SF bicycle plan exec summary
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
bike plan exec summaryTEXTMSWD/j+[;U+^F:
Attached is the San Francisco Bicycle Plan's executive summary.
Please read it, and forward any comments to me <sf...@igc.org>. I will
forward them to the appropriate people.
This is just the executive summary. The whole plan consists of about
a dozen elements, each of which numbers 30-50 pages in length. A
preliminary draft of each of the elements has been released; the
final draft is expected soon.
Please excuse the missing spaces between words in some cases.
Sincerely,
Dave Snyder
Executive Director
S.F. Bicycle Coalition
----
SF BIKE PLAN: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The San Francisco Comprehensive Bicycle Plan ("Bicycle Plan")
presents a guideline for the City to provide the safe and attractive
environment needed to promote bicycling as an alternative
transportation mode.
Bicycling is a pollution-free, economical and healthy alternative
transportation mode for many recreational, work and shopping trips in
San Francisco and between San Francisco and other Bay Area locations.
The City has an almost ideal climate for bicycling: temperate,
without ice or snow and with a long dry season. It is home to a large
and active bicycle population with a Bicycle Advisory Committee
(SFBAC) appointed by the Board of Supervisors and a Bicycle
Coalition(SFBC), an advocacy group. The limited supply and high cost
of parking as well as traffic congestion and the City's compactness
make bicycling an attractive option for many.
The City's topography, level of development, and high traffic volumes
provide the greatest challenge to providing a safe environment for
bicyclists. There are a limited number of flat or even relatively
flat through routes in the City and bicycles must compete for space
on these streets with automobiles and the City's extensive transit
system.
The report presents a comprehensive review of the many aspects of the
policies, procedures,practices and physical infrastructure of the
City that affect bicycling. It recommends ways to make bicycling
safer and more convenient through a variety of efforts including
street improvements,bicycle parking facilities, new city policies,
education programs, promotional efforts and transit access.
Further study will often be required before the projects can be fully
implemented. In total, these recommendations will ensure that
bicycling is treated as a serious transportation mode in the City.
The various aspects of the bicycle plan were analyzed in substantial
detail in the study and are presented in subsequent chapters of the
report. This section of the report summarizes the principal findings
and recommendations of the study and is organized as follows:
Goals and Objectives
Recommended Bicycle Network
Recreational Element
Design Standards
Maintenance
Traffic Calming
Organizational Changes
Funding for Bicycle Projects
ParkingTransit Access
City Ordinances and Policies
Safety: Education and Enforcement
Promotion of Bicycling
It is acknowledged that many of these recommendations will need to
phased due to funding constraints.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of the Bicycle Plan is to provide a comprehensive guide for
efforts that will make San Francisco a more "bicycle-friendly" city.
Within that overall goal are a number of objectives thatwere
developed during the course of the study by the City, SFBAC, SFBC and
the consultants:
1. Improve Facilities for Bicyclists:
Provide a comprehensive network of signed and mapped routes for
bicyclists and provideimprovements that expedite travel and improve
safety along these routes.
Increase the number of secure parking areas for bicycles.
Provide for uniform markings and design standards.
Improve access to transit modes and over bridges.
Improve maintenance of streets and bikeways.1
2. Improve Bicycle Safety
Provide safer facilities.
Educate bicyclists and motorists on regulations, rules of the road
and safe sharing of the roads.
Increase enforcement of bicycle-related violations on the part of
both motorists and bicyclists.
3. Promote Bicycling in the City
Increase bicycle use as an alternative to the auto.
Encourage bicycle use by potential cyclists.
Encourage bicycle use by visitors to the City.
4. Increase Bicycle Funding
Establish priorities for project funding.
Match projects and funding sources.
Identify new funding sources.
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE NETWORK
A system of bicycle routes was developed to (1) incorporate in the
City's Master Plan (2) be usedfor maps that will be made available to
bicyclists throughout the City and (3) to help prioritize investment
in route facilities. Three general principles were followed in
identifying these routes:
1. Provide the quickest and most direct way to travel by bicycle in
the City.
2. Attract bicyclists who are intimidated by traffic, steep hills
and other potential deterrents.
3. Serve major attractions and every City neighborhood with the
most direct and safe bicycle
routes.
No overt distinction has been made in the recommended bicycle network
between commute routes and recreational routes. Many routes which may
seem to be primarily recreational are also used by commuters.
The recommended routes were put in five categories, expanding on the
standard three classifications identified in the California Highway
Design Manual (HDM) to provide more information about the specific
types of improvements:
Class I = Off-street path
Class II = Bicycle lane
BPS/TC = Bicycle priority street through traffic calming
Wide Curb Lanes = Bicycle route with wide curb lanes
Class III = Signed Bicycle route - improvements vary
The recommendations provided in the Bicycle Plan are considered the
minimum necessary to enable bicyclists to safely circulate throughout
the City. In some instances, restriping is recommended to provide
wide curb lanes. Bicycle lanes can sometimes be provided by merely
laying down a bicycle lane in an existing curb lane while in some
instances, restriping is necessary to have enough curb lane width for
a bicycle lane. In a few instances, the number of travel lanes must
be reduced in order to provide a bicycle lane. A reduction in travel
lanes has been recommended where no other options can be developed to
provide safety and mobility for bicyclists. The most significant
improvement projects are listed below.
Broadway Tunnel - Widen sidewalk in westbound tunnel, widen curb lane
in eastbound tunnel, install bicycle-actuated flashing beacon for
eastbound tunnel warning motorists of the presence of a bicyclist in
the tunnel.
Bayshore Boulevard/Army Street/Highway 101 Interchange - Construct
bicycle path from existing path paralleling Army Street to connect to
southbound Bayshore Boulevard.
Marina Boulevard - Widen junction where existing bicycle path
intersects Beach Street/Laguna Street. Divide existing sidewalk into
two sections: a pedestrian sidewalk and a parallel adjacent bicycle
path.
Oak Street between Baker and Scott - Remove parking on north side,
provide 2-way bicycle path adjacent to sidewalk. Provide left-turn
phasing for motorists and bicycles-only signal phasing.
Fell/Masonic - Remove parking on south side for 200 feet to provide
left-turn lane;provide left-turn phasing for motorists and bicycles-
only signal phase.
Fell/Stanyan - Provide bicycles-only signal phase, improvement of
bicycle paths on west approach, and other improvements recommended in
Golden Gate Park Master Plan.
Construct bicycle path along east side of Kezar Street from J.F.
Kennedy Drive to Lincoln Street.
Construct bicycle path along outside edge of Stern Grove from 20th
Avenue on northside to 21st Avenue on south side.
19th Avenue between Buckingham Way and San Francisco State University
- Remove parking for the equivalent of one block and provide 2-way
bicycle path on west side of 19th Avenue.
Islais Creek - Construct bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Islais Creek.
Install traffic signals at intersections to enable bicycles to safely
cross major streets along designated bicycle routes.
A bicycle route signage program is critical to the successful
implementation of the City's bicycle route network. Bicycle route
signs, like highway signs, must be consistent throughout the system
and easily recognizable to the bicyclist and motorist alike by using
a unique logo or other identifying symbol. At a minimum, the bicycle
route signs should include the identifying logo, the route number(if
a numbering system is being used) and the direction of travel. Signs
for regional routes that coincide with City routes should accompany
the City signage along the route segments that are shared.
