Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Regional Bicycle Plan for
the San Francisco Bay Area
2009 Update
March 2009
Prepared by:
Eisen| Letunic
Transportation, Environmental and Urban Planning
www. eisenletunic. com
In association with:
Fehr & Peers transportation consultants
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Regional Bicycle Plan for
the San Francisco Bay Area
2009 Update
March 2009
Prepared by:
Eisen| Letunic
Transportation, Environmental and Urban Planning
www. eisenletunic. com
In association with:
Fehr & Peers transportation consultants
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | i
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
2. Goals and Policies ................................................................................ 5
3. Background ......................................................................................... 11
• Physical setting ............................................................................... 11
• Trip‐ making trends ........................................................................ 12
• Motor vehicle/ bicycle collision analysis ...................................... 18
• MTC’s bicycle‐ related programs and policies ............................ 23
4. A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities ........................................... 27
• Regional Bikeway Network .......................................................... 27
• Bicycle access to public transit ...................................................... 43
• Emerging bicycle innovations ...................................................... 50
5. Costs and Revenue ............................................................................ 59
6. Next Steps ........................................................................................... 67
• Opportunities and Constraints ..................................................... 71
Appendix Page
A. Unbuilt Regional Bikeway Network Links ................................... 77
B. Existing Regional Bikeway Network Links ................................... 93
C. Routine Accommodation Policies ................................................. 101
D. Revenue Sources ............................................................................. 113
E. Data ................................................................................................... 119
F. Countywide Bicycle Planning ........................................................ 123
G. Resources ......................................................................................... 131
Credits ................................................................................................... 139
Table Page
3.1 Average Bay Area weekday bicycle trips .................................... 14
3.2 Average Bay Area weekend bicycle trips ..................................... 15
3.3 Average Bay Area total bicycle trips ............................................ 16
3.4 Bay Area daily journey‐ to‐ work commuters ............................... 17
3.5 Bay Area bicycle/ motor vehicle collisions ................................... 20
3.6 Bay Area bicycle/ motor vehicle injuries and fatalities ............... 21
3.7 Bay Area bicycle/ motor vehicle collision analysis ...................... 22
4.1 Completion status of Regional Bikeway Network ..................... 31
4.2 Regional Bikeway Network toll bridge links .............................. 32
4.3 Bicycle access to Bay Area’s 10 largest transit operators ........... 49
4.4 BART electronic locker installation schedule .............................. 55
5.1 Regional Bikeway Network cost ................................................... 63
5.2 Projected revenue for bicycle projects & programs .................... 64
F‐ 1 Countywide bicycle planning ..................................................... 125
F‐ 2 Countywide sales tax bicycle funding ....................................... 126
Figure Page
Regional Bikeway Network map ......................................................... 33
Alameda County Regional Bikeway Network map .......................... 34
Contra Costa County Regional Bikeway Network map ................... 35
Marin County Regional Bikeway Network map ............................... 36
Napa County Regional Bikeway Network map ................................ 37
San Francisco County Regional Bikeway Network map .................. 38
San Mateo County Regional Bikeway Network map ....................... 39
Santa Clara County Regional Bikeway Network map ...................... 40
Solano County Regional Bikeway Network map .............................. 41
Sonoma County Regional Bikeway Network map ............................ 42
ii | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 1
1 | Introduction
In this era of increasing awareness of the
critical difference that wise transportation
choices can make to global climate change,
the bicycle is emerging as a legitimate and
significant travel mode. Already, more than
300,000 bicycle trips are made every
weekday by Bay Area residents ( see Table
3.1), and bicycling has the potential to play a
much bigger role if current trends continue.
Attention in the media, schools and popular
culture has highlighted the adverse effect
that driving has on the planet’s climate,
energy supplies, gasoline prices, air and
water pollution and bicyclist and pedestrian
safety. To maximize the number of people
bicycling to work, school, shopping and for
fun throughout the nine‐ county Bay Area,
myriad infrastructure improvements,
ongoing maintenance, and safety and
promotion programs are needed.
The Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco
Bay Area is one component of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s
multipronged effort to promote bicycling
and bicycle safety while reversing decades
of automobile‐ oriented development.
Transportation 2035 – the Regional
Transportation Plan update – boosts bicycle
spending fivefold over prior Regional Bicycle
Plan expenditures ( from $ 20 million to $ 1
billion), increases funds to help spur
compact transit‐ oriented development and a
launches new Climate Action Program that
will include new programs for bicycle
facilities ( see Chapter 5).
Why a Regional Bicycle Plan?
Transportation 2035 is a comprehensive
strategy to accommodate future growth,
alleviate congestion, improve safety, reduce
pollution and ensure mobility for all
residents regardless of income.
As a component of the Transportation 2035
plan, the Regional Bicycle Plan for the San
Chapter 1
2 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Francisco Bay Area (“ Regional Bicycle Plan” or
“ Plan”) seeks to support individuals who
choose to shift modes from automobile to
bicycle by making investments in the
Regional Bikeway Network ( RBN) and other
bicycling facilities, and focusing growth in
Priority Development Areas ( PDAs), which
encourage growth in existing communities
and promote connections between land‐ use
and transportation. This plan presents data,
provides guidance and makes
recommendations to help propel these
efforts forward.
Plan update
The original Regional Bicycle Plan, published
in 2001, documented the region’s bicycling
environment, identified the links in a
regionwide bikeway network and
summarized corresponding funding
sources.
A primary purpose of the Regional
Bikeway Network is to focus
regional bicycle- related funding
on high- priority bicycle facilities
that serve regional trips.
This update to the Regional Bicycle Plan seeks
to: encourage, increase and promote safer
bicycling; provide an analysis of bicycle trip‐making
and collision data; summarize
countywide bicycle planning efforts
throughout the Bay Area; and document
advances in bicycle parking and other
important technologies. While the 2001 plan
provided an inventory of bicycle facilities at
transit facilities, this update further
investigates the relationship between
bicycling and public transportation in
recognition of the importance of bicycle‐accessible
transit and transit stations.
