals and Policies).

*This supports Goal 2: Strength in Numbers (from Chapter 2: Goals and Policies).


FINAL PLAN

D.3. EVALUATION D.2.2. Bike Share Program

D.3.1. Legislation Review

Bike share is a 24-hour personalized public

The City of Berkeley has passed many laws and

transportation system designed for short, one-

policies since it became an official city in 1909.

way trips by bike. In 2015, the City partnered

As such, many of these laws may be out of date

with Metropolitan Transportation Commission

or do not comply with newer laws regarding

and Bay Area Motivate to launch the regional

bicyclist safety.

bike share system, called Bay Area Bike Share,

RECOMMENDATION

bikes and up to 37 stations placed in dense, geographically diverse, mixed use areas of Berkeley. The regional bike share system, owned and operated by Bay Area Motivate will also include the Cities of Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco and San JosĂŠ. Since the bike share launch and infrastructure is at no-cost to taxpayers, it is important for the City to leverage this free regional public transportation system to meet goals and measures listed in this Plan.

This Plan recommends that the City review current legislation to determine whether new legislation is needed to further protect bicyclists and other vulnerable roadway users. *This supports Goal 1: Safety First (from Chapter 2: Goals and Policies).

D.3.2. Bicycle Counts Conducting regular citywide bike counts can be an important source of information on noncommuting bicycle trips. Regular count data can also help the City track annual trends in bicycle

More information:

travel and measure the impact of newly built

http://www.bayareabikeshare.com/.

parts of the bikeway network. Counts should

RECOMMENDATION

be conducted in accordance with the National

It is recommended to evaluate ridership levels 18

Bicycle & Pedestrian Documentation Project.

months after implementation. If necessary, move

RECOMMENDATION

station locations to better serve users. Expand to

This Plan recommends the City conduct semi-

over 500 bicycles and 50 stations by 2020.

annual bike counts throughout Berkeley. If

*This supports Goal 2: Strength in Numbers (from Chapter 2: Goals and Policies).

possible, the City should seek a partnership with BikeEastBay or UC Berkeley students when conducting counts to defray costs. Count locations should be determined in collaboration with BikeEastBay and major employers to ensure the likeliest routes for bicycle use are

APPENDIX D

in Berkeley in 2016/2017. Berkeley will have 400

incorporated. Prioritizing count locations D-3


FINAL PLAN

D.4. ENFORCEMENT where bicycle infrastructure is planned for future implementation can establish a baseline for bicycle travel and allow for accurate measurement of project impacts over time. *This supports Goal 2: Strength in Numbers (from Chapter 2: Goals and Policies).

D.4.1. Vision Zero Targeted Enforcement Cities that adopt Vision Zero policies, such as San Francisco and San JosĂŠ, have adopted corresponding enforcement goals targeting the vehicle code infractions most likely to result in injury collisions or fatalities. Law enforcement

D.3.3. Annual Collision Data Review Reviewing bicycle and pedestrian related collisions and near-misses on an annual basis can

related to these high-risk infractions. RECOMMENDATION

or corridors. This review should include an

This Plan recommends that, if a Vision Zero

assessment of the existing infrastructure to

policy is adopted, the City coordinate with

determine whether improvements can be

the Berkeley Police Department to implement

made to reduce the number of collisions in the

targeted enforcement within the City of Berkeley.

community.

Targeted enforcement goals will be determined

RECOMMENDATION

following comprehensive study of historical and

Police Department review bicycle and pedestrian related collision data on an annual basis to identify needed improvements. *This supports Goal 1: Safety First (from Chapter 2: Goals and Policies).

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

certain percentage of their traffic stops be

help the City identify challenging intersections

This Plan recommends the City and Berkeley

D-4

officers are then tasked with the goal of a

annual collision data in Berkeley. *This supports Goal 1: Safety First (from Chapter 2: Goals and Policies).


FINAL PLAN

D.4.2. Revision of E-Bike Regulations New legislation in California at the state level has provided new guidance for the operation of electric bicycles, while still providing latitude for local jurisdictions to more closely regulate their operations. As electric bicycle use grows, it will be important to craft regulations meeting the needs of Berkeleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residents. RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends the City of Berkeley work with the Berkeley Police Department and Alameda County to adopt e-bike regulations for their use in Berkeley.

APPENDIX D

*This supports Goal 2: Strength in Numbers (from Chapter 2: Goals and Policies).

D-5


CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX E

E-1


FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX E.

Project Recommendation Tables and Prioritization This appendix further details the recommended

network. The primary consideration was to

projects in Chapter 5: Recommendations and

develop a continuous and connected network of

Chapter 6: Implementation.

safe and comfortable bikeways appropriate for

The goals and policies of Chapter 2, the LTS analysis, and community outreach guided the development of the recommended bikeway

Table E-1: Summary of Project Recommendations TYPE Class 1A: Paved Path

MILEAGE 1.5

COST ESTIMATE $5,285,700

Class 2A: Standard Bike Lane

0.1

$10,700

Class 2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

3.0

$541,500

Class 3C: Sharrows

13.9

$71,600

Class 3E: Bicycle Boulevard

12.4

$621,900

Class 4: Cycletrack

18.4

$9,903,300

Complete Street Corridor Interim Treatments

17.0

$1,181,400 Total

$17,616,100

all users. Table E-1 and Table E-2 summarize the miles and number of corridor and intersection recommendations.

Table E-2: Summary of Intersection Recommendations RECOMMENDED PROJECT TYPE Two-Way Cycletrack Crossing Connector

COUNT

COST ESTIMATE

4

$240,000

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)

16

$4,000,000

Protected Intersection

10

$6,500,000

Raised Intersection

1

$125,000

RRFB

5

$250,000

RRFB + Median

14

$980,000

RRFB + Median + Raised Crosswalk

6

$510,000

Traffic Circle

42

$2,100,000

Traffic Diverter

13

$650,000

Traffic Signal

3

$1,500,000

Total

$16,855,000

RECOMMENDED PROJECTS The following sections detail the project recommendations based on project type or location. Due to overlap between project type and location tables, the totals at the end of each table in this section APPENDIX E

will not add up.

E-1


FINAL PLAN

Upgrades to Existing Class II Bike Lanes and Class III Bike Routes Table E-3 lists the projects that will upgrade existing Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes. The projects indicated with an asterisk (*) are projects located near the Downtown and UC campus and are also listed in Table E-5.

Table E-3: Upgrades to Class II and Class III Bikeways

CORRIDOR

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

NOTES

MILES

COST ESTIMATE

6th St

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

6th St

Gilman St

Channing Way

1.25

$225,700

3C: Sharrows

Acton St

Delaware St

University Ave

0.18

$100

Addison St

3C: Sharrows

Bolivar Dr

Aquatic Park Path

Addison St

0.12

$2,800

Alcatraz Ave

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

Alcatraz Ave

King St

Adeline St

0.12

$22,000

Channing Wy

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

Channing Way*

MLK Jr Way

Piedmont Ave

1.13

$204,100

Euclid Ave

3C: Sharrows

Euclid Ave

Bayview Pl

Virginia St

0.48

$2,000

Fulton St, Bancroft Wy, Hearst Ave

2A: Standard Bike Lane

Center St*

Shattuck Ave

Oxford St

0.12

$10,700

3C: Sharrows

Hearst Ave*

Arch St/Le Conte Ave

Euclid Ave

0.21

$2,100

Gayley Rd

3C: Sharrows

Gayley Rd*

Hearst Ave

Piedmont Ave

0.56

$2,800

Grant St

3C: Sharrows

Grant St

Grant St - North Terminus

Russell St

1.80

$5,800

3C: Sharrows

Josephine St

Rose St

The Alameda

0.35

$3,500

3C: Sharrows

Sonoma Ave

Josephine St

City Limits - North

0.26

$4,900

3C: Sharrows

Arlington Ave

The Circle

City Limits - North

1.03

$9,100

Climbing route

3C: Sharrows

Colusa Ave

Tacoma Ave

City Limits - North

0.51

$2,800

3C: Sharrows

Grizzly Peak Blvd

Spruce St

City Limits - East

2.29

$5,500

3C: Sharrows

Portland Ave

City Limits West

Colusa Ave

0.24

$3,500

3C: Sharrows

Spruce St

Virginia St

Wildcat Canyon Rd

2.08

$6,800

3C: Sharrows

Wildcat Canyon Rd

Spruce St

City Limits - East

1.81

$3,000

3C: Sharrows

Curtis St

Gilman St

City Limits - North

0.12

$700

3C: Sharrows

Peralta Ave

Ohlone Greenway

City Limits - North

0.29

$2,100

3C: Sharrows

Santa Fe Ave

Camelia St

City Limits - North

0.27

$1,400

3C: Sharrows

Santa Fe Ave, Talbot Ave

Page St

City Limits - North

0.34

$2,100

Monterey Ave

4: Cycletrack

Monterey Ave

Hopkins St

The Alameda

0.58

$350,600

Piedmont Ave

3C: Sharrows

Piedmont Ave

Russell St

Derby St

0.26

$4,300

Woolsey St

3C: Sharrows

Woolsey St, The Uplands

Eton Ave

El Camino Real

0.69

$6,300

Kains Ave, Santa Fe Ave CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

LOCATION

Acton St

Grizzly Peak Blvd

E-2

TYPE

Climbing route from Rose St to Los Angeles Ave

Briefly on Stuart St and Dwight Way

Total $884,700

* Project also listed in Table E-5.


FINAL PLAN

New and Enhanced Bicycle Boulevards Table E-4 details the recommended new and

Boulevard network. The projects indicated with

enhanced Bicycle Boulevards, including the

an asterisk (*) are projects located near the

intersection treatments to enhance the Bicycle

Downtown and UC campus and are also listed in Table E-5.

Table E-4: New and Enhanced Bicycle Boulevards TYPE

LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

9th St

RRFB

9th St

Cedar St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

9th St

Grayson St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

9th St

Heinz Ave

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

9th St

Page St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

9th St

Jones St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

9th St

Pardee St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Signal

Ashby Ave

9th St

-

-

$500,000

Traffic Circle

Parker St

9th St

-

Acton St

3E: Bike Boulevard

Acton St

Delaware St

Virginia St

Addison St

1A: Paved Path

Addison St

Curtis St

Browning St

Cycletrack Crossing

Addison St

San Pablo Ave

-

PHB

Addison St

Sacramento St

RRFB + Median

Addison St

6th St

RRFB + Median

Addison St

Traffic Circle

Addison St

Traffic Circle Traffic Diverter

NOTES

Future trail project

MILES

COST ESTIMATE

CORRIDOR

-

$50,000

0.13

$6,300

0.06

$201,500

-

$60,000

-

-

$250,000

-

-

$70,000

MLK Jr Way

-

-

$70,000

5th St

-

-

$50,000

Addison St

7th St

-

-

$50,000

Addison St

10th St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Addison St

Grant St

-

3E: Bike Boulevard

Addison St*

Bolivar Dr

Oxford St

Connector

Class I Path between Curtis St and Browning St

-

$50,000

1.96

$98,000

RRFB + Median

Addison St*

Oxford St

-

-

$70,000

Alcatraz Ave

RRFB + Median

Alcatraz Ave

King St

-

-

$70,000

California St

RRFB + Median

Ashby Ave

California St

-

-

$70,000

3E: Bike Boulevard

California St

62nd St

Russell St

0.64

$32,200

RRFB + Median

California St

Alcatraz Ave

-

-

$70,000

Traffic Circle

California St

Allston Wy

-

-

$50,000

* Project also listed in Table E-5. E-3


FINAL PLAN

Table E-4: New and Enhanced Bicycle Boulevards Continued

CORRIDOR California St

Camelia St

Channing Wy

Dana St

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Derby St

TYPE

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

NOTES

MILES

COST ESTIMATE

Traffic Circle

California St

Blake St

-

-

$50,000

RRFB

Dwight St

California St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Camelia St

Kains Ave

-

-

$50,000

RRFB + Median

Cornell Ave

Hopkins St

-

-

$70,000

PHB

San Pablo Ave

Camelia St

-

-

$250,000

Traffic Circle

9th St

Channing Wy

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Bonar St

Channing Wy

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

California St

Channing Wy

-

-

$50,000

PHB

Channing Wy

Sacramento St

-

-

$250,000

PHB

Channing Wy

San Pablo Ave

-

-

$250,000

RRFB + Median

Channing Wy

6th St

-

-

$70,000

Traffic Circle

Channing Wy

7th St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Channing Wy

Browning St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Channing Wy

10th St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Channing Wy

Curtis St

-

-

$50,000

Protected Intersection

Channing Wy*

Shattuck Ave

-

-

$650,000

Protected Intersection

Channing Wy*

Telegraph Ave

-

-

$650,000

Traffic Circle

Channing Wy*

Dana St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Channing Wy*

Ellsworth St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Channing Wy*

Fulton St

-

-

$50,000 $50,000

Traffic Diverter

Channing Wy*

Bowditch St

-

-

3E: Bike Boulevard

Dana St

Dwight Way

Derby St

0.25

Traffic Diverter

Derby St

Grant St

-

-

$50,000

3E: Bike Boulevard

Derby St

Mabel St

Warring St

1.85

$92,600

Cycletrack Crossing

Derby St

College Ave

-

-

$60,000

Traffic Circle

Derby St

Milvia St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Derby St

Regent St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Derby St

Fulton St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Derby St

Hillegass Ave

-

-

$50,000

3E: Bike Boulevard

Parker St

Mabel St

9th St

0.34

PHB

Sacramento St

Derby St

-

-

$250,000

PHB

San Pablo Ave

Parker St

-

-

$250,000

PHB

Shattuck Ave

Derby St

-

-

$250,000

* Project also listed in Table E-5. E-4

LOCATION

$12,500

$17,200


FINAL PLAN

Table E-4: New and Enhanced Bicycle Boulevards Continued

CORRIDOR Fulton St, Bancroft Wy, Hearst Ave

Harmon St

Hillegass Ave

Kains Ave, Santa Fe Ave

Mabel St

TYPE

LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

NOTES

MILES

COST ESTIMATE

Cycletrack Crossing

Bancroft Wy*

Barrow Ln/ Bowditch St

-

-

$60,000

Protected Intersection

Bancroft Wy*

Telegraph Ave

-

-

$650,000

Protected Intersection

Fulton St

Dwight Way

-

-

$650,000

Traffic Circle

Fulton St

Oregon St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Fulton St

Parker St

-

-

$50,000

Protected Intersection

Fulton St*

Bancroft Way

-

-

$650,000

3E: Bike Boulevard

Fulton St, Prince St, Deakin St, Wheeler St

Dwight Way

Woolsey St

0.98

Protected Intersection

Hearst St

Arch St/Le Conte Ave

-

-

$650,000

Protected Intersection

Hearst St*

Oxford St

-

-

$650,000

Protected Intersection

Hearst St*

Shattuck Ave

-

-

$650,000

Traffic Circle

Prince St

Deakin St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Prince St

Wheeler St

-

-

$50,000

3E: Bike Boulevard

65th St, Harmon St

Liquid Sugar Dr

King St

0.88

$44,200

Traffic Circle

Harmon St

Baker St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Harmon St

Idaho St

-

-

$50,000

PHB

Sacramento St

Harmon St

-

-

$250,000

PHB

Ashby Ave

Hillegass Ave

-

-

$250,000

RRFB + Median

Dwight Wy

Hillegass Ave/ Bowditch St

-

-

$70,000

65th St is outside Berkeley

$49,200

Traffic Circle

Hillegass Ave

Russell St

-

-

$50,000

3E: Bike Boulevard

Camelia, Cornell, Hopkins, Rose, Walnut

9th St

Oxford Elementary

2.20

$110,000

3E: Bike Boulevard

Kains Ave

City Limits North

Virginia St

0.64

$32,200

1A: Paved Path

Between Bonar St

Addison St

Bancroft Way

0.25

$875,300

RRFB + Median

Dwight Wy

Mabel St

-

3E: Bike Boulevard

Idaho St, 66th St, Mabel St, Ward St, Mabel St, Dwight Wy, Bonar St

Harmon St

Bancroft Way

Traffic Circle

Mabel St

67th St

Traffic Circle

Mabel St

Carrison St

Off-street

-

$70,000

1.31

$65,300

-

-

$50,000

-

-

$50,000

Short segments on 66th, Russell, Ward, Dwight

* Project also listed in Table E-5. E-5


FINAL PLAN

Table E-4: New and Enhanced Bicycle Boulevards Continued

CORRIDOR Mabel St

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

Mabel St

Haskell St

-

Traffic Signal

Mabel St

Ashby Ave

-

RRFB

Milvia St

Hopkins St

RRFB

Milvia St

Traffic Circle

Milvia St

Traffic Circle Protected Intersection Ohlone Greenway Rose St

Russell St

Virginia St

NOTES

MILES

COST ESTIMATE

-

$50,000

-

$500,000

-

-

$50,000

Rose St

-

-

$50,000

Oregon St

-

-

$50,000

Milvia St

Parker St

-

-

$50,000

University Ave*

Milvia St

-

-

$650,000

Protected Intersection

Delaware St

Sacramento St

-

-

$650,000

Traffic Circle

Rose St

California st

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Rose St

Milvia St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Rose St

Walnut St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Rose St

Chestnut St

-

-

$50,000

PHB

Russell St

Adeline St

-

-

$250,000

PHB

Russell St

Sacramento St

-

-

$250,000

RRFB + Median

Russell St

Claremont Ave

-

-

$70,000

RRFB + Median

Russell St

Shattuck Ave

-

-

$70,000

Traffic Circle

Russell St

King St

-

Cycletrack Crossing

San Pablo Ave

Heinz Ave/ Russell St

-

Traffic Signal

San Pablo Ave

Heinz Ave/ Russell St

Traffic Circle

9th St

Traffic Circle RRFB + Median

Add bike detection to existing signal

-

$50,000

-

$60,000

-

-

$500,000

Virginia St

-

-

$50,000

California St

Virginia St

-

-

$50,000

MLK Jr Wy

Virginia St

-

-

$70,000

RRFB

Oxford St*

Virginia St

-

-

$50,000

PHB

Sacramento St

Virginia St

-

-

$250,000

PHB

San Pablo Ave

Virginia St

-

-

$250,000

PHB

Shattuck Ave*

Virginia St

-

-

$250,000

3E: Bike Boulevard

Virginia St

4th St

6th St

0.12

Traffic Circle

Virginia St

8th St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Virginia St

Chestnut Wy

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Virginia St

Curtis St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Virginia St

Kains Ave

-

-

$50,000

* Project also listed in Table E-5. E-6

LOCATION

Traffic Circle

Milvia St

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

TYPE

Short term Sidewalk

$6,200


FINAL PLAN

Table E-4: New and Enhanced Bicycle Boulevards Continued

CORRIDOR Virginia St

Woolsey St

TYPE

LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

Traffic Diverter

Virginia St

7th St

-

Traffic Diverter

Virginia St

McGee Ave

-

PHB

Adeline St

Woolsey St

PHB

MLK Jr Wy

3E: Bike Boulevard

Prince St, MLK Jr Wy

3E: Bike Boulevard

NOTES

MILES

COST ESTIMATE

-

$50,000

-

$50,000

-

-

$250,000

Prince St

-

-

$250,000

King St

Adeline St

0.27

$13,600

Woolsey St

Adeline St

Hillegass Ave

0.85

$42,400

RRFB + Median

Woolsey St

Shattuck Ave

-

-

$70,000

Traffic Circle

Woolsey St

Dana St

-

-

$50,000

Reset existing diverters

APPENDIX E

Total $17,918,700

* Project also listed in Table E-5. E-7


FINAL PLAN

Downtown and UC Berkeley Campus Area Projects Table E-5 lists the projects in downtown and near the UC Berkeley Campus. All Cycletrack (4) projects in the Downtown and Campus area except the Milvia Street Bikeway are proposed future Complete Street Corridor Studies. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.

Table E-5: Downtown and Campus Recommendations

CORRIDOR

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

Addison St

3E: Bike Boulevard

Addison St

Bolivar Dr

Oxford St

RRFB + Median

Addison St

Oxford St

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

Channing Wy

MLK Jr Way

Piedmont Ave

Protected Intersection

Channing Wy

Shattuck Ave

Protected Intersection

Channing Wy

Telegraph Ave

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Channing Wy

E-8

NOTES Class I Path between Curtis St and Browning St

MILES

COST ESTIMATE

1.96

$98,000

-

$70,000

1.13

$204,100

-

-

$650,000

-

-

$650,000

Traffic Diverter

Channing Wy

Bowditch St

-

-

$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

Dana St

Study Cycletrack (4)

Dana St

Bancroft Way

Dwight Way

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.25

$150,100

Euclid Ave

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

Euclid Ave

Virginia St

Hearst Ave

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.19

$34,000

Fulton St, Bancroft Way, Hearst Ave

Cycletrack Crossing

Bancroft Wy

Barrow Ln/ Bowditch St

-

-

$60,000

Study Cycletrack (4)

Bancroft Wy

Milvia St

Piedmont Ave

1.00

$600,900

Protected Intersection

Bancroft Wy

Telegraph Ave

-

-

$650,000

2A: Standard Bike Lane

Center St

Shattuck Ave

Oxford St

0.12

$10,700

Protected Intersection

Fulton St

Bancroft Way

-

-

$650,000

Study Cycletrack (4)

Fulton St, Oxford St

Dwight Way

Virginia St

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.89

$534,000

3C: Sharrows

Hearst Ave

Arch St/Le Conte Ave

Euclid Ave

Climbing route

0.21

$2,100

Protected Intersection

Hearst Ave

Arch St/Le Conte Ave

-

-

$650,000

Complete Street Corridor Study


FINAL PLAN

Table E-5: Downtown and Campus Recommendations Continued RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

NOTES

Study Cycletrack (4)

Hearst Ave

California St

Arch St/Le Conte Ave

Complete Street Corridor Study

Protected Intersection

Hearst Ave

Oxford St

Protected Intersection

Hearst Ave

Gayley Rd

3C: Sharrows

Milvia St

MILES

COST ESTIMATE

0.91

$546,000

-

-

$650,000

Shattuck Ave

-

-

$650,000

Gayley Rd

Hearst Ave

Piedmont Ave

0.56

$2,800

4: Two-Way Cycletrack

Milvia St

Hearst Ave

Blake St

0.75

$451,500

Protected Intersection

University Ave

Milvia St

-

-

$650,000

Piedmont Ave/ Warring St

Study Cycletrack (4)

Piedmont Ave/ Warring St

Bancroft Way

Derby St

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.54

$322,100

Shattuck Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

Shattuck Ave

City Limits South

Rose St

Complete Street Corridor Study

2.08

$124,700

Telegraph Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

Telegraph Ave

Woolsey St

Bancroft Way

Complete Street Corridor Study

1.09

$654,700

University Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

University Ave

Oxford St

4th St

Complete Street Corridor Study

1.88

$1,126,900

CORRIDOR Fulton St, Bancroft Way, Hearst Ave

Virginia St

RRFB

Oxford St

Virginia St

-

-

$50,000

PHB

Shattuck Ave

Virginia St

-

-

$250,000

Total $10,692,600

APPENDIX E

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.

E-9


FINAL PLAN

Ohlone Greenway Table E-6 details the project recommendations for the Ohlone Greenway.

Table E-6: Ohlone Greenway Project Recommendations SEGMENT 1: ALBANY BORDER TO PERALTA AVE

MILES/UNITS 0.34

COST

Albany Border to Peralta Ave

Class 1A: Paved Path

$1,190,000

Santa Fe Ave/Ohlone Greenway

RRFB + Median + Raised Crosswalk

1

$85,000

Gilman St/Ohlone Greenway

Raised Intersection

1

$125,000

Peralta Ave/Ohlone Greenway

RRFB + Median + Raised Crosswalk

1

$85,000

Peralta Ave from Ohlone Greenway to Hopkins St

Class 4: Cycletrack

0.1

$60,000

SEGMENT 2: HOPKINS ST TO VIRGINIA ST Hopkins St to Virginia St

Class 1A: Paved Path

0.36

$1,276,900

Hopkins St/Peralta Ave

RRFB + Median + Raised Crosswalk

1

$85,000

Rose St/Ohlone Greenway

RRFB + Median + Raised Crosswalk

1

$85,000

Cedar St/Ohlone Greenway

RRFB + Median + Raised Crosswalk

1

$85,000

Franklin St/Ohlone Greenway

RRFB + Median + Raised Crosswalk

1

$85,000

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

SEGMENT 3: VIRGINIA ST TO MLK JR WAY

E-10

Acton St from Delaware St to Virginia St

Class 3E: Bike Boulevard

0.13

$6,300

Delaware St from Acton St to Sacramento St

Class 4: Cycletrack

0.12

$78,000

Sacramento St/Delaware St

Protected Intersection

Sacramento St to MLK Jr Way

Class 1A: Paved Path

1

$650,000

0.50

$1,742,000

Total

$5,638,200


FINAL PLAN

Complete Street Corridor Studies As defined by the Berkeley Complete Streets Policy, “Complete Streets” describes a comprehensive, integrated transportation network for all users. Providing a complete network does not necessarily mean that every street will provide dedicated facilities for all transportation modes, but rather that the transportation network will provide convenient, safe, and connected routes for all modes of transportation within and across the City. For the purposes of bikeway planning, the City of Berkeley considers both the major/ collector street and parallel streets part of a 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 Bicycle Plan map figures as requiring a Class IV Cycletrack to meet LTS 1 or 2, most of them will require further study in order to evaluate their suitability for this treatment and impacts on other modes of transportation. These major and collector streets provide access to local Berkeley businesses or opportunities for direct cross-town or interjurisdictional travel not duplicated by a parallel street. They serve multiple modes of transportation, requiring further consideration

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 and phased treatments may still require traffic study, interagency coordination, and public process if they impact roadway capacity, parking, or transit operations. Interim and phased treatments should not negatively impact existing transit operations; mitigations 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 into a Class IV Cycletrack if feasible without negatively impacting existing or planned transit operations on Primary or Secondary Transit Routes. Table E-7 on the following pages lists the future Complete Street Corridor Studies including the cost estimates for the interim treatments and potential longer-term low stress bikeway projects. The projects indicated with an asterisk (*) are projects located near the Downtown and UC campus and are also listed in Table E-5. For more information about future Complete Street Corridor Studies, see Section 5.7, Section 6.7, and Appendix F.

streets are therefore labeled as “Complete Street Corridor Studies” on the Bicycle Plan map figures.