RECREATIONAL ELEMENT
The focus of the recreational element was on the following areas:
Family-oriented routes and learning areas Scenic bicycle loop
Requirements for major facilities
Youth and Family
Learning facilities are recommended in Golden Gate Park, Lake Merced,
McLaren Park, Candlestick Trail Shoreline Park (on days when there
are no games), the Presidio (one site off Lincoln and a second on
Crissy Field) and Mission Bay (at China Basin). Access to these areas
is recommended by utilizing proposed bikeway routes.
Scenic Bicycle Loop
An important component of the overall recreational element is the
proposed scenic bicycle loop. The loop would have three purposes:
1. To encourage local bicyclists to do more recreational riding in
the City.
2. To promote San Francisco as a destination for tourists
interested in bicycling and to
relieve traffic congestion and parking problems at tourist
destinations.
3. To encourage tourists to venture beyond the traditional
sightseeing spots of San
Francisco.
The idea behind the scenic bicycle loop is similar to the existing
49-mile scenic auto loop. It would be signed as a special bicycle
route and could be promoted by the San Francisco Convention and
Visitors Bureau (SFCVB) and probably by retail bicycle shops in the
City. Funding could come from the SFCVB and the advertising of
bicycle shops and bicycle equipment on a map. It could also be
combined with a map that shows recommended walking tours and could be
sold in stores.
It is certain that the exact alignment of the route will change as
the route is developed with input from the bicycling community and
the SFCVB. It is envisioned that the route will be designed asa self-
guided tour, so riders can choose the length of the route that suits
their time frame and physical ability.
It is recommended that the published map indicate:
Points of interest (museums, historic sites, etc.)Scenic overlooks
Grades of greater than 5 percent Bicycle repair shops Neighborhoods
Bicycle parking facilities
Recommendations for Future Planning Efforts
Major new developments and re-development areas such as Mission Bay,
Embarcadero, etc. should have a dedicated bicycle element as part of
their circulation/open space plan. These elements should also
indicate connections with the total bikeway system. It is recommended
that the City work with the Port of San Francisco and the National
Park Service to develop a longer term plan for a waterfront bicycle
path the full length of the waterfront from Hunters Point to the
Golden Gate Bridge and along the ocean front to Fort Funston.
DESIGN STANDARDS
Bicycle Paths
An eight foot cross section is adequate for a bicycle path of any
length where few pedestrians are expected. However, this situation
occurs very infrequently in San Francisco so that most bicycle paths
are essentially multi-use trails, and should be designed to more than
minimum standards. For paths with low pedestrian volumes,
(approximately 50-100 per peak hour) minimum paved width is
recommended to be 10 feet. For moderate pedestrian volumes
(approximately 100-400 per peak hour) the recommended paved width
should be between 12 and 16 feet. For heavy pedestrian volumes
(greater than approximately 400 per peak hour), two parallel
facilities are recommended:one for faster traffic, such as bicycles
and roller blades, and one for slower modes such aspedestrians,
children on training wheels etc.
To increase motorists' awareness that bicycle traffic is crossing a
street, pavement for the bicycle'spath across the intersection should
be designed as an eight-foot band of distinctive color.
Bicycle Lanes
For safety reasons, the minimum bicycle lane width specified in the
HDM of four feet (five feet withparking) should not be applied to
streets with high traffic volume and speed. On streets with over500
vehicles per hour per lane (VPHPL) and/or speeds of 35 mph or more,
the goal should be bicycle lanes of six to eight feet in width.
Double parking in bicycle lanes, particularly wide bicycle lanes, is
a serious concern in some areas, and is addressed in more detail in
Chapter 8 of the report.
Class III Bicycle Routes and Wide Curb Lanes
It is recommended that a pavement stencil be used in the right-hand
portion of the lane. This stencil should be supplemented with "Share
the Road" signs for lane widths of 12 to 14 feet and with"Bicycles
Allowed Use of Full Lane" for lane widths 11 feet or less. It is
recommended that these signs and pavement stencils be used on
designated bikeways and other roadways with heavy traffic volumes and
narrow lanes i.e. more than 600 vphpl and curb lane widths of 14 feet
or less (22' or less with parking).
Vertical Step Height
When paved street surfaces are interspersed by utility hole covers or
drainage grates, it is important that the seam between asphalt
roadways and the concrete gutter or other obstacles be set flush with
the paved roadway. The HDM specifies that a step between the pavement
and obstruction be less than 3/4 of an inch perpendicular to travel,
and 3/8 inch parallel to travel. Ideally, whether perpendicular or
parallel to travel, the allowable tolerance in roadway surface should
be within 1/16 of an inch.
Rumble Strips
Raised ceramic markers installed as rumble strips should not be
installed to the edge of the travelled way but should leave a clear
space of 12 to 18 inches through which bicycles may travel. A
centerstrip clear of markers is also recommended.
Implementation
At the very least, the improvements discussed herein should be
implemented when a street is resurfaced or reconstructed (every 15 to
25 years). It is recommended that the City adopt a procedure to
identify locations that are in need of redesign through the existing
Spot improvement program (see next section). A dedicated annual
budget for such improvements for the Spot program would ensure
progress in providing safer streets in San Francisco and help the
city defend itself in potential liability cases.
MAINTENANCE
Procedures
In 1993, a "Spot" bicycle improvement was initiated to identify and
implement various bicycle-related improvements. This program is
handled by the City's bicycle coordinator in the Department of
Parking and Traffic (DPT). Problems are identified through mail-in
postcards which are distributed to various bicycle organizations in
the City. The postcards received by mail are logged into a database
and sorted by type of repair requested. The repair work is then
accomplished by the DPT or Department of Public Works (DPW), with DPT
as the lead department.
A more systematic inventory of street safety improvements for
bicyclists is recommended since many safety related improvements
remain unreported through the pilot Spot Improvement Program and
other sources. Adequate budget for staffing to coordinate policies,
priorities and remedial activities with follow-up is needed to make
the program effective.
It is recommended that there be a joint bikeway maintenance committee
to include representatives from DPW, Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR), DPT and the bicycle coordinator to improve
interdepartmental coordination regarding maintenance problems
specially related to bikeways. This committee should meet
approximately once every three months.
Standards
Street Cut Improvements
Open street cuts should be identified with barriers or covered with
two inches of asphalt on top of the dirt from the gouge.
Street cuts should be flush to the adjacent surface.
Steel plates used to cover work in progress should have no-skid
surfaces and either have beveled edges or be built up all sides with
asphalt.
Heat resistant concrete pads of at least a three-foot radius from the
edge of the utilityhole cover should be used to prevent warping of
the asphalt near the edges. If possible,concrete should be installed
above submerged steam pipes where applicable, to preventhumping of
street surface.
Paving, Patching
Asphalt pavement replacement must be flush with surrounding pavement,
includingadjacent concrete gutter. It must be inspected up to one
year after installation to checkfor settling, and be replaced if
defective. The City should put legislation in place torequire that
utility companies and private contractors replace defective pavement
for upto one year after installation at no cost to the City (as is
done in Palo Alto).
Fresh loose asphalt materials should be swept off the shoulder before
they have a chanceto adhere to the shoulder pavement.
Shoulder blade patching should cover the entire shoulder width, and
smoother gradertires should be used, or the shoulder area should be
well-rolled after the last pass of thegrader.
Striping, Pavement Legends and Edge Line Markings
Non-skid surfaces should be employed on all traffic lane lines. The
use of pavementmarking tape for bicycle lane legends increases safety
as it is less slippery, and muchthinner than thermoplastic.
Edge lines should not be supplemented with raised pavement markers
which presentobstacles for bicyclists. Where edgeline raised
reflectors are needed for motorists, theyshould be installed on the
motorists' side of the edge line.