Because safe and convenient bicycle access
must include a place to securely store one’s
bicycle at destinations, bicycle parking, at
public transit and elsewhere, is another
focus of this plan update.
The Regional Bikeway
Network
A focus of the Regional Bicycle Plan is the
Regional Bikeway Network ( RBN), which
defines the San Francisco Bay Area’s
continuous and connected bicycling
corridors of regional significance. A
primary purpose of the RBN, which
includes both built and unbuilt segments, is
to focus regional bicycle‐ related funding on
high‐ priority bicycle facilities that serve
regional trips.
Almost 50 percent of the
Network’s 2,140 miles has been
constructed.
The 2001 Regional Bicycle Plan defined the
original RBN. MTC staff created a new RBN
geographic information system ( GIS)
database for this publication, which includes
updated mileage and cost information, and
county‐ specific maps. Almost 50 percent of
the Network’s 2,140 miles have been
constructed. The cost to construct the
remainder is estimated to be $ 1.4 billion,
including pathways on the region’s three
remaining bicycle‐ inaccessible toll bridges
( see Chapter 5).
Plan development process
A subcommittee of the Regional Bicycle
Working Group, an advisory committee to
MTC staff, guided the development of the
Regional Bicycle Plan ( see “ Credits” for
membership list). The region’s congestion
Introduction
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 3
management agencies, transportation
authorities, transit operators, bicycle
advocacy groups and members of the public
provided data to help update the RBN.
4 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 5
2 | Goals and Policies
This chapter documents the bicycle‐ related
goals and policies of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission ( MTC), which
guided the development of this updated
Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay
Area.
The goals of MTC’s transportation blueprint
for the next 30 years – Transportation 2035 –
address the three “ E’s” of sustainability: a
prosperous economy, a quality
environment, and social equity. The
document includes performance objectives
to evaluate how the agency’s projects and
programs contribute to these important
sectors of the region. Corresponding MTC
policies address transportation investments,
focused growth ( which concentrates
development in areas that allow residents to
bicycle to transit and other destinations),
pricing and affordability, technology, and
individual actions, such as bicycle
transportation, that result in vehicle
emissions reductions, reduced delay, and
improved affordability for Bay Area
households. Increasing bicycle safety is
another goal of Transportation 2035, which
sets a goal of a 25% reduction of collisions
and fatalities each from 2000 levels.
Supporting these goals, objectives and
policies are recently adopted federal, state
and regional directives that place greater
emphasis on considering the
accommodation of pedestrians and
bicyclists when designing roadway facilities
than when this plan was originally adopted
in 2001.
PRINCIPAL GOAL
To ensure that bicycling is a safe,
convenient, and practical means
of transportation and healthy
recreation throughout the Bay
Area, including in Priority
Development Areas ( PDAs); to
reduce traffic congestion and risk
of climate change; and to
increase opportunities for
physical activity to improve
public health.
In 2001, Caltrans issued Deputy Directive
( DD) 64, which requires the California
Department of Transportation to consider
Chapter 2
6 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in the
planning, design, construction, operation
and maintenance of its facilities ( see
Appendix C).
In 2006, MTC adopted Resolution 3765,
which requires agencies applying for
regional discretionary transportation funds
to document how the needs of bicyclists and
pedestrians were considered in the planning
and design of projects for which funds are
requested.
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN
GOAL AND POLICY CATEGORIES
1. Routine accommodation
2. The Regional Bikeway Network
3. Bicycle safety
4. Bicycle education & promotion
5. Multimodal integration
6. Comprehensive support
facilities & mechanisms
7. Funding
8. Planning
9. Data collection
For the region to make further strides
toward improving bicycle travel, the routine
accommodation of bicycles and pedestrians
must be embraced by other implementing
agencies as well, such as countywide
transportation authorities and congestion
management agencies, local jurisdictions,
transit operators, and other partner agencies
of MTC.
Goal 1.0: Routine
accommodation
Guarantee that accommodations for
bicyclists and pedestrians are routinely
considered in the planning and design of all
roadway, transit and other transportation
facilities funded by MTC ( see Appendix C).
Policies
1.1 Ensure that all transportation
projects funded by MTC consider
enhancement of bicycle
transportation, consistent with MTC
Resolution 3765, Caltrans Deputy
Directive 64 R1, Assembly
Concurrent Resolution 211 and the
Complete Streets Act of 2008 ( see
Appendix C).
1.2 Encourage bicycle- friendly design of
all roadways, public transit systems
and other transportation facilities,
through new technologies, “ best
practices,” mandatory standards,
optional guidelines and innovative
treatments.
Goal 2.0: The Regional
Bikeway Network ( RBN)
Define a comprehensive RBN that connects
every Bay Area community; provides
connections to regional transit, major
activity centers and central business
districts; and includes the San Francisco Bay
Trail.
Policies
2.1 Develop a cohesive system of
regional bikeways that provide
access to and among major activity
centers, public transportation and
recreation facilities.
2.2 Ensure that the RBN serves
bicyclists with diverse ability levels
who are bicycling for a range of
transportation and recreational
purposes.
Goals and Policies
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 7
2.3 Ensure that closing gaps in the RBN
— particularly those that occur over
jurisdictional boundaries — are
given high funding priority.
2.4 Ensure ongoing maintenance and
monitoring efforts that support the
implementation and operation of
the RBN.
2.5 Encourage coordination of cross-jurisdictional
bicycle way- finding
signage.
2.6 Provide bicycle access across all Bay
Area toll bridges and other
regionally significant facilities, such
as the Webster and Posey tubes
between Oakland and Alameda,
whenever possible.
Goal 3.0: Bicycle safety
Encourage local and statewide policies that
improve bicycle safety.
Policies
3.1 Ensure investment choices that help
achieve the Transportation 2035
goal of reducing bicycle fatalities
and injuries by 25 percent each
from 2000 levels by 2035.
3.2 Support local government efforts to
improve bicyclist safety by
encouraging enforcement of the
California Vehicle Code for
motorists and cyclists alike.