APPENDIX E

above and beyond that of bicycle travel. These

E-11


FINAL PLAN Table E-7: Complete Street Corridor Studies

University Ave

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

-

0.31

$55,700

Virginia St

University Ave

-

3C: Sharrows

0.31

$2,800

Adeline St

King St

Shattuck Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

0.99

$595,200

Adeline St

King St

MLK Jr Way/ Woolsey St

-

3C: Sharrows

0.37

$4,200

Adeline St

MLK Jr Way/ Woolsey St

Shattuck Ave

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.62

$111,400

Bancroft Way

Milvia St

Piedmont Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

1.00

$600,900

Bancroft Way

Milvia St

Piedmont Ave

-

3C: Sharrows

1.00

$6,300

Claremont Ave

City Limits South

Warring St

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

1.10

$661,100

Claremont Ave

City Limits South

Ashby Ave

-

3C: Sharrows

0.55

$9,100

Claremont Ave, Belrose Ave, Derby St

Warring St

Ashby Ave

-

3C: Sharrows

0.55

$5,600

Colusa Ave

Solano Ave

Tacoma Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

0.13

$80,600

Colusa Ave

Solano Ave

Tacoma Ave

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.13

$24,200

Dana St

Bancroft Way

Dwight Way

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

0.25

$150,100

Dana St

Bancroft Way

Dwight Way

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.25

$45,000

Delaware St

Acton St

Sacramento St

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

0.13

$78,000

Delaware St

Acton St

Sacramento St

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.13

$23,800

Euclid Ave

Virginia St

Hearst Ave

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

-

0.19

$34,000

Euclid Ave

Virginia St

Hearst Ave

-

3C: Sharrows

0.19

$2,800

Fulton St, Oxford St

Dwight Way

Virginia St

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

0.89

$534,000

Oxford St

Bancroft Way

Kittredge St

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.06

$11,300

Fulton St

Bancroft Way

Channing Way

-

4: Cycletrack

0.13

$76,700

Fulton St

Channing Way

Dwight Way

-

3C: Sharrows

0.13

$2,100

Oxford St

Virginia St

Kittridge St

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.57

$102,600

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

4th St

4th St

Virginia St

4th St

Bancroft Way*

Claremont Ave

Colusa Ave

Dana St*

Delaware St

Euclid Ave*

Fulton St, Oxford St*

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

INTERIM TREATMENT

LOCATION

Adeline St

E-12

RECOMMENDED STUDY

CORRIDOR

MILES

COST ESTIMATE

* Project also listed in Table E-5. 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.


FINAL PLAN Table E-7: Complete Street Corridor Studies Continued RECOMMENDED STUDY

INTERIM TREATMENT

Hopkins St

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

2nd St

San Pablo Ave

-

Gilman St

San Pablo Ave

Hopkins St

Hearst Ave

California St

Hearst Ave

CORRIDOR

LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

Gilman St

Gilman St

2nd St

Gilman St

MILES

COST ESTIMATE

1.19

$712,900

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.56

$101,200

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.63

$112,700

Arch St/Le Conte Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

0.91

$546,000

California St

Shattuck Ave

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.63

$113,300

Hopkins St

9th St

Milvia St

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

1.50

$898,700

Cedar St

9th St

San Pablo Ave

-

3C: Sharrows

0.13

$2,100

Hopkins St

San Pablo Ave

Monterey Ave

-

3C: Sharrows

0.80

$11,200

Hopkins St

Monterey Ave

Milvia St

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.57

$102,100

Piedmont Ave*, Warring St

Piedmont Ave, Warring St

Bancroft Way

Derby St

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

0.54

$322,100

Piedmont Ave, Warring St

Bancroft Way

Derby St

-

3C: Sharrows

0.54

$4,900

San Pablo Ave

San Pablo Ave

City Limits South

City Limits North

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

2.35

$1,408,900

San Pablo Ave

City Limits South

City Limits North

-

3C: Sharrows

2.35

$25,200

Shattuck Ave

City Limits South

Rose St

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

2.08

$124,700

Shattuck Ave

City Limits South

Rose St

-

3C: Sharrows

2.08

$22,400

Solano Ave

City Limits West

Northbrae Tunnel

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

0.52

$312,600

Solano Ave

City Limits West

The Alameda

-

3C: Sharrows

0.30

$4,900

Telegraph Ave

Woolsey St

Bancroft Way

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

1.09

$654,700

Telegraph Ave

Ashby Ave

Bancroft Way

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.87

$156,500

Telegraph Ave

Woolsey St

Ashby Ave

-

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

0.22

$39,900

The Alameda

Hopkins St

Solano Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

0.44

$263,800

The Alameda

Hopkins St

Solano Ave

-

2A: Standard Bike Lane

0.44

$39,600

University Ave

Oxford St

4th St

Study Cycletrack (4)

-

1.88

$1,126,900

University Ave

Oxford St

4th St

-

3C: Sharrows

1.88

$17,500

Hearst Ave*

Hopkins St

Shattuck Ave*

Solano Ave

Telegraph Ave*

The Alameda

University Ave*

Total

$10,342,300

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.

APPENDIX E

* Project also listed in Table E-5.

E-13


FINAL PLAN

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION The sections below list each project falling under each prioritization corridor. Tier 1 should be implemented in the short-term by 2025, Tier 2 in the medium-term (between 2025 and 2035), and Tier 3 in the long-term (by 2035). Several projects are also considered for a Complete

Tier 1 Projects There are 18 Tier 1 projects. Based on the evaluation criteria from Chapter 6: Implementation, these should be implemented by 2025. Table E-8 lists the Tier 1 projects.

Streets Corridor Study. These are indicated in the notes columns below.

Table E-8: 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 RRFB + Median

Addison St

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

$2,800

1.96 Class I Path between Curtis St and Browning St

$98,000

-

$60,000

-

-

$250,000

MLK Jr Way

-

-

$70,000

Addison St

Oxford St

-

-

$70,000

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

Camelia St

E-14

$201,500

0.12

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.99

$710,800

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, as well as AC Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.


FINAL PLAN Table E-8: Tier 1 Projects Continued

LOCATION

CROSS ST A CROSS ST B NOTES

TOTAL COST MILES ESTIMATE

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

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

-

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

Fulton St, Bancroft Way, Hearst Ave

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

California St

-

$204,100

Climbing route

$50,000

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

Arch St/Le Conte Ave

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.91

$659,300

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, as well as AC Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.

APPENDIX E

CORRIDOR Channing Wy

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

E-15


FINAL PLAN

Table E-8: Tier 1 Projects Continued

CORRIDOR Fulton St, Bancroft Way, Hearst Ave

Hillegass Ave

Hopkins St

Milvia St

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

TOTAL COST MILES ESTIMATE

LOCATION

CROSS ST A CROSS ST B NOTES

Cycletrack Crossing

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

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

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

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, as well as AC Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.

E-16


FINAL PLAN

Table E-8: Tier 1 Projects Continued

Russell St

TOTAL COST MILES ESTIMATE

LOCATION

CROSS ST A CROSS ST B NOTES

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

$125,000

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 RRFB + Median

0.13

$6,300

0.13

$101,800

Ohlone Greenway

0.05

$30,000

-

-

Complete Street Corridor Study

Short term Sidewalk

$650,000

-

$60,000

-

-

$250,000

Adeline St

-

-

$250,000

Russell St

Shattuck Ave

-

-

$70,000

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

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, as well as AC Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.

APPENDIX E

CORRIDOR Ohlone Greenway

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

E-17


FINAL PLAN

Table E-8: 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

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

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, as well as AC Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.

E-18


FINAL PLAN

Tier 2 Projects There are ten Tier 2 projects. Based on the evaluation criteria from Chapter 6: Implementation, these should be implemented between 2025 and 2035. Table E-9 lists the Tier 2 projects.

Table E-9: Tier 2 Projects

CORRIDOR California St

Dana St

Grant St

Harmon St

Mabel St

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

NOTES

MILES

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE

3E: Bike Boulevard

California St

62nd St

Russell St

0.64

$32,200

RRFB + Median

California St

Alcatraz Ave

-

-

$70,000

Traffic Circle

California St

Blake St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

California St

Allston Wy

-

-

$50,000

3E: Bike Boulevard

Dana St

Dwight Way

Derby St

0.25

$12,500

Traffic Diverter

Derby St

Grant St

-

$50,000

3C: Sharrows

Grant St

Grant St - North Terminus

Russell St

1.80

$5,800

3C: Sharrows

Josephine St

Rose St

The Alameda

0.35

$3,500

3C: Sharrows

Sonoma Ave

Josephine St

City Limits North

0.26

$4,900

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

Alcatraz Ave

King St

Adeline St

0.12

$22,000

3E: Bike Boulevard

65th St, Harmon St

Liquid Sugar Dr

King St

0.88

$44,200

65th St is outside Berkeley

PHB

Sacramento St

Harmon St

-

-

$250,000

Traffic Circle

Harmon St

Baker St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Harmon St

Idaho St

-

-

$50,000

1A: Paved Path

Between Bonar St & West St

Addison St

Bancroft Way

Off-street

0.25

$875,300

3E: Bike Boulevard

Idaho St, 66th St, Mabel St, Ward St, Mabel St, Dwight Way, Bonar St

Harmon St

Bancroft Way

Short segments on 66th, Russell, Ward, Dwight

1.31

$65,300

RRFB + Median

Dwight Way

Mabel St

Traffic Circle

Mabel St

Carrison St

-

-

$70,000

-

$50,000

APPENDIX E

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, as well as AC Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.

E-19


FINAL PLAN

Table E-9: Tier 2 Projects Continued

CORRIDOR

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY

LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

Mabel St

Traffic Circle

Mabel St

67th St

-

-

Traffic Circle

Mabel St

Haskell St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Signal

Mabel St

Ashby Ave

-

Add bike detection to existing signal

-

$500,000

Piedmont Ave

3C: Sharrows

Piedmont Ave

Russell St

Derby St

Briefly on Stuart St and Dwight Way

0.26

$4,300

Piedmont Ave/ Warring St

Study Cycletrack (4)

Piedmont Ave/ Warring St

Bancroft Way

Derby St

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.54

$327,000

University Ave

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

4th St

Virginia St

University Ave

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.31

$58,500

Study Cycletrack (4)

University Ave

Oxford St

4th St

Complete Street Corridor Study

1.88

$1,144,400

3E: Bike Boulevard

Virginia St

4th St

6th St

0.12

$6,200

Traffic Circle

9th St

Virginia St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

California St

Virginia St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Virginia St

8th St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Virginia St

Chestnut Wy

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Virginia St

Curtis St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Virginia St

Kains Ave

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Virginia St

7th St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Virginia St

McGee Ave

-

-

$50,000

3C: Sharrows

Woolsey St, The Uplands

Eton Ave

El Camino Real

0.69

$6,300

3E: Bike Boulevard

Woolsey St

Adeline St

Hillegass Ave

0.85

$42,400

3E: Bike Boulevard

Prince St, MLK Jr Way

King St

Adeline St

0.27

$13,600

PHB

MLK Jr Way

Prince St

-

-

$250,000

Traffic Circle

Woolsey St

Dana St

-

-

$50,000

Virginia St

Woolsey St

NOTES

Reset existing diverters

MILES

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $50,000

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Total $4,658,400

E-20

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, as well as AC Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.


FINAL PLAN

Tier 3 Projects There are 13 Tier 3 projects. Based on the evaluation criteria from Chapter 6: Implementation, these should be implemented by 2035. Table E-10 lists the Tier 3 projects.

Table E-10: Tier 3 Projects

CORRIDOR

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

6th St

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

6th St

Gilman St

Channing Way

9th St

Traffic Circle

Parker St

9th St

Traffic Circle

9th St

Page St

Traffic Circle

9th St

Traffic Circle Traffic Diverter

NOTES

MILES

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE

1.25

$225,700

-

-

$50,000

-

-

$50,000

Grayson St

-

-

$50,000

9th St

Heinz Ave

-

-

$50,000

9th St

Pardee St

-

-

$50,000

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

9th St

Jones St

-

Acton St

3C: Sharrows

Acton St

Delaware St

University Ave

Camelia St

Traffic Circle

Camelia St

Kains Ave

-

Derby St

3E: Bike Boulevard

Derby St

Mabel St

3E: Bike Boulevard

Parker St

Mabel St

Cycletrack Crossing

Derby St

College Ave

-

-

$60,000

PHB

Sacramento St

Derby St

-

-

$250,000

Traffic Circle

Derby St

Milvia St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Derby St

Regent St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Derby St

Hillegass Ave

-

-

$50,000

2B: Upgraded Bike Lane

Euclid Ave

Virginia St

Hearst Ave

0.19

$36,800

3C: Sharrows

Euclid Ave

Bayview Pl

Virginia St

0.48

$2,000

3C: Sharrows

Gayley Rd

Hearst Ave

Piedmont Ave

0.56

$2,800

Euclid Ave

Gayley Rd

0.18

$100

-

$50,000

Warring St

1.85

$92,600

9th St

0.34

$17,200

Complete Street Corridor Study

APPENDIX E

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, as well as AC Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.

E-21


FINAL PLAN

Table E-10: Tier 3 Projects Continued RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

3C: Sharrows

Grizzly Peak Blvd

Spruce St

City Limits East

2.29

$5,500

3C: Sharrows

Wildcat Canyon Rd

Spruce St

City Limits East

1.81

$3,000

3C: Sharrows

Colusa Ave

Tacoma Ave

City Limits North

0.51

$2,800

3C: Sharrows

Spruce St

Virginia St

Wildcat Canyon Rd

2.08

$6,800

3C: Sharrows

Arlington Ave

The Circle

City Limits North

1.03

$9,100

3C: Sharrows

Portland Ave

City Limits West

Colusa Ave

0.24

$3,500

Study Cycletrack (4)

Solano Ave

City Limits West

Northbrae Tunnel

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.52

$317,500

Study Cycletrack (4)

Colusa Ave

Solano Ave

Tacoma Ave

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.13

$104,800

3C: Sharrows

Santa Fe Ave, Talbot Ave

Page St

City Limits North

0.34

$2,100

3C: Sharrows

Santa Fe Ave

Camelia St

City Limits North

0.27

$1,400

3C: Sharrows

Peralta Ave

Ohlone Greenway

City Limits North

0.29

$2,100

3C: Sharrows

Curtis St

Gilman St

City Limits North

0.12

$700

3E: Bike Boulevard

Kains Ave

City Limits North

Virginia St

0.64

$32,200

3E: Bike Boulevard

Camelia, Cornell, Hopkins, Rose, Walnut

9th St

Oxford Elementary

2.20

$110,000

Monterey Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

Monterey Ave

Hopkins St

The Alameda

0.58

$350,600

Rose St

Traffic Circle

Rose St

California st

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Rose St

Milvia St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Circle

Rose St

Walnut St

-

-

$50,000

Traffic Diverter

Rose St

Chestnut St

-

-

$50,000

CORRIDOR Grizzly Peak Blvd

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Kains Ave, Santa Fe Ave

E-22

NOTES

Climbing route from Rose St to Los Angeles Ave

MILES

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE

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, as well as AC Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.


FINAL PLAN

Table E-10: Tier 3 Projects Continued

CORRIDOR

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY LOCATION

CROSS ST A

CROSS ST B

NOTES

Telegraph Ave

Study Cycletrack (4)

Telegraph Ave

Woolsey St

Bancroft Way

Complete Street Corridor Study

1.09

$851,100

The Alameda

Study Cycletrack (4)

The Alameda

Hopkins St

Solano Ave

Complete Street Corridor Study

0.44

$303,400

MILES

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE

Total $3,493,800

APPENDIX E

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, as well as AC Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Major Corridors Study. For further information, see Section 5.7 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan.

E-23


Appendix F

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX 2017


BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Appendix F: Context

F-2


CONTEXT

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

F AppendixAppendix F: Context

F-3


Appendix F: Context

Guidance Basis The sections that follow serve as an inventory of pedestrian and bicycle design treatments and provide guidelines for their development. These treatments and design guidelines are important because they represent the tools for creating a walking- and bicycle-friendly, safe, accessible community. The guidelines are not, however, a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a professional upon implementation of facility improvements. The following standards and guidelines are referred to in this guide.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

A blueprint for designing 21st century streets, the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) unveils the toolbox and tactics cities use to make streets safer, more livable, and more economically vibrant. The Guide outlines both a clear vision for complete streets and a basic road map for how to bring them to fruition. The document charts the principles and practices of the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s foremost engineers, planners, and designers working in cities today.

F-4

The NACTO Transit Street Design Guide (2016) provides design guidance for the development of transit facilities on city streets, and for the design and engineering of city streets to prioritize transit, improve transit service quality, and support other goals related to transit. The guide has been developed on the basis of other design guidance, as well as city case studies, best practices in urban environments, research and evaluation of existing designs, and professional consensus. These sources, as well as the specific designs and elements included in the guide, are based on North American street design practice.

The National Association of City Transportation Officialsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012) provides cities with state-of-the-practice solutions that can help create complete streets that are safe and enjoyable for bicyclists. The designs in this document were developed by cities for cities, since unique urban streets require innovative solutions. In August 2013, the Federal Highway Administration issued a memorandum officially supporting use of the document. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) is the latest national guidance on the planning and design of separated bike lane facilities released by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The resource documents best practices as demonstrated around the U.S., and offers ideas on future areas of research, evaluation and design flexibility.


Appendix F: Context The Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide presents considerations and strategies for the development of separated bike lanes. The Guide establishes a framework for determining when separated bike lanes are appropriate and feasible; and presents design guidance for separation strategies, bike lane configuration, and considerations for transit stops, loading zones, utilities, drainage, parking and landscaping.

CALIFORNIA GUIDANCE

The California Highway Design Manual (HDM) (Updated 2015) establishes uniform policies and procedures to carry out highway design functions for the California Department of Transportation.

Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians (2010) is a reference guide presents information and concepts related to improving conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians at major intersections and interchanges. The guide can be used to inform minor signage and striping changes to intersections, as well as major changes and designs for new intersections.

Main Street, California: A Guide for Improving Community and Transportation Vitality (2013) reflects California’s current manuals and policies that improve multimodal access, livability and sustainability within the transportation system. The guide recognizes the overlapping and sometimes competing needs of main streets.

The Caltrans Memo: Design Flexibility in Multimodal Design (2014) encourages flexibility in highway design. The memo stated that “Publications such as the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) “Urban Street Design Guide” and “Urban Bikeway Design Guide,” ... are resources that Caltrans and local entities can reference when ma king planning and design decisions on the State highway system and local streets and roads.” The AC Transit Design Standards and Guidelines Manual for Safe and Efficient Multimodal Transit Stops and Corridors provides street design guidance that supports efficient and reliable transit operations. The manual equips agencies in control of street design with a useful reference document offering contextsensitive guidance at each stage of the design process. The manual is currently under development.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) (2014) is an amended version of the FHWA MUTCD 2009 edition modified for use in California. While standards presented in the CA MUTCD substantially conform to the FHWA MUTCD, the state of California follows local practices, laws and requirements with regards to signing, striping and other traffic control devices.

F-5


Appendix F: Context

Bicycle User Type As part of public outreach for the Bicycle Plan, a survey was conducted of Berkeley residents asking about their interests, current habits, concerns, and facility preferences around bicycling. Using a bicycling classification system originally developed by Portland City Bicycle Planner, Roger Geller, respondents were sorted into groups by their differing needs and bicycling comfort levels given different roadway conditions. 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 of bicyclists are described below. Berkeley Distribution of Bicyclist Types 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

3%

streets without designated bicycle facilities.

Strong and Fearless

Enthused and Confident - This group of people riding bicycles are riding in most roadway situations but prefer to have a designated facility. Comfortable riding on major streets with a bike lane.

16%

Enthused and Confident

71%

Interested but Concerned

10%

No Way, No How

Interested but Concerned – This group is more cautious and has some inclination towards bicycling, but are 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

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

streets.

F-6

No Way, No How – This group comprises residents who simply aren’t interested in bicycling and may be physically unable or don’t know how to ride a bicycle, and are unlikely to adopt bicycling in any way.


Appendix F: Context

Facility Selection In order to provide a bikeway network that meets the needs of Berkeley’s “Interested but Concerned” residents (who comprise over 2/3 of the population), bikeways must be low-stress and comfortable. By using a metric called Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), specific facility types can be matched to the needs of people who bicycle in Berkeley. Generally, “Interested but Concerned”, users will only bicycle on LTS 1 or LTS 2 facilities. Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS) DESCRIPTION

STRONG & FEARLESS

ENTHUSIASTIC & CONFIDENT

INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

LTS 1

Presents the lowest level of traffic stress; demands less attention from people riding bicycles, and attractive enough for a relaxing bicycle ride. Suitable for almost all people riding bicycles, including children trained to ride in the street and to safety cross intersections.

YES

YES

LTS2

Presents little traffic stress and therefore suitable to most adults riding bicycles, but demandsmore attention than might be expected from children

YES

YES

LTS3

More traffic stress than LTS2, yet significantly less than the stress of integrating with multilane traffic.

YES

SOMETIMES

NO

LTS4

A level of stress beyond LTS 3. Includes roadways that have no dedicated bicycle facilities and moderate to higher vehicle speeds and volumes OR high speed and high volume roadways WITH an exclusive riding zone (lane) where there is a significant speed differential with vehicles.

YES

NO

NO

YES

SOMETIMES

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

LTS LEVEL

WHAT TYPE OF BICYCLISTS WILL RIDE ON THIS LTS FACILITY?

F-7


Appendix F: Context

Facility Selection (Continued) The charts below help to identify the preferred bikeway facility type or crossing treatment, depending on roadway volumes and a target bikeway LTS 1 or 2. For Berkeleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bicycle Bouelvard network, additional consideration is given to the LTS of street crossings, particularly high-volume or multi-lane crossings.

Recommended Bikeway Type Based on Traffic Volumes Average Annual Daily Traffic (1,000 Vehicles/day Or 100 Vehicles/peak hour)

FACILITY TYPE BICYCLE BOULEVARD

CLASS III BIKE ROUTE

Street Class

Local

Local

CLASS II ON-STREET BIKE LANE NOT ADJACENT TO PARKING

Collector Major

CLASS II ON-STREET BIKE LANE ADJACENT TO PARKING

Collector Major

CLASS IV SEPARATED BIKEWAY

Major

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

(Average Daily Vehicles, per 1,000)

F-8

0

1

1.5

2

3

4

5

7.5+

10+

12.5+

LTS 1

RECOMMENDED

LTS 2

RECOMMENDED

LTS 3

NOT RECOMMENDED


Appendix F: Context Bicycle Boulevard Crossing Treatment Recommendations

TrafficVOLUMES Volumes TRAFFIC CROSSING TREATMENT

VERY LOW

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

Up to 3 lanes

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 3

LTS 4

LTS 4

Median Refuge Island 1

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 2

LTS 3

LTS 3

LTS 4

RRFB 2,3

X

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 3

LTS 3

LTS 3

RRFB with median 1,2,3

X

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 2

LTS 3

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) 2

X

X

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 1

Traffic Signal 2

X

X

X

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 1

X No Additional Benefit

X No additional benefit 1 Minimum 6 ft wide median 1 Minimum 6 - ft wide median Subject to successful warrant analysis 2 2Subject successful warrant analysis 3 4-way stop signs may be considered as an alternative to RRFBs 3 4-way stop signs may be considered as an alternative to RRFBs

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

LTS refers to Level of Traffic Stress

F-9


Appendix F: Context

Design Needs of Bicyclists The facility designer must have an understanding of how bicyclists operate and how their bicycle influences that operation. Bicyclists, by nature, are much more affected by poor facility design, construction and maintenance practices than motor vehicle drivers. By understanding the unique characteristics and needs of bicyclists, a facility designer can provide quality facilities and minimize user risk.

BICYCLE AS A DESIGN VEHICLE Similar to motor vehicles, bicyclists and

Bicycle Rider - Typical Dimensions

their bicycles exist in a variety of sizes and

Operating Envelope 8’ 4”

configurations. These variations occur in the types of vehicle (such as a conventional bicycle, a recumbent bicycle or a tricycle), and behavioral characteristics (such as the comfort level of the bicyclist). The design of a bikeway should consider expected bicycle types on the facility and utilize the appropriate dimensions.

Eye Level 5’

The figure to the right illustrates the operating space and physical dimensions of a typical adult bicyclist, which are the basis for typical facility design. Bicyclists require clear space to operate

Handlebar Height 3’8”

within a facility. This is why the minimum operating width is greater than the physical dimensions of the bicyclist. Bicyclists prefer five feet or more operating width, although four feet may be

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

minimally acceptable.

F-10

In addition to the design dimensions of a typical bicycle, there are many other commonly used

Physical Operating Width 2’6”

pedal-driven cycles and accessories to consider when planning and designing bicycle facilities. The most common types include tandem bicycles, recumbent bicycles, and trailer accessories. The figure to the right summarizes the typical dimensions for bicycle types.

Preferred Operating Width 5’

Minimum Operating Width 4’


Appendix F: Context

Bicycle Design Vehicle - Typical Dimensions A: Adult Typical Bicycle

A

B: Adult Tandem Bicycle C: Adult Recumbent Bicycle D: Child Trailer Length E: Child Trailer Width F: Trailer Bike Length

5’ 10”

B

C

8’

E

3’ 11”

F

2’ 6”

3’ 9”

Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition

DESIGN NEEDS OF BICYCLISTS The facility designer must have an understanding of how bicyclists operate and how their bicycle influences that operation. Bicyclists, by nature, are much more affected by poor facility design, construction and maintenance practices than motor

Bicycle as Design Vehicle - Design Speed Expectations BICYCLE TYPE Upright Adult Bicyclist

vehicle drivers. By understanding the unique characteristics and needs of bicyclists, a facility designer can provide quality facilities and minimize user risk.

Recumbent Bicyclist

FEATURE

TYPICAL SPEED

Paved level surfacing

8-12 mph*

Crossing Intersections

10 mph

Downhill

30 mph

Uphill

5 -12 mph

Paved level surfacing

18 mph

* Typical speed for causal riders per AASHTO 2013.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

D

6’10”

F-11


Appendix F: Context

Complete Streets Design As defined by the Berkeley Complete Streets Policy, “Complete Streets” describes a comprehensive, integrated transportation network with infrastructure, design, and maintenance that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including people 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

and policy context and given the importance of

mean that every street will provide dedicated

approaching Complete Streets from an integrated,

facilities for all transportation modes, but rather that

layered network perspective, it is critically important

the transportation network will provide convenient,

to consider how transit service can be maintained

safe, and connected routes for all modes of

and improved as an outcome of future Complete

transportation within and across the City. For the

Street Corridor Studies. Studies to consider the

purposes of bikeway planning, the City of Berkeley

inclusion of bikeways will be coordinated with

considers both the major/collector street and parallel

proposed improvements to transit performance on

streets part of a Complete Street Corridor; potential

Primary Transit Routes, such as bus boarding islands,

bikeways on both the major/collector street bikeway

transit-only lanes, transit signal priority/queue

and on parallel streets should be evaluated as part of

jump lanes, far-side bus stop relocations, and other

a Complete Street Corridor Study.

improvements as described in the AC Transit Major

As proposed elsewhere in this Plan, future Complete Street Corridor Studies are proposed as multimodal transportation studies, not as planned projects. In the spirit of Complete Streets, 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 BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Berkeley General Plan Transportation Element and

F-12

the Alameda County Transportation Commission Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan, as well as recommendations from AC Transit’s Major Corridors Study.