Roadway and Shoulder Sweeping
A minimum weekly sweeping schedule should be maintained in addition
to sweepingbikeways whenever there is an accumulation of gravel,
glass, sand or other materials onthe bikeway.
Catch Basin Grates/Utility Covers
Street, sewer and storm drainage grates should be oriented so that
the bars areperpendicular to the direction of travel, to create
bicycle-safe grates. Low catch basingrates should be raised to the
proper pavement elevation to improve bicycle safety andenhance smooth
riding.
Utility covers must be flush with surrounding pavement.
Regular inspection of curb and gutter should identify those that are
raised, sunken or thathave some vertical differential that would
cause ponding, and these should be repaired.
Small asphalt dams to divert storm water into catch basins should not
be constructed onshoulder bikeways.
Railroad Tracks
Where possible, abandoned railroad tracks should be removed to
improve safetyconditions for bicyclists. Those still in use should be
made safer by installing rubberizedsurfaces adjacent to the tracks.
It is recommended that all railroad tracks across whicha bicyclist
would travel, i.e., in all intersections, receive such treatment.
Highest priorityshould be given to tracks that cross cyclists' travel
direction at a diagonal.
Bicycle Pathway Maintenance System
A Bicycle Pathway and/or Pavement Maintenance System should be a part
of a computerdatabase which can provide reports on the current
condition of every bicycle lane orpathway in the City. This should be
kept updated through regular street conditionsurveys. A computerized
system will permit identification of priority maintenance
needsthroughout the City.
A signing/lighting plan is needed for all maintenance activities on
the City's bicycle pathsand bicycle lanes. Advance warning of
maintenance work and designation of a detourroute should be made.
TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic Calming is the term applied to a variety of physical measures
intended to reduce thedominance of automobile and truck traffic in
urban areas. Traffic calming does not attempt to banthe automobile,
but primarily to reduce the speed of automobile traffic or to reduce
the amount ofnon-local traffic on the street. It benefits the
neighborhood by reducing the ill-effects of automobiletraffic such as
noise and pollution, while improving safety and ambiance. Any
implementationstrategy should involve the affected neighborhood
closely, as described in Chapter 6.
Bicycle Priority Streets
Bicycle priority streets or bicycle boulevards can provide a more
comfortable alternative to busystreets and can be created on
residential streets on which bicycle paths and bicycle lanes
areunsuitable. They provide two advantages that do not exist in the
current street network:
1. A low traffic volume alternative where bicycles and motor
vehicles can share the roadway
without conflicts; and
2. Significantly reduced travel time since bicyclists on the route
are granted the right-of-way
at as many intersections as possible. This is usually accomplished
by converting four-way
STOP signs to two-way stops or switching two-way STOP signs to stop
the cross street
rather than the designated bicycle priority street.
Traffic calming strategies are needed to prevent the diversion of
motor vehicle traffic to the newlyprioritized bicycle street that
would occur when the number of STOP signs is reduced.
The most bicycle-compatible traffic calming measures are the
following:
Speed humps and speed tables.
Traffic circles (on streets with already fairly low traffic volumes).
Reduced corner radii to slow the speed of turning traffic (most
likely to be useful incombination with other measures that operate
midblock).
Road closures (traffic barriers--the most effective of all traffic
calming measures).
Half closures (less intrusive than full closures and offering greater
flexibility in theaccommodation of emergency vehicles).
Forced turn channelization (highly effective if existing geometry
permits it to be used).
Median barriers configured to prevent through vehicular movements but
permit othermovements.
15 mph speed limits which slow vehicles significantly but have little
adverse effect onbicycles.
Traffic signals coordinated for a speed suitable to bicycle travel,
e.g. 8-15 mph.
Textured surfaces as a visual cue to reinforce more restrictive
design features.
Streets that are candidates for conversion to bicycle priority
streets should meet the followingcriteria:
The concept should have the support of residents.
The route should appeal to casual bicyclists by being on streets with
low traffic volumes.
The route should appeal to experienced bicyclists by being as direct
and fast as possible.
The route should not be a street classified as a major thoroughfare
or a transitpreferential street.
The route should reduce delays to the bicyclist by assigning the
right-of-way to travel onthe route.
Motor vehicle access should be restricted only enough so that autos
are not diverted fromother thoroughfares onto the bicycle route.
Intersections with major streets are or could be controlled by
traffic signals.
No major commercial businesses should be located on the bicycle
boulevard.
The corridors that have been identified as providing the most benefit
to bicyclists as bicycle prioritystreets are:
Cabrillo Street between Great Highway and ArguelloCayuga
StreetChenery/Diamond/CircularDuboce/Steiner/Waller/ScottGreenwich
Street between Van Ness and PresidioKirkham StreetPage Street between
Stanyan and Market17th Street between Mississippi and Castro20th
Avenue between Lincoln and Wawona37th Avenue between Lincoln and
Wawona
These are not the only candidate streets for traffic calming but are
streets that have the highestpriority due to their importance to
bicyclists.
FUNDING FOR BICYCLE PROJECTS
Traditional Funding Sources
The City and County of San Francisco, unlike other major U.S. cities,
does not currently budget anyfunds for bicycle programs or projects,
except a small portion of the local one-half centtransportation sales
tax. Other available sources can only be used for bicycle projects
under veryspecific conditions and/or with other projects. These
local, regional, state and federal fundingsources are listed in
Chapter 4 of the report.
Each source of funds is limited to certain projects and has its own
unique application forms andprocedures requiring considerable time to
prepare grant applications. Although the BicycleCoordinator has been
successful in every grant application filed, the amount of
potentially availabletraditional funds is severely limited by the
small amount of time available to the Bicycle Coordinator(who has no
staff) to apply for these funds.
The following grants have been obtained by San Francisco in the past
two years:
SF Transportation Authority Proposition B One-half Cent Sales Tax:
Bicycle Plan andSpot Improvement Program.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AB434): Bicycle lockers for
both of twofunding cycles.
Transportation Development Act (TDA Article 3): Various projects.
Proposition 116 Rail Bonds: Curb lane widening in various locations;
Valencia Streetmedian removal and curb lane widening; Commute route
signage.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) - Surface
TransportationProgram (STP): Lake Merced Boulevard median relocation
and curb lane widening.
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) - Registration and travel expenses for
two bicycle facilitiesplanning courses.
Non-Traditional Funding
Grant and Foundation Opportunities - Given adequate staff support, or
through citizen volunteerefforts, it is recommended that a variety of
three page proposals be prepared for selected SanFrancisco based
foundations (identified in Chapter 4 of the report). For those
organizations thatprovide funds primarily for youth related
activities, the letters of intent should be tailored to thechildren's
bicycle safety program and perhaps a free children's helmet campaign
for low income areasof the City. For those foundations focused upon
the arts, recommendations should also include artrelated elements.
Development of Mutual Interest Alliances - It is recommended that the
City pursue key alliances toenhance the immediate opportunities
available for non-traditional funding. These potential
alliancesinclude:
1. San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau (SFCVB). By
working with the SFCVB, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, San
Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee and/or the City could possibly
acquire meeting planner support for the development of a potential
bid for holding the 1998 or 2000 Pro-Bike/Pro-Walk Conference in San
Francisco. Support in the selection of a conference site and
potential contributors to the conference itself might also result
from this effort.
SFCVB could be involved in development of the scenic bicycle route
map. Profits fromsuch a map could then be used to support bicycle
education and safety programs andperhaps add additional staff to the
Bicycle Coordinator's Office (currently a one-personfunction).