Examples include diversion training
programs and reduced fines for
errant cyclists so police officers will
be more willing to cite them.
( Diversion training allows motorists
and cyclists who break traffic laws
to avoid having citations
documented in exchange for
attending traffic safety classes.)
3.3 Encourage local jurisdictions and
other agencies and organizations to
utilize MTC’s online Safety Toolbox.
Goal 4.0: Bicycle education
and promotion
Develop training sessions and educational
materials that emphasize bicycle safety and
the positive benefits of cycling.
Policies
4.1 Encourage and support the creation
or expansion of comprehensive
safety awareness, driver education,
cyclist education, and diversion
training programs for cyclists and
motorists.
4.2 Develop a comprehensive promotion
and outreach effort — including, but
not limited to, Bike- to- Work Day —
that advocates for bicycling as part
of a larger effort to provide healthy
and environmentally friendly
transportation choices.
4.3 Continue to improve bicycling
information and tools on the
511. org website with a focus on
improving BikeMapper, the bike
buddy matching tool and
information for beginning bicycle
commuting.
Chapter 2
8 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
4.4 Offer training sessions on “ best
practices” bicycle facility design
and safe cycling practices.
Goal 5.0: Multimodal
integration
Work toward developing seamless transfers
between bicycling and public
transportation.
Policies
5.1 Encourage transit agencies to
provide, maintain and promote
convenient and secure bicycle
parking at transit stops, stations
and terminals, including racks, bike
lockers, in- station bike storage and
staffed and automated bicycle
parking facilities.
5.2 Ensure that bicycles are
accommodated on all forms of
public transit whenever possible,
including on local and regional
systems.
5.3 Foster collaboration between local
jurisdictions and regional transit
agencies to improve bicycle access
to transit stations in the last mile
surrounding each station. Improve-ments
to ease, speed, convenience
and safety of bicycle access,
including by means of signage and
bikeways, should be considered.
Goal 6.0: Comprehensive
support facilities &
mechanisms
Encourage the development of facilities and
institutions that contribute to a bicycle‐friendly
environment.
Policies
6.1 Encourage development of facilities
at transit stations that provide long-term
bicycle storage, bicycle repair
and bicycle rental.
6.2 Encourage local jurisdictions to
adopt ordinances requiring bicycle
parking and storage and to offer
incentives to employers that
provide enclosed, sheltered bicycle
parking for their employees and,
when feasible, their customers.
6.3 Encourage local jurisdictions to
provide shower and locker facilities,
or to make arrangements for access
to local health clubs, for all new
developments and major
redevelopments.
6.4 Continue to require cities and
counties to form and maintain
bicycle advisory committees, and to
develop and update comprehensive
bicycle plans, as a condition for
receiving Transportation
Development Act ( TDA) funds.
Goal 7.0: Funding
Develop an equitable and effective regional
funding and implementation process.
Policies
7.1 Continue to fund bicycle projects to
complete the RBN.
7.2 Consider the benefits of bicycling
improvements in the allocation of
all transportation funding and in
developing performance measures,
including vehicle trip and
greenhouse gas reduction, public
health and community livability.
7.3 Pursue additional fund sources to
continue MTC's Safe Routes to
Transit program once Regional
Goals and Policies
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 9
Measure 2 and Climate Action
Program funds are no longer
available ( see Chapter 5).
7.4 Identify new funding sources to
support operation and maintenance
of bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
such as attended bicycle parking
facilities and maintenance of
multiuse paths.
7.5 Support additional funding for Safe
Routes to Schools programs if
federal, state and regional funds
are no longer available ( see
Chapter 5).
Goal 8.0: Planning
Continue to support ongoing regional
bicycle planning.
Policies
8.1 Support ongoing planning efforts to
implement projects in the Regional
Bicycle Plan with the assistance of
MTC Resolution 3765.
8.2 Update and adopt the next Regional
Bicycle Plan before the
development of the next Regional
Transportation Plan begins.
8.3 Encourage development of bicycle
facilities and amenities when
planning Priority Development Areas
( PDAs).
8.4 Continue to staff and support the
Regional Bicycle Working Group
( which guided the development of
this plan) to oversee
implementation of the plan, among
other efforts.
8.5 Create mechanisms to distribute
this plan to jurisdictions and other
agencies throughout the Bay Area
and encourage incorporation of
applicable policies into locally
adopted documents.
8.6 Continue working with the Caltrans
District 4 Bicycle Advisory
Committee and statewide Bicycle
Advisory Committee.
8.7 Encourage jurisdictions to consider
adopting California Environmental
Quality Act ( CEQA) standards that
rigorously analyze project impacts
to bicyclists and pedestrians.
8.8 Support inclusion of transportation
and land- use standards in Health
Impact Assessments ( HIAs). ( An HIA
is a multidisciplinary process to
examine evidence about the health
effects of a development proposal.)
8.9 Work to complete the Bay Trail and
other intercounty trail systems.
( See Chapter 4 for more information
about the Bay Trail.) Work to
provide connections to the
California Coastal Trail1 by
coordinating with the State Coastal
Conservancy, the California Coastal
Commission and Caltrans to ensure
a complete system of safe and
efficient trails for cyclists in the Bay
Area.
1 The California Coastal Trail, once
completed, will extend 1,300 miles along the
California Coast, including over 300 miles in
the Bay Area. The Trail is designed to foster
appreciation and stewardship of the scenic
and natural resources of the California
coastline through bicycling and hiking. The
California Coastal Conservancy’s
publication, “ Completing the California
Coastal Trail,” provides a strategic blueprint
for future development of the Trail.
( www. scc. ca. gov)
Chapter 2
10 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Goal 9.0: Data collection
Routinely collect regionwide bicycle,
pedestrian trip‐ making and collision data,
including for trips using these modes to
access public transit, as part of the State of
the System report and Bay Area Travel
Survey ( BATS) work in order to gauge
progress toward the goals in this plan.