Corridors Study. In addition, these studies should approach Secondary Transit Routes as opportunities for transit improvements, such as bus stop optimization and relocation, among other potential improvements. At the conclusion of the Complete Streets Corridor Study process, design 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

As defined by the City of Berkeley General Plan

consistent with Alameda County Transportation

Transportation Element, most of the future Complete

Commission modal priorities and the City of Berkeley

Street Corridor Studies are either Primary or

General Plan.

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 Study locations as part of the Transit Emphasis modal priority network. In this planning

Future Complete Street Corridor Studies and design efforts should be undertaken in the context of national design best practices such as the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Transit Street Design Guide, Urban Street Design Guide, and Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Local guidance such as the forthcoming AC Transit Design Standards and Guidelines Manual for Safe and


Appendix F: Context Efficient Multimodal Transit Stops and Corridors will should integrate improvements for all modes

City of Berkeley General Plan:

of transportation whenever possible, including

Page T-12: “Policy T-4 Transit-First Policy:

consideration of people walking, biking, riding

Give priority to alternative transportation

transit, driving, and commercial goods movement.

and transit over single-occupant vehicles

Many of the proposed Complete Streets Corridors

on Transit Routes identified in the Transit

are also commercial corridors that have goods

Network map (Figure 7, page T-31).”

movement needs related to deliveries and loading/ unloading at businesses, which are vital to the economic vitality of these areas. For example, study and design should carefully consider the potential impacts and trade-offs of including bikeways on Primary and Secondary Transit Routes, including potential median reductions, repurposing of parking or travel lanes, and the need to avoid impacts to transit operations that could otherwise occur. Example transit 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 time; operational and safety conflicts with other modes of transportation; maintaining minimum lane widths; and other criteria to be identified through the study process. Likewise, similar performance metrics should be identified and applied in these studies for the safety and convenience of people walking and driving along the subject corridors.

City of Berkeley Complete Streets Policy: Page 1: “Complete Streets Serving All Users: The City of Berkeley expresses its commitment to creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system to the extent they are controlled by the City) through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that serves all categories of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, emergency vehicles, seniors, children, youth, and families.”

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

also be consulted. The design of bikeway projects

F-13


BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Appendix F: Context

F-14


F AppendixAppendix F: Context

CLASS BIKEWAYS BIKE PATHS

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

I

F-15


Appendix F: Class I Bikeways - Bike Paths

A

Shared Use Path

I

INTERSECTION

MID-BLOCK

A Shared use paths can provide a desirable facility, particularly for recreation and users of all skill levels, who prefer separation from traffic. Bicycle paths should generally provide directional travel opportunities not provided by existing roadways.

TYPICAL APPLICATION

of signage or other furnishings. Alternatively,

• Commonly established in natural greenway

path.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

corridors, utility corridors, or along abandoned rail

F-16

corridors. • May be established as short accessways through neighborhoods or to connect to cul-de-sacs. • May be established along roadways as an alternative to on-street riding. This configuration is called a sidepath.

DESIGN FEATURES A

Recommended 12’ width to accommodate moderate usage (14’ preferred for heavy use). Minimum 10’ width for low traffic situations only.

• Minimum 2’ shoulder width on both sides of the

consolidate into a single 4’ wide soft surface side

• Recommended 10’ clearance to overhead obstructions (8’ minimum). • When striping is required, use a 4” dashed yellow centerline stripe with 4” solid white edge lines. Solid centerlines can be provided on tight or blind corners, and on the approaches to roadway crossings. • Lighting can improve visibility along the shared use path and intersection crossings at night, if night use is desired. This increases safety for shared use path users. Lighting may also be necessary for daytime use trails in tunnels and underpasses. Typical pedestrian scale lighting is spaced at 30-50 ft and

path, with an additional foot of lateral clearance

should also be concentrated at trail heads, rest

as required by the MUTCD for the installation

areas, street crossings, and other public spaces.


Appendix F: Class I Bikeways - Bike Paths

A

B C D

Bollard Alternatives

I

INTERSECTION

MID-BLOCK

Bollards are physical barriers designed to restrict motor vehicle access to the multi-use path. Unfortunately, physical barriers are often ineffective at preventing access, and create obstacles to legitimate trail users. Alternative design strategies use signage, landscaping and curb cut design to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle access.

• Bollards or other barriers should not be used unless there is a documented history of unauthorized intrusion by motor vehicles. • If unauthorized use persists, assess whether the problems posed by unauthorized access exceed the risks and issues posed by bollards and other

DESIGN FEATURES A

“No Motor Vehicles” signage (MUTCD R5-3)

B

At intersections, split the path tread into two

C

Vertical curb cuts should be used to

D

Low landscaping preserves visibility and

barriers.

may be used to reinforce access rules.

sections separated by low landscaping.

discourage motor vehicle access.

emergency access.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

TYPICAL APPLICATION

F-17


Appendix F: Class I Bikeways - Bike Paths

C B A

R9-6

E W11-15, W11-15P

R1-5

D

Raised Path Crossings

INTERSECTION

I

MID-BLOCK

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

The California Vehicle Code requires that motorists yield right-of-way to pedestrians within crosswalks. This requirement for motorists to yield is not explicitly extended to bicyclists, and the rights and responsibilities for bicyclists within crosswalks is ambiguous. Where shared-use paths intersect with minor streets, design solutions such as raised crossings help resolve this ambiguity where possible by giving people on bicycles priority within the crossing.

F-18

TYPICAL APPLICATION

B

â&#x20AC;˘ Where highly utilized shared-use paths cross minor

C

Curb extensions shorten crossing distance and

D

Parking should be prohibited 20 feet in advance

E

Path priority signing (MUTCD R1-5) and stop or

crossings is prioritized over vehicular traffic.

DESIGN FEATURES A

Raised crossing creates vertical deflection

deflection to draw driver attention to changed conditions at the crossing.

streets. â&#x20AC;˘ Where safety and comfort of path users at

Median refuge island creates horizontal

position users in a visible location.

of the crosswalk.

yield markings are placed 20 feet in advance of

that slows drivers and prepares them to yield

the crossing and function best when path user

to path users, while high-visibility crosswalk

volumes are high.

markings establish a legal crosswalk away from intersections.


Appendix F: Class I Bikeways - Bike Paths

Raised Path Crossings

Bicycle lanes provide an exclusive space, but may be subject to unwanted encroachment by motor vehicles.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• Geometric design should promote a high degree

Studies have shown a 45% decrease in vehicle/

of yielding to path users through raised crossings,

pedestrian crashes after a raised crosswalk is

horizontal deflection, signing, and striping.

installed where none existed previously. (CMF ID: 136)

streets depends on an evaluation of vehicular traffic, line of sight, pathway traffic, use patterns, vehicle speed, road type, road width, and other safety issues such as proximity to major attractions. • Raised crossings should raise 4 inches above the roadway with a steep 1:6 (16%) ramp. The raise should use a sinusoidal profile to facilitate snow

CONSTRUCTION COSTS • Striped crosswalks costs range from approximately $100 to $2,100 each. • Curb extension costs can range from $2,000 to $20,000, depending on the design and site condition. • Median refuge islands costs range from $3,500 to

plow operation. Advisory speed signs may be used

$40,000, depending on the design, site conditions,

to indicate the required slow crossing speed.

and landscaping.

• A median safety island should allow path users to cross one lane of traffic at a time. The bicycle waiting area should be 8 feet wide or wider to allow for a variety of bicycle types. • Elements will be constructed with no variation in the surface. The maximum allowable tolerance in vertical roadway surface will be 1/4 of an inch.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• The approach to designing path crossings of

F-19


BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Appendix F: Context

F-20


F AppendixAppendix F: Context

CLASS BIKEWAYS BIKE LANES

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

II

F-21


Appendix F: Class II Bikeways - Bike Lanes

C

A D B

Bicycle Lanes

INTERSECTION

II

MID-BLOCK

On-street bike lanes (Class II Bikeways) designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signs. The bike lane is located directly adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge or parking lane.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

TYPICAL APPLICATION

F-22

• Bike lanes may be used on any street with adequate space, but are most effective on streets with moderate traffic volumes ≥ 6,000 ADT (≥ 3,000 preferred).

DESIGN FEATURES A

Mark inside line with 6” stripe. (CAMUTCD

B

Include a bicycle lane marking (CAMUTCD

9C.04)

moderate speeds ≥ 25 mph.

• May be appropriate for children when configured as 6+ ft wide lanes on lower-speed, lower-volume streets with one lane in each direction.

Figure 9C-3) at the beginning of blocks and at regular intervals along the route. (CAMUTCD

• Bike lanes are most appropriate on streets with

• Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most streets.

9C.04) Mark 4“ parking lane line or “Ts”.1

C

6 foot width preferred adjacent to on-street parking, (5 foot min.) (HDM)

D

5–6 foot preferred adjacent to curb and gutter (4 foot min.) or 4 feet more than the gutter pan width.

1  Studies have shown that marking the parking lane encourages people to park closer to the curb. FHWA. Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System. 2006.


Appendix F: Class II Bikeways - Bike Lanes

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Bicycle Lane

• On high speed streets (≥ 40 mph) the minimum bike lane should be 6 feet. (HDM 301.2) • On streets where bicyclists passing each other is expected, where high volumes of bicyclists are present, or where added comfort is desired, consider providing extra wide bike lanes up to 7 feet wide, or configure as a buffered bicycle lane. • It may be desirable to reduce the width of general purpose travel lanes in order to add or widen bicycle lanes. (HDM 301.2 3) • On multi-lane streets, the most appropriate

Bicycle lanes provide an exclusive space, but may be subject to unwanted encroachment by motor vehicles.

bicycle facility to provide for user comfort may be buffered bicycle lanes or physically separated bicycle lanes.

Place Bike Lane Symbols to Reduce Wear

Manhole Covers and Grates: • Manhole surfaces should be manufactured with a shallow surface texture in the form of a tight, nonlinear pattern • If manholes or other utility access boxes are to be located in bike lanes within 50 ft. of intersections or within 20 ft. of driveways or other bicycle access points, special manufactured permanent nonstick surfaces are required to ensure a controlled travel surface for cyclists breaking or turning. • Manholes, drainage grates, or other obstacles

Bike lane word, symbol, and/or arrow markings (MUTCD Figure 9C-3) shall be placed outside of the motor vehicle tread path in order to minimize wear from the motor vehicle path. (NACTO 2012)

Roadway surface inconsistencies pose a threat to safe riding conditions for bicyclists. Construction of manholes, access panels or other drainage elements should be constructed with no variation in the surface. The maximum allowable tolerance in vertical roadway surface will be 1/4 of an inch.

CRASH REDUCTION Before and after studies of bicycle lane installations show a wide range of crash reduction factors. Some studies show a crash reduction of 35% (CMF ID: 1719) for vehicle/bicycle collisions after bike lane installation.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS The cost for installing bicycle lanes will depend on the implementation approach. Typical costs are $16,000 per mile for restriping.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

should be set flush with the paved roadway.

F-23


Appendix F: Class II Bikeways - Bike Lanes

B

A

Colored Bicycle Lanes

INTERSECTION

II

MID-BLOCK

Colored pavement within a bicycle lane may be used to increase the visibility of the bicycle facility, raise awareness of the potential to encounter bicyclists and reinforce priority of bicyclists in conflict areas.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

TYPICAL APPLICATION

F-24

• Within a weaving or conflict area to identify the potential for bicyclist and motorist interactions and

DESIGN FEATURES A

assert bicyclist priority. • Across intersections, driveways and Stop or Yieldcontrolled cross-streets.

Typical white bike lanes (solid or dotted 6” stripe) are used to outline the green colored pavement.

B

In weaving or turning conflict areas, preferred striping is dashed, to match the bicycle lane line extensions.

• The colored surface should be skid resistant and retro-reflective. (CAMUTCD 9C.02.02) • In exclusive use areas, such as bike boxes, color application should be solid green.


Appendix F: Class II Bikeways - Bike Lanes

Colored Bicycle Lane

A colored bicycle lane on Laurel Street in Santa Cruz, CA alerts users to potential merging in advance of an intersection. Photo by Richard Masoner via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0).

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• Green colored pavement shall be used in

Before and after studies of colored bicycle lane

compliance with FHWA Interim Approval.

installations have found a reduction in bicycle/

(CAMUTCD 1A.10) (FHWA IA-14.10)

vehicle collisions by 38% and a reduction in serious

• While other colors have been used (red, blue, yellow), green is the recommended color in the U.S. • The application of green colored pavement within

injuries and fatalities of bicyclists by 71%. 2 A study in Portland, OR found a 38% decrease in the rate of conflict between bicyclists and motorists after colored lanes were installed. 3

bicycle lanes is an emerging practice. The guidance recommended here is based on best practices in cities around the country.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS The cost for installing colored bicycle lanes will depend on the materials selected and implementation approach. Typical costs range from $1.20/sq. ft. installed for paint to $14/sq. ft. installed for Thermoplastic. Colored pavement is more expensive than standard asphalt installation, costing 30-50% more than non-colored asphalt.

1  FHWA. Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA-14). 2011.

2  Jensen, S.U., et. al., “The Marking of Bicycle Crossings at Signalized Intersections,” Nordic Road and Transport Research No. 1, 1997, pg. 27. 3  Hunter, W. W., et. al., Evaluation of the Blue Bike-Lane Treatment Used in Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Conflict Areas in Portland, Oregon, McLean, VA: FHWA, 2000, pg. 25.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

1

F-25


Appendix F: Class II Bikeways - Bike Lanes

B A

Buffered Bicycle Lanes

INTERSECTION

II

MID-BLOCK

Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes paired with a designated buffer space, separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/ or parking lane.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

TYPICAL APPLICATION

F-26

• Anywhere a conventional bike lane is being considered. • On streets with high speeds and high volumes or high truck volumes. • On streets with extra lanes or lane width. • Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most streets.

DESIGN FEATURES A

The minimum bicycle travel area (not including

B

Buffers should be at least 2 feet wide. If

buffer) is 5 feet wide.

buffer area is 4 feet or wider, white chevron or diagonal markings should be used. (CAMUTCD 9C-104)

• For clarity at driveways or minor street crossings, consider a dotted line. • There is no standard for whether the buffer is configured on the parking side, the travel side, or a combination of both.


Appendix F: Class II Bikeways - Bike Lanes

Buffered Bicycle Lane

Buffered Bicycle Lane

The use of pavement markings delineates space for cyclists to ride in a comfortable facility.

The use of pavement markings delineates space for cyclists to ride in a comfortable facility.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• Color may be used within the lane to discourage

A before and after study of buffered bicycle lane

• A study of buffered bicycle lanes found that, in order to make the facilities successful, there needs to also be driver education, improved signage and proper pavement markings.1 • On multi-lane streets with high vehicles speeds, the most appropriate bicycle facility to provide for user comfort may be physically separated bike lanes. • NCHRP Report #766 recommends, when space in limited, installing a buffer space between the parking lane and bicycle lane where on-street parking is permitted rather than between the bicycle lane and vehicle travel lane. 2

1  Monsere, C.; McNeil, N.; and Dill, J., “Evaluation of Innovative Bicycle Facilities: SW Broadway Cycle Track and SW Stark/Oak Street Buffered Bike Lanes. Final Report” (2011).Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations. 2  National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Report #766: Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics.

installation in Portland, OR found an overwhelmingly positive response from bicyclists, with 89% of bicyclists feeling safer riding after installation and 91% expressing that the facility made bicycling easier. 3

CONSTRUCTION COSTS The cost for installing buffered bicycle lanes will depend on the implementation approach. Typical costs are $16,000 per mile for restriping. However, the cost of large-scale bicycle treatments will vary greatly due to differences in project specifications and the scale and length of the treatment.

3  National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Report #766: Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

motorists from entering the buffered lane.

F-27


BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Appendix F: Context

F-28


F AppendixAppendix F: Context

CLASS BIKEWAYS BIKE ROUTES

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

III

F-29


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Bicycle Boulevards

F-30

INTERSECTION

III

MID-BLOCK

A Bicycle Boulevard is a roadway that has been modified, as needed, to enhance safety and convenience for people bicycling. It provides better conditions for bicycling while maintaining the neighborhood character and necessary emergency vehicle access. Berkeley’s Bicycle Boulevards are intended to serve as the primary low-stress bikeway network, providing safe, direct, and convenient routes across Berkeley. Key elements of Bicycle Boulevards are unique signage and pavement markings, traffic calming features to maintain low vehicle volumes, and safe and convenient major street crossings.

TYPICAL APPLICATION • Parallel with and in close proximity to major thoroughfares (1/4 mile or less).

• Local streets with traffic volumes of fewer than 1,500 vehicles per day. Utilize traffic calming to maintain or establish low volumes and discourage vehicle cut through / speeding.

• Follow a desire line for bicycle travel that is ideally long and relatively continuous (2-5 miles). • Avoid alignments with excessive zigzag or circuitous routing. The bikeway should have less than 10% out of direction travel compared to shortest path of primary corridor.

DESIGN FEATURES • Signs and pavement markings are the minimum treatments necessary to designate a street as a bicycle boulevard.


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes

Bicycle Boulevards

â&#x20AC;˘ Implement volume control treatments based on the context of the bicycle boulevard, using engineering judgment. Motor vehicle volumes should not exceed 1,500 vehicles per day. â&#x20AC;˘ Intersection crossings should be designed to enhance safety and minimize delay for bicyclists, following crossing treatment progression to achieve Level of Traffic Stress 1 or 2.

Streets along classified neighborhood bikeways may require additional traffic calming measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles.

CRASH REDUCTION In a comparison of vehicle/cyclist collision rates on traffic-calmed side streets signed and improved for cyclist use, compared to parallel and adjacent arterials with higher speeds and volumes, the bicycle boulevard as found to have a crash reduction factor of 63 percent, with rates two to eight times lower when controlling for volume (CMF ID: 3092).

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Bicycle boulevard retrofits to local streets are

Costs vary depending on the type of treatments

typically located on streets without existing

proposed for the corridor. Simple treatments such

signalized accommodation at crossings of collector

as wayfinding signage and markings are most cost-

and arterial roadways. Without treatments for

effective, but more intensive treatments will have

bicyclists, these intersections can become major

greater impact at lowering speeds and volumes, at

barriers along the bicycle boulevard and compromise

higher cost.

safety. Traffic calming can deter motorists from driving on a street. Anticipate and monitor vehicle volumes on adjacent streets to determine whether traffic calming results in inappropriate volumes. Traffic calming can be implemented on a trial basis.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Bicycle boulevards are established on streets that improve connectivity to key destinations and provide a direct, low-stress route for bicyclists, with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, designated and designed to give bicycle travel priority over other modes.

F-31


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes F

D

A

E

C

B

Traffic Calming

INTERSECTION

III

MID-BLOCK

Traffic calming may include elements intended to reduce the speeds of motor vehicle traffic to be closer to bicyclist travel speeds, or include design elements that restrict certain vehicle movements and discourage motorists from using bicycle boulevards as cut-through corridors.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Traffic calming treatments can cause drivers to slow down by constricting the roadway space for more careful maneuvering. Such measures may reduce the design speed of a street, and can be used in conjunction with reduced speed limits to reinforce the expectation of lowered speeds. They can also lower vehicle volumes by physically or operationally reconfiguring corridors and intersections along the route.

TYPICAL APPLICATION • Bicycle boulevards should have a maximum posted speed of 25 mph. Use traffic calming to maintain an 85th percentile speed below 20

DESIGN FEATURES SPEED MANAGEMENT A

mph (25 mph maximum). Bikeways with average

used with a marked crossing.

traffic calming measures.

B

a constricted length of at least 20 feet in the direction of travel. • Bring traffic volumes down to 1,500 cars per day (4,000 cars per day maximum). Bikeways with daily volumes above this limit should be considered for traffic calming measures.

create a pinchpoint for vehicles and offer shorter crossing distances for pedestrians when

speeds above this limit should be considered for

• Maintain a minimum clear width of 14 feet with

Median islands in the center of the roadway

Chicanes slow drivers by requiring vehicles to shift laterally through narrowed lanes, while preserving sightlines.

C

Pinchpoints, chokers, or curb extensions restrict motorists from operating at high speeds on local streets by visually and physically narrowing the roadway. An effective configuration narrows the roadway to a single lane so only one vehicle travelling in either

F-32

direction can proceed at a time.


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes

D

Neighborhood traffic circles reduce vehicle speed at intersections by requiring motorists to move cautiously through conflict points. Traffic circles can be landscaped but must be maintained to preserve sightlines.

E

Street trees narrow a driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s visual field and creates a consistent rhythm and canopy along the street, which provides a unified character and facilitates place recognition. Speed humps slow drivers through vertical deflection. To minimize impacts to bicycles, use a sinusoidal profile and leave a gap along the curb so that bicyclists may bypass the hump when appropriate. Speed cushions operate in a similar fashion to speed humps, but allow for unimpeded travel by emergency vehicles.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

F

F-33


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes

A

B

Traffic Circles

III

INTERSECTION

Traffic circles are a type of horizontal speed management typically installed along low speed, low volume streets and bicycle boulevards. They are raised islands located in the center of intersections that narrow the roadway, and require motorists and bicyclists to reduce their speed in order to navigate around.

TYPICAL APPLICATION • Traffic circles can be an effective traffic calming tool on bicycle boulevards and other low speed, low volume bicycle routes with less than 2,000 AADT. • Placing traffic circles at concurrent intersection locations can have enhanced traffic calming

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

effects.

F-34

• Are often installed to replace stop signs at intersections along a bike boulevard. • Should be installed in consultation with neighborhood residents and emergency vehicle operators.

• At intersections with a minor street, stop signs should be placed on the minor street approaches. • At intersections of two bike boulevards, all approaches should yield to oncoming traffic. • Traffic circles feature raised curbs and/ or mountable aprons to provide access for emergency vehicles. • Approaches can feature mini channelization islands or pavement markings to further narrow the roadway and delineate travelways. • The visual footprint of the traffic circle can be expanded in the intersection with integral colored pavement, or visually patterned surface

DESIGN FEATURES A a

Traffic circle radius depends on roadway width, and curb radii, to provide adequate horizontal deflection.

B

Distance from traffic circle to curb edge should be approximately 15’ to provide sufficient emergency vehicle access.

treatments. • Traffic circles can be landscaped but must be maintained to preserve sightlines.


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes Traffic Circle Design Specifications from 2000 Berkeley Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guidelines

1'-0"

Sign pole

18'-0"

Architectural bollards with reflective band Note: Street dimensions vary 36.0 '

Elevation Change in pavement grade, color, and texture (could be rumble strip, cobblestone, or other material) Curb Low-maintenance landscape (rocks / shrubs) Broad canopy tree - placement based on location of underground utilities

Bicycle Boulevard

Architectural concrete bollards Safety sign Visually patterned or integral colored pavement

Yellow safety stripe w/ raised reflector markers

STOP Berkeley Bicycle Plan: Bicycle Boulevards City of Berkeley WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS â&#x20AC;˘ PLANNERS in association with:

2M Associates, Landscape Architects HPV Transportation Consulting

Bike Boulevard crossing sign

Plan

Intersection of Bicycle Boulevard and Minor Street

This guideline is conceptual and for planning purposes only. Program information, scale, location of areas, and other information shown are subject to modification. Application of the design guidelines for specific street designs will be developed in coordination with affected local neighborhoods. 12/29/99

Strategy

D.1.1

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Bicycle boulevard identity sign

F-35


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes

Traffic Diverters

III

INTERSECTION

Traffic diverters are an effective traffic volume management tool that allow bicycles and emergency vehicles to proceed through an intersection, but restrict all other vehicle through-movements (requiring vehicles to turn right). Traffic diverters are installed on local roadways designated as bicycle boulevards.

TYPICAL APPLICATION

DESIGN FEATURES

• Traffic diversion reduces vehicle volumes on

• Traffic diverters can be landscaped to enhance the

bicycle boulevards. • Existing non-landscaped traffic diverters without

overall attractiveness of the bike boulevard. • Colored concrete pavers and visually dramatic

cut-throughs can be retrofitted to allow through-

striping should be used to further delineate the

access for bicycles and emergency vehicles.

diverter from the roadway, and reinforce the vehicle turn restriction.

• Traffic Diverter designs should be developed in consultation with neighborhood residents and

• At-grade curb cuts, or mountable curbs provide

emergency vehicle operators.

convenient access for bicycles.

• Design and neighborhood outreach processes

• Bollards, stanchions, and remaining metal and

should inform the type and precise location of

concrete “staples” on existing traffic diverters

diverters, with consideration given to traffic

should be removed. These obstacles pose a crash

volume, and the direction of the diversion, with

hazard to cyclists. They can be replaced with small,

the goal of routing motorized traffic to the

properly design median islands.

nearest collector or major street.

DESIGN FEATURES - VOLUME MANAGEMENT BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

a

Partial closure diverters allows bicyclists to proceed straight across

and left-turn vehicle movements along the bikeway and provide a refuge for bicyclists

to turn left or right. All turns from

to cross one direction of traffic at a time. This

the major street onto the bikeway

treatment prohibits left turns from the major

are prohibited. Curb extensions with

street onto the bikeway, while right turns are

stormwater management features and/or

still allowed.

Right-in/right-out diverters force motorists

d

Full/Diagonal diverters block all motor vehicles from continuing on a neighborhood bikeway,

to turn right while bicyclists can continue

while bicyclists can continue unrestricted.

straight through the intersection. The

Full closures can be constructed to preserve

island can provide a through bike lane

emergency vehicles access.

or bicycle access to reduce conflicts with right-turning vehicles. Left turns from the major street onto the bikeway are prohibited, while right turns are still allowed. See Toucan Signalized Crossing

F-36

Median refuge island diverters restrict through

the intersection but forces motorists

a mountable island can be included.

b

c

for signalized intersection configuration.