2. Selected Corporate Sponsors. In exchange for exclusive
advertising rights to public announcements, t-shirts, signage and
event logos, selected sponsors can support various bicycle events or
programs. Recommendations for the San Francisco program might include
the Levi Strauss Company, Nike, Gap, and, the Bank of America.
3. National Park System/Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Many
of the concepts recommended in this report would be enhanced if
coordinated with representatives of the park system.
Funding From Large Employers/Developers - The key to implementing a
bicycle support program fornew development or redeveloped sites is to
either require the bicycle improvements, as part of theCity's review
process, or provide financial incentives to encourage their
installation. Specificrecommendations might include:
1. Requiring building management/leasing companies to provide
secure bicycle parking facilities (see section on "parking).
2. Providing transportation allowances for employees that bicycle
or walk to work. This allowance should equal the current subsidy
that employers can receive for transit passes.
3. Initiating a tax incentive structure for those employers that
provide facilities for employees that bicycle to work.
4. Allocating money for a Bicycle Fund for those developers required
to contribute to infrastructure improvements as part of their
building permit or zoning change. Although specific bicycle related
roadway infrastructure may not be required immediately adjacent to
the new development, this fund could provide an overall bicycle
path/lane system that could be accessed by employees of the newly
developed site.
Utility Relocation Improvements/Requirements - Recommendations
regarding the improvement ofstreet surfaces or the striping of future
bicycle lanes should be coordinated with the local, privateutility
companies. In the State of Washington, utility companies have worked
with local bicycleplanners to coordinate their utility system
maintenance program with specific bicycle lane stripingprojects.
National Office of Transportation Safety - Both the national and
state offices of safety maintainpotential grant funding programs for
bicycle safety. The National Transportation Safety Boardprovides
educational funds to selected programs on a grant submittal basis.
Although bicycleoperations are not a large portion of the office's
focus, there has been interest in maintaining andpromoting children's
helmet ordinances.
Adopt-A-Trail/Path Programs - Modeled upon the Southern California
program of highwaymaintenance contributions, this program would post
signs to indicate which individual or group hascontributed to the
either the development, installation or maintenance of a particular
bicycle facility.
Memorial Funds - These programs are advertised as potential donor
projects to be funded via on-going charitable contributions or funds
left to a particular project through a will. Most memorialprojects
include the location of a memorial plaque at a location specific to
the improvement or ascenic vista points.
Revenue Producing Operations - As part of the development of a trail
or bicycle path, plans canspecifically include the location of a
revenue producing operation adjacent to the proposedimprovement.
Bicycle rental facilities, food and drink establishments, bicycle
storage facilities andequipment centers, and/or equestrian centers,
would be appropriate uses. The on-going leaserevenues from these
operations could be used for trail/path maintenance.
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES
The Comprehensive Bicycle Plan outlines many activities, including
planning, implementation, projectmanagement, grant writing, and
construction, that require involvement of the Bicycle Coordinator.
Since these activities stretch over a wide range of disciplines, as
common to many other city bicycleprograms, but require coordination,
a bicycle "group" of staff to administer the bicycle program
isrecommended. The staff should have the various skills required for
implementing the bicycleprogram, although it is not necessary to have
each staff member skilled in all areas.
To strengthen the role of the bicycle program within the
transportation arena of the City, a core ofbicycle staff within a
department, working with other departments, should be established.
The Bicycle Coordinator would manage staff and activities. Reviews of
other cities indicate that bicycleactivities are managed from the
transportation or traffic divisions. So, it is recommended that the
City's Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) continue to house the
coordination of bicycleactivities by having the bicycle division as
part of DPT.
The following recommendations for staffing were based on the extent
of activities outlined in theComprehensive Bicycle Plan:
The Bicycle Coordinator should be a supervisory position, Transit
Planner III or higher. The Coordinator would manage bicycle projects,
be responsible for coordinating activities with other departments,
and seek funding. The Bicycle Coordinator would also managethe staff
within the bicycle group.
Other staff would be a full-time Planner position, a part-time
Traffic Engineer and a part-time Analyst to add up to two full-time
equivalent employees.
The Planner would be a Transit Planner I or II position. The Planner
would manage
small bicycle projects such as implementation of traffic-calming
measures. ThePlanner would also participate in planning, education,
and enforcement activities, asnecessary, and provide day-to-day
support to the Bicycle Coordinator
The Engineer would be a Traffic Engineer I or II position. The
Engineer would
review project plans for bicycle-related concerns, manage bicycle-
related maintenance,signage, and traffic activities, and coordinate
with departments for the Spotimprovement program. The Engineer would
also provide support to the BicycleCoordinator.
The Analyst would provide grant-writing assistance to the Bicycle
Coordinator. There are significant resources for securing funding
for a variety of bicycle-relatedprojects that currently can not be
sought due to staff and time constraints. TheAnalyst would work with
the Bicycle Coordinator and other departments to produceapplications
for funding. For example, the Analyst could work with the
City'sDepartment of Health to gather input for compiling a grant
application for bicyclesafety training.
The bicycle division positions should be 75% project-funded and 25%
general funds. Theproject-funded goal would allow for expansion of
staff as needed.
BICYCLE PARKING
Parking Requirements
Bicycle parking is inexpensive to provide compared to automobile
parking and, if credits are givenfor auto parking, the building owner
can benefit as well.
The San Francisco Planning Code requires one bicycle parking space
for every 20 off-streetautomobile parking spaces. However, since off-
street auto parking is not required for most typesof development in
downtown San Francisco and within neighborhood commercial areas,
bicycleparking is not often provided under the Code.
In order to better match supply to demand, San Francisco should adopt
bicycle parking requirementsbased on type of land use. The
requirements should apply to any new building, addition to
orenlargement of an existing building, or change in use of a
building. Initially it is recommended toadopt guidelines developed by
the League of American Bicyclists for a community with a
bicyclecommute rate similar to San Francisco's. These requirements
should then be modified to matchlocal needs and political acceptance.
The ideal outcome would be to always have a slight excess ofbicycle
parking spaces.
Building Access
Currently many building owners do not allow bicycles into their
buildings. This includes manybuildings owned and/or leased by the
City of San Francisco for its own employees. This adverselyaffects
many potential bicycle commuters who do not feel secure leaving a
bicycle that can cost upto $1,000 or more in a rack.
The City should require all new and renovated buildings to set aside
space for indoor bicycle parking. The City should adopt a policy that
leases for commercial buildings cannot deny tenants the rightto bring
bicycles into their leased space. Requests for exceptions to this
policy should be made tothe Department of Parking and Traffic, and
allowed only if the building owner provides another typeof Class I
facility within the building such as check-in parking, monitored
parking or restricted accessparking. New buildings providing building
access would receive credit towards meeting Class Iparking
requirements.
Bicycles should be allowed in City owned buildings unless alternative
Class I parking is available foremployees. Acceptable locations
should be specified by the individual departments and subject
tosafety regulations and available space. In the interim before
building access is universal, the City ofSan Francisco should not
lease any space for City employees unless bicycles are allowed access
intothe buildings.
Retail Districts and Activity Hubs
The City should install on-street bicycle parking in retail
districts, activity centers or developmentsin areas where businesses
or landlords are not individually responsible for off-street parking.
Thecurrent program where the City responds to requests of businesses
has not been effective becauseof substantial paperwork and required
fee payments.
By actively installing racks at locations of its own choosing, as is
done in Chicago and Seattle, theDepartment of Parking and Traffic can
provide a sufficient supply of bicycle racks and ensurecompliance
with placement criteria so that liability will not be an issue.