Policies
9.1 Collect Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System ( SWITRS) bicycle
collision statistics and data on
bicycle travel in Bay Area
jurisdictions, and post data on
MTC’s Web site.
9.2 Encourage Caltrans to purchase
additional Bay Area households for
the National Personal
Transportation Survey.
9.3 Continue to make travel data
available to the public through the
MTC Web site.
9.4 Encourage local jurisdictions to
work with the National Bicycle and
Pedestrian Documentation Project
to standardize bicycle and
pedestrian data collection
throughout the region.
9.5 Maintain and continue to improve
MTC’s existing BikeMapper service,
an interactive online service that
shows possible bicycle routes
between any two Bay Area points.
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 11
3 | Background
This chapter provides bicycle trip‐ making
trends, bicycle/ motor vehicle collision rates,
and MTC bicycle‐ related programs and
policies as a backdrop to the remainder of
the Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco
Bay Area. Please refer to the countywide
bicycle plans of MTC’s partner agencies for
information on bicycle facilities in each of
the nine Bay Area counties ( see Appendix
F).
Physical setting
The nine‐ county Bay Area encompasses
7,200 square miles of varied topography,
climate and development intensity. The
region is divided into a number of
subregions by the Bay and the hills that
parallel the coastline. While these barriers
make bicycling between subregions
challenging, they frame flatlands on which
bicycling can be relatively easy for cyclists
of all abilities. These level areas include the
Santa Clara, Diablo and Livermore valleys,
the East Bay flatlands, the western edges of
the Central Valley, and the eastern
Peninsula. The majority of Napa and
Sonoma county development is also located
in broad valleys. Many of the region’s
homes and businesses are located in these
relatively flat areas, thereby providing
multiple utilitarian and recreational
bicycling opportunities.
In addition to the Bay Area’s generally
hospitable topography and land‐ use
patterns, is a temperate climate that is
conducive to cycling. Although
temperatures vary with distance from the
moderating influence of the Pacific Ocean
and San Francisco and San Pablo bays, the
region is relatively warm in winter and
rarely excessively hot in summer. Annual
rainfall is limited in most areas, on average
less than 21 inches, although the portions of
the North Bay can see double this amount.
This mild climate is conducive to cycling
during most months of the year.
Development in many parts of the region
also supports bicycling. Before World War
II, San Francisco and Oakland were the Bay
Area’s only big cities, but smaller towns
were scattered around the region: the
railroad suburbs on the Peninsula; the
industrial towns along the Bay and San
Chapter 3
12 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Joaquin River in Contra Costa County; the
agricultural centers of San José and Santa
Rosa; and the university towns of Berkeley
and Palo Alto.
The relatively compact and frequent grid
development patterns in these areas create a
hospitable bicycling environment.
Destinations are often clustered in
neighborhood commercial districts and
downtowns, and motor vehicle traffic is
dispersed among many parallel roadways,
rather than channeled onto a single
expressway as is typical in postwar
development.
Traveling between these older communities
by the region’s more athletic bicyclists is
possible along many corridors. However,
automobile and truck traffic, frequently
inadequate bicycle facilities, and many areas
of postwar sprawling development conspire
to dissuade many potential cyclists from
venturing beyond their neighborhoods.
Together the Bay Area’s
extensive flatlands, moderate
climate and compact
development create a hospitable
cycling environment.
Linking multiuse pathways, bicycle lanes,
and other bicycle facilities with the region’s
extensive bus, rail and ferry network can
allow cyclists to use their bicycles at either
or both ends of their trip, while using public
transit to travel longer distances and over
steep hills and the Bay. Coordinating
bicycles and public transit also allows transit
systems to increase ridership without
constructing additional automobile parking
( see Chapter 4).
Trip- making trends
According to MTC’s most recent travel
survey – the Bay Area Travel Survey ( BATS)
– Bay Area residents took over 300,000 daily
trips by bicycle each weekday and over 2
million trips each week in 2000 ( see Tables
3.1‐ 3.3). These numbers include trips to
work, shopping, recreation and school and
other trips ( such as an errand on the way
home from work) that neither originate nor
terminate at home. The trip purposes with
the largest share of weekday bicycle trips
( versus other modes) in the region are work
commute trips ( 1.8 percent), followed
closely by school trips ( 1.7 percent). More
Bay Area bicycle trips are to work each day
than for any other purpose ( 81,000), but
there are almost as many bike‐ to‐ shop trips
across the region ( 75,000). The counties with
the highest share of bicycle trips ( compared
to other modes used in that county) are
Alameda and San Francisco, where 2.1
percent of all weekday trips are by bike.
More weekday bicycle trips occur in
Alameda County than anywhere else in the
region ( over 90,000 per weekday).
Beyond these weekday trips, over 500,000
additional bicycle trips take place each
weekend across the Bay Area ( see Table 3.2).
The trip purposes with the highest bicycle
share are work trips and social/ recreational
trips ( both 1.6 percent of trips by all modes)
but, not surprisingly, there are far more
Background
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 13
weekend social/ recreational trips ( 222,000)
than any other trip purpose. San Francisco
is the county with the highest share of
weekend bicycle trips ( 2.3 percent of all
weekend trips in San Francisco are by bike)
and Alameda County has the highest
number of weekend trips in the region
( 151,000).
Regionwide, there are over
2 million weekly bicycle trips,
which account for 1.4 percent of
all trips taken by all modes in all
nine Bay Area counties.
Table 3.3 shows the number of weekly
bicycle trips ( i. e., in a seven‐ day period).
Regionwide, there are over 2 million weekly
bicycle trips, which account for 1.4 percent
of all trips taken by all modes in all nine Bay
Area counties. The highest share of trips
over the seven‐ day period are work trips
( 1.7 percent of all work trips are by bike),
but more people bicycle to go shopping
( 550,000 weekly trips) than for any other trip
purpose.
More people shop by bicycle than
for any other trip purpose:
550,000 weekly trips.