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes Traffic Calming Treatments to Reduce Motor Vehicle Volumes

a

Partial Closure Diverter

b

Right-In/Right-Out Diverter

c

Median Refuge Island Diverter

d

Full Diverter

Traffic Diverter Design Specifications from 2000 Berkeley Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guidelines

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Bollards can be removed from older diagonal diverter installations, and replaced with landscaped median islands to reduce the risk of cyclists crashing into them, and enhance the attractiveness of the bike boulevard.

F-37


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes

MUTCD R4-11 (optional)

A MUTCD D11-1 (optional)

Shared Lane Markings

INTERSECTION

III

MID-BLOCK

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Shared Lane Marking stencils are used in California as an additional treatment for Bike Route facilities and are currently approved in conjunction with on-street parking. The stencil can serve a number of purposes, such as making motorists aware of the need to share the road with bicyclists, showing bicyclists the direction of travel, and, with proper placement, reminding bicyclists to bike further from parked cars to prevent collisions with drivers opening car doors.

F-38

TYPICAL APPLICATION • Shared Lane Markings are not appropriate on paved shoulders or in bike lanes, and should not be used on roadways that have a posted speed greater than 35 mph. • Shared Lane Markings should be implemented in conjunction with BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE signs.

DESIGN FEATURES A

Placement in the center of the travel lane is preferred in constrained conditions.

• Markings should be placed immediately after intersections and spaced at 250 foot intervals thereafter. • When placed adjacent to parking, markings should be outside of the “door zone”. Minimum placement is 11 feet from the curb face.


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes

Shared Lane Markings

Sharrows also serve as positional guidance and raise bicycle awareness where there isn’t space to accommodate a full-width bike lane.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• Consider modifications to signal timing to induce a

A study that compared injury crashes per year

• Though not always possible, placing the markings outside of vehicle tire tracks will increase the life of the markings and the long-term cost of the treatment. • A green thermoplastic background can be applied

per 100 bicycle commuters on facilities in Chicago built between 2008 and 2010 found that sharrows had a significantly weaker effect in reducing injury crashes compared the no-build condition by about 20 percent in contrast to bicycle lanes which saw a 42 percent reduction.1

to further increase the visibility of the shared lane

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

marking.

Sharrows typically cost $200 per each marker for a lane-mile cost of $4,200, assuming the MUTCD guidance of sharrow placement every 250 feet.

1  The Relative (In)Effectiveness of Bicycle Sharrows on Ridership and Safety Outcomes. Ferenchak, N and W. Marshall. 2015. Transportation Research Board 2016 Annual Meeting.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

bicycle-friendly travel speed for all users.

F-39


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes

Green Infrastructure

INTERSECTION

III

MID-BLOCK

Green infrastructure treats and slows runoff from impervious surface areas, such as roadways, sidewalks, and buildings, and are appropriate along all Class I, II,III, and IV bikeways, but are especially suitable on bike boulevards. Sustainable stormwater strategies may include bioretention swales, rain gardens, tree box filters, and pervious pavements (pervious concrete, asphalt and pavers). Bioswales are natural landscape elements that manage water runoff from a paved surface, reducing the risks of erosion or flooding of local streams and creeks, which can threaten natural habitats. Plants in the swale trap pollutants and silt from entering a river system.

TYPICAL APPLICATION

DESIGN FEATURES

• Install in areas without conventional stormwater

Bioswales

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

systems that are prone to flooding to improve drainage and reduce costs compared to installing

Bioswales are shallow depressions with vegetation

traditional gutter and drainage systems.

designed to capture, treat, and infiltrate stormwater

• Use green infrastructure to provide an ecological and aesthetic enhancement of traditional traffic

while recharging the underlying groundwater table.

speed and volume control measures, such as along

In order to meet the minimum criteria for infiltration

a bicycle boulevard corridor.

rates, bioswales are designed to pass 5-10 inches

• Bioswales and rain gardens are appropriate at curb extensions and along planting strips. • Street trees and plantings can be placed in medians, chicanes, and other locations. • Pervious pavers can be used along sidewalks, street furniture zones, parking lanes, gutter strips, or entire roadways. They are not likely to provide

F-40

runoff by reducing velocity and purifying the water

traffic calming benefit on bicycle boulevards.

of rain water per hour. The overflow/bypass drain system should be approximately 6 inches above the soil surface to manage heavier rainfall. Bioswales have a typical side slope of 4:1 (maximum 3:1) to allow water to move along the surface and settles out sediments and pollutants.


Appendix F: Class III Bikeways - Bike Routes

Green Infrastructure

Green infrastructure such as bioswales and rain gardens helps manage stormwater while improving the aesthetic appearance of bike boulevards and other bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Pervious Pavement In areas where landscaping such as swales are less desired or feasible, pervious pavement can also effectively capture and treat stormwater runoff.

cut-outs at least 18 inches wide should be provided intermittently (3-15 feet apart) to allow runoff to enter and be treated. Low curbs, barriers, and/ or hardy vegetative ground covers can be used to discourage pedestrian trampling.

The desired storage volume and intended drain time is determined by the depth of the pervious layer, void space, and the infiltration rate of underlying soils. An

CRASH REDUCTION

underdrain system must be used to treat overflow,

To the extent that any associated traffic

or drain excess runoff to the municipal sewer system,

calming reduces the likelihood of crashes, green

and allow the facility to drain within 48 hours.

infrastructure can have a positive impact on roadway

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS Bioswales

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bioswales range from $6-$24/square foot depending

Engineering judgment and surrounding street

on the type of facility, with $15/square foot

context should be used when selecting the

representing a typical rate.1

permeable surface, whether it is pavers, concrete or asphalt. Some decorative pavers may be more appropriate for bicycle and/or pedestrians areas due to the potential for shifting under heavy loads.

Permeable pavers can range from $6/square foot for pavers on the low end to $12/square foot for concrete on the high end. The average cost tends to be around $6-7/square foot.

Pervious Pavement The edge of the swale should be flush with the grade to accommodate sheetflow runoff, with a minimum 2-inch drop between the street grade and the

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

safety.

finished grade of the facility. Where there are curbs, 1â&#x20AC;&#x201A; Center for Neighborhood Technology. Green Values Stormwater Toolbox. http://greenvalues.cnt.org/national/cost_detail.php

F-41


BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Appendix F: Context

F-42


F AppendixAppendix F: Context

CLASS PHYSICALLY SEPARATED BIKE LANES

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

IV

F-43


Appendix F: Class IV Bikeways - Physically Separated Bike Lanes

B

C A

One-Way Separated Bikeway

INTERSECTION

IV

MID-BLOCK

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

One-way protected bicycle lanes are on-street bikeway facilities that are separated from vehicle traffic. Separation for protected bicycle lanes is provided through physical barriers between the bike lane and the vehicular travel lane. These barriers can include bollards, parking, planter strips, extruded curbs, or on-street parking. Protected bike lanes using these barrier elements typically share the same elevation as adjacent travel lanes, however, the bike lane may also be raised above street level, either below or equivalent to sidewalk level.

F-44

TYPICAL APPLICATION â&#x20AC;˘ Along streets on which conventional bicycle lanes would cause many bicyclists to feel stress because

DESIGN FEATURES A

Pavement markings, symbols and/or arrow markings must be placed at the beginning of

of factors such as multiple lanes, high bicycle

the separated bike lane and at intervals along

volumes, high motor traffic volumes (9,000-

the facility based on engineering judgment to

30,000 ADT), higher traffic speeds (25+ mph), high

define the bike direction. (CAMUTCD 9C.04)

incidence of double parking, higher truck traffic (10% of total ADT) and high parking turnover.

B

volumes or uphill sections to facilitate safe passing behavior (5 foot minimum). (HDM

â&#x20AC;˘ Along streets for which conflicts at intersections

1003.1(1))

can be effectively mitigated using parking lane setbacks, bicycle markings through the intersection, and other signalized intersection treatments.

7 foot width preferred in areas with high bicycle

C

3 foot minimum buffer width adjacent to parking lines (18 inch minimum adjacent to travel lanes), marked with 2 solid white (NACTO, 2012).


Appendix F: Class IV Bikeways - Physically Separated Bike Lanes

Street Level Separated Bicycle Lanes

Street Level Separated Bicycle Lanes can be separated from the street with parking, planters, bollards or other design elements.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• Separated bike lane buffers and barriers are

A before and after study in Montreal of physically

covered in the CAMUTCD as preferential lane

separated bicycle lanes shows that this type of

markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing devices

facility can result in a crash reduction of 74% for

(section 3H.01). If buffer area is 4 feet or wider,

collisions between bicyclists and vehicles. (CMF

white chevron or diagonal markings should be

ID: 4097) In this study, there was a parking buffer

used (section 9C.04). Curbs may be used as a

between the bike facility and vehicle travel lanes.

channeling device, see the section on islands

Other studies have found a range in crash reductions

(section 3I.01). Grade-separation provides an

due to SBL, from 8% (CMF ID: 4094) to 94% (CMF ID:

enhanced level of separation in addition to buffers

4101).

and other barrier types.

markings or removable curbs should be oriented towards the inside edge of the buffer to provide as much extra width as possible for bicycle use. • A retrofit separated bike lane has a relatively

CONSTRUCTION COSTS The implementation cost is low if the project uses existing pavement and drainage, but the cost significantly increases if curb lines need to be moved, as in the case of a grade-separated facility. A parking

low implementation cost compared to road

lane is the low-cost option for providing a barrier.

reconstruction by making use of existing pavement

Other barriers might include concrete medians,

and drainage and using a parking lane as a barrier.

bollards, tubular markers, or planters.

• Gutters, drainage outlets and utility covers should be designed and configured as not to impact bicycle travel. • For clarity at driveways or minor street crossings, consider a dotted line for the buffer boundary where cars are expected to cross • Special consideration should be given at transit

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• Where possible, physical barriers such as tubular

stops to manage bicycle & pedestrian interactions. F-45


Appendix F: Class IV Bikeways - Physically Separated Bike Lanes A

B

Two-Way Separated Bikeway

INTERSECTION

IV

MID-BLOCK

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Two-Way Separated Bicycle Lanes are bicycle facilities that allow bicycle movement in both directions on one side of the road. Two-way separated bicycle lanes share some of the same design characteristics as one-way separated bicycle lanes, but may require additional considerations at driveway and sidestreet crossings.

TYPICAL APPLICATION • Works best on the left side of one-way streets.

DESIGN FEATURES A

• Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/or speeds. • Streets with high bicycle volumes. • Streets with a high incidence of wrong-way bicycle riding. • Streets with few conflicts such as driveways or cross-streets on one side of the street. • Streets that connect to shared use paths.

12 foot operating width preferred (10 ft minimum) width for two-way facility.

• In constrained an 8 foot minimum operating width may be considered. (HDM 1003.1(1))

B

Adjacent to on-street parking a 3 foot minimum width channelized buffer or island shall be provided to accommodate opening doors. (NACTO, 2012) (CAMUTCD 3H.01, 3I.01)

• A separation narrower than 5 feet may be permitted if a physical barrier is present. (AASHTO, 2013) • Additional signalization and signs may be necessary to manage conflicts.

F-46


Appendix F: Class IV Bikeways - Physically Separated Bike Lanes

Two-Way Separated Bicycle Lanes

A two-way facility can accommodate cyclists in two directions of travel.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• On-street bike lane buffers and barriers are

A study of bicyclists in two-way separated facilities

covered in the CAMUTCD as preferential lane

found that accident probability decreased by 45% at

markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing devices,

intersections where the separated facility approach

including flexible delineators (section 3H.01).

was detected between 2-5 meters from the side

Curbs may be used as a channeling device, see the

of the main road and when bicyclists had crossing

section on islands (section 3I.01).

priority at intersections. (CMF ID: 3034) Installation

• A two-way separated bike lane on one way street should be located on the left side.

of a two-way separated bike lane 0-2 meters from the side of the main road resulted in an increase in collisions at intersections by 3% (CMF ID: 4033).

at street level or as a raised separated bicycle lane with vertical separation from the adjacent travel lane. • Two-way separated bike lanes should ideally be placed along streets with long blocks and few driveways or mid-block access points for motor vehicles. • Caltrans is developing guidelines to be released in 2016.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS The implementation cost is low if the project uses existing pavement and drainage, but the cost significantly increases if curb lines need to be moved. A parking lane is the low-cost option for providing a barrier. Other barriers might include concrete medians, bollards, tubular markers, or planters.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• A two-way protected bike lane may be configured

F-47


Appendix F: Class IV Bikeways - Physically Separated Bike Lanes Barrier Separation

3’ Buffer and Spatial Envelope for Barriers

Media Separation Raised Curb (2’ min. width)

Flexible Delineators (10’-40’ spacing) Wheel Stops (6’ spacing, 1’ from travel lane)

Optional Planting

Grade Separation Raised Bike Facility

Planter Boxes (consistent spacing)

Parking Separation Buffered Door Zone (2’ min. and optional Flexible Delineators)

Jersey Barriers (consistent spacing)

P

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Separated Bikeway Barriers

F-48

INTERSECTION

IV

MID-BLOCK

Separated bikeways may use a variety of vertical elements to physically separate the bikeway from adjacent travel lanes. Barriers may be robust constructed elements such as curbs, or may be more interim in nature, such as flexible delineator posts.

TYPICAL APPLICATION Appropriate barriers for retrofit projects: • Parked Cars • Flexible delineators • Bollards • Planters • Parking stops

Appropriate barriers for reconstruction projects: • Curb separation • Medians • Landscaped medians • Raised protected bike lane with vertical or mountable curb • Pedestrian safety islands


Appendix F: Class IV Bikeways - Physically Separated Bike Lanes

Bikeway Separation Methods

Raised separated bikeways are bicycle facilities that are vertically separated from motor vehicle traffic.

DESIGN FEATURES

CRASH REDUCTION

• Maximize effective operating space by placing

A before and after study in Montreal of separated

curbs or delineator posts as far from the through

bikeways shows that this type of facility can result

bikeway space as practicable.

in a crash reduction of 74% for collisions between

• Allow for adequate shy distance of 1 to 2 feet from vertical elements to maximize useful space. • When next to parking allow for 3 feet of space in the buffer space to allow for opening doors and

bicyclists and vehicles. (CMF ID: 4097) In this study, there was a parking buffer between the bike facility and vehicle travel lanes. Other studies have found a range in crash reductions due to SBL, from 8% (CMF ID: 4094) to 94% (CMF ID: 4101).

passenger unloading.

and safety islands increases comfort for users and enhances the streetscape environment.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS • Separated bikeway buffers and barriers are covered in the CAMUTCD as preferential lane markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing devices (section 3H.01). Curbs may be used as a channeling device, see the section on islands (section 3I.01). • With new roadway construction a raised separated bikeway can be less expensive to construct than a wide or buffered bicycle lane because of shallower trenching and sub base requirements.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Separated bikeway costs can vary greatly, depending on the type of material, the scale, and whether it is part of a broader construction project.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• The presences of landscaping in medians, planters

• Parking should be prohibited within 30 feet of the intersection to improve visibility.

F-49


BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Appendix F: Context

F-50


BIKEWAY INTERSECTION TREATMENTS

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

F AppendixAppendix F: Context

F-51


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

C

A

W11-15, W16-7P

B

Marked Crossings

INTERSECTION

I

II

III

IV

MID-BLOCK

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Crosswalks exists at the intersection of roadways, whether they are marked or unmarked. The Uniform Vehicle Code requires that motorists yield right-of-way to pedestrians within crosswalks. Marked crosswalks draw attention to the crosswalk area and may remind motorists of the requirement to yield.

F-52

TYPICAL APPLICATION â&#x20AC;˘ At the intersection of streets, where increased awareness of a crossing location is desired.

DESIGN FEATURES A

and path users are expected to travel within the

preferred marking type at uncontrolled marked crossings. (FHWA 2013)

â&#x20AC;˘ Where paths intersect with a street in close proximity to an existing signalized intersection,

High-visibility crosswalk markings are the

B

Crosswalk markings should be located to provide a straight pedestrian path in line with the connecting sidewalk. Crosswalk markings

crosswalk.

should be located so that the curb ramps are within the extension of the crosswalk markings.

C

Continental or Pair Bar style marking should be placed to avoid the wear path of motor vehicle tires.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments Marked Crosswalks

Marked crosswalks are used to raise driver awareness of pedestrian and pathway crossings and help direct users to preferred crossing locations.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS On roadways with high speed and high volumes of motor vehicles, or multiple lanes, crosswalk markings alone are often not a viable safety measure. This should not discourage the implementation of crosswalks, but should rather support the creation of more robust crossing solutions. (Zeeger 2001) This includes: measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, enhance driver awareness of the crossing, and/or provide active warning of pedestrian presence. On roadways with more than two consecutive lanes without a median refuge island, a marked crosswalk alone is not a viable safety measure. Continuous center turn lanes with no median islands are not considered adequate pedestrian refuge areas. (Zeeger 2001) Studies have shown that motorists were statistically more likely to yield righ-tof-way to pedestrians in a marked crosswalk than an unmarked crosswalk. (Mitman 2008)

pedestrians. Crosswalk usage increases with the installations of crosswalk markings. (Knoblauch 2001) Pedestrians are particularly sensitive to out of direction travel and undesired crossing may become prevalent if the distance to the nearest formal is too great.

CRASH REDUCTION

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

A study of the installation of a marked crosswalk on

The cost of striped crosswalks range from

the minor approach of a 4-legged stop-controlled

approximately $100 to 2,100 each, or on average

intersection showed a 65% decrease in crashes. (CMF

approximately $7 per square foot. A high visibility

ID: 3019)

crosswalk can range from $600 to $5,700 each, or around $2,500 on average

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Motorists decrease speed in the vicinity of marked crosswalks, indicating an increased awareness of

F-53


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments Running curb

Extended curb

Crossing distance is shortened

Curb extension length can be adjusted to accommodate bus stops or street furniture.

1 foot buffer from edge of parking lane preferred

Curb Extensions

INTERSECTION

I

II

III

IV

MID-BLOCK

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Curb extensions minimize pedestrian exposure during crossing by shortening crossing distance and giving pedestrians a better chance to see and be seen before committing to crossing.

F-54

TYPICAL APPLICATION

DESIGN FEATURES

• Within parking lanes appropriate for any crosswalk

• For purposes of efficient street sweeping, the

where it is desirable to shorten the crossing

minimum radius for the reverse curves of the

distance and there is on-street parking adhjacent

transition is 10 feet and the two radii should be

to the curb.

equal where possible.

• Curb extensions may also be possible within non-

• When a bike lane is present approaching the

motorized-travel areas of a roadway if there is

intersection, the curb extension should terminate

additional or excess space.

one foot short of the parking lane to maximize

• Curb extensions are particularly helpful at midblock and/or unsignalized crossing locations.

bicyclist safety.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments Curb Extensions

Curb extensions help to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and visually narrow the roadway.

Curb extensions can be located at intersections or mid-block locations with an existing parking lane. This creates a de facto parking setback from the curb which increases visability of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the street.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Curb extensions that include planting may be

The cost of a curb extension can range from

designed as a bioswale or infiltration basin for

$2,000 to $20,000 depending on the design and

wtormwater management.

site condition, with the typical cost approximately

corner curb return radii, and help to facilitate a more direct orthagonal pedestrian crossing.

$12,000. Green/vegetated curb extensions cost between $10,000 to $40,000.

CRASH REDUCTION There are no Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) available for this treatment.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Curb extensions can also provide for a reduced

F-55


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Cut-through median refuge islands are preferred over curb ramps to better accommodate wheel chairs users.

W11-15, W16-7P

Median Refuge Islands

INTERSECTION

I

II

III

IV

MID-BLOCK

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Median refuge islands are located at the midpoint of a marked crossing at intersections and midblock locations. They help to improve pedestrian safety by allowing pedestrians to cross one direction of motor vehicle traffic at a time. Refuge islands also improve pedestrian safety by minimizing exposure to traffic by reducing crossing distances, and thereby increase the number of available gaps in traffic for pedestrian crossing opportunities.

TYPICAL APPLICATION

DESIGN FEATURES

• Median refuge islands can be applied on any

• The island must be ADA accessible, preferably with

roadway with a left center turn lane or existing

at-grade passage through the island, as opposed

median that is at least 6 feet wide.

to ramps and landings. Detectable warning

• These may be appropriate on multi-lande roadways depending on speed and volume. Consider configuration with active warning beacons for improved motor vehicle yielding compliance. • Refuge islands are also appropriate to implement at existing signalized or unsignalized crosswalks.

surfaces must be full-width and 3 feet in depth from the roadway to warn pedestrians with any visual impairments (DIB 82-05, 2013). • Refuge islands require a minimum of 6 feet between motor vehicle travel lanes (8-10 feet is preferred to accommodate bikes with trailers and wheelchair users). At minimum, the refuge islands shall be 20 feet in length along the roadway, with 40 feet being preferred. Clear width of 4 is required for the passage through the refuge island, but preferably the clear width should be the same as the crosswalk. • On streets with speeds higher than 25 mph, there should be double centerline markings, reflectors,

F-56

and “KEEP RIGHT” advisory signs.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments Median Refuge Islands

Offset or diagonal median refuge islands re-direct pedestrians so that they are facing the direction of approaching traffic before crossing the second crosswalk leg.

Median refuge islands provide a place to mount a second pedestrian crossing warning signage and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon, resulting in enhanced visibility of the unit and increased motorist yielding compliance.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

If a refuge island is landscaped, the landscaping

The cost to install median refuge islands range from

should not compromise the visibility of pedestrians

$535 to $1,065 per foot for a typical total cost range

crossing in the crosswalk. Shrubs and ground

from $3,500 to $40,000, depending on the design,

plantings should be no higher than 1.5 feet.

site conditions, landscaping and whether the median

On multi-lane roadways, consider configuration with active warning beacons for improved motor vehicle yielding compliance.

CRASH REDUCTION Based on a comparison of crash rates on arterials with 3 to 8 lanes and minimum 15,000 ADT, median refuge islands were found to reduce vehicle/ pedestrian collisions by 46% at marked crosswalks (CMF ID: 75). This test controlled for pedestrian and vehicular traffic volumes.

can be added as part of a larger street rebuild or utility upgrade.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

W11-15, W16-7P

F-57


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

W11-15, W16-7P

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) I

II

INTERSECTION

III

IV

MID-BLOCK

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) - a type of active warning beacons are user-actuated illuminated devices designed to increase motor vehicle yielding compliance at mid-block crossings or other unsignalized locations, especially high volume multi-lane roadways. RRFBs have been found to elicit the highest increase in compliance of all the active warning beacon options.

F-58

TYPICAL APPLICATION

DESIGN FEATURES

• RRFBs are suitable for collector and arterial streets

• RRFBs shall not be used at crosswalks that are

where posted speeds are 25-45 mph and there are

controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, or traffic

three lanes of traffic (or four lanes with a median

signals.

refuge island). • These are implemented at high-volume pedestrian

• RRFBs shall initiate operation based on pedestrian or bicyclist actuation and shall cease operation at a

crossings where a signal is not warranted or

predetermined interval after actuation to allow an

desired, including midblock locations.

adequate amount of time for any potential users to

• RRFBs are typically activated by road users manually with a pedestrian and/or bicyclist push-

clear the crossing. • Median refuge islands may have an additional

button. They can also be actuated automatically

push-button, and provide additional comfort for

via passive detection systems,

pedestrians on longer crossings. Median islands may also be offset or angled to direct users to face oncoming traffic.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

W11-15, W16-7P

Preferred RRFB configuration with median refuge island

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Pedestrian push buttons can be configured to

When a median refuge island is present, mounting a

the crossing during the flashing donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t walk interval.

improves conspicuity and has been shown to improve motorist yielding behavior. A study of the effectiveness of going from a no-beacon arrangement to a two-beacon RRFB installation increased yielding from 18 percent to 81 percent. A four-beacon installation raised compliance to 88%. Additional studies of long-term installations show little to no decrease in yielding behavior over time.

The CAMUTCD requires signage indicating the walk time extension at or adjacent to the push button (R10-32P).

CRASH REDUCTION A study of the effectiveness of going from a nobeacon arrangement to a two-beacon RRFB installation increased motor vehicle yielding rates for

The minimum walk interval time is 7 seconds. The

pedestrians from 18 percent to 81 percent. A four-

walk and pedestrian clearance times can be adjusted

beacon arrangement with units located on medians

to account for the elderly, wheelchair users, and

raised compliance to 88 percent. Additional studies

visually-disabled people who typically need more

of long-term installations show little to no decrease

time to cross. The walk time can be calculated based

in yielding behavior over time.

on a slower walking speed, 2.8 fps - 3.0 fps, and/or a longer crossing distance from pushbutton-to-far curbside (or pushbutton-to-pushbutton), instead of curb-to-curb. A pushbutton outfitted with a pilot or indicator light and/or audible/vibrotactile feedback acknowledges that the pedestrian call has been placed, reassuring the pedestrian that they have been detected.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS RRFB costs average around $23,000 per unit, including installation.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

second RRFB unit in the median for each approach

provide additional crossing time when they arrive at

F-59


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

All-Way Stop Controlled Intersections

I

II

III

IV

INTERSECTION

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

All-way controls are used at intersections where traffic volumes on the intersection streets are similar. When all vehicles are required to stop, pedestrian and bicycle delay is minimized, as are conflicts for all road users. The delay caused to all roadway users should be taken into account before selecting this intersection treatment option. Additionally, all-way stop controls are often utilized as an interim measure, when an intersection signal has met signal warrants and is in the process of being brought up to the standards of full signalization. TYPICAL APPLICATION • All-way stop control is especially important in areas with high pedestrian volumes, limited visibility at corners for any or all road users, and intersections with left-turn conflict issues. • An engineering study should be performed to determine whether crash and minimum volume criteria for an all-way stop treatment are met. On bike -priority streets, other treatments to increase pedestrian safety (such as enhances crossings and/or median refuge islands) should also be considered. F-60

DESIGN FEATURES • “All-way” stop supplemental signs R1-3P should accompany all stop signs..


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS Recommended Minimum Crash Criteria: 5 or more crashes of the type susceptible to correction by all-way stop control (such as right- or left-turn collisions and right angle collisions) in a 12 month period.

Recommended Minimum Volume Criteria: Average of 300 vehicles per 8 hour period, and average of 200 units for all users in an 8 hour period, and a minimum of a 30 second delay per vehicle during peak hours for vehicles on the minor street. If the 85th percentile speed on the major street is greater than 40mph, than the volume warrants are reduced to 70%** of the values listed above. **If at least 80% of each of the above crash and volume criteria are met, this condition does not apply. See additional criteria in CA-MUTCD section 2B.07

Typical stop sign placement, with R1-3P supplemental placard and stop bars on each leg of the intersection.

for additional details and exceptions.