Businesses should be activelyconsulted to identify rack locations,
but should not be responsible for paperwork, waivers, or fees.
Bicycle parking will benefit both the small business owners and their
patrons who will now be ableto bicycle to these locations.
It is recommended that this program be extended to bicycle parking in
both the public right-of-wayand in the private off-street parking
lots of existing businesses, including supermarkets, superdrugstores,
retail stores, shopping malls, etc.
City-Owned Garages
Currently, four of the 15 city-owned garages provide bicycle racks:
Civic Center (20 racks), Sutter-Stockton (7 racks) 5th and Mission
(33 racks), and Golden Gateway (13 racks).
All city-owned parking garages should provide bicycle-parking for at
least four to ten bicycles,depending on expected initial demand. If
the racks are regularly used to capacity, additional bicycleracks
should be installed. The fact sheet on City-owned Parking Garage
Rates prepared by theDepartment of Parking and Traffic should be
updated to indicate whether bicycle parking is providedin each garage
and what the parking fee is, if any.
The City should consider a joint cooperative effort with BART to
provide bicycle lockers at Citygarages closest to the downtown BART
stations. Currently, BART commuters using these stationshave no
bicycle parking facilities available to them. These bicycle lockers
also would be attractiveto bicycle commuters who work downtown.
Major Employment Sites Outside the Central Business District
The responsibility for providing parking at non-City owned locations
such as hospitals, universitiesand employment sites should fall to
the property owners and employers. While new buildings willbe subject
to the zoning ordinance, existing locations should be encouraged to
abide by the intentof the ordinance.
Transit Stations
Bicycle access to transit is a logical combination of modes and
supports efficient land use objectivesby minimizing the potential use
of parking facilities adjacent to transit stations. San Francisco
hasa Transit First policy and very high transit ridership, yet the
City currently lacks sufficient bicycleparking facilities adjacent to
transit access sites and is far behind cities in Europe and Japan in
thedevelopment and implementation of secure bicycle parking at
transit stations. To remedy thissituation, it is recommended that:
1. The major focus of bicycle parking improvements should be on the
upgrade of parking facilities at the highest patronage stations.
2. Bicycle parking should be easily visible so that the potential or
casual bicycle rider knows that bicycle facilities are available at
the transit station. Even when sight accessibility is not available,
appropriate bicycle parking signage can be used at elevators,
escalators and entrances.
3. Bicycle lockers, or another form of guarded bicycle parking,
should be available on a daily basis. Unlike most of the City's
bicycle locker systems that require monthly locker fees and often
have waiting lists, some form of parking should be available on a
daily basis to support the spontaneous decision to bicycle to the bus
or rail system.
4. Over the next two years, major planning and design activities
will be directed towards San Francisco's Ferry Building, the Caltrain
Station at Fourth/Townsend, and the Transbay Terminal. All of these
plans should have a significant bicycle parking elements including
but not limited to guarded parking, bicycle rental facilities, and
bicycle support/maintenance facilities.
5. Discussions between the City of San Francisco, BART, the San
Francisco Congestion Management Agency, and MTC should be initiated
to address BART's current opposition to secure, guarded bicycle
parking facilities, located below grade at major San Francisco
locations.
6. Parking at downtown BART stations should be available via a
cooperative effort between the City and BART. The following
recommendations apply to specific stations:
1. CalTrain Station: The existing bicycle lockers should be
relocated to a more hospitable site adjacent to Fourth Street. An
additional 24 bicycle lockers are recommended for this site.
2. Transbay Terminal: Four bicycle parking lockers should be
located in the vicinity of the curved access road off Mission Street.
3. 16th Street Mission BART Station: One or two bicycle lockers at
one of these corners would meet any parking demands that may exist.
It would be important to strategically locate the lockers to minimize
vandalism and maximize their viability.
4. 24th Street Mission BART Station: Four free standing lockers
adjacent to the escalators are recommended for this site.
5. Glen Park BART Station: Four additional lockers should be
provided on Bosworth Avenue, next to the bus pullout.
6. Balboa Park BART Station: Eight new lockers should be provided
at the site, south of Geneva Street, adjacent to the existing bicycle
racks.
Major Events
In the past, private bicycle organizations such as the San Francisco
Bicycle Coalition, East BayBicycle Coalition, and the Silicon Valley
Bicycle Coalition have provided free valet bicycle parkingat public
events, using inexpensive equipment such as portable fences, portable
racks, and cables. The City should require organizers of large events
to provide similar parking, either on their ownor by contracting with
local bicycle organizations.
Innovative Parking
Minneapolis provides a bicycle garage, in the form of a trailer that
offers free indoor valet parking. If mobile, such a trailer could
also provide bicycle parking at large public events such as
festivals,sports events, concerts, and conventions. It might be
publicly owned and rented to clients for amoderate fee. City bicycle
parking requirements for such events could provide a strong
incentivefor privately owned trailers to fulfill the need.
Many locations in Europe offer guarded bicycle parking, sometimes in
conjunction with repair andrental services. Japan and the Netherlands
provide automated bicycle parking carousels, which allowstorage of a
large number of bicycles in a small space while preserving security.
It might be efficientfor a number of downtown businesses to satisfy
their bicycle parking requirements by sharing the costof the
facility.
Parking Fees
Class II bicycle parking should be provided free, whether the rack is
provided on the street, in a citybuilding or in a parking garage.
Class I bicycle parking should be free where automobile parkingis
free. To encourage the use of bicycles for commuting, yearly fees for
Class I bicycle parkingshould probably not exceed $80/year ($7/month
or $.25/day). This maximum fee should only becharged when the cost of
providing Class I parking exceeds $5/month per bicycle. If the costs
ofproviding Class I parking are less, the fees should also be less.
TRANSIT ACCESS
Current Policies
Bicycle access on transit vehicles, connecting San Francisco to other
areas, includes bicycles on buses,rail vehicles, ferries, and
shuttles. The San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI), serving
SanFrancisco, does not allow bicycles. The policies for each transit
provider are summarized in the tableon the following page.
CURRENT BAY AREA TRANSIT POLICIES
TransitAgencyBicycle AccessPolicy
Permit/FeesOtherRestrictions
MUNI No access.N/A
SamTransBicycles allowed if the bus isless than 50% occupied.No.Two
bicycles per bus,seniors and wheelchairpassengers have
priority,cyclist must be at least 16years old.
Golden GateTransitNo access, except the Route40, San Rafael to
Richmondline.No.Two bicycles per bus,wheelchair and disabled
havepriority, bus must not be full.
AC TransitNo access, except certainbuses on lines 65 and 67 toTilden
Park and all busesoperated between 12:30 AMand 5:00 AM. These
latenight buses include lines Fand NZ to San Francisco. Folding
bicycles alwayspermitted on all buses.No.Passengers have priority
forseating areas, wheelchairpassengers have priority.
CaltrainWeekends, holidays all trainsare accessible. Only
trainsmarked with a "B" intimetable (non-peak period)are accessible
weekdays.Free Permit nowvalid indefinitelyUp to twelve bicycles
ondesignated trains, only incars with bicycle decal.
BARTBicycles allowed, exceptwhen traveling in commutedirections
during peak hours. Cannot use 12th or 19thStreet Oakland
stationsduring peak periods.$3.00 for 3-yearPermitBicycles allowed
only in rearsection of last car. Cyclistmust be at least 14 years
oldor accompanied by an adult. Folding bicycles allowed onall trains.
Golden Gate,Red & White andBlue & GoldFerriesBicycles allowed.