The U. S. Census Bureau, which tracks
bicycle commuters rather than bicycle trips,
reports 36,000 Bay Area bicycle commuters
in 2000, 1.1 percent of all commuters ( see
Table 3.4). This ranges from 0.5 percent in
Contra Costa and Solano counties to
2 percent of commuters who live in San
Francisco, numbers that are comparable to
the BATS work trip data reported in
Table 3.1.
Chapter 3
14 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Table 3.1: Average Bay Area weekday bicycle trips ( Monday through Friday; 2000)
Home- based trips
Work Shopping
Social/
Recreation School
Non-home-based
Total
% of
all
trips
Alameda 22,000 16,000 26,000 10,000 19,000 93,000 2.1%
Contra Costa 1,800* 9,000 3,000* 3,000* 1,000* 19,000 0.7%
Marin 3,600* 5,000* 3,000* 2,000* 1,000* 14,000 1.7%
Napa 1,000* 2,000* 1,000* 1,000* 400* 5,000* 1.3%
San Francisco 20,000 14,000 8,000 1,000* 8,000 51,000 2.1%
San Mateo 13,000 7,000 3,000* 11,000 6,000 39,000 1.8%
Santa Clara 15,000 16,000 9,000 11,000 11,000 62,000 1.2%
Solano 3,000* 4,000* 1,000* 2,000* 400* 10,000 1.0%
Sonoma 3,000* 4,000* 3,000* 2,000* 1,000* 11,000 0.8%
Regionwide 81,000 75,000 56,000 43,000 49,000 303,000 1.5%
% of all trips** 1.8% 1.4% 1.5% 1.7% 1.0% 1.5%
* Insufficient sample size; reported for information purposes only.
** These values show percent of this trip purpose regionwide that is by bicycle.
Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Travel Survey
Background
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 15
Table 3.2: Average Bay Area weekend bicycle trips ( Saturday and Sunday; 2000)
Home- based trips
Work Shopping
Social/
Recreation School
Non-home-based
Total
% of
all
trips
Alameda 13,000 37,000 80,000 — 21,000 151,000 1.9%
Contra Costa — 19,000 7,000 3,000* 1,000* 30,000 0.6%
Marin 1,600* 13,000 1,000* — 3,000* 19,000 1.1%
Napa 1,000* 1,000* — — 2,000* 4,000 0.6%
San Francisco 12,000 34,000 40,000 2,000* 16,000 105,000 2.3%
San Mateo 9,000 13,000 7,000 — 6,000 36,000 0.9%
Santa Clara 5,000 34,000 65,000 1,000* 9,000 114,000 1.1%
Solano 3,000* 4,000* 10,000 — 1,000* 18,000 1.1%
Sonoma — 18,000 12,000 3,000* 7,000 40,000 1.4%
Regionwide 46,000 173,000 222,000 9,000 66,000 517,000 1.3%
% of all trips** 1.6% 1.4% 1.6% 1.0% 0.7% 1.3%
— No trips of this type reported.
* Insufficient sample size; reported for information purposes only.
** These values show percent of this trip purpose regionwide that is by bicycle.
Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Travel Survey
Chapter 3
16 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Table 3.3: Average Bay Area total weekly bicycle trips ( weekdays+ weekends; 2000)
Home- based trips
Work Shopping
Social/
Recreation School
Non-home-based
Total
% of
all
trips
Alameda 122,000 115,000 209,000 51,000 117,000 615,000 2.0%
Contra Costa 9,000* 64,000 25,000* 19,000* 8,000* 125,000 0.6%
Marin 19,000* 36,000* 14,000* 8,000 * 9,000* 86,000 1.5%
Napa 6,000* 10,000* 4,000* 4,000* 4,000* 28,000* 1.1%
San Francisco 112,000 106,000 78,000 9,000* 57,000 361,000 2.1%
San Mateo 72,000 46,000 23,000* 53,000 36,000 230,000 1.5%
Santa Clara 82,000 112,000 108,000 58,000 63,000 423,000 1.2%
Solano 17,000* 25,000* 15,000* 10,000* 3,000 * 69,000 1.0%
Sonoma 13,000* 36,000* 25,000* 11,000* 11,000* 96,000 1.0%
Regionwide 452,000 550,000 501,000 223,000 307,000 2,033,000 1.4%
% of all trips** 1.7% 1.4% 1.6% 1.6% 0.9% 1.4%
* Insufficient sample size; reported for information purposes only.
** These values show percent of this trip purpose regionwide that is by bicycle.
Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Travel Survey
Background
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 17
Table 3.4: Bay Area daily journey- to- work commuters ( 2000)
County
Drive
alone1 Carpool Transit2 Bicycle3 Walk Other
Work
at home Total
Alameda 453,000 94,000 72,000 8,000 22,000 6,000 24,000 679,000
66.7% 13.8% 10.6% 1.2% 3.2% 0.9% 3.5% 100.0%
Contra Costa 311,000 60,000 40,000 2,000 7,000 4,000 19,000 442,000
70.4% 13.5% 9.0% 0.5% 1.5% 0.9% 4.3% 100.0%
Marin 83,000 14,000 13,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 11,000 127,000