CRASH REDUCTION A recent review of the effectiveness of various strategies in reducing crashes concluded that conversion from two-way to all-way stop control could reduce total intersection crashes by 53%. Another study determined that converting to an allway stop from a two-way stop may reduce overall crashes at urban locations by up to 71%. Similarly, right-angle crashes (72%), rear-end crashes (13%), and pedestrian crashes (39%).

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Typical street sign costs range from $100-$250, including the cost of installation.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

reductions were seen for left-turn crashes (20%),

F-61


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)

INTERSECTION

I

II

III

IV

MID-BLOCK

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

A hybrid beacon, formerly known as a High-intensity Activated CrosswalK (HAWK), consists of a signal-head with two red lenses over a single yellow lens on the major street, and pedestrian and/or bicycle signal heads for the minor street. There are no signal indications for motor vehicles on the minor street approaches. Hybrid beacons are used to improve non-motorized crossings of major streets in locations where side-street volumes do not support installation of a conventional traffic signal or where there are concerns that a conventional signal will encourage additional motor vehicle traffic on the minor street. Hybrid beacons may also be used at mid-block crossing locations.

TYPICAL APPLICATION

DESIGN FEATURES

• Suitable for arterial streets where speeds are

• Hybrid beacons may be installed without meeting

30-45 mph and there are three or more lanes of

traffic signal control warrants if roadway speed and

traffic (or two lanes with a median refuge).

volumes are excessive for comfortable pedestrian

• Where off-street bicycle facilities intersect major streets without signalized intersections. • At intersections or midblock crossings where there are high pedestrian volumes.

crossings. • If installed within a signal system, signal engineers should evaluate the need for the hybrid signal to be coordinated with other signals. • Parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the marked crosswalk to

F-62

provide adequate sight distance.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Enhanced Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) configuration with channelization and median refuge islands on a bike boulevard

Preferred Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) configuration with channelization and traffic diverter on a bike boulevard

Hybrid beacon signals are normally activated by push buttons, but may also be triggered by infrared,

A bicycle-specific HAWK requires an FHWA/CTCDC Request to Experiment approval to be installed as part of plan implementation.

microwave or video detectors. The maximum delay for activation of the signal should be two minutes, with minimum crossing times determined by the width of the street. Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed or volume, requires additional review by a registered engineer to identify sight lines, potential impacts on traffic progression, timing with adjacent signals, capacity, and safety. Hybrid beacon systems should be considered for longer crossings where providing a median refuge island of any kind is not feasible.

CRASH REDUCTION Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons have shown a crash reduction of 29% for all crash types (CMF ID:2911) and 15% for fatal or serious injury crashes (CMF ID: 2917).

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Full intersections typically range in cost from

Bicycle signals used in conjunction with Pedestrian

$50,000 to $130,000 depending on mounting

Hybridge Beacons are not currently permitted in

hardware.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

FHWA Interim Approval for Optional Use of a Bicycle Signal Face (IA-16).

F-63


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Traffic Signal Detection and Actuation

I

II

III

IV

INTERSECTION

At fully signalized intersections, bicycle crossings are typically accomplished through the use of a standard green signal indication for Class II and III bikeways. A number of traffic signal enhancements can be made to improve detection and actuation and better accommodate bicyclists. An exclusive bicycle phase provided by bicycle signals offers the higest level of service and protection, especially for Class I and IV bikeways, but feature the same detection and actuation devices used at intersections with standard traffic signals. For more information on bicycle signals, see Protected Bicycle Signal Phase.

TYPICAL APPLICATION • Bicycle detection and actuation is used to alert the signal controller of bicycle crossing demand on a particular approach. Proper bicycle detection should meet at least two primary criteria: 1) accurately detect bicyclists, and 2) provide clear guidance to bicyclists on how to actuate

• Detection shall be place where bicyclists are intended to travel and/or wait. • On bicycle priority corridors with on-street bike lanes or separated bikeways, consider the use of advance detection placed 100-200’ upstream of the intersection to provide an early trigger to the signal system and reduce bicyclist delay.

detection (e.g. what button to push or where to stand). Additionally, new technologies are being developed to provide feedback to bicyclists once they have been detected to increase the likelihood of stop compliance.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• Detection mechanisms can also provide bicyclists

F-64

with an extended green time before the signal turns yellow so that bicyclists of all abilities can reach the far side of the intersection. • All new or modified traffic signals in California

DESIGN FEATURES • Bicycle detection and actuation systems include user-activated buttons mounted on a pole facing the street, In-pavement loop detectors that trigger a change in the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected, video detection cameras that use digital image processing to detect a change in the image at a location, and/or Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor Detection (RTMS) which uses frequency

must be equipped for bicyclist detection, or be

modulated continuous wvae radio signals to detect

placed on permanent recall or fixed time operation.

objects in the roadway.

(CalTrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) 09-06.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments Push Button Actuation

Type D Loop Detector

Direction of Travel 15”

30”

27”

15” 30” 27” Bicycle push button actuators are positioned to allow bicycle riders in roadway to stop traffic on busy cross-streets.

Type D loop detector have been shown to most reliably detect bicyclists at all points over their surface.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• The location of pushbuttons should not require

Properly designed bicycle detection can help deter

bicyclists to dismount or be rerouted out of the

red light running and unsafe behaviors by reducing

way or onto the sidewalk ot activate the phase.

bicycle delay at signalized intersections.

Signage should supplement the signal to alert bicyclists of the required activation to prompt the

• In-pavement Type D Loop detectors are induction circuits installed within the roadway surface to detect bicyclists as they wait for the signal. This allows the bicyclists to stay within the lane of travel. Loop detectors should be sufficiently sensitive to detect bicyclists and be marked with pavement

CONSTRUCTION COSTSCONSTRUCTION Costs vary depending on the type of technology used, but bicycle loop detectors embedded in the pavement typically cost from a$1,000-$2,000. Video detection camera systems typically range from $20,000 to $25,000 per intersection.

markings instructing bicyclists on where to stand.

Other traffic signal programming enhancements

CAMUTCD provides guidance on stencil markings

can be made to existing traffic signal hardware with

and signage related to loop detectors.

relatively little to no additional hardware costs

• Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor Detection (RTMS) is unaffected by temperature and lighting which can affect standard video detection. • Bicyclists typically need more time to travel through an intersection than motor vehicles. Green light times should be determined using the bicycle crossing time for standing bicycles. See Leading Bicycle Interval for more information on extending the green phase with Bicycle Signals.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

green phase.

F-65


Partial closure improves safety Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

B A

All crossing movements focused at traffic signal

C

Two-way Separated Bikeway Connector

INTERSECTION

I

II

III

IV

MID-BLOCK

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Offset intersections can be challenging for bicyclists who are required to briefly travel along the busier major cross street in order to continue along the bicycle boulevard. Because bicycle boulevards are located on local streets, the route is often discontinuous. Wayfinding signage and pavement markings assist bicyclists with navigation on the route.

TYPICAL APPLICATION â&#x20AC;˘ Can be constructed to connect multiple facility types, including bicycle boulevards, bike lanes, or

DESIGN FEATURES A

separated bikeways.

and the type of bicyclist using the crossing.

barriers such as concrete medians, bollards, planters, etc. provide enhanced protection for bicylists and pedestrians

â&#x20AC;˘ Appropriate treatments depend on volume of traffic including turning volumes, traffic speeds

Grade separation and the use of physical

B

Pavement markings provide clear delineation

C

At signalized crossings, bicyclists should be

between pedestrian and bicyclists travel spaces

able to trigger signals and safely maneuver the crossing.

F-66


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments Two-way Separated Bikeway Connector

Pavement markings provide clear delineation between bi-directional bicycle traffic

If located at an unsignalized location, bicycle crossing should align with existing pedestrian crossing locations

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• Partial closure of a two-way street on one or both

• A two-way separated bike lane as illustrated

of the minor unsignalized street legs provides

here provides grade separation from traffic and

enhanced safety by reducing the likelihood of

temporal separation with the use of a bicycle/

a collision between a bicycle and a left-turning

pedestrian signal.

vehicle • Bike boxes can be installed to increase visibility

• Crossing treatments should be provided on both sides to minimize wrong-way riding.

and give bicyclists priority positioning during the

• A bicycle signal should be considered for use only when the volume/collision or volume/geometric warrants have been met. (CAMUTCD 4C.102) • FHWA has approved bicycle signals for use, if they comply with requirements from F.C. Interaction Approval 16 (I.A. 16). • Bicyclists typically need more time to travel through an intersection than motor vehicles. Green light times should be determined using the bicycle crossing time for standing bicycles. • Bicycle detection and actuation systems include user-activated buttons mounted on a pole, loop detectors that trigger a change in the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected and video detection cameras, that use digital image processing to

CONSTRUCTION COSTS The implementation cost is low if the project uses existing pavement and drainage, but the cost significantly increases if curb lines need to be moved. A parking lane is the low-cost option for providing the two-way separated bike lane. Bicycle signal heads have an average cost of $12,800. Video detection camera system costs range from $20,000 to $25,000 per intersection.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

red signal phase.

detect a change in the image at a location. F-67


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments C

B

A

Protected Intersection

IV

INTERSECTION

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

A protected intersection uses a collection of intersection design elements to maximize user comfort within the intersection and promote a high rate of motorists yielding to people bicycling. Protected intersections may be physically protected and/or protected using signal timing. The design maintains a physical separation within the intersection to define the turning paths of motor vehicles, slow vehicle turning speed, and offer a comfortable place for people bicycling to wait at a red signal. Time-based separation applications (e.g., bicycle-only signal phases) may also be used reduce bicycle/motor vehicle conflicts.

TYPICAL APPLICATION • Streets with separated bicycle lanes protected by wide buffer or on-street parking.

A

B

• Helps reduce conflicts between right-turning

Corner safety island with a 15-20 foot corner radius slows motor vehicle speeds. Larger radius designs may be possible when paired

motorists and bicycle riders by reducing turning

with a deeper setback or a protected signal

speeds and providing a forward stop bar for

phase, or small mountable aprons. Two-

bicycles.

stage turning boxes are provided for queuing bicyclists adjacent to corner islands.

• Where it is desirable to create a curb extension distance.

for one passenger car to queue while yielding. speed, space constrained conditions.

two-stage left-turn movements can be provided for bicycle riders.

Setback bicycle crossing of 16.5 feet allows Smaller setback distance is possible in slow-

• Where two separated bicycle lanes intersect and

at intersections to reduce pedestrian crossing F-68

DESIGN FEATURES

C

Use intersection crossing markings.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Protected Intersection

Protected intersections feature a corner safety island and intersection crossing markings.

Protected intersections incorporate queuing areas for two-stage left turns.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• Pedestrian crosswalks may need to be further set

Studies of “bend out” intersection approaches find

back from intersections in order to make room for

that separation distance of 6.5 – 16.5 ft offer the

two-stage turning queue boxes.

greatest safety benefit, with a better safety record

provided to help bicycle riders navigate through the intersection. • Colored pavement may be used within the corner refuge area to clarify use by people bicycling and discourage use by people walking or driving. • Intersection approaches with high volumes of right turning vehicles should provide a dedicated right turn only lane paired with a protected signal phase. Protected signal phasing may allow different design dimensions than are described here. • At signalized intersections, time-based separation may take the form of bicycle-only signal phases or a “leading bicycle interval.” These applications typically necessitate additional features including bicycle-specific signals (with bicycle signal heads) and supplemental signage aimed at bicyclists (e.g, “Bike Signal”) and motorists (e.g., “No Turn on Red”).

than conventional bike lane designs. (Schepers 2011).

Schepers et al. Road factors and BicycleMotor vehicle crashes at unsignalized priority intersections. 2011.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS • Reconstruction costs comparable to a full intersection. • Retrofit implementation may be possible at lower costs if existing curbs and drainage are maintained.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• Wayfinding and directional signage should be

F-69


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

A B

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Protected Bicycle Signal Phase

II

III

IV

INTERSECTION

Protected bicycle lane crossings of signalized intersections can be accomplished through the use of a bicycle signal phase which reduces conflicts with motor vehicles by separating bicycle movements from any conflicting motor vehicle movements. Bicycle signals are traditional three lens signal heads with green, yellow and red bicycle stenciled lenses.

TYPICAL APPLICATION • Two-way protected bike lanes where contraflow bicycle movement or increased conflict points warrant protected operation. • Bicyclists moving on a green or yellow signal indication in a bicycle signal shall not be in conflict with any simultaneous motor vehicle movement at the signalized location • Right (or left) turns on red should be prohibited in locations where such operation would conflict with a green bicycle signal indication.

F-70

I

DESIGN FEATURES A

An additional “Bicycle Signal” sign should be

B

Designs for bicycles at signalized crossings

installed below the bicycle signal head.

should allow bicyclists to trigger signals and safely maneuver the crossing.

• On bikeways, signal timing and actuation shall be reviewed and adjusted to consider the needs of bicyclists. (CAMUTCD 9D.02)


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Protected Bicycle Signal Phase

A bicycle signal head at a signalized crossing creates a protected phase for cyclists to safely navigate an intersection.

A bicycle detection system triggers a change in the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• A bicycle signal should be considered for use only

A survey of separated bike lane users in the United

when the volume/collision or volume/geometric

States found the 92% of respondents agreed with

warrants have been met. (CAMUTCD 4C.102)

the statement “I generally feel safe when bicycling

comply with requirements from F.C. Interaction Approval 16 (I.A. 16). Bicycle Signals are not approved for use in conjunction with Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. • Bicyclists typically need more time to travel through an intersection than motor vehicles. Green

through the intersections” when asked about an intersection with a protected bicycle signal phase.1

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bicycle signal heads have an average cost of $12,800. Video detection camera system costs range from $20,000 to $25,000 per intersection.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• FHWA has approved bicycle signals for use, if they

1  NITC. Lessons from the Green Lanes. 2014.

F-71

light times should be determined using the bicycle crossing time for standing bicycles. • Bicycle detection and actuation systems include user-activated buttons mounted on a pole, loop detectors that trigger a change in the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected and video detection cameras, that use digital image processing to detect a change in the image at a location.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Leading Bicycle Interval Vehicle conflicts can occur when drivers performing turning movements do not see or yield to bicyclists who have the right-of-way. Bicyclists may also arrive at an intersection late, or may not have any indication of how much time they have to safely cross the intersection. Bicycle traffic signal enhancements can be made to provide bicyclists with a head start, called a Leading Bicycle Interval.

TYPICAL APPLICATION

DESIGN FEATURES

• Leading Bicycle Intervals (LBI) provides bicyclists

• Typically employed with a bike signal, and/or

with a priority headstart across the intersection. • Leading Bicycle Intervals (LBI) are used to reduce

pedestrian signal. • The through bicycle interval is initiated first,

right turn and permissive left turn vehicle and

in advance of the concurrent through/right/

bicycle conflicts.

permissive left turn interval by 3-10 seconds.

• At locations where increased bicyclist stop compliance is needed. • Can be paired with Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI).

• If paired with an LPI, bicycle pushbuttons can be configured to provide additional crossing time when bicyclists arrive at the crossing during the concurrent flashing don’t walk interval. The MUTCD requires signage indicating the walk time extension at or adjacent to the push button (R10-32P). • Actuation may be achieved with either a

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

pushbutton or other passive detection devices..

F-72


Bicyclists receive a green bike signal indication in advance of adjacent travel lane

Signal louvers or visibility-limited signal faces reduce the likelihood of motorist in adjacent travel lanes mistaking the bike signal indication with a circular or arrow indication for their travel lane

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• These signal enhancements facilitate safer, more

A Leading Bicycle Interval provides a form of

predictable, and conspicuous crossing conditions.

temporal separation from other movements and can

The Leading Bicycle Interval provides additional

reduce vehicle-bicycle conflicts by giving bicyclists

time for bicyclists who may need more time to

a headstart, thereby making them more visible, and

cross the street such as the elderly, and children.

minimizing exposure times.

• Leading Bicycle Intervals are considered a successful application of bike signals as approved under current FHWA Interim Approval for Optional Use of Bicycle Signal Faces (IA-16). • See Traffic Signal Detection and Actuation for more information on detection and actuation devices.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bicycle signal heads have an average cost of $12,800.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

F-73


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

A C

B

Roundabouts

I

II

III

IV

INTERSECTION

At roundabouts it is important to indicate to motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians the right-of-way rules and correct way for them to circulate, using appropriately designed signage, pavement markings, and geometric design elements.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

TYPICAL APPLICATION

F-74

• Where a bike lane or separated bikeway approaches a single-lane roundabout.

DESIGN FEATURES A

Design approaches/exits to the lowest speeds possible. 10-15 mph preferred with 25 mph maximum circulating design speed.

B

Allow bicyclists to exit the roadway onto a separated bike lane or shared use path that circulates around the roundabout.

• Also allow bicyclists navigating the roundabout like motor vehicles to “take the lane.”

C

Maximize yielding rate of motorists to pedestrians and bicyclists at crosswalks with small corner radii and reduced crossing distance.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments Bike Box

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• The publication Roundabouts: Informational

Research indicates that while single-lane

Guide states “... it is important not to select

roundabouts may benefit bicyclists and pedestrians

a multilane roundabout over a single-

by slowing traffic, multi-lane roundabouts may

lane roundabout in the short term, even when

present greater challenges and significantly increase

long-term ...traffic predictions...” (NCHRP 2010 p

safety problems for these users.

6-71) • Other circulatory intersection designs exist but they function differently than the modern roundabout. These include: »» Traffic circles (also known as rotaries) are old

CONSTRUCTION COSTS • Roundabouts cost $250,000 - $500,000 depending on the size, site conditions, and rightof-way acquisitions. Roundabouts usually have

style circular intersections used in some cities

lower ongoing maintenance costs than traffic

in the US where traffic signals or stop signs are

signals, depending on whether the roundabout is

used to control one or more entry.

landscaped.

»» Neighborhood Traffic Circles are small-sized circular intersections of local streets. They may be uncontrolled or stop controlled, and do not channelize entry

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

This roundabout with a separated bikeway and sidewalk help reduce conflicts between motorists and bicycle riders.

F-75


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

A

B

C

Bike Box

II

III

INTERSECTION

A bike box is an experimental treatment, designed to provide bicyclists with a safe and visible space to get in front of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. Motor vehicles must queue behind the white stop line at the rear of the bike box. On a green signal, all bicyclists can quickly clear the intersection. This treatment is currently under experiment, and has not been approved by Caltrans.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

TYPICAL APPLICATION

F-76

• At potential areas of conflict between bicyclists and turning vehicles, such as a right or left turn locations. • At signalized intersections with high bicycle

DESIGN FEATURES A

14 foot minimum depth from back of crosswalk

B

A “No Turn on Red” (CAMUTCD R10-11) or “No

to motor vehicle stop bar. (NACTO, 2012)

Right Turn on Red” (CAMUTCD R13A) sign shall be installed overhead to prevent vehicles from

volumes.

entering the Bike Box. (Refer to CVC 22101 for

• At signalized intersections with high vehicle

the signage) A “Stop Here on Red” (CAMUTCD

volumes

R10-6) sign should be post mounted at the stop line to reinforce observance of the stop line.

C

A 50 foot ingress lane should be used to provide access to the box.

• Use of green colored pavement is optional.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments Bike Box

A bike box allows for cyclists to wait in front of queuing traffic, providing high visibility and a head start over motor vehicle traffic.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• This treatment positions bicycles together and

A study of motorist/bicyclist conflicts at bike boxes

on a green signal, all bicyclists can quickly clear

indicate a 35% decrease in conflicts. (CMF ID: 1718)

the intersection, minimizing conflict and delay to

A study done in Portland in 2010 found that 77% of

transit or other traffic.

bicyclists felt bicycling through intersections was

experience reduced vehicle encroachment into the crosswalk. • Bike boxes are currently under experiment in

safer with the bike boxes.1

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Costs will vary due to the type of paint used and the

California. Projects will be required to go through

size of the bike box, as well as whether the treatment

an official Request to Experiment process.

is added at the same time as other road treatments.

This process is outlined in Section 1A.10 in the CAMUTCD, and jurisdictions must receive approval prior to implementation.

The typical cost for painting a bike box is $11.50 per square foot.

1  Monsere, C. & Dill, J. (2010). Evaluation of Bike Boxes at Signalized Intersections. Final Draft. Oregon Transportation Research and education Consortium.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• Pedestrian also benefit from bike boxes, as they

F-77


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

B A

Two-Stage Turn Boxes

II

III

IV

INTERSECTION

Two-stage turn boxes offer bicyclists a safe way to make turns at multi-lane signalized intersections from a physically separated or conventional bike lane. On physically separated bike lanes, bicyclists are often unable to merge into traffic to turn due to physical separation, making the provision of two-stage turn boxes critical.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

TYPICAL APPLICATION

F-78

• Streets with high vehicle speeds and/or traffic volumes. • At intersections with multi-lane roads with signalized intersections. • At signalized intersections with a high number of bicyclists making a left turn from a right side

DESIGN FEATURES The two-stage turn box shall be placed in a protected area. Typically this is within the shadow of an on-street parking lane or protected bike lane buffer area and should be placed in front of the crosswalk to avoid conflict with pedestrians.

A

8 foot x 6 foot preferred depth of bicycle

B

Bicycle stencil and turn arrow pavement

facility.

storage area (6 foot x 3 foot minimum).

markings shall be used to indicate proper bicycle direction and positioning. (NACTO, 2012)


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments Two-stage Turn Box

On separated bike lanes, the two-stage turn box can be located in the protected buffer/parking area.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS • Consider providing a “No Turn on Red” (CAMUTCD R10-11) on the cross street to prevent motor

CRASH REDUCTION There are no Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) available for this treatment.

vehicles from entering the turn box.

turn” or “pedestrian style turn.” • Some two-stage turn box designs are considered

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Costs will vary due to the type of paint used and the size of the two-stage turn box, as well as whether the

experimental by FHWA and are not currently under

treatment is added at the same time as other road

experiment in California.

treatments.

• Design guidance for two-stage turns apply to both bike lanes and separated bike lanes. • Two-stage turn boxes reduce conflicts in multiple ways; keep bicyclists from queuing in a bike lane or crosswalk and by separate turning bicyclists from through bicyclists. • Bicyclist capacity of a two-stage turn box is influenced by physical dimension (how many bicyclists it can contain) and signal phasing (how frequently the box clears.)

The typical cost for painting a two-stage turn box is $11.50 per square foot.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• This design formalizes a maneuver called a “box

F-79


B

Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments A

Bike Lanes at Intersections where Right Turns are Permitted II

III

IV

INTERSECTION

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

In California, right turning vehicles are required to turn from the lane closest to the curb. When a bicycle lane approaches an intersection adjacent to a through/ right option lane, the bicycle lane should be designed to permit right turning vehicles to enter the bicycle lane prior to turning.

F-80

TYPICAL APPLICATION • Streets with curbside bicycle lanes approaching an intersection where right turns are permitted.

DESIGN FEATURES A

advance of the intersection.

lane at intersections.

in areas with on-street parking and high turn volumes, but not enough room for a bicycle lane and a right turn only lane.

from the general purpose travel lane, the solid bike lane should be dashed 50 to 200 feet in

• Streets with curb extensions occupying the parking

• Consider a Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane

Where motorist right turns are permitted

B

Dashed striping should be 6 inch lines in 4 foot segments with 8 foot gaps. (CAMUTCD Detail 39A)


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Dashed Bike Lane in Advance of the Intersection

The dashed bike lane line reminds drivers that they should enter the bike lane to make their right turn.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

â&#x20AC;˘ The City of Sacramento is experimenting with

Studies have shown a 40% decrease in crashes at

dashed green pavement in the approach to

signalized intersections with through/right lanes

intersections.

when compared to sharing the roadway with motor vehicles. (CMF ID: 3255)

CONSTRUCTION COSTS The cost for installing bicycle lanes will depend on adequate width for reconfiguration or restriping, costs may be negligible when provided as part of routine overlay or repaving projects. Typical costs are $16,000 per mile for restriping.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

the implementation approach. On roadways with

F-81


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

D C

A

B

Bike Lanes at Added Right Turn Lanes

II

III

INTERSECTION

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

The appropriate treatment at right turn only lanes is to introduce an added turn lane to the outside of the bicycle lane. The area where people driving must weave across the bicycle lane should be marked with dotted lines and dotted green pavement to identify the potential conflict areas. Signage should indicate that motorists must yield to bicyclists through the conflict area.

F-82

TYPICAL APPLICATION • Streets with right-turn lanes and right side bike lanes. • Streets with left-turn lanes and left side bike lanes.

DESIGN FEATURES A

Mark inside line with 6” stripe.

B

Continue existing bike lane width; standard width of 5 to 6 feet (4 feet in constrained locations.)

C

Use R4-4 BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES signage to indicate that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area.

D

Consider using colored in the conflict areas to promote visibility of the dashed weaving area.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Through Bicycle Lane to the Left of a Right Turn Only Lane

Drivers wishing to enter the right turn lane must transition across the bicycle lane in advance of the turn. Maintaining a straight path for bicyclists is important to emphasize their priority over weaving traffic.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• The bicycle lane maintains a straight path, and

Studies have shown a 3% decrease in crashes at

drivers must weave across, providing clear right-of-

signalized intersections with exclusive right turn lanes

way priority to bicyclists.

when compared to sharing the roadway with motor

priority of bicyclists over turning cars. Drivers must yield to bicyclists before crossing the bike lane to enter the turn only lane. • Through lanes that become turn only lanes are

vehicles. (CMF ID: 3257)

CONSTRUCTION COSTS The cost for installing bicycle lanes will depend on the implementation approach. On roadways with

difficult for bicyclists to navigate and should be

adequate width for reconfiguration or restriping,

avoided.

costs may be negligible when provided as part of

The use of dual right-turn-only lanes should be avoided on streets with bike lanes (AASHTO, 2013). Where there are dual right-turn-only lanes, the bike lane should be placed to the left of both right-turn lanes, in the same manner as where there is just one right-turn-only lane.

routine overlay or repaving projects. Typical costs are $16,000 per mile for restriping.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• Maintaining a straight bicycle path reinforces the

F-83


C

Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments D

B

A

Based on Figure 4-21 from AASHTO 2013

Bike Lanes at Through Lane to Right Turn Lane Transition II

INTERSECTION

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

When a through lane transitions directly into a right turn only lane, bicyclists traveling in a curbside bike lane must move laterally to the left of the right turn lane. Designers should provide the opportunity for bicyclists to accept gaps in traffic and control the transition.