Ferriesoperate to Alameda,Oakland, Sausalito, Tiburon,Vallejo and
Larkspur.No.
Caltrans BayBridge BikeShuttleOperates at 45 minuteheadways during
peakperiods only betweenMacArthur Park BART andTransbay TerminalFare
is $1 eachway.
Much progress has been made in the last several years to improve
bicycle access on transit in the SanFrancisco Bay Area. When the
Southern Pacific operated what is now the Caltrain rail
service,bicycles were not allowed, except during one six-month trial
period. In May, 1994 Caltrain usedsome of San Francisco's
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to remove seats and
installbicycle racks on 52 cars. Since then, the number of trains
allowing bicycles has steadily increased to90 percent of all weekday
trains. Caltrain management expects that all trains will allow
bicycles bythe summer of 1995.
SamTrans now allows bicycles on all of its buses, subject to some
restrictions. AC Transit andGolden Gate Transit have begun allowing
bicycles inside buses on some lines. BART has allowedbicycles on non
peak period trains since 1972. Obtaining a permit was a very
inconvenient processbut they can now be obtained by mail. Temporary
one-time permits are available at stations. MUNIis the only major Bay
Area transit operator that does not allow bicycles on its vehicles.
Recommended Actions
After contacting bicycle groups and transit operators that serve San
Francisco, and assessing currentbicycle access policies, the
following actions are recommended to be taken by the City of
SanFrancisco to improve bicycle access:
Assist the BAC, SFBC, and the Regional Bicycle Advisory Committee
(REBAC) in theirongoing efforts to improve bicycle access. The
following specific improvements are ofhigh priority to the bicycle
community:
BART: Retain the BART Bicycle Accessibility Task Force as a permanent
body.
Allow bicycles in cars other than the last one since late at night
personal safety canbe a concern in this car. Consider the elimination
of BART permits. Provide aneducation and outreach program to inform
BART users of bicycle related rules. Expand bicycle access hours and
consider a retrofit (similar to Caltrain) ormodification of new cars
to allow greater bicycle access.
Caltrain: Elimination of permits. Also, see the action item below.
MUNI: Some type of bicycle access. Also, see the action item below.
AC Transit and Golden Gate transit: See the action item below.
The City's Bicycle Coordinator should actively pursue the following
bicycle access policieson MUNI:
Install bike racks on buses so that the Sunday and holiday Line 76
Marin Headlands
service across the Golden Gate Bridge can carry bicycles. The MUNI
PlanningDepartment has expressed an interest in seeking funds for
this project.
Allow bicycles on board (space permitting) on Line 76 and on lightly
patronized
neighborhood service in hilly areas of the City. Line 36 Teresita
serving MountDavidson is a good candidate.
Allow cyclists to bring disabled bicycles (due to mechanical failure
or accident) on
board MUNI vehicles, space permitting. The BAC has suggested this and
the MUNIPlanning Department is willing to consider such a policy.
Support bicycle access on all Caltrain trains, as proposed by their
staff. Assist Caltrainin securing funding (such as the City's TDA
funds) to provide more bicycle racks onreverse commute trains that
are already at the 12 bicycle capacity.
Encourage AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit to install bike racks on
all buses servingSan Francisco and help them secure funding. Golden
Gate Transit staff has proposedinstalling racks on Lines 80, 63, 65,
and 40 and has obtained two test racks. They haverequested that the
three counties in which they operate apply for TDA funds for
thisproject. Only San Francisco agreed to apply, contingent upon
application by the othertwo counties.
Bridge Access
Of San Francisco's two bridges, only the Golden Gate Bridge allows
bicycling. On weekdays, cyclistsshare the east sidewalk with
pedestrians. On weekends and weekday afternoons, bicyclists
haveexclusive use of the west sidewalk. At night (9 PM to 5 AM)
cyclists may cross the bridge on theeast sidewalk, where
electronically controlled gates allow passage.
There are no sidewalks on the 7-mile long Bay Bridge and bicycles are
not allowed. However,bicycles are accommodated in this corridor at
various times on BART, AC Transit, Red and Whiteferries, and a
Caltrans shuttle vehicle.
The following actions are recommended to be taken by the City of San
Francisco to improve bicycleaccess:
Encourage Caltrans to increase the frequency and add additional East
Bay pick up pointsto the Bay Bridge Shuttle. Help them in securing
funding. Caltrans looked into this as aproject to be funded by
increased tolls proposed in the Bay Bridge Congestion PricingStudy,
but it was not included in the funding package.
Encourage the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District
to improve thecurrent circuitous bicycle access to the west walkway
on the San Francisco side of thebridge.
CITY ORDINANCES AND POLICIES
The following policies are recommended for adoption by San Francisco.
Many of these policies arealready in use by cities in California and
the United States, including Palo Alto, Davis, Seattle,Portland, and
Boulder.
Amend the Transportation Element of the Master Plan as recommended
(see Chapter 8).
Amend the Traffic Code to delete superfluous and contradictory
definitions andregulations.
Revise the Traffic Code to eliminate the reference to age in section
96, and allow adultsas well as children to ride on sidewalks in
residential areas.
Adopt parking requirements based on land uses rather than number of
auto spacesprovided.
Allow sidewalk riding in certain non-residential areas and add
language to traffic codegoverning the behavior of bicyclists with
respect to pedestrians.
Re-evaluate the regulation of bicycle messengers.
Refine language in the Traffic Code regarding parking of bicycles on
sidewalks androadways.
Request that the Legislature amend the Vehicle Code so that:
Bicycles can be exempted from regulatory signs (such as: Do Not
Enter) at local
discretion. Bicycles can travel in bus-only lanes.
Adopt new ordinances:
Establishing all bicycle lanes on the Master Plan in toto, not
individually, (and as
thereafter amended).Requiring showers in new buildings.
Adopt a comprehensive program to deter bicycle theft and recover
stolen bicycles withoutmandatory registration.
Provide through lanes where straight-through bicycle lanes are not
provided to the leftof right-turn-only lanes, additional width for
bicyclists in the rightmost through lane. Thisshould be done
regardless of whether bicycle lanes are provided on the street.
Recognize the needs of bicyclists for smooth and level pavement in
maintenance policies.
Reimburse city employees for expenses when they travel by bicycle on
official business.
Maintain fleets of bicycles and helmets for use by City employees
along with motorvehicle fleets (as done by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and CaltransDistrict 1).
Authorize MUNI bus and trolley drivers to allow access to bicyclists
experiencingmechanical difficulty.
Require hospitals, emergency rooms, and clinics to report all
instances of bicycle injuryto the San Francisco Police Department and
to the bicycle coordinator. This informationcan help determine
patterns and causes of injuries and aid in accident and
injuryprevention.
Establish a policy providing incentives for households that do not
own automobiles, suchas a tax credit, a coupon for bicycle equipment
subsidized by the City, a bicycleequipment manufacturer, or a large
corporation, or other similar incentive.
Amend the Guidelines for Environmental Review: Transportation
Impacts, published by theSan Francisco Department of City Planning
for consultants who are conductingtransportation analyses for both
Environmental Impact Reports and NegativeDeclarations. These
guidelines should require that all traffic counts conducted as partof
the study also include bicycle counts at the same locations where
motor vehicles arecounted. An inventory of existing bicycle parking
should also be conducted within a two-block radius of the site. The
project's impacts on bicycle travel on any street in the Cityshould
be identified. Mitigation measures should not hamper bicycle
circulation.