65.8% 10.7% 10.1% 1.0% 3.0% 0.6% 8.8% 100.0%
Napa 42,000 8,500 800 500 2,000 500 3,000 57,000
72.9% 14.8% 1.4% 0.8% 4.1% 0.8% 5.1% 100.0%
San Francisco 173,000 45,000 130,000 8,000 39,000 3,000 19,000 419,000
41.4% 10.8% 31.1% 2.0% 9.4% 0.7% 4.6% 100.0%
San Mateo 257,000 45,000 26,000 3,000 8,000 2,000 13,000 354,000
72.6% 12.8% 7.4% 0.8% 2.1% 0.7% 3.6% 100.0%
Santa Clara 643,000 101,000 29,000 10,000 15,000 5,000 26,000 829,000
77.6% 12.2% 3.5% 1.2% 1.8% 0.6% 3.1% 100.0%
Solano 128,000 31,000 5,000 1,000 3,000 2,000 5,000 175,000
73.5% 17.7% 2.7% 0.5% 1.6% 0.9% 3.1% 100.0%
Sonoma 169,000 28,000 6,000 2,000 7,000 2,000 12,000 225,000
75.0% 12.6% 2.4% 0.8% 3.1% 0.7% 5.4% 100.0%
Region 2,260,000 427,000 321,000 36,000 106,000 24,000 133,000 3,306,000
68.4% 12.9% 9.7% 1.1% 3.2% 0.7% 4.0% 100.0%
1 Includes motorcyclists
2 Includes taxicab passengers
3 Unlike BATS data, indicates bicycle commuters, rather than bicycle trips.
Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding Source: U. S. Census 2000, Journey‐ to‐ Work
Chapter 3
18 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Motor vehicle/ bicycle
collision analysis
From 2000 to 2006, the number of reported
collisions between motor vehicles and
bicycles in the Bay Area ranged between
2,300 and 2,800, with a high in 2000 and a
low in 2003 ( Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System/ SWITRS; see Table 3.5).
While an average of 1.4 percent of regional
trips were made by bicycle in 2000 ( see
Table 3.3), over 2.5 times that proportion of
traffic fatalities were bicyclists ( Table 3.6).
The likelihood that a given person
bicycling will be struck by a
motorist is inversely correlated
with the amount of bicycling.
Just as bicycle/ motor vehicle collisions
peaked in 2000 and were at their lowest
level in 2003, regional traffic levels ( as
measured by vehicle hours of delay) and
transit ridership experienced a similar
pattern. In all cases, these trends are
commonly attributed to the 2002 downturn
in the high‐ tech economy. Although the
number of collisions between bikes and
motor vehicles — which decreased between
2000 and 2003 — did not increase with the
region’s journey to economic recovery, the
rate of decrease flattened out after 2003.
While an average of 1.4 percent
of regional trips were by bicycle
in 2000, almost 2.5 times that
proportion of traffic fatalities
were bicyclists.
While analyzing absolute numbers of
reported collisions in each county is useful
for comparing year‐ to‐ year levels, it is not as
valuable for comparing the relative safety of
cycling between counties because it
considers neither the number of motor
vehicles nor the number of cyclists on the
road. Table 3.7 shows the number of
collisions in each county relative to
population, a common surrogate for motor
vehicles. This analysis shows that, on
average, between 2000 and 2006, there were
35 collisions per 100,000 population
throughout the Bay Area, ranging from 23 in
Solano County to 54 in Marin.
While measures of collisions per population
are more informative than collisions alone,
to obtain an accurate sense of the relative
risk of motor vehicle/ bicycle collisions, one
must consider the number of cyclists on the
road as well. In fact, the likelihood that a
given person bicycling will be struck by a
motorist is inversely correlated with the
amount of bicycling. 2 This pattern is
consistent across communities of varying
size, from specific intersections to cities and
countries, and across time periods.
Information from MTC’s 2000 Bay Area
Travel Survey, which considers all bicycle
trips, provides perhaps the best measure of
cyclists’ actual risk of collision. The data in
Table 3.7 shows that there was a regional
average of 2.3 reported motor
vehicle/ bicycle collisions per 100,000 bicycle
trips. Between 2000 and 2006, the lowest
rates were in Alameda, San Francisco and
San Mateo counties, all counties with above‐average
rates of total bicycle trips,
supporting the notion that bicyclists may be
safer when there are more of them on the
2 Jacobsen, P. L., “ Safety in numbers: more
walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling,” Injury Prevention, 2003.
Background
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 19
road. Conversely, the highest collision rates
occur in Contra Costa, Napa and Sonoma
counties, areas with lower densities, where
cars travel at higher speeds, which may
increase the likelihood of serious injury.
Addressing roadway
configurations that increase the
likelihood of dooring, pavement
condition and multiuse trail
design may reap greater safety
benefits to cyclists than
improvements aimed at the
smaller proportion of
bicycle/ motor vehicle collisions
that are typically reported.
In an effort to reduce the number and
severity of bicycle/ motor vehicle collisions,
MTC provides examples of safety
countermeasures on its Web site
( www. mtc. ca. gov/ planning/ bicyclespedestri
ans/ safety/ uses. htm). See “ Emerging bicycle
innovations” discussion in Chapter 4 for
further information.
UNDER- REPORTING
Although there is no reason to
suspect inaccuracies in terms of the
orders of magnitude of collision rates
from year to year, by comparing
SWITRS data to emergency room
admissions and cyclist surveys, a
number of studies have
demonstrated that collisions
involving bicyclists are severely
under- reported, sometimes with as
few as one in 10 incidents reported.*
A joint study by the San Francisco
Bicycle Coalition and the San
Francisco Department of Public
Health revealed that only 5 percent
of dooring incidents were reported to
the police. ( Dooring refers to a
motorist opening his/ her car door
into the path of a bicyclist.) Other
types of collisions that tend to go
unreported are those that do not
involve a motor vehicle — such as
those due to uneven pavement or
between a bicyclist and a pedestrian
— and those that do not result in
serious injury.
* District of Columbia Department of
Transportation, Bicycle Collisions in
the District of Columbia: 2000- 2002,
2004.
Conclusions
It is instructive to use countywide and
regionwide collision statistics to observe
year‐ to‐ year collision rates in a given
geographic area, and to identify geographic
areas that might benefit from programs
aimed at improving these numbers, such as
police stings and bicycle and driver
education ( see Goal 3 in Chapter 2).
Perhaps more important than how many
collisions are reported in a given county,
however, is at what locations and for what
reasons collisions occur. The SWITRS data
on which the analysis in this section was
based tracks the specific location and
reported causes of each collision. Cities and
counties can and do benefit from regularly
reviewing this information as a tool for
identifying problem locations and, where
possible, traffic engineering solutions.
The issue of under‐ reporting of collisions
involving bicyclists is a barrier against fully
understanding the extent, location and
cause of these incidents ( see adjacent box).