F-84

TYPICAL APPLICATION

DESIGN FEATURES

• Streets with curbside bike lanes where a moderate-

A

high speed (≥30 mph) through travel lane transitions into a right turn only lane.

a low stress crossing is desired in these locations,

at least 125 feet in advance of the intersection to indicate to bicyclists to enter the general purpose travel lane. (CAMUTCD 9C.04)

• This treatment functions for skilled riders, but is not appropriate for riders of all ages and abilities. If

End the curbside bike lane with dashed lines

B

consider a Protected Bicycle Signal Phase.

Use Shared Lane markings in the general purpose to raise awareness to the presence of bicyclists in the travel lanes during the transition segment..

C

Reestablish a standard or wide bicycle lane to

D

The transition area should be a minimum of 100

the left of the right turn only lane.

feet long. (CAMUTCD Figure 9C-4b)


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments Bike Lanes at Right Turn “Drop” Lanes

After having transitioned from the curbside bike lane across the shared space in advance of the intersection, bicyclists are positioned to the left of the right-turn lane, in a “pocket bike lane” to reduce the likelihood of conflicts with right turning vehicles at the intersection. In this example, the bike lane continues across the intersection and transitions back to a curbside bike lane.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

The design should not suggest to bicyclists that

There are no Crash Modification Factors (CMFs)

they do not need to yield to motorists when moving

available for this treatment.

important details: • Do not use a R4-4-YIELD TO BIKES sign • The bike lane line should not be striped diagonally

CONSTRUCTION COSTS The cost for installing bicycle lanes will depend on the implementation approach. On roadways with

across the travel lane (with or without colored

adequate width for reconfiguration or restriping,

pavement), as this inappropriately suggests

costs may be negligible when provided as part of

to bicyclists that they do not need to yield to

routine overlay or repaving projects.

motorists when moving laterally. Right turn only drop lanes should be avoided where possible. Alternative design strategies include roadway reconfigurations to remove the dropped lane, or bicycle signals with a protected signal phase to eliminate turning conflicts.

Typical costs are $16,000 per mile for restriping.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

laterally. This differs from added right turn lanes in

F-85


A

Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

C

B D

Combined Bike Lane/ Turn Lane

II

III

INTERSECTION

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Where there isn’t room for a conventional bicycle lane and turn lane a combined bike lane/turn lane creates a shared lane where bicyclists can ride and turning motor vehicles yield to through traveling bicyclists. The combined bicycle lane/ turn lane places shared lane markings within a right turn only lane.

F-86

TYPICAL APPLICATION • Most appropriate in areas with lower posted speeds (30 MPH or less) and with lower traffic volumes (10,000 ADT or less). • May not be appropriate for high speed arterials or

DESIGN FEATURES A

Maximum shared turn lane width is 13 feet;

B

Shared Lane Markings should indicate preferred

percentages of right-turning heavy vehicles.

positioning of bicyclists within the combine lane.

intersections with long right turn lanes. • May not be appropriate for intersections with large

narrower is preferable. (NACTO, 2012)

C

A “RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT” sign with an “EXCEPT BIKES” plaque may be needed to permit through bicyclists to use a right turn lane.

D

Use R4-4 BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES signage to indicate that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane (Billings, MT)

Shared lane markings and signs indicate that bicyclists should right in the left side of this right turn only lane.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

• This treatment is recommended at intersections

The cost for installing a combined turn lane will

lacking sufficient space to accommodate both a

depend on the implementation approach. On

standard through bike lane and right turn lane.

roadways with adequate width for reconfiguration or

motor vehicle right turn movements. • Combined bike lane/turn lane creates safety and comfort benefits by negotiating conflicts upstream of the intersection area.

CRASH REDUCTION A survey in Eugene, OR found that more than 17 percent of the surveyed bicyclists using the combined turn lane felt that it was safer than the comparison location with a standard-width right-turn lane, and another 55 percent felt that the combinedlane site was no different safety-wise than the standard-width location.1

1  Hunter, W.W. (2000). Evaluation of a Combined Bicycle Lane/RightTurn Lane in Eugene, Oregon. Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-151, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

restriping, costs may be negligible when provided as part of routine overlay or repaving projects. Typical costs are $16,000 per mile for restriping. Typical yield lines cost $10 per square foot or $320 each. Typical shared lane markings cost $180 each. BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• Not recommended at intersections with high peak

F-87


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

A

B

Intersection Crossing Markings

II

III

IV

INTERSECTION

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Bicycle pavement markings through intersections guide bicyclists on a safe and direct path through the intersection and provide a clear boundary between the paths of through bicyclists and vehicles in the adjacent lane.

F-88

TYPICAL APPLICATION

DESIGN FEATURES

• Streets with conventional, buffered or separated

• Intersection markings should be the same width

bike lanes. • At direct paths through intersections.

and in line with leading bike lane.

A

• Streets with high volumes of adjacent traffic. • Where potential conflicts exist between through bicyclist and adjacent traffic.

Dotted lines should be a minimum of 6 inches wide and 4 feet long, spaced every 12 feet. (CAMUTCD Figure 39A)

• All markings should be white, skid resistant and retroreflective (CAMUTCD 9C.02.02)

B

Green pavement markings may also be used.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Intersection Crossing Markings

Intersection crossing markings can be used at signalized intersections or high volume minor street and driveway crossings, as illustrated above.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic

A study on the safety effects of intersection crossing

Control Devices has submitted a request to include

markings found a reduction in accidents by 10% and

additional options bicycle lanes extensions through

injuries by 19% 2

Their proposal includes the following options for striping elements within the crossing:

A study in Portland, OR found that significantly more motorists yielded to bicyclists after the colored pavement had been installed (92 percent in the after

• Bicycle lane markings.

period versus 72 percent in the before period.) 3

• Double chevron markings, indicating the direction

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

of travel. • Green colored pavement. 1  Letter to FHWA from the Bicycle Technical Committee for the MUTCD. Bicycle Lane Extensions through Intersections. June 2014.

The cost for installing intersection crossing markings will depend on the implementation approach. On roadways with adequate width for reconfiguration or restriping, costs may be negligible when provided as part of routine overlay or repaving projects. Typical shared lane markings cost $180 each.

2  Jensen, S.U. (2008). Safety effects of blue cycle crossings: A before-after study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(2), 742-750. 3  Hunter, W.W. et al. (2000). Evaluation of Blue Bike-Lane Treatment in Portland, Oregon. Transportation Research Record, 1705, 107-115.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

intersections as a part of future MUTCD updates . 1

F-89


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments B E D

A C

Mixing Zone

II

III

IV

INTERSECTION

A mixing zone creates a shared travel lane where turning motor vehicles yield to through traveling bicyclists. Geometric design is intended to slow motor vehicles to bicycle speed, provide regulatory guidance to people driving, and require all users to negotiate conflicts upstream of the intersection.

TYPICAL APPLICATION BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• Most appropriate in areas with low to moderate

F-90

right-turn volumes.

DESIGN FEATURES A

intersection.

storage length to promote slow motor vehicle travel speeds.

• Streets with a right turn lane but not enough width to have a standard width bicycle lane at the

Use short transition taper dimensions and short

B

The width of the mixing zone should be 9 feet

C

The transition to the mixing zone should begin

D

Shared lane markings (CAMUTCD 9C-9) should

minimum and 13 feet maximum.

70 feet in advance of the intersection.

be used to illustrate the bicyclist’s position within the lane.

E

A yield line should be used in advance of the intersection.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments Mixing Zone (New York City, NY)

Mixing zone (Photo via NACTO)

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

• Not recommended at intersections with high peak

The cost for installing mixing zone will depend on

motor vehicle right turn movements. • The zone creates safety and comfort benefits by having the mixing zone upstream of the intersection conflict area.

the implementation approach. On roadways with adequate width for reconfiguration or restriping, costs may be negligible when provided as part of routine overlay or repaving projects. Typical costs are $16,000 per mile for restriping.

A survey of separated bike lane users in the United States found the 60-80% of respondents agreed with the statement “I generally feel safe when bicycling through the intersections” when asked about intersections with mixing zone approaches.1

Typical yield lines cost $10 per square foot or $320 each. Typical shared lane markings cost $180 each.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

CRASH REDUCTION

F-91 1  NITC. Lessons from the Green Lanes. 2014.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

B A

ADA generally limits ramp slopes to 1:20

D

Overcrossing

C

D Undercrossing

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Grade Separated Crossings

F-92

INTERSECTION

I

MID-BLOCK

Grade-separated crossings provide critical non-motorized system links by joining areas separated by barriers such as railroads, waterways and highway corridors. In most cases, these structures are built in response to user demand for safe crossings where they previously did not exist. There are no minimum roadway characteristics for considering grade separation. Depending on the type of facility or the desired user group, grade separation may be considered in many types of projects.

TYPICAL APPLICATION â&#x20AC;˘ Where shared-use paths cross high-speed and high-volume roadways where an at-grade

DESIGN FEATURES A

signalized crossing is not feasible or desired, or where crossing railways or waterways.

Overcrossings should be at least 8 feet wide with 14 feet preferred and additional width provided at scenic viewpoints.

B

Railing height must be a minimum of 42 inches

C

Should be designed at minimum 10 feet height

for overcrossings.

and 14 feet width, with greater widths preferred for lengths over 60 feet.

D

Centerline stripe is recommended for gradeseparated facility.


Appendix F: Bikeway Intersection Treatments

Overcrossings

Undercrossings

Grade-separated crossings help people walking or biking cross barriers such as freeways, railroads, and rivers.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

• Overcrossings require a minimum of 17 feet of

Grade separated crossings, when used, eliminate

vertical clearance to the roadway below versus a

conflicts between users that would be present at at-

minimum elevation differential of around 12 feet

grade crossing locations.

elevation differences and much longer ramps for bicycles and pedestrians to negotiate. • Overcrossings for bicycles and pedestrians

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Costs will vary greatly based on site conditions, materials, etc. Overpasses have a range from $150 to

typically fall under the Americans with Disabilities

$250 per square foot or $1,073,000 to $5,366,000

Act (ADA), which strictly limits ramp slopes to 5%

per complete installation, depending on site

(1:20) with landings at 400 foot intervals, or 8.33%

conditions. Underpasses range from slightly less than

(1:12) with landings every 30 feet.

$1,609,000 to $10,733,000 in total or around $120

• Overcrossings pose potential concerns about visual impact and functional appeal, as well as space requirements necessary to meet ADA guidelines for slope. • To mitigate safety concerns, an undercrossing should be designed to be spacious, well-lit, equipped with emergency cell phones at each end and completely visible for its entire length from end to end.

per square foot. (PBIC).

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

for an undercrossing. This can result in greater

F-93


BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Appendix F: Context

F-94


BIKEWAY SIGNING AND AMENITIES

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

F AppendixAppendix F: Context

F-95


Appendix X: F: Bikeway Context Signing and Amenities

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Wayfinding Sign Placement

F-96

INTERSECTION

I

II

III

IV

MID-BLOCK

Above is a typical wayfinding sign placement scenario showing a decision sign (D) being located prior to an intersection of two bicycle facilities. A confirmation sign (C) is provided after the turn movement as well as periodically along the route to confirm for users that they are still on the intended facility.


Appendix F: Bikeway Signing and Amenities

Above: Current proposed standards for post mounted objects. Left: Limits of protruding objects. For more information on protruding objects and clearances, see 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Chapter 3, section 307.

As wayfinding systems often relate to accessible routes or pedestrian circulation, it is important to consider technical guidance from the ADA so that signs and other elements do not impede travel or create unsafe situations for pedestrians and/or those with disabilities. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board provides the following guidance for the design and placement of wayfinding guide signs: • Vertical Clearance: Shall be 80 inches mimimum,

more than 27 inches and not more than 80 inches

or 27 inches maximum when the signs protrude

above the existing grade shall protrude 4 inches

more than 12 inches from the sign post.

maximum horizontally into the circulation path.

• Post-Mounted Objects: Where a sign is mounted

• Required Clear Width: Protruding objects shall

between posts or pylons and the clear distance

not reduce the clear width required for accessible

between the posts is greater than 12 inches,

routes. Generally this requirement is met by

the lowest edge of the sign shall be 27 inches

maintaining four feet minimum clear width for

maximum or 80 inches minimum above the existing

maneuvering. This requirement applies to both

grade.

sidewalks and pedestrian circulation paths.

• Protruding Objects: Objects with leading edges

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Accessibility Standards

F-97


Appendix F: Bikeway Signing and Amenities

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

C

K

D

E

PASS

F G

A

H

3FT MIN

B

G J E

R4-11

R117 (CA) A

ENGLISH UNITS A B 24 5E 30 6E 36 7E

W11-1 with custom “ON ROADWAY” legend plaque

R117 (CA) C .5 .5 .625

D .625 .75 .875

E 2.75 3.25 4

F 4D 5D 6D

G 1.25 1.5 1.75

H 8.5 10.5 12.5

J 4C 5C 6C

K 1.5 1.875 2.25

Safety & Warning Signs COLORS: BORDER & LEGEND - BLACK BACKGROUND - WHITE

INTERSECTION

I

II

III

IV

MID-BLOCK

Signs may be used to raise awareness of the presence of bikes on the roadway 11/07/2014 beyond that of the conventional “Bike Route” sign. These signs are intended to reduce motor vehicle/bicyclist conflict and are appropriate to be placed on routes that lack paved shoulders or other bicycle facilities.

TYPICAL APPLICATION

DESIGN FEATURES

• In higher speed contexts, a bicycle warning sign

• Use with travel lanes less than 14 feet wide, which

(W11-1) paired with a legend plaque reading “ON BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

ROADWAY” may clarify to motor vehicle drivers to expect bicyclists. • In relatively dense areas, “Bikes May Use Full Lane” (BMUFL) (R4-11) signs encourage bicyclists to take the lane when the lane is too narrow. They typically work best when placed near activity centers such as schools, shopping centers and other destinations that attract bicycle traffic. • The “SHARE THE ROAD” (W16-1P) plaque is discouraged for use due to a lack of shared understanding among road users. • In California, the state-specific “PASS Bicycle (symbol) 3FT MIN” symbol (R117) can be used to remind motorists to provide adequate space when passing. F-98

are too narrow for safe passing within the lane. • Signs should be placed at regular intervals along routes with no designated bicycle facilities. • Dedicated bicycle facilities are recommended for roadways with speed limits above 35 mph where the need for bicycle access exists.


Appendix F: Bikeway Signing and Amenities

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CRASH REDUCTION

â&#x20AC;˘ Regulatory signage specific to bicycle and

Regulatory and warning signs as set forth in the

pedestrian travel are typically rectangular in shape

CAMUTCD, are designed to indicate the traffic laws

with a white background and a black border.

and regulations of the road and provide warning of

Bicycle and/or pedestrian warning signage is

specific roadway conditions to reduce the likelihood

yellow or fluorescent yellow-green with a black

of motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian-involved

border, and diamond -shaped. Consult CAMUTCD

crashes and injury.

Chapter 2 for more information regarding design,

â&#x20AC;˘ Monitor signs along bikeways for vandalism, graffiti, and normal wear and replace signs in the bikeway network as needed.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS The cost of a safety and warning sign needs depend on the scale and complexity of the approach. Signs and posts range from $200 to $1,000, including installation costs. Costs are further reduced if mounted on existing posts.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

size, placement of regulatory and warning signage.

F-99


Appendix F: Bikeway Signing and Amenities

A

HILLEGASS HILLEGASS - BOWDITCH

B AVE

Bike Route X

4200

Bike Route X

BICYCLE BOULEVARD

B

To Downtown To Downtown

Community Wayfinding Signs TYPICAL APPLICATION • Within a downtown or neighborhood district area

INTERSECTION

I

A

IV

MID-BLOCK

Community wayfinding guide signs may use

to provide a cohesive local wayfinding system to

background colors other than green in order to

road users, including pedestrians.

provide a color identification for the wayfinding destinations by geographical area within the overall wayfinding guide signing system, and

be used on a regional or statewide basis. For

per MUTCD guidance, 70% contrast must be

wayfinding systems at these scales, standard

maintained between the sign lettering and

MUTCD wayfinding signs should be used. • These informational guide signs shall not be installed on freeway or expressway mainlines or ramps. BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

III

DESIGN FEATURES

• Community wayfinding guide signs should not

F-100

II

background color.

B

Other graphics that specifically identify the wayfinding system, including enhancement markers, may be used on the sign assembly and sign supports. Up to 20% of the sign blade may be used for identity graphics and logos.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS The standard colors of red, orange, yellow, purple, or

mounting structures, colors, and/or an identifying

the fluorescent versions thereof shall not be used as

enhancement marker. Section 2D.50 of the MUTCD

background colors for community wayfinding guide

describes standards for Community Wayfinding.

signs, as these colors are reserved for other specific sign types (e.g. advisory and regulatory signs).

The spectrum on the following page shows a range of wayfinding elements that have been implemented

While community wayfinding signs are allow more

by municipalities around the nation. The range

flexibility than standard wayfinding signs, the use

extends from more rigid adherence MUTCD to those

of federal funds is more likely to be approved when

having a more flexible interpretation.

the MUTCD is more closely followed. Options for adhering to the MUTCD include adding unique

Refer to chapter 9 of the MUTCD for more information on guide sign standards for bicycle facilities.


Appendix F: Bikeway Signing and Amenities

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

F-101


F-102

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX


BIKE PARKING

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

F AppendixAppendix F: Context

F-103


Appendix F: Bike Parking

Bike Parking Treatments

INTERSECTION MID-BLOCK

SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING Short-term bicycle parking is for use by shoppers, customers, messengers, and other visitors by providing a convenient and readily accessible place to park their bicycles for less than roughly two (2) hours. Short-term bicycle parking shall serve the main entrance of a building and be visible to pedestrians and bicyclists, with the goal of providing such parking at each principal building entrance. A. Short-term bicycle parking located on the project site shall be: • Visible from the public right-of-way, • Within 50 feet of a main building entrance, • At the same grade as the adjacent right-of-way or accessible along a clear path of travel with an ADA compliant grade and a minimum width of six feet

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

B. Short-term bicycle parking located in the public right-of-way shall be: • Within 50 feet of a main building entrance, • Approved by the Traffic Engineer, • In compliance with the minimum layout requirements contained within this document

LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING Long-term bicycle parking serves employees, students, residents, commuters, customers and others who need a secure location to park a bicycle for a longer duration. Long-term bicycle parking provides a secure and weather-protected place to park bicycles for more than roughly two (2) hours on the project site. A. Long-term bicycle parking shall be: • Accessible only to the intended users of the parking • Covered such that bicycles are fully protected from inclement weather

F-104


Appendix F: Bike Parking

BIKE PARKING RACK GUIDELINES • The rack type must be a City of Berkeley approved style of rack or an artistic rack (subject to approval). • The bicycle frame and one wheel can be locked to the rack with a high security, U-shaped shackle lock if both wheels are left on the bicycle. • A bicycle six feet long can be securely held with its frame supported in two locations so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall in a manner that will damage the wheels or components. • The rack must be securely anchored.

SIGNS Bicycle parking signs must be provided in the following circumstances: • If required bicycle parking is not visible from the street or main building entrance, a sign must be posted at the main building entrance indicating the location of the bicycle parking. • Signs Along Path of Travel. If the parking is located more than 150 feet from the entrance, signs shall be placed on the street or nearest bikeway guiding the user to the bicycle parking.

PARKING AND MANEUVERING • Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle. • The area devoted to bicycle parking must be hard surfaced: concrete, asphalt, decomposed granite, or equivalents. Short-term parking shall be located: Outside of the building, unless the minimum, or portion thereof, amount of bicycle parking requirement can provided indoors. If all or a portion of the minimum parking requirement is met indoors, the parking should be visible from the building entrance and accessible along a clear path of travel wide enough to walk a bicycle

FACILITY DESIGN The City recommends that the lot coverage conditions of the project site dictate the type of long-term parking strategy. For instance, parcels with relatively high lot coverage (>85%) should provide long-term parking indoors, via a secure bike room or cage (if indoor or basement space is available). Parcels with lower lot coverage (<85%) can provide exterior long-term parking in the form of bike lockers or a sheltered, secure bicycle cage.

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

free of conflicts with other users.

F-105


Appendix F: Bike Parking

BIKE RACK STYLES Racks installed on City ROW shall be of one of three styles:

Inverted U style • Racks shall be constructed of 2”x2”x.188” wall square pipe, galvanized or stainless steel. • Racks shall be 32” tall by 30” wide. • Flanges for surface mounted racks must be 3/8” thick and drilled with 9/16” holes to admit 1/2” fasteners. • For installation of multiple racks side-by-side, Rail Mounted Inverted U racks can be used. • The capacity of each inverted U rack is two bicycles, locked parallel to the rack.

Circle style • Racks shall be constructed of 2”x2”x.188” wall square pipe, galvanized or stainless steel. • Racks shall be 32.375” tall. • Flanges for surface mounted racks must be 3/8” thick and drilled with 9/16” holes to admit 1/2” fasteners. • The capacity of each circle rack is two bicycles, locked parallel to the rack.

Post-and-Ring style • Racks consist of two components: a vertical pipe sleeve and two halfcircle locking loop elements welded to either side of the sleeve. »» The vertical sleeve shall be constructed of 2 1/2” I.D. Schedule 40 pipe. »» The half-circle locking loops shall be constructed of 2”x2”x.188” wall square pipe. »» All materials galvanized or stainless steel. • Racks shall be 37 3/8” tall or as specified by City to fit height of existing parking meter poles. • Locking loop elements shall be 18” tall an d 8” wide, attached at a height of 12” from the bottom of the BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

sleeve, measured to the bottom edge of locking loop.

F-106

• Sleeve must be drilled with hole for 3/8” security bolt to affix rack to existing parking meter pole. • The capacity of each post-and-ring rack is two bicycles, locked parallel to the locking loops.

MOUNTING • Inverted U and Circle racks installed on concrete should be surface flange mount style. • Fasteners for use in flange mounting must be 1/2” x 3” mushroom head stainless steel. • Powers spike, or equivalent (manufacturer information attached). • Post-and-Ring style racks are sleeved onto existing parking meter poles and secured using a fastening wedge and 3/8” mushroom head stainless steel bolt with security nut in top of rack.


City of Berkeley Bicycle Parkin City of Berkeley Bicycle Parking City of Berkeley Bicycle Parkin Guidelines & Specificatio Design GuidelinesDesign & Specifications Design Guidelines & Specificatio Appendix F: Bike Parking

City ofRack Berkeley Bicycle Parking Short-Term Parking: Rack Short-Term Parking: Element Short-Term Rack Element Element Design GuidelinesParking: & Specifications

Short-Term Parking Short-Term Parking: Rack Element The rack should: • Support the bicycle upright by its frame in two places. • Prevent the wheel of the bicycle from tipping over.

City of Berkeley • Enable the frame and one or both wheels to be secured.

Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines & Specifications

• Support bicycles without a diamond-shaped frame with

Short-Term Parking: Rack Element

a horizontal top tube (e.g. a mixte frame).

• Allow front-in parking; a U-lock should be able to lock

eley Bicycle Parking the front wheel and the down tube of an upright bicycle. ines & Specifications • Allow back-in parking; a U-lock should

ack Element be able to lock the rear wheel and seat tube of the bicycle. Comb, Toast, School-yard, and other wheel bending racks that provide no support for the bicycle frame are NOT recommended. The rack should resist being cut or detached using

Inverted “U”

common hand tools, especially those that can be concealed in a backpack. Such tools include bolt cutters,

Post and Loop

Comb

Wave

Toast

One rack element is a vertical segment of the rack

One rack element holds one wheel of a bike

DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

pipe cutters, wrenches, and pry bars.

F-107

DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE DISCUSSION ONLY DRAFT - DOPURPOSES NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY


Appendix F: Bike Parking City of Berkeley Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines & Specifications These examples assume the parking is located no more than FIFTY FEET from the main is visible from is the sidewalk OR indicated signage. Theseentrance examplesand assume the parking located no more than FIFTY with FEET clear from the main entrance and is visible from the sidewalk OR indicated with clear signage.

Subject Property Bicycle Racks Property Line Sidewalk Curb

OK

Subject Property

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Bicycle Racks

F-108

Property Line Sidewalk Curb

OK DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY


Appendix F: Bike Parking City of Berkeley Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines & Specifications These examples assume the parking is located no more than FIFTY FEET from the main is visible from is the sidewalk OR indicated signage. Theseentrance examplesand assume the parking located no more than FIFTY with FEET clear from the main entrance and is visible from the sidewalk OR indicated with clear signage.

Bicycle Racks Subject Property

Property Line Sidewalk

OK

Curb

Bicycle Racks Property Line Sidewalk Curb

OK DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Subject Property

F-109


Appendix F: Bike Parking

PLACEMENT, ORIENTATION, AND CLEARANCE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OFWAY • Racks are designed to accommodate bikes parked parallel to the rack, resting against one or both upright members. • Typically the City does not allow installation of racks on sidewalks narrower than 10’ in width. • On sidewalks 10’-14’ in width, racks should be installed parallel to the curb so as to minimize needlessly taking up sidewalk space. • On sidewalks 14’ or wider or where racks are placed in the roadway, racks can be placed perpendicular to the curb. • Multiple individual racks installed parallel to the curb, end to end, must be separated by a minimum of 48”. 72” is preferred. • Multiple racks placed perpendicular to the curb, side-by-side, must be separated by a minimum of 36”, 48” is preferred. • Racks must be oriented such that they do not interfere with pedestrian path of travel on the sidewalk, yet are not so close to the curb that the rack can be inadvertently hit by the overhang of a car as it parks. • Check for any sidewalk utility boxes (such as water or sewer) that need to be accessed. • Check for any vaulted sidewalks such as over building basements, utility vaults and transit stations. • Make sure that the racks posts are not in conflict with rain water leaders or drain lines under the sidewalk • Do not locate racks where they interfere with opening car doors and persons exiting from vehicles parked at the curb • There should be a minimum of 5 1/2’ clear for pedestrian right-of-way outside the footprint; 7’ in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic. • Rack should be located a minimum of: »» 24” from: the curb

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

»» 36-48” from: Newspaper Racks, Mailbox, Light Pole, Sign Pole, Bus Shelter, Driveway, Surface Hardware

F-110

(PG&E, Cable grates, etc.), Street Furniture, Standpipes, Bus Benches, Trash Cans, Other sidewalk obstructions »» 4’ from: AC Transit Red Zone, Loading Zone, Blue Zone (disabled parking), Curb/Curb ramps, Crosswalk, BART entrance »» 5’ from: Fire Hydrant


Appendix F: Bike Parking

City of Berkeley Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines & Specifications

30"

Surface Mounted Single Inverted Surface Mounted Single Inverted U U Height:32” 32” Height: Width: 30”

Width: 30” 32"

Flanges: 5” x 6” x 3/8”

Flanges: 5” x 6” x 3/8” Mounting Holes: (6) 9/16” dia.