Train all San Francisco engineers and planners in the needs and
concerns of bicyclists,to make them aware of issues that affect
bicycles. This training is especially importantbecause most
university civil engineering and city planning curricula all but
ignore thebicycle, and on-the-job training must fill the void.
Utilize the existing registration and CLETS programs to assist in
enforcing bicycle theftlaw. Encourage the implementation of a
mandatory state-wide registration program.
BICYCLE SAFETY: EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Accidents
There is an urgent need to improve bicycle safety conditions in the
City. Between 1989 and 1993,there were 35,239 reported total vehicle
accidents and 2,353 accidents involving a bicyclist. Thenumber of
bicycle accidents per year appears to have remained relatively
steady, with between 424and 496 reported bicycle accidents per year.
Since the number of reported motor vehicle accidentshas decreased
slightly, the proportion of bicycle accidents to total accidents has
increased from 3.4percent to almost 4 percent. Since many bicycle
accidents are not reported to the police department,these figures
understate the actual number of bicycle accidents.
The party at fault was listed as the bicyclist in 49 percent of these
incidents, the driver or parkedvehicle was listed as the party at
fault in 37 percent of the cases, the pedestrian was listed at
faultin two percent of the cases, and no party at fault was
identified in 11 percent of the cases. Thesestatistics indicate that
both bicyclists and motorists need to improve their driving behavior
in orderto increase the safety of bicyclists on San Francisco
streets.
The five most common vehicle code violations resulting in a bicycle
accident caused by anautomobile driver are:
Opening car door when unsafeFailure to yield when turning leftUnsafe
turn and/or without signalingUnsafe speedFailure to stop at red light
The five most common vehicle code violations resulting in a bicycle
accident caused by a bicyclistare:
Unsafe speedFailure to yield to approaching trafficPassing on right
when unsafeFailure to stop at red lightWrong-way riding
A combination of education and enforcement (in addition to design and
maintenance features citedpreviously) are recommended to improve
bicyclist safety in the City.
Education
The recommended Education Plan is divided into programs for two
distinct audiences:
Children's Education Program: To provide school-age children with a
strong foundationfor safe bicycling,
Motorist/Cyclist Education Program: To promote the safe sharing of
roadways betweenmotorists and cyclists.
Children's Education Program
After researching and assessing existing educational programs geared
towards children, threecomponents are needed to make the proposed
plan successful:
An Action-Oriented Teaching Approach - Learning must take place on a
bicycle rather than in a
classroom-like setting. When each child is on his/her own bicycle, it
will allow them to learnsafe/riding techniques more readily than by a
classroom presentation alone.
A Repetitive-Practice Teaching Process - Sessions will emphasize a
short list of concepts at each
session and will repeat them for reinforcement. Riding a bicycle
under the supervision ofan instructor on numerous occasions will
increase the students' level of comprehension andretention.
A Sense of Accomplishment for Completing the Program - Rewards in the
form of discounts for bicycle-related goods and certificates of
completion will be handed out at the end of theprogram. Incentives
for completing the program will not only boost the initial interest
in theplan but it will also help to keep children interested
throughout the four-week course.
Recommendations for Children's Bicycle Safety Education
A four week program of three two-hour weekly learning sessions and
one bicycle rodeo is proposedto give participants hands-on knowledge
of how to travel safely throughout the City of San Franciscoon a
bicycle. The program is also designed to promote bicycling as a fun
activity for youths, who inthe future could choose bicycling as a
transportation alternative. It is timed to coincide with
theconclusion of the proposed "San Francisco Bicycle Safety Week"
(see Motorist/Cyclist Plan) in June.
The Children's Program will target elementary school age children in
San Francisco. This age range
third through sixth grades will reach children who are still in the
formative years of bicycle riding. Even within this limited age span,
a fairly wide range of bicycle ability among the participants
willexist; the children will probably need to be broken into two
groups due to the difference of aptitude. Staff will need to work
with the San Francisco Unified School District to promote the program
inthe elementary schools.
The plan calls for a four-week program that will meet on Saturday
mornings. The first three weekswill be two-hour educational sessions,
with the fourth week being a city-wide bicycle rodeo forgraduates of
the Children's Program.
Since a four-week program is a serious time commitment, an incentive
is required for the childrento complete the program. This incentive
comes in the form of a bicycle rodeo for only the childrenwho have
completed the three-week education sessions. The bike rodeo is not
only the culminatingevent for the participants, but it is the event
where the Children's Program's sponsors will get themost exposure.
With a media sponsor on board, the rodeo and its sponsors will most
likely receivesome media coverage. The rodeo also provides all of the
sponsors a forum to reach their targetaudience bicycle riders and
their parents -- with their products.
Aside from the bicycle rodeo, perhaps the biggest incentive for the
children to complete theChildren's Program is the opportunity to buy
bicycling equipment at discounted prices through thehelp of the
sponsors. All rodeo participants will receive coupons for discounted
items at the localbicycle store sponsor, while the other sponsors can
donate prizes for winners of the bicycle rodeo.
It is acknowledged that this safety education program will reach only
a small fraction of SanFrancisco's school children. A more intensive
program to reach all school children would requirethe commitment of
the San Francisco Unified School District or the State of California.
However,providing safety education for children and their parents who
want it should be considered a publicservice and be given high
priority.
Motorist/Cyclist Education
The goal of the Motorist/Cyclist Program is to educate cyclists about
their responsibilities for safeoperation of a bicycle and to teach
motorists about bicyclists' rights and responsibilities
andappropriate methods for sharing the road with bicyclists. The
program has a number of components:
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) - Working with the DMV will allow
the campaign to reachdrivers - a key target audience for this
campaign. It is proposed that an add-in brochure be enclosedin the
annual renewal notice for automobile registration to the owners of
cars registered in SanFrancisco. There is precedent for DMV mailer
add-ins, since they already include items oninsurance and alcohol
consumption limits.
In addition, it is recommended that the DMV work with the California
Bicycle Advisory Committeeto revise the Driver's Manual to include
more information for motorists regarding bicycles on theroadway what
to expect and how to respect their travel space.
Finally, it is recommended that the City request that the DMV review
questions developed by theLeague of American Bicyclists and revise as
appropriate their written questions for the driver's examrelating to
bicycle issues.
Media Campaign/Public Service Announcements (PSAs) - The PSA
component will be a key elementin the success of the Motorist/Cyclist
Program. Whether the PSAs are broadcast on television orradio, the
message of safe road sharing will reach a mass audience, and support
the mailer portionof the campaign. An on-air media person, local
celebrity, actor, politician or athlete could be usedto deliver the
message of safe road sharing.
Awareness/Outreach Events - Another way to promote the
Motorist/Cyclist Program will be theproclamation of "Bicycle Safety
Week" by the Mayor. It is proposed that "Bicycle Safety Week"include
a series of events leading up to the American Youth Hostel Great San
Francisco BicycleAdventure, an annual bicycle fun ride which is held
on the second Sunday of June.
The week of activities would include:
Mayor's Press ConferenceBicycle Safety Demonstrations Employer
Outreach Event (a bicycle ride through the Financial District for the
tenparticipating companies)Children's Program Bicycle Rodeo
American Youth Hostel Great San Francisco Bicycle Adventure - This
event is an excellentopportunity to distribute bicycle safety and
roadsharing pamphlets. Information will be distributedprior to the
ride.
Critical Mass Ride - Distribute safety materials at Critical Mass, a
gathering of bicycle enthusiastswhich begins at Justin Herman Plaza,
across from the Ferry Building, at 5:30 PM on the last non-holiday
Friday of each month.