Besides severely understating the extent of
bicyclist injuries, under‐ reporting of
collisions involving cyclists may also skew
public agencies’ prioritization of bicycle
Chapter 3
20 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Table 3.5: Bay Area bicycle/ motor vehicle collisions ( injuries & fatalities)
County 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Annual
Average
Alameda 607 539 563 514 508 512 532 539
Contra Costa 312 245 207 225 230 246 218 240
Marin 160 143 159 120 115 123 122 135
Napa 62 49 55 50 71 68 56 59
San Francisco 366 360 309 316 323 351 347 339
San Mateo 274 287 229 217 208 199 189 229
Santa Clara 714 698 588 592 657 660 627 648
Solano 122 113 87 91 90 89 72 95
Sonoma 210 152 143 143 175 145 158 161
Total 2,827 2,586 2,340 2,268 2,377 2,393 2,321 2,445
safety improvements. It is conceivable, for
instance, that addressing the dangers of
dooring, poor pavement conditions and
safety issues in multiuse trail design may
reap greater safety benefits to cyclists than
improvements aimed at the smaller
proportion of bicycle/ motor vehicle
collisions that are typically reported.
Background
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 21
Table 3.6: Bay Area bicycle/ motor vehicle injuries and fatalities
Year
Bicyclist
Killed
Bicyclists
Injured Total
Total
people
killed in
collisions
% killed
who are
bicyclists
Average %
trips by
bicycle*
2000 17 2,810 2,827 444 3.8% 1.4%
2001 20 2,566 2,586 449 4.5% N/ A
2002 19 2,321 2,340 451 4.2% N/ A
2003 14 2,254 2,268 468 3.0% N/ A
2004 20 2,357 2,377 426 4.7% N/ A
2005 17 2,376 2,393 438 3.9% N/ A
2006 23 2,298 2,321 458 5.0% N/ A
Total 130 16,982 17,112 3134 4.1% N/ A
* 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey data ( from Table 3.3)
Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System
Chapter 3
22 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Table 3.7: Bay Area bicycle/ motor vehicle ( mv) collision analysis ( 2000 - 2006)
County
Average
annual
bike/ mv
collisions1
Average %
region's
bike/ mv
collisions
Average %
region's
population2
( 2000-
2006)
Average
annual
bike/ mv
collisions
( per 100,000
pop)
Average
annual
bike/ mv
collisions per
bicycle trip3
( per 100,000
pop)
Alameda 539 22% 21% 37 1.7
Contra Costa 240 10% 14% 24 3.7
Marin 135 6% 4% 54 3.0
Napa 59 2% 2% 46 4.1
San Francisco 339 14% 11% 43 1.8
San Mateo 229 9% 10% 32 1.9
Santa Clara 648 27% 25% 38 2.9
Solano 95 4% 6% 23 2.6
Sonoma 161 7% 7% 34 3.2
Regional Total 2,445 100% 100% 35 2.3
Sources:
1. California Highway Patrol ( Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System for collision figures)
2. Association of Bay Area Governments ( Projections 2007 for population)
3. Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey for bicycle trip figures; see Table 3.3)
Background
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 23
MTC’s bicycle- related
programs and policies
MTC facilitates bicycle transportation in
three distinct ways. The agency coordinates
regionwide bicycle planning by adopting
and implementing policies, staffing
committees and producing documents, such
as this plan. MTC also provides services
and programs aimed at making bicycling
safer and more accessible throughout the
region. Thirdly, the agency’s role as the
region’s transportation funding agency
includes the development and distribution
of numerous bicycle funding sources.
Planning/ Policy
MTC develops and updates this Regional
Bicycle Plan, which guides regionwide
bicycle facility investment. In 2000, MTC
established the Regional Bicycle Working
Group to advise on development of the
original Regional Bicycle Plan. In addition to
participating in the development of this plan
update, the committee meets bimonthly to
discuss MTC policies that affect the
bicycling community and to share
information about bicycle‐ related issues
throughout the Bay Area. The Working
Group also serves as a forum to discuss new
technologies, such as electronic lockers ( see
Chapter 4) and online bicycle route
mapping programs ( see following page).
The committee is comprised of local and
countywide bicycle planners, other
transportation planners, and bicycle
advocates.
At least three important resolutions adopted
by MTC facilitate bicycling in the region.
• Resolution 875: First adopted in 1980
and most recently amended in 2005, this
resolution guides the allocation of the
“ Transportation Development Act,
Article 3,” which funds $ 2.9 million
worth of Bay Area bicycle projects
annually ( see Chapter 5).
• Resolution 3765: This resolution,
adopted in 2006, requires agencies
applying for regional transportation
funds to document how the needs of
bicyclists and pedestrians were
considered in the process of planning
and/ or designing the project for which
funds are requested ( see Appendix C).
• Resolution 3434: Although not directly
related to bicycling, this resolution lays
out $ 13.5 billion of planned rail and bus
investment and calls for the development
of a regional transit‐ oriented
development ( TOD) policy to maximize
the smart growth potential of these
investments. The subsequent TOD policy
adopted by MTC calls for maximizing
transit investment by requiring
prescribed numbers of nearby housing
units, which will result in compact
mixed‐ use communities that are
inherently bicycle‐ friendly. MTC also
created a companion program to fund
planning around the region’s present and
future transit hubs ( see “ Funding”
section later in this chapter).
Services/ Programs/ Tools
MTC also helps bicycling throughout the
Bay Area by providing services that
improve safety and encourage bicycling.
See www. mtc. ca. gov/
planning/ bicyclespedestrians for details
about the current services and programs
listed in this section.
Chapter 3
24 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
• 511. org: This Web site is MTC’s portal
to Bay Area transit, traffic, rideshare and
bicycling information. The bicycle page
is aimed at Bay Area bicyclists. Links
include information on Bike‐ to‐ Work
Day, bicycle access on transit and
bridges, bicycle parking, bicycle safety
and bicycling organizations. The page
also provides interactive bicycle maps
( see following page).