Mounting Holes: (6) 9/16” dia.

Square Tubes: 2” x 2” x .188” wall

Square Tube: 2” x 2” x .188” wall Finish: Hot-dipped Galvanized

30"

Sub-Surface Mounted Single Inverted U Height: 42”

Sub-Surface Mounted Single Inverted U Width: 30”

Height: 42”

Square Tubes: 2” x 2” x .188” wall

32" 42"

Width: 30” Finish: Hot-dipped Galvanized Square Tube: 2” x 2” x .188” wall

ground level

Finish: Hot-dipped Galvanized

DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Finish: Hot-dipped Galvanized

F-111


Appendix F: Bike Parking

CITY OF BERKELEY RAIL MOUNTED INVERTED U RACK SPECIFICATIONS City of Berkeley Bicycle Rack Specifications Rail Mounted Inverted U September 2008

Front View

36"

Top Views

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Triple

F-112

Quadruple


Appendix F: Bike Parking

CITY OF BERKELEY SURFACE MOUNTED SINGULAR CIRCULAR RACK SPECIFICATIONS

Surface Mounted Single Circular Rack Height: 32.375”

Flanges: 5” x 6” x 3/8” Mounting Holes: (4) 9/16” dia. Mounting Bolts: 1/2” x 3.75” Wedge Anchor Bolt, or 1/2” x 3.75” Anchor Rawl Spike Hoop: 2” x 2” x0.188” Square tube Finish: Hot-dipped Galvanized (-G), Powder-coated (-P), Stainless #4 Brush Finish (-SS)

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Width: 36”

F-113


Appendix F: Bike Parking

CITY OF BERKELEY POST-AND-RING RACK Bike SPECIFICATIONS City of Berkeley Post-and-Ring Rack Specifications DRAFT February, 2006

3/8" Cap and 3/8" x 3" Internal Wedge (see cutaway detail)

Hole for 3/8" Bolt

3 3/4" 7" 8"

Additional notes: - Finish: hot-dip galvanized - Orientation: ring parallel to curb - Mounting: rack fits over standard parking meter post with City-supplied post flange

z

37 3/8"

18"

2" x 2" x .188" Wall Square Tubing

12"

2 1/2" I.D. Schedule 40 Pipe

Open Bottom

Cutaway Detail: Fastening Wedge and Bolt with Security Nut in Top of Rack

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Front View

F-114

3 3/4"

Side View

3"

3/8" Flatbar Wedge

3/8" Mushroom Head Stainless Steel Bolt with Security Nut


Appendix F: Bike Parking

D)

SPIKE® BASE MATERIAL

Concrete, Block, Brick, Stone .

SIZE RANGE

3/16" x 1" to 1/2" x 6-1/2" ANCHOR MATERIAL

4

Carbon Steel and Type 316 Stainless Steel

8 2 0

e

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION The SPIKE is a patented, one-piece, vibration resistant anchor for use in concrete, block, brick, or stone. Several head styles and anchor materials are available. Some sizes are tamperproof and others are removable. The pre-expanded mechanism of the SPIKE anchor is activated as the anchor is driven into the drilled hole creating a spring type compression force against the walls of the hole.

Mushroom Head SPIKE®

Flat Head SPIKE®

This page intentionally left blank

Pipe SPIKE®

Tie-Wire SPIKE® Forming SPIKE®

Once seated at the required embedment, residual spring force developed in the expansion mechanism provides three compression forces at the bottom of the anchor hole. When a vibratory load is applied to some other anchor types, the area of the base material around the expansion mechanism may experience localized pulverization at the point of contact. The SPIKE has been designed to overcome this problem. When subjected to vibratory loads, the SPIKE will expand due to the residual spring action of the expansion mechanism if localized pulverization occurs.

SPIKE is a proprietary anchor that can be used in applications that traditionally have been addressed by wedge and sleeve type expansion anchors, drop-in

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

s

F-115


Appendix F: Bike Parking

style anchors and concrete screws. Use of the SPIKE anchor reduces installation time. Since the anchor is pre-expanded, there is no secondary tightening or expanding operation required which greatly reduces the overall cost of an anchor installation.

INSTALLATION PROCEDURES Drill a hole into the base material to a depth of at least 1/2" deeper than the embedment required. The tolerances of the drill bit used should meet the requirements of ANSI Standard B212.15. Blow the hole clean of dust and other material.

Where a fixture is used, drive the anchor through the fixture into the anchor hole until the head is firmly seated against the fixture. Be sure the anchor is driven to the required embedment depth. The Tie-Wire and BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Pipe SPIKE versions should be driven in

F-116

until the head is seated against the surface of the base material.

ANCHOR SIZES AND STYLES To select the proper minimum anchor length, determine the embedment depth required to obtain the desired load capacity. Then add the thickness of the fixture, including any spacers or shims, to the embedment depth. On the TieWire and Pipe SPIKE versions, no fixture is used. These anchors should be driven in until the head is seated against the surface of the base material.


Appendix F: Bike Parking

LONG-TERM PARKING STANDARDS Covered Spaces 100 percent of required long-term bicycle parking must be covered and meet the following standards: Covered bicycle parking shall be located: »» Inside a structure, »» Under a roof overhang or awning, »» In bicycle lockers, or »» Within or under other structures. If covered bicycle parking is not within a building or locker, the cover must be: »» Permanent (and constructed of durable, waterproof materials) »» Designed to protect the bicycle from rainfall and inclement weather; and »» At least 7 feet above the floor or ground.

Access No fee shall be charged for long-term residential bicycle parking. Long-term bicycle parking must be provided in racks or lockers that meet the standards of the City of Berkeley Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines & Specifications.

Visibility The location of long-term bicycle parking must be clearly posted and marked at locations in which users will access said parking.

Security The following guidelines must be followed when determine a suitable location for long-term bicycle parking. To provide security, long-term bicycle parking must in one of the following locations:

»» In an area that is enclosed by a fence with a locked gate (such as a residential courtyard) The fence must be at least 8 feet high and secured overhead, or be floor-to-ceiling. The gate door must be self-closing. To provide additional security, it is required that long-term bicycle parking have active or passive surveillance. This requirement may be met by one (1) of the following conditions: »» Within view of an attendant or security guard; »» In an area that is monitored by a security camera; »» In an area that is visible from employee work areas, or »» In an area that receives significant customer, resident, or employee traffic

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

»» In a locked room accessible only to building users, or;

F-117


Appendix F: Bike Parking City of Berkeley Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines & Specifications

LONG-TERM PARKING: LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONS

Long-Term Parking: Layout and Dimensions

• Lockers: Minimum 72” from walls, minimum 84” aisles

‹Lockers: Minimum 72” from walls, minimum 84” aisles ‹Interior U-racks: Minimum 36” from rack to wall, minimum 48” aisle, recommended 48” between racks

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

• Interior U-racks: Minimum 36” from rack to wall, minimum 48” aisle, recommended 48” between racks

F-118

DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY


Appendix F: Bike Parking

HORIZONTAL, TWO-TIERED PARKING RACK Lift-assist top tray, modular/stacking • Recommended accessCity aisle ofof 60”, Berkeley minimum accessBicycle aisle of 48”.

Parking Design Guidelines & Specifications

• Each unit requires 80” of depth.

Dero Decker

• Minimum ceiling height of 108”.

Horizontal, TwoTiered Parking Rack Lift-assist top tray, modular/stacking

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

‹Each unit requires 80” of depth. ‹Minimum ceiling height of 108”. ‹Recommended access aisle of 60”, minimum access aisle of 48”.

DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

F-119


Appendix F: Bike Parking City of Berkeley Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines & Specifications

HORIZONTAL, PARKING RACK NON-LIFT ASSIST Palmer TWO-TIERED Double Decker

Horizontal, Two-Tiered Parking Rack Non-lift assist

Minimum aisle width of 54”, recommended width of 60”.

Minimum aisle width of 54”, recommended width of 60”. NOTE: Side views illustrate minimum values of A1 and A2

c 1 Aisle Single Loaded : 4.5” [114 mm] (Enables front wheels to interlace)

W

A1

W = Wall clearance Minimum 10” [250 cm]

102” [2.59 m] minimum

W

E

d 1 Aisle Double Loaded

E

E + B

Rack B

Rack

E

Rack

No clearance needed between adjacent racks

W

E = End clearance Minimum 7” [170 cm] at end of run

W

A2

DoubleDecker™ Room Widths

e 1 Aisle Double Loaded, 1 Aisle Single Loaded BACK TO BACK

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

W

F-120

A1

A2

Aisle

Minimum

Optimal

A1

54” [1.4 m]

60” [1.5 m] 72” [1.8 m]

A2

60” [1.5 m]

Layout

Minimum

Optimal

1

112” (9’-4”) [2.84 m]

124” (10’-4”) [3.15 m]

2

188” (15’-8”) [4.78 m]

200” (16’-8”) [5.08 m]

3

280” (23’-4”) [7.11 m]

304” (25’-4”) [7.72 m]

4

356” (29’-8”) [9.04 m]

380” (31’-8”) [9.65 m]

f 2 Aisles, Double Loaded BACK TO BACK

W

A2

A2

W

DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY


Appendix F: Bike Parking

VERTICAL, STAGGERED RACK MOUNTING SYSTEM

City of Berkeley Bicycle Parking

â&#x20AC;˘ Recommended rack spacing of 16â&#x20AC;? with vertical stagger of Design Guidelines & 10â&#x20AC;? Specifications

Palmer VertiRack II

â&#x20AC;˘ Allow one foot minimum between wall and rack

Vertical, staggered rack mounting system

â&#x20AC;˘ Minimum floor to ceiling distance of 88â&#x20AC;?, minimum depth of 42â&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;˘ Sheetrock walls will generally need plywood backing Â&#x2039; Recommended racka spacing of 16â&#x20AC;?

with vertical stagger of 10â&#x20AC;? Â&#x2039; Allow one foot minimum between wall and rack Â&#x2039; 4PUPT\TĂ&#x2026;VVY[VJLPSPUNKPZ[HUJLVMšTPUPT\TKLW[OVMš Â&#x2039; Sheetrock walls will generally need a plywood backing 16" min.

14" min.

Wall / Corner

72" min.

82" min.

16" min.

82" min.

16" min.

72" min.

Wall / Corner

14" min.

Ground Level 2.00"

15.00"

1.00" 0.75"

3.75"

3.75"

48.00"

.75" 0 Bar

.62" DIA

25.50"

19.00"

4.00"

.375" 2.00" Flat Bar

0.38"

Model Number VR201

2.00"

DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

25.00"

.75" 0 Bar

F-121


Appendix F: Bike Parking City of Berkeley Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines & Specifications

VERTICAL, MODULAR STAGGERED RACK MOUNTING SYSTEM

Dero Ultra Space Saver

â&#x20AC;˘ Can be wall mount, floor mount (freestanding) or double-sided

Vertical, modular staggered rack mounting system

â&#x20AC;˘ Minimum depth of 40â&#x20AC;?

Â&#x2039;*HUIL^HSSTV\U[Ă&#x2026;VVYTV\U[MYLLZ[HUKPUNVYKV\ISLZPKLK Â&#x2039;Minimum depth of 40â&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;˘ Bicycle spacing either 16â&#x20AC;? or 13â&#x20AC;? Â&#x2039;Minimum ceiling height of 88â&#x20AC;? Â&#x2039;Bicycle spacing either 16â&#x20AC;? or 13â&#x20AC;?

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

â&#x20AC;˘ Minimum ceiling height of 88â&#x20AC;?

F-122

DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY


Appendix F: Bike Parking

LONG-TERM PARKING: LOCKERS City of Berkeley Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines & Specifications

Long-Term Parking: Lockers E-Locker

800 HEINZ AVE, #11 BERKELEY, CA 94710 510 549.2853 FAX 510 549.9157 INFO@BIKELINK.ORG

RECTANGULAR

2 spaces, 2 Electronic Controllers best for limited clearance situations

51”

80”

Both doors hinge from same side to make getting your bike in and out easier when locker is placed against a wall.

39”

QUAD 4 spaces, 2 Electronic Controllers lowest cost per space

Save locker costs & simplify direct power supply by grouping quads.

29”

80”

51” 46.5”

WEDGE

Each wedge has 2 spaces served by 1 Electronic Controller best when open visibility and free traffic flow are important

Wedge units are designed to be placed against a wall, in a corner, or arranged as a full circle.

replacement.

16’-4”

51”

DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE, ALTER, REPRODUCE, OR ATTRIBUTE DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

74.5”

F-123


BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

Appendix F: Bike Parking

F-124


Appendix F: Bike Parking

Minimum Bike Parking Requirements Uses listed below shall meet the district minimum bike parking requirement of two long term spaces and two short term spaces, unless otherwise stated in the table. In all cases, the greater of the requirements shall apply. No bike parking is required for uses not specified in this table. Applicants are encouraged to provide more bike parking than the minimums specified below. NOTE: For mixed-use buildings, bike parking shall be required for each use.

USE

LONG-TERM PARKING

SHORT-TERM PARKING

REQUIREMENT

REQUIREMENT

General Commercial (retail sales, personal 1, or 1 per 10,000 square feet of gross

2, or 1 per 2,000 square

floor area

feet of gross floor area

Community and Institutional Uses

1, or 1 per 10,000 square feet of gross

2, or 1 per 15,000 square

and Lodging, except schools and

floor area

feet of gross floor area

1, or 4 spaces per classroom, or 1 per

2, or 2 spaces per

five students, or 1 per 2,500 square

classroom, or 1 per

feet

3,500 square feet of

household services, food and alcohol service)

entertainment and assembly uses Schools, Public or Private

gross floor area Daycare or Child Care Centers

1, or 1 space per 25 students, or one

2, or 1 space per 25

per 6,000 square feet of gross floor

students, or 1 per 6,000

area

square feet of gross floor area

Office Uses

2, or 1 space per 2,500 square feet of

2, or 1 space per 10,000

gross floor area

square feet of gross floor area

Industrial, Manufacturing and Wholesale

1, or 1 space per 30,000 square feet of

Trade

gross floor area

Dwelling Units (fewer than four) and

No Spaces Required

No Spaces Required

1 space per three bedrooms

2, or 1 space per 40

Accessory Dwelling Units Dwelling Units (five or more)

bedrooms Group Living Accommodations

2, or 1 space per 2.5 bedrooms

2, or 1 space per 20 bedrooms

(Dormitories, Fraternity and Sorority Houses, Rooming and Boarding Houses, Transitional Housing) Nursing Homes and Senior Congregate

1, or 1 space per 10 bedrooms

Housing Live/Work Units

2, or 1 space per 30 bedrooms

No Spaces Required

2, or 1 space per 5 units

BERKELEY BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN TOOLBOX

No Spaces Required

F-125


CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX G

G-1


FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX G.

Berkeley Market for Bicycling Survey Results

Berkeley Market For Bicycling â&#x20AC;¦ Survey Results Question

01

A paved path separate from the street such as the Bay Trail or Ohlone Greenway. (Mandatory)

0%

40%

80%

Answers

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Very comfortable

522

79%

Somewhat comfortable

116

18%

14

2%

8

1%

Somewhat uncomfortable Very uncomfortable

Answers

Question

02

A quiet, residential street with light traffic and slow-moving cars. (Mandatory)

0%

30%

60%

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Very comfortable

392

59%

Somewhat comfortable

215

33%

48

7%

5

1%

Somewhat uncomfortable Very uncomfortable

Question

03

What if that street also had Bicycle Boulevard markings, speed humps, and other things that slow down and discourage car traffic? (Mandatory)

0%

660

0

100%

0%

PERCENT

Very comfortable

377

57%

Somewhat comfortable

206

31%

Somewhat uncomfortable

65

10%

Very uncomfortable

12

2%

04

58%

Skips

COUNT

Question

29%

Answers

A two-lane neighborhood commercial shopping street with faster, busier traffic , on- street car parking, and no bike lane. (Mandatory)

0%

21%

42%

Answers

Skips

660

0

G-1 0%

100%

COUNT

PERCENT


Very comfortable

377

57%

Somewhat comfortable

206

31%

65

Somewhat uncomfortable

12

Very uncomfortable

Question

04

A two-lane neighborhood commercial shopping street with faster, busier traffic , on- street car parking, and no bike lane. (Mandatory)

0%

21%

42%

2%

Answers

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Very uncomfortable

271

41%

Somewhat uncomfortable

264

40%

Somewhat comfortable

89

13%

Very comfortable

36

5%

Answers

Question

05

What if bike markings (“Sharrows”) were added? (Mandatory)

0%

20%

40%

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat uncomfortable

259

39%

Somewhat comfortable

232

35%

Very comfortable

93

14%

Very uncomfortable

76

12%

Answers

Question

06

What if a bike lane was added? (Mandatory)

0%

22%

44%

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Very comfortable

287

43%

Somewhat comfortable

276

42%

Somewhat uncomfortable

84

13%

Very uncomfortable

13

2%

Answers

Question

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

10%

FINAL PLAN

07

What if a buffered bike lane was added? (Mandatory)

0%

34.5%

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Very comfortable

454

69%

Somewhat comfortable

168

25%

30

5%

8

1%

Somewhat uncomfortable Very uncomfortable

69%

Skips

G-2

Question

What if a wide bike lane separated from traffic by a curb or parked cars was

Answers

Skips


Very comfortable

454

69%

Somewhat comfortable

168

25%

30

5%

8

1%

Somewhat uncomfortable

FINAL PLAN

Very uncomfortable

Question

08

Answers

What if a wide bike lane separated from traffic by a curb or parked cars was added? (Mandatory)

0%

46%

92%

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

607

92%

43

7%

Somewhat uncomfortable

8

1%

Very uncomfortable

2

0%

Very comfortable Somewhat comfortable

Question

09

A major street with four lanes, on-street parking, faster, heavier traffic including buses and trucks, and no bike lane. (Mandatory)

0%

29.5%

59%

Answers

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Very uncomfortable

383

58%

Somewhat uncomfortable

181

27%

Somewhat comfortable

71

11%

Very comfortable

25

4%

Answers

Question

10

What if a bike lane was added? (Mandatory)

0%

19%

38%

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat comfortable

248

38%

Somewhat uncomfortable

228

35%

Very comfortable

127

19%

57

9%

Very uncomfortable

Answers

Question

11

What if a buffered bike lane was added? (Mandatory)

0%

24%

48%

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Very comfortable

313

47%

Somewhat comfortable

250

38%

Somewhat uncomfortable

80

12%

Very uncomfortable

17

3% G-3

Question

What if a wide bike lane separated from traffic by a curb or parked cars was

Answers

Skips


Very comfortable

313

47%

Somewhat comfortable

250

38%

80

Somewhat uncomfortable

17

Very uncomfortable

Question

12

0

100%

0%

Very comfortable

524

79%

Somewhat comfortable

100

15%

Somewhat uncomfortable

26

4%

Very uncomfortable

10

2%

A major street with two lanes in each direction, a center divider, on-street parking, faster, heavier traffic including buses and trucks, and no bike lane. (Mandatory)

0%

23%

46%

Answers

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Very uncomfortable

297

45%

Somewhat uncomfortable

218

33%

Somewhat comfortable

96

15%

Very comfortable

49

7%

Answers

Question

14

What if a striped bike lane was added? (Mandatory)

0%

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

660 PERCENT

13

80%

Skips

COUNT

Question

40%

3%

Answers

What if a wide bike lane separated from traffic by a curb or parked cars was added? (Mandatory)

0%

12%

FINAL PLAN

20.5%

41%

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat uncomfortable

269

41%

Somewhat comfortable

212

32%

Very uncomfortable

91

14%

Very comfortable

88

13%

Answers

Question

15

What if a buffered bike lane was added? (Mandatory)

0%

22%

44%

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Very comfortable

286

43%

Somewhat comfortable

278

42%

Somewhat uncomfortable

77

12%

Very uncomfortable

19

3%

G-4

Question

What if a wide bike lane separated from traffic by a curb or parked cars was

Answers

Skips


Very comfortable

286

43%

Somewhat comfortable

278

42%

77

12%

19

3%

Somewhat uncomfortable

FINAL PLAN

Very uncomfortable

Question

16

Answers

What if a wide bike lane separated from traffic by a curb or parked cars was added? (Mandatory)

0%

42%

84%

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

550

83%

96

15%

Somewhat uncomfortable

7

1%

Very uncomfortable

7

1%

Very comfortable Somewhat comfortable

PAGE 3

Question

17

Answers

Do you agree or disagree (strongly/somewhat) with the statement, “I would like to travel by bike for my daily commute, errands, and other activities more than I do now.” (Mandatory) 0%

25%

50%

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

Strongly agree

329

50%

Somewhat agree

231

35%

Somewhat disagree

68

10%

Strongly disagree

32

5%

PAGE 4

Answers

Question

18

Over the past month about how many days did you bike? (Mandatory)

0%

11%

22%

Skips

660

0

100%

0%

COUNT

PERCENT

I didn't bike at all over the past month.

140

21%

1-5 days

111

17%

I never ride a bike.

107

16%

25-30 days

83

13%

5-10 days

68

10%

10-15 days

60

9%

20-25 days

52

8%

15-20 days

39

6%

PAGE 5

Question

19

Are you physically able to ride a bike?

Answers

Skips

69

591 90% G-5

10%

0%

38%

76%

COUNT

PERCENT


20-25 days

52

8%

15-20 days

39

6%

FINAL PLAN PAGE 5

Question

19

Answers

Skips

69

591

10%

90%

Are you physically able to ride a bike?

0%

38%

76%

COUNT

PERCENT

Yes

52

75%

No

17

25%

PAGE 6

Question

20

Of those days about how many days did you ride a bike to work? (Mandatory)

0%

14%

Answers

Skips

413

247

63%

37%

28%

COUNT

PERCENT

113

27%

Not applicable (I don't work, I work from home, etc)

84

20%

1-5

54

13%

20-25

41

10%

25-30

31

8%

5-10

30

7%

10-15

30

7%

15-20

30

7%

I didn't ride my bike to work over the past month.

Question

21

Of those days about how many days did you ride a bike to school? (Mandatory)

0%

27%

Answers

Skips

413

247

63%

37%

54%

COUNT

PERCENT

220

53%

I didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ride my bike to school over the past month.

79

19%

1-5

29

7%

10-15

22

5%

20-25

19

5%

25-30

19

5%

5-10

18

4%

7

2%

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Not applicable (I'm not a student, I'm taking a break from school, etc)

G-6

15-20

Question

22

Of those days over the past month about how many days did you ride a bike to shop, dine out, run errands, visit people, go to a movie, or similar activities? (Mandatory) 0%

18.5%

Answers

Skips

413

247

63%

37%

37%

COUNT

PERCENT


20-25

19

5%

25-30

19

5%

5-10

18

4%

7

2%

FINAL PLAN 15-20

Question

22

Of those days over the past month about how many days did you ride a bike to shop, dine out, run errands, visit people, go to a movie, or similar activities? (Mandatory) 0%

18.5%

Answers

Skips

413

247

63%

37%

37%

COUNT

PERCENT

152

37%

5-10 days

92

22%

10-15 days

49

12%

34

8%

15-20 days

31

8%

25-30 days

29

7%

20-25 days

26

6%

1-5 days

I didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ride my bike to shop, dine out, run errands, visit people, etc, over the past month.

PAGE 7

Question

23

Do you bike for commuting or other transportation (to visit friends, run errands, dine out, etc.) at least once in a typical week? (Mandatory)

0%

42%

84%

Answers

Skips

140

520

21%

79%

COUNT

PERCENT

No

117

84%

Yes

23

16%

PAGE 8

Question

24

In a typical summer month from May through October, how many days do you ride a bicycle for commuting or other transportation (to visit friends, run errands, dine out, etc.)? (Mandatory) 0%

9.5%

Answers

Skips

436

224

66%

34%

19%

COUNT

PERCENT

5-10 days

81

19%

10-15 days

74

17%

15-20 days

70

16%

25-30 days

69

16%

20-25 days

56

13%

1-5 days

54

12%

32

7%

I generally donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ride a bike for commuting or transportation in the summer.

Question

25

In a typical winter month from November through April, how many days do you ride a bicycle for commuting or other transportation? (Mandatory)

0%

10.5%

Answers

Skips

436

224

66%

21%

COUNT

34% G-7 PERCENT


20-25 days

56

13%

1-5 days

54

12%

FINAL 32 PLAN 7%

I generally don’t ride a bike for commuting or transportation in the summer.

Question

25

In a typical winter month from November through April, how many days do you ride a bicycle for commuting or other transportation? (Mandatory)

0%

10.5%

Answers

Skips

436

224

66%

34%

21%

COUNT

PERCENT

1-5 days

88

20%

5-10 days

84

19%

10-15 days

65

15%

15-20 days

53

12%

50

11%

25-30 days

50

11%

20-25 days

46

11%

I generally don't ride a bike for commuting or transportation in the winter.

Question

26

About how long have you been bicycling for commuting or other transportation? (Mandatory)

0%

28.5%

57%

Answers

Skips

436

224

66%

34%

COUNT

PERCENT

More than 5 years.

248

57%

Between 1 and 5 years.

114

26%

Less than 6 months.

44

10%

Between 6 months and a year.

30

7%

PAGE 9

Question

27

Do you ever use a cargo bike? (Mandatory)

0%

42.5%

85%

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Skips

436

224

66%

34%

COUNT

PERCENT

368

84%

Yes - Own

47

11%

Yes - Borrowed

21

5%

No

Question

28

Do you ever transport children (either your own or others’) by bike? (Mandatory)

0%

G-8

Answers

40%

80%

Answers

Skips

436

224

66%

34%

COUNT

PERCENT

No

347

80%

Yes

89

20%


0%

42.5%

85%

COUNT

PERCENT

368

84%

47

11%

21

5%

No Yes - Own

FINAL PLAN Yes - Borrowed

Question

28

Do you ever transport children (either your own or othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) by bike? (Mandatory)

0%

40%

80%

Answers

Skips

436

224

66%

34%

COUNT

PERCENT

No

347

80%

Yes

89

20%

PAGE 10

Question

29

When you were under the age of 16, how often did you ride your bike to school? (Mandatory)

0%

21.5%

43%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Never

271

42%

Occasionally

203

32%

Frequently

169

26%

PAGE 11

Question

30

What city-sponsored bike events or services have you participated in or used, at anytime in the past? (Mandatory)

0%

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

None of the above

405

54%

Bike to Work Day

155

21%

Berkeley Sunday Streets

109

14%

Free bike map give-aways

52

7%

Bicycle rodeos or safety trainings

20

3%

Other Option

14

2%

31

54%

Skips

643 COUNT

Question

27%

Answers

Bay Area Bike Share is coming to Berkeley in 2016. What would you use Bike Share for? (Select all that apply)

0%

18.5%

37%

Answers

Skips

637

23

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

I probably won't use Bike Share.