Enforcement
Enforcement of traffic laws should be composed of several strategies:
citations, training for policeofficers, traffic school, fix-it
tickets, verbal warnings, notes to parents (for juveniles), as well
aspositive reinforcement techniques such as rewards for proper or
exemplary behavior. The publicshould be informed in advance before
any new enforcement measures are implemented.
Citations - The most commonly perceived enforcement strategy is
issuing citations to violators of theVehicle Code or Traffic Code.
The San Francisco Police Department issued 630 citations tobicyclists
in 1991-1993. It is unknown how many citations were issued to
motorists for failing to yieldthe right-of-way to a bicyclist or
otherwise causing or almost causing a bicycle accident. A reviewof
the most severe car-bicycle crashes those that resulted in a fatality
revealed that motorists didnot receive a citation when the motorist
was deemed at fault.
In a city with many other serious enforcement priorities, it is
important to get across the messageto the police that bicyclist and
motorist violations are a significant problem (see following
section).
Training for Police Officers - Training for officers can take place
through existing channels such asinter-office memos and
correspondence, and also through peer education using the officers
thatpatrol on bicycles. Support from higher up in the administration
will be essential if an increasedenforcement program is to succeed.
In addition, the video The Law is For All should be shown toall
officers. This video, produced by Blue Sky Productions in Lansing
Michigan aims to sensitizepolice officers that enforcing bicycle laws
should be part of their priorities as a public safety issue.
Reduction in Bail for Bicyclists - State law AB669 (passed in 1994)
allows cities the discretion toreduce fines for infractions of the
vehicle code incurred by bicyclists. The assumption behind
thelegislation was that some police departments are hesitant to
enforce certain bicycle violations,particularly when no threat to
public safety is involved, due to the extreme fines involved: up to
andexceeding $200. This authority that is being relinquished to
localities should be embraced by theCity of San Francisco. It is
recommended that fines for most bicyclist infractions be reduced to
$25.
Traffic School - Once a bicyclist or motorist has received a
citation, it should be viewed by the Cityas an opportunity to educate
him/her. It may be very helpful to combine both bicyclists
andmotorists in the same class so a dialogue can ensue and they can
learn from each other. As analternative to the fine, violators should
be given the option of enrolling in such a traffic school. Traffic
school curriculum should be developed that focuses primarily on
bicycle issues from both thebicyclist's and the motorist's
perspectives. Motorists cited for bicycle infractions and opting
fortraffic school would be required to enroll in the bicycle-issue
oriented school if they opt for a trafficschool. Traffic school for
bicycle offenders and motorist offenders would, of course, not go on
theirrecord.
PROMOTION OF BICYCLING
TDM Programs
Bicycling is an ideal commute alternative in San Francisco, a city
seven miles wide, where 80.4percent of the employed residents also
work in the City. Unfortunately, only one percent of theemployees in
San Francisco chose a bicycle as their form of transportation in
1993. This percentageranked sixth among the eight counties in the Bay
Area Region, ahead of only Solano and ContraCosta Counties.
Companies with over 100 employees are mandated by law to have a
Transportation DemandManagement (TDM) program to promote alternative
modes of transportation to single occupantvehicles. These programs
have focussed on education, information and incentives to get people
tostop driving alone to work. Carpools, vanpools, and transit are the
most popular alternative modes. Bicycle commuting is often an
overlooked or underutilized opportunity for attaining these
tripreduction goals.
An effective bicycle commuting encouragement program must include the
following:
The TDM program must identify bicycle commuting as an option;The TDM
program must provide an incentive to use bicycle commuting; andThe
TDM program must support and applaud bicycle commuting.
Identify Bicycle Commuting as an Option - An extensive advertising
campaign should includeinformation about monetary, environmental and
health benefits of bicycle commuting. It should alsoaddress and
attempt to dispel many of the perceived obstacles. Many of the TDM
programscurrently in effect use newsletters, special events, and
workshops to educate potential bicyclecommuters. A bicyclist
information network can be used by the potential bicycle commuter to
learnwhat the best commute routes are for their personal needs, to
locate experienced bicycle commutersin their area who are willing to
advise and escort during the first bicycle commutes, and to learn
ofupcoming events and activities.
Provide an Incentive For Bicycle Commuting - The most effective
incentives for bicycle commutingcurrently being used are:
The provision of secure, protected, convenient and free bicycle
parking.
Cash Incentives, which has taken a number of forms:
a cash dividend for bicycle commuters for each day that they commute
by bicycle. reimbursing the employee $0.07/mile for company business
travel made on a bicycle. assisting the employee in the purchase of a
bicycle.
Convenience Incentives - (1) Guaranteed ride home, (2) fleet bicycles
for the use of theemployee during business hours which are often also
available for the employee to usefor their commute on a trial basis.
(3) On-site bicycle repair kits (4) on-call repairservices with a
local bicycle shop, (5) flex hours so the employee can avoid rush
hour ordarkness, (6) showers and locker rooms for clean-up and
changing after the commute,(7) closet space for storage of clean
clothes and (8) relaxed dress codes for bicyclecommuters.
Support and Applaud Bicycle Commuting - Endorsement of bicycle
commuting by those in chargeis a significant aspect of a promotion
program. Prospective bicycle commuters are more apt to tryout this
unconventional mode if it is acceptable to their supervisors.
Organized and advertised ridessuch as "Ride with the CEO" or "Ride
with the Mayor" clearly demonstrate their support andenthusiasm.
Advertising campaigns aimed at informing commuters on the merits of
bicycling shouldinclude endorsements by key officials as well as
interviews with peers who currently commute bybicycle. Programs by a
city or company to promote bicycle commuting should be as
comprehensiveas the programs established to encourage transit use. If
cash subsidies are offered for transit use butnot for bicycling, the
message that bicycles are not as acceptable as transit is clearly
being given.
Recommended Employer Outreach Campaign
A pilot program to introduce San Francisco companies to bicycling as
a viable commute alternativeand to encourage their employees to
consider using a bicycle is proposed. The pilot program istargeted at
10 of San Francisco's largest employers and has been designed to
encourage them toinclude bicycling in their Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs. The PilotEmployer Outreach Campaign will
strongly encourage and support inclusion of bicycling as one ofthe
alternatives to driving alone that these companies can offer their
employees. Details of aproposed strategy are contained in Chapter 10.
Existing San Francisco Bicycle Events
During the year there are many sporting and other theme events held
in San Francisco. Theseevents can attract regional and even national
attention and offer the City and other organizationsan opportunity to
reach many people while providing a good time.
The most well known and well attended bicycle events in San Francisco
are the Macy's/AYH GreatSan Francisco Bicycle Adventure, the Tour de
San Francisco, and the Different Spokes AIDS bike-a-thon. These
events are charity fund raisers and attract bicyclists of all ages
and abilities. Promotionefforts could be directed towards safety
education and the advantages of bicycle commuting. Eventdirectors
could use the opportunity to teach participants the rules of
bicycling courtesy.
Another opportunity for bicycle commuting promotion and education are
those events which aredirected at changing our commute habits. Bike-
to-Work Day, Beat-the-Backup, and Earth Day areexisting events which
could be expanded to encourage more participation. Instead of having
onlyan annual Bike-to-Work Day, it might be preferable to have Bike-
to-Work Week or a monthly Bike-to-Work Day.
Other events in San Francisco such as street fairs, Festival
d'Italia, Cherry Blossom Festival, and July4th fireworks should
provide good bicycle access with free secure bicycle parking. As part
of theevent advertising, the best bicycle route to the event should
be published along with the location ofthe bicycle parking.