296

37%

Running errands/visiting friends.

212

26%

Travel to mass transit.

161

20%

Travel to work.

78

10%

Travel to school.

62

8%

G-9


109

14%

Free bike map give-aways

52

7%

Bicycle rodeos or safety trainings

20

Berkeley Sunday Streets

14

Other Option

Question

31

Bay Area Bike Share is coming to Berkeley in 2016. What would you use Bike Share for? (Select all that apply)

0%

18.5%

37%

3%

FINAL PLAN 2%

Answers

Skips

637

23

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

I probably won't use Bike Share.

296

37%

Running errands/visiting friends.

212

26%

Travel to mass transit.

161

20%

Travel to work.

78

10%

Travel to school.

62

8%

PAGE 12

Question

32

I like riding a bike. (Mandatory)

0%

35%

70%

643

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Strongly agree

448

70%

Somewhat agree

168

26%

Somewhat disagree

16

2%

Strongly disagree

11

2%

33

Biking can sometimes be easier for me than driving. (Mandatory)

0%

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Skips

COUNT

Question

G-10

Answers

25.5%

51%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Strongly agree

325

51%

Somewhat agree

202

31%

Somewhat disagree

80

12%

Strongly disagree

36

6%


FINAL PLAN

Question

34

Riding a bike for daily travel from home would be easy for me. (Mandatory)

0%

19.5%

39%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Strongly agree

247

38%

Somewhat agree

225

35%

Somewhat disagree

107

17%

64

10%

Strongly disagree

Question

35

Traveling by car is safer overall than riding a bike. (Mandatory)

0%

21.5%

43%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

271

42%

Strongly agree

200

31%

Somewhat disagree

127

20%

45

7%

Strongly disagree

PAGE 13

Question

36

There is so much traffic along the street I live on that it would make it difficult or unpleasant to bike. (Mandatory)

0%

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Somewhat disagree

210

33%

Somewhat agree

168

26%

Strongly disagree

164

26%

Strongly agree

101

16%

37

33%

Skips

643 COUNT

Question

16.5%

Answers

There is so much traffic along nearby streets that it would make it difficult or unpleasant to bike. (Mandatory)

0%

41%

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

259

40%

Somewhat disagree

179

28%

Strongly agree

114

18%

91

14%

Strongly disagree

20.5%

Answers

G-11


Somewhat disagree

210

33%

Somewhat agree

168

26%

Strongly disagree

164 101

Strongly agree

Question

37

There is so much traffic along nearby streets that it would make it difficult or unpleasant to bike. (Mandatory)

0%

20.5%

41%

16%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

259

40%

Somewhat disagree

179

28%

Strongly agree

114

18%

91

14%

Strongly disagree

Question

38

There are bike lanes that are easy to get to in my neighborhood. (Mandatory)

0%

21%

42%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

270

42%

Strongly agree

221

34%

Somewhat disagree

106

16%

46

7%

Strongly disagree

Question

39

There are off-street bike trails or paved paths in or near my neighborhood that are easy to get to. (Mandatory)

0%

17%

34%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

217

34%

Somewhat disagree

189

29%

Strongly agree

153

24%

84

13%

Strongly disagree

Question

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

26%

FINAL PLAN

40

There are quiet streets, without bike lanes, that are easy to get to on a bike. (Mandatory)

0%

23%

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

292

45%

Strongly agree

288

45%

55

9%

8

1%

Somewhat diagree Strongly disagree

46%

Answers

G-12 Question

41

There is a high crime rate in my neighborhood. (Mandatory)

Answers

Skips

643

17


Somewhat agree

292

45%

Strongly agree

288

45%

55

9%

8

1%

Somewhat diagree

FINAL PLAN Strongly disagree

Question

41

There is a high crime rate in my neighborhood. (Mandatory)

0%

19%

38%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat disagree

242

38%

Somewhat agree

185

29%

Strongly disagree

160

25%

56

9%

Strongly agree

Question

42

The speed of traffic on most nearby streets is usually slow. (Mandatory)

0%

21%

42%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat disagree

270

42%

Somewhat agree

251

39%

Strongly disagree

83

13%

Strongly agree

39

6%

Question

43

Most drivers exceed the posted speed limits in my neighborhood. (Mandatory)

0%

21%

42%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

268

42%

Strongly agree

210

33%

Somewhat disagree

148

23%

17

3%

Strongly disagree

Question

44

Streets in my neighborhood are poorly maintained. (Mandatory)

0%

19.5%

39%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat disagree

246

38%

Somewhat agree

238

37%

Strongly agree

84

13%

Strongly disagree

75

12% G-13

PAGE 14


FINAL PLAN Answers

Question

42 42

Skips

643

The speed of traffic on most nearby streets is usually slow. (Mandatory)

Question

17

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

The speed of traffic on most nearby streets is usually slow. (Mandatory)

97%

3%

0%

21%

42%

COUNT

0%

21%

42%

270 COUNT

42% PERCENT

Somewhat Somewhat agree disagree

251 270

39% 42%

Strongly disagree Somewhat agree

83 251

13% 39%

Strongly Strongly agree disagree

39 83

6% 13%

Strongly agree

39

6%

Somewhat disagree

Answers

Question

43 43

PERCENT

Skips

643

Most drivers exceed the posted speed limits in my neighborhood. (Mandatory)

Question

17

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

Most drivers exceed the posted speed limits in my neighborhood. (Mandatory)

97%

3%

0%

21%

42%

COUNT

0%

21%

42%

268 COUNT

42% PERCENT

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

210 268

33% 42%

Somewhat disagree Strongly agree

148 210

23% 33%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree

17 148

3% 23%

17

3%

Somewhat agree

Strongly disagree

44 44

PERCENT

Answers

Question Question

17

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

Streets in my neighborhood are poorly maintained. (Mandatory)

97%

3%

0%

19.5%

39%

COUNT

0%

19.5%

39%

246 COUNT

38% PERCENT

Somewhat Somewhat agree disagree

238 246

37% 38%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

84 238

13% 37%

Strongly Strongly disagree agree

75 84

12% 13%

Strongly disagree

75

12%

Somewhat disagree

3%

Skips

643

Streets in my neighborhood are poorly maintained. (Mandatory)

3%

PERCENT

3%

PAGE 14

PAGE 14

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Question

G-14

45 45

Question

Answers

Most people who are important to me, for example my family and friends, think I should bike more. (Mandatory) Most people who are important to me, for example my family and friends, think I should bike more. (Mandatory)

Skips

643

17

Answers

Skips

643

17

97% 97%

3%

0%

16%

32%

COUNT

0%

16%

32%

201 COUNT

31% PERCENT

Somewhat Somewhat disagree agree

198 201

31% 31%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree

145 198

23% 31%

Strongly Strongly agree disagree

99 145

15% 23%

99

15%

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

PERCENT

3%


FINAL PLAN

Question

46

Most people who are important to me, for example my family and friends, would support me in using a bike more. (Mandatory)

0%

643

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

291

45%

Strongly agree

275

43%

Somewhat disagree

50

8%

Strongly disagree

27

4%

47

46%

Skips

COUNT

Question

23%

Answers

People I live with ride a bike to get to places, such as errands, shopping, and work. (Mandatory)

0%

643

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Strongly agree

195

30%

Somewhat agree

185

29%

Strongly disagree

123

19%

Somewhat disagree

96

15%

Not applicable (I live by myself)

44

7%

48

31%

Skips

COUNT

Question

15.5%

Answers

Many of my friends ride a bike to get to places, such as errands, shopping, and work. (Mandatory)

0%

21.5%

43%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

272

42%

Strongly agree

205

32%

Somewhat disgree

120

19%

46

7%

Strongly disagree

Question

49

Many of my co-workers ride a bike to get to work. (Mandatory)

0%

28%

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

180

28%

Not applicable (I don't work, I don't have co-workers, etc)

167

26%

Somewhat disagree

107

17%

Strongly agree

102

16%

87

14%

Strongly disagree

14%

Answers

G-15


Somewhat agree

272

42%

Strongly agree

205

32%

Somewhat disgree

120 46

Strongly disagree

Question

49

Many of my co-workers ride a bike to get to work. (Mandatory)

0%

14%

28%

7%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

180

28%

Not applicable (I don't work, I don't have co-workers, etc)

167

26%

Somewhat disagree

107

17%

Strongly agree

102

16%

87

14%

Strongly disagree

Question

50

In general, I see people similar to me bicycling on city streets. (Mandatory)

0%

43%

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

275

43%

Strongly agree

254

40%

Somewhat disagree

86

13%

Strongly disagree

28

4%

51

21.5%

Answers

COUNT

Question

I feel a personal obligation to bicycle instead of driving for everyday travel. (Mandatory)

0%

17.5%

35%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

225

35%

Strongly agree

171

27%

Somewhat disagree

162

25%

85

13%

Strongly disagree

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

19%

FINAL PLAN

Question

52

I know where safe bike routes are in my neighborhood. (Mandatory)

0%

22.5%

45%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Strongly agree

287

45%

Somewhat agree

238

37%

Somewhat disagree

81

13%

Strongly disagree

37

6%

G-16

Question

Many of the places I need to get to regularly are within biking distance of my

Answers

Skips


Strongly agree

287

45%

Somewhat agree

238

37%

81

13%

37

6%

Somewhat disagree

FINAL PLAN Strongly disagree

Question

53

Many of the places I need to get to regularly are within biking distance of my home. (Mandatory)

0%

25%

50%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Strongly agree

318

49%

Somewhat agree

229

36%

Somewhat disagree

73

11%

Strongly disagree

23

4%

Question

54

I don't have time to bike places instead of driving. (Mandatory)

0%

18.5%

37%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat disagree

233

36%

Somewhat agree

180

28%

Strongly disagree

175

27%

55

9%

Strongly agree

Question

55

Biking for commuting or transportation requires me to wear different clothes than normal. (Mandatory)

0%

21%

42%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

269

42%

Somewhat disagree

161

25%

Strongly agree

120

19%

93

14%

Strongly disagree

Question

56

I don't like wearing a bike helmet. (Mandatory)

0%

20%

40%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Strongly disagree

252

39%

Somewhat agree

169

26%

Somewhat disagree

112

17%

Strongly agree

110

17% G-17

Question

I know how to ride a bike safely in traffic. (Mandatory)

Answers

Skips

643

17


Strongly disagree

252

39%

Somewhat agree

169

26%

Somewhat disagree

112 110

Strongly agree

Question

57

I know how to ride a bike safely in traffic. (Mandatory)

0%

24%

48%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Strongly agree

303

47%

Somewhat agree

232

36%

Somewhat disagree

77

12%

Strongly disagree

31

5%

58

I would like to learn how to ride more safely in traffic. (Mandatory)

0%

21.5%

43%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

276

43%

Somewhat disagree

152

24%

Strongly agree

123

19%

92

14%

Strongly disagree

Question

59

There is secure, long-term bike parking at my work or school, such as bike lockers, a bike room/cage, or a bike parking station. (Mandatory)

0%

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

17%

COUNT

Question

G-18

17%

FINAL PLAN

16%

32%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Strongly agree

204

32%

Somewhat agree

172

27%

Strongly disagree

128

20%

Somewhat disagree

77

12%

Not applicable (I work from home, I don't work, etc)

62

10%

Question

60

I would feel comfortable riding my bike when it is raining. (Mandatory)

0%

643

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Strongly disagree

199

31%

Somewhat agree

188

29%

Somewhat disagree

175

27%

81

13%

Question

31%

Skips

COUNT

Strongly agree

15.5%

Answers

Answers

Skips


Strongly disagree

199

31%

Somewhat agree

188

29%

Somewhat disagree

175

27%

81

13%

FINAL PLAN Strongly agree

Question

61

I would feel comfortable riding my bike in my neighborhood after dark. (Mandatory)

0%

643

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

222

35%

Strongly agree

162

25%

Somewhat disagree

145

23%

Strongly disagree

114

18%

62

35%

Skips

COUNT

Question

17.5%

Answers

If or when I ride a bike I'm concerned about being hit by a motor vehicle. (Mandatory)

0%

643

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Strongly agree

329

51%

Somewhat agree

246

38%

Somewhat disagree

58

9%

Strongly disagree

10

2%

63

52%

Skips

COUNT

Question

26%

Answers

If or when I ride a bike I'm concerned about being hit by another bicyclist. (Mandatory)

0%

20.5%

41%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Somewhat disagree

263

41%

Strongly disagree

196

30%

Somewhat agree

138

21%

46

7%

Strongly agree

Question

64

If or when I ride a bike I'm concerned about falling off my bike. (Mandatory)

0%

21.5%

43%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Strongly disagree

273

42%

Somewhat disagree

191

30%

Somewhat agree

128

20%

51

8%

Strongly agree

G-19 Question

65

If or when I ride a bike I'm concerned about not being able to quickly get home in case something comes up. (Mandatory)

Answers

Skips

643

17


Strongly disagree

273

42%

Somewhat disagree

191

30%

Somewhat agree

128 51

Strongly agree

Question

65

If or when I ride a bike I'm concerned about not being able to quickly get home in case something comes up. (Mandatory)

0%

19.5%

39%

Answers

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Somewhat disagree

249

39%

Strongly disagree

197

31%

Somewhat agree

147

23%

50

8%

Question

66

If or when I ride a bike I'm concerned about having my bicycle stolen. (Mandatory)

0%

48%

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Strongly agree

306

48%

Somewhat agree

241

37%

Somewhat disagree

69

11%

Strongly disagree

27

4%

67

24%

Answers

COUNT

Question

If or when I ride a bike I'm concerned about getting a flat tire or mechanical problem. (Mandatory)

0%

42%

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

PERCENT

Somewhat agree

269

42%

Somewhat disagree

212

33%

Strongly agree

81

13%

Strongly disagree

81

13%

68

21%

Answers

COUNT

Question

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

8%

COUNT

Strongly agree

G-20

20%

FINAL PLAN

If or when I ride a bike I'm concerned about dealing with aggressive motorists (Mandatory)

0%

44%

Skips

643

17

97%

3%

COUNT

PERCENT

Strongly agree

281

44%

Somewhat agree

250

39%

Somewhat disagree

85

13%

Strongly disagree

27

4%

PAGE 15

22%

Answers


Somewhat disagree

85

13%

Strongly disagree

27

4%

FINAL PLAN PAGE 15

Question

69

What gender do you identify as?

0%

25%

50%

Answers

Skips

632

28

96%

4%

COUNT

PERCENT

Female

313

50%

Male

310

49%

I do not identify as female, male, or transgender

6

1%

Transgender

3

0%

Question

70

Please check the category that includes your age

0%

634

26

96%

4%

PERCENT

18 - 34

252

40%

35 - 54

213

34%

Over 55

169

27%

71

40%

Skips

COUNT

Question

20%

Answers

What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed and received credit for?

0%

20.5%

41%

Answers

Skips

632

28

96%

4%

COUNT

PERCENT

College graduate (Bachelor's degree)

257

41%

Post graduate degree (Master's or PhD)

208

33%

Some college or vocational school

119

19%

48

8%

High school diploma or less

Question

72

Are you currently enrolled in a college or university located in Berkeley? For example, UC Berkeley, Berkeley City College, etc.

0%

38.5%

77%

Answers

Skips

622

38

94%

6%

COUNT

PERCENT

No

478

77%

Yes

144

23%

PAGE 16

Question

73

Answers

Which institution are you enrolled at? If you are enrolled at more than one, please select the school you take most of your classes at.

0%

44.5%

144

Skips

516 G-21

22%

89%

COUNT

78%

PERCENT


0%

38.5%

77%

COUNT

PERCENT

No

478

77%

Yes

144

23%

FINAL PLAN PAGE 16

Question

73

Which institution are you enrolled at? If you are enrolled at more than one, please select the school you take most of your classes at.

0%

44.5%

89%

Answers

Skips

144

516

22%

78%

COUNT

PERCENT

127

88%

11

8%

Other Option

5

3%

One of Berkeley's religious training institutions

1

1%

UC Berkeley Berkeley City College

PAGE 17

Question

74

What is your ethnicity?

0%

34.5%

69%

626

34

95%

5%

PERCENT

428

68%

Asian

88

14%

Latino/Hispanic

41

7%

Black/African American

40

6%

Other Option

15

2%

0

0%

American Indian

Question

75

Do you own or rent the house or apartment in which you live?

0%

26%

52%

Answers

Skips

627

33

95%

5%

COUNT

PERCENT

Rent

326

52%

Own

301

48%

Question

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Skips

COUNT

White/Caucasian

G-22

Answers

76

What part of Berkeley do you live in? Select your zip code.

0%

13%

26%

Answers

Skips

629

31

95%

5%

COUNT

PERCENT

94702

162

26%

94703

148

24%

94704

109

17%

94705

88

14%

94707

45

7%

94720

30

5%

94709

24

4%


0%

26%

52%

Rent

FINAL PLAN Own

COUNT

PERCENT

326

52%

301

48%

Question

76

What part of Berkeley do you live in? Select your zip code.

0%

31

95%

5%

PERCENT

94702

162

26%

94703

148

24%

94704

109

17%

94705

88

14%

94707

45

7%

94720

30

5%

94709

24

4%

94710

20

3%

94706

2

0%

94701

1

0%

94708

0

0%

94712

0

0%

77

26%

Skips

629 COUNT

Question

13%

Answers

Do you want to receive updates about bicycle improvements in Berkeley? If so, please provide an email.

122,062,967

l

Answers

Skips

132

528

20%

80%

Sunday, Mar 29th 4:29AM

G-23


CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX H

H-1


FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX H.

Complete Street Corridor Studies Planning Maps The maps in this appendix provide critical

bicycle improvements and is consistent with

planning context for the Complete Streets

the recommended studies and projects in the

Corridor Studies identified in the Berkeley

Berkeley Bike Plan. These improvements will

Bike Plan. These maps are from the City of

be studied as part of a larger Complete Streets

Berkeley General Plan; the Alameda County

Corridor Study process guided by the modal

Transportation Commission Countywide

priorities established in the modal emphasis

Multimodal Arterial Plan; and the AC Transit

maps in the Countywide Multimodal Arterial

Major Corridors Study. They are intended

Plan.

Plan recommendations for Complete Streets Corridors and the modal priorities established in City of Berkeley and countywide planning documents.

AC Transit Major Corridors Study: The following maps illustrate AC Transit’s proposed transit improvements on Primary Transit Routes in Berkeley. At the conclusion of the Complete Streets Corridor Study process, design

City of Berkeley General Plan Figure 7 - Transit

alternatives which have a significant negative

Map:

effect on transit on these Primary Transit Routes

• Illustrates the Council-adopted citywide network of Primary and Secondary Transit Routes on Berkeley streets.

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. Example criteria

Alameda CTC Countywide Multimodal Arterial

for evaluating transit impacts are provided in

Plan Maps:

Section 5.7 of this Plan.

• Transit Emphasis and Bicycle Emphasis modal

• Figure 4 - Map of Major Corridors

priority maps: These maps illustrate the modal priorities for transit and bicycling established in the Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan. Specifically, the maps identify which streets on the countywide roadway network are designated as transit priority and which are designated as bicycle priority. • Figure 3.4.1: Proposed Bicycle Improvements – North Planning Area: This map illustrates an unconstrained vision for potential countywide

• San Pablo Avenue/Macdonald Avenue Corridor Map • Shattuck Avenue/Martin Luther King Jr. Way Corridor Map • Broadway/College Avenue/University Avenue Corridor Map • Adeline Street Map • Telegraph Avenue Corridor Map

APPENDIX H

to clarify the relationship between the Bike

H-1


FINAL PLAN

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

Figure H-1: City of Berkeley General Plan Figure 7 - Transit Map

H-2


APPENDIX H

980

§ ¦ ¨

Telegraph Ave St

ALAMEDA

Atlantic Ave

14th

Av

e

E 14 th St

Ot is

nd 42

Doolit tle D r

Dr

Lin co ln A En ve cin Way al A ilden ve T

h 4t

PIEDMONT

Av

e

t or

D

r

ttle Dr

§ ¦ ¨

r ge

r be en eg

OAKLAND

ve dA

r 73

SAN LEANDRO

rp Ai

Do oli

t

H

hS

880

Hig

tle olit Do

September 28, 2015

¯

14th

dA ve

v Da

t

1 Miles

Gr an

Rd

S 4th

0

W

Tu nn el

E1

0.5

880

§ ¦ ¨

e Ashby Av

BERKELEY

r

1

EMERYVILLE

80

§ ¦ ¨

St

Adeli ne Main St

on

an Gilm

Marin Ave

t

S 8th t

D

Pa rk S

Ave Ha rris

wa y Bro ad vd

Fruit v

lvd Pa rk B

Pablo ale A ve

San Bl

t on t is S

580

§ ¦ ¨

E

St

Dr

ASHLAND

nt mo ir Fa

14 th

FAIRVIEW

Urban Area

Trucks

Transit

Pedestrian

Bicycle

Auto

Modal Priorities

Freeways and Expressways

Interstate Highway

Legend

North County

FINAL Attachment H- Modal Priority

ACTC Multimodal Arterial Study Network

Castro Valley Blvd

CASTRO VALLEY

Rd anyo n

ur th ar ac M

llm Hi Crow C

ALBANY

FINAL PLAN

Figure H-2: Alameda CTC Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan Maps

Dr

H-3


H-4

1

0

September 16, 2015

¯

2

80

§ ¦ ¨

2 Miles

880

§ ¦ ¨

980

§ ¦ ¨ OAKLAND

SAN LEANDRO

PIEDMONT

BERKELEY

ALAMEDA

EMERYVILLE

ALBANY

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

238

§ ¦ ¨

NEWARK

880

§ ¦ ¨

UNION CITY

HAYWARD

880

FREMONT

PLEASANTON

DUBLIN

§ ¦ ¨

262

§ ¦ ¨

680

§ ¦ ¨ 580

§ ¦ ¨

AC Transit Local Routes/LAVTA/UCT

AC Transit Cross-Town Routes

AC Transit Priority Corridors/LAVTA Rapid

Transit Routes

Study Network

Freeways and Expressways

Interstate Highway

Legend

FINAL Attachment D - Transit Emphasis

ACTC Multimodal Arterial Study Network

LIVERMORE

205

§ ¦ ¨

FINAL PLAN

Figure H-3: Alameda CTC Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan Maps


APPENDIX H

980

§ ¦ ¨

Telegraph Ave St

ALAMEDA

Atlantic Ave

14th

e Av

E 14 th St

Ot is

nd 42

Doolit tle D r

Dr

Lin co ln A En ve cin Way al A ilden ve T

h 4t

PIEDMONT

Av

e

r Ai

D

r

ttle Dr

§ ¦ ¨

r ge

r be en eg

OAKLAND

ve dA

r 73

SAN LEANDRO

rt po

Do oli

t

H

hS

880

Hig

tle olit Do

September 16, 2015

¯

14th

dA ve

vis Da

t

1 Miles

Gr an

Rd

S 4th

0

W

Tu nn el

E1

0.5

880

§ ¦ ¨

e Ashby Av

BERKELEY

r

1

EMERYVILLE

80

§ ¦ ¨

St

Adeli ne Main St

on

an Gilm

Marin Ave

t

S 8th t

D

Pa rk S

Ave Ha rris

wa y Bro ad vd

Fruit v

lvd Pa rk B

Pablo ale A ve

San Bl

t on St

580

§ ¦ ¨

E

St

Dr

ASHLAND

nt mo ir Fa

14 th

FAIRVIEW

Bike Route Paralleled Street

Class III

Class III Enhanced

Class II

Class II Enhanced

Class IV

Class I

Bicycle Network

Study Network

Freeways and Expressways

Interstate Highway

Legend

North County

FINAL Attachment E - Bicycle Emphasis

ACTC Multimodal Arterial Study Network

Castro Valley Blvd

CASTRO VALLEY

Rd anyo n

ur th ar ac M

llm Hi Crow C

ALBANY

FINAL PLAN

Figure H-4: Alameda CTC Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan Maps

Dr

H-5


H-6

Co ountywide Multiimodal Arterial Plan | Alame eda CTC

Figure 3.4.1: Propose ed Bicycle Improv vementsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;North Planning Area

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

3-27

Chapter C 3: Wha at Improvemen nts Are Needed d for a Multimod dal Future?

FINAL PLAN

Figure H-5: Alameda CTC Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan Maps


FINAL PLAN

Figure H-6: AC Transit - Map of Major Corridors

Figure 4: Map of Major Corridors

APPENDIX H

Major Corridors Study Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAFT

H-7


FINAL PLAN

d Avenue Corridor

Figure H-7: San Pablo Avenue/Macdonald Avenue Corridor Map

an rridor in

ent

Rapid l time me on r than -time ue is e day

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

pid Bus his type highest-

transit uctivity, orthern extension would provide an opportunity for passengers to H-8


FINAL PLAN

er King Jr.Figure Way Corridor H-8: Shattuck Avenue/Martin Luther King Jr. Way Corridor Map

ocal

in this

ance

both akland, ied as ase

Buss the idorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s physical dimensions and projected ridership, Rapid Bus

APPENDIX H

AC of the ue to nts lair .

H-9


FINAL PLAN

Figure H-9: Broadway/College Avenue/University Avenue Corridor Map

ocal

would

enue h the

dor, orts to In 51A y. The

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

hanced better queue-

place Local modes were considered as Year 2040. However, the made it clear that the Enhanced Bus option could not s, only the Rapid Bus-Replace Local option was evaluated for H-10


FINAL PLAN

Figure H-10: Adeline Street Map

ould s e low meda urther y , only

izon.

ine d in low performance for all measures, except travel time e, which were rated as having a moderate improvement. The 2040 owest of all the corridors. While BRT investments would improve

APPENDIX H

r was P g land, low bus

H-11


FINAL PLAN

Figure H-11: Telegraph Avenue Corridor Map

or ent. and It is nue mbined

CIT Y OF BERKELEY BIKE PLAN

rd/ e from will f the would

to be

rmers in the study for both the BRT and Light Rail options. f all the corridors in most of the performance measures H-12


FINAL PLAN

APPENDIX H

This page intentionally left blank.

H-13


Profile for Billy Ray Johnson

Berkeley Bicycle Plan Appendices  

Berkeley Bicycle Plan Appendices  

Advertisement