• Bike- to- Work Day: Sponsored by MTC’s
511. org and organized by the Bay Area
Bicycle Coalition, this annual event is
dedicated to encouraging Bay Area
residents to try bicycle commuting.
Support includes coordination of “ bicycle
buddies” for the ride to work and
complimentary food, tote bags and t‐shirts
for participants. Bike‐ to‐ Work Day
typically occurs in May, but usually
involves other efforts – like the TEAM
BIKE challenge and National Bicycle
Month – lasting throughout the month of
May. The TEAM BIKE challenge
encourages novice and experienced
cyclists to form teams that compete to log
the most miles during the month of May.
• 511 BikeMapperSM: BikeMapperSM is an
interactive mapping tool that displays
existing Bay Area bikeways. Rather than
determining the best bicycle route
between two points, BikeMapperSM
displays all possible routes so the
bicyclist can choose and print the route of
his/ her choice.
• MTC bicycle/ pedestrian planning Web
page: In addition to 511. org, which
targets bicyclists, MTC hosts a bicycle
planning Web page at www. mtc. ca. gov/
planning/ bicyclespedestrians.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Toolbox: MTC created the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Safety Toolbox to help local
governments and others prevent
collisions involving bicyclists and
pedestrians through partnerships
between multiple disciplines, multiple
jurisdictions and the public. The Toolbox
contains information for engineering,
maintenance and planning staff, law
enforcement officials, school districts,
public health agencies and others. It also
provides techniques to perform collision
analysis, identify appropriate
countermeasures, and develop effective
bicycle and pedestrian safety programs.
The toolbox can be accessed at
www. mtc. ca. gov/
planning/ bicyclespedestrians.
• Pedestrian and bicycle training
workshops: MTC periodically offers
interactive workshops aimed at
providing the latest bicycle and
pedestrian design information to
practicing transportation and urban
planning and design professionals.
These day‐ long classes cover trends in
bicycle and pedestrian planning, design
innovations and updates on related
legislation, and bicycle planning tools.
The workshops typically include an
hour‐ long walkabout in the vicinity of
Background
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 25
each class site to observe and discuss
common design challenges and solutions.
Funding
MTC administers seven funding programs
that can support bicycle projects. These
grant programs — Transportation
Enhancements; Transportation for Livable
Communities; a new Regional Bikeway
Network Program; Safe Routes to Transit;
Transportation Development Act, Article 3;
and a new Climate Action Program — are
described in detail in Appendix D.
In addition to these sources, MTC’s Station
Area Planning Grant Program helps local
governments map out plans for vibrant,
mixed‐ use transit villages in the vicinity of
transit hubs. Station area plans consider
bicycle access in the context of roadway
design, and call for facilities and amenities
that encourage safe bicycle transportation.
26 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 27
4 | A Survey of
Regional Bicycle Facilities
The San Francisco Bay Area contains many
components of a truly bikable region. A
growing network of on‐ street bikeway
facilities and paved inter‐ county trails that
serve local and regional destinations; access
to and on public transit to allow travel over
longer distances than most people are able
to bicycle; safe and convenient bicycle
parking options at destinations throughout
the Bay Area; programs that encourage and
educate cyclists and other roadway‐ users;
and a willingness to experiment with
innovative roadway treatments and other
bicycle facilities in the pursuit of a bikeway
system that encourages safer and more
frequent cycling.
The Regional Bikeway
Network
The RBN defines the San Francisco Bay
Area’s continuous and connected bicycling
corridors of regional significance. The
primary purpose of the RBN, which
includes both built and unbuilt segments, is
to focus regional bicycle‐ related funding on
the highest‐ priority bicycle facilities that
serve regional trips, including access to
transit. This approach assumes that Bay
Area cities and counties prioritize the
expenditure of locally generated funds and
local set‐ asides of discretionary funds for
local‐ serving projects, leaving many
intercity, intercounty and other important
bikeways of regional significance to be
funded with regional discretionary sources.
( See Appendix F for a summary of the
countywide bicycle planning occurring in
each of the nine Bay Area counties.)
A summary of the network mileage by
county, including a breakdown of existing
versus unbuilt mileage, is shown in Table
4.1. Appendix A provides a complete listing
of all unbuilt segments in the RBN,
including the estimated cost to construct
each segment, while Appendix B lists all
completed links.
Chapter 4
28 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
REGIONAL BIKEWAY NETWORK MAPS
Area Page
Region ............................ 33
Alameda County ................. 34
Contra Costa County ........... 35
Marin County .................... 36
Napa County ..................... 37
San Francisco .................... 38
San Mateo County ............... 39
Santa Clara County ............. 40
Solano County ................... 41
Sonoma County .................. 42
Maps of the RBN are found later in this
chapter and PDF maps can be downloaded
at:
http:// mtc. ca. gov/ planning/ bicyclespedest
rians/ regional. htm# bikeplan
Original link selection process
The links in the RBN described in this
chapter were first identified in 2001 in
conjunction with the development of the
original Regional Bicycle Plan. During that
process, a set of five criteria was developed
and used to select links from among those in
the Bay Area’s adopted countywide bicycle
networks, which are themselves subsets of
locally adopted networks ( see box on
following page). The RBN has been
updated to reflect formerly unbuilt links
that have since been constructed and local
decisions to replace one alignment with a
superior ( or more feasible) parallel route.
In many locations, the RBN is defined by
corridors; exact alignments ( street, path, or
route) may not have yet been determined by
local governments or may change based on
further study. Short routes that connect
regional bikeways to transit stations may
not show up on printed maps due to scale,
but are considered to be part of the RBN.
2001 REGIONAL BIKEWAY NETWORK
LINK SELECTION CRITERIA
1. Provide connections to every
incorporated town and city and to
unincorporated areas with
populations of over 5,000 people,
and between the Bay Area and
surrounding regions.
2. Provide connections to the
regional transit system, including
multimodal terminals, ferry
terminals, BART stations,
commuter rail stations and
Amtrak.
3. Provide connections to major
activity centers such as
universities, hospitals, parks,
athletic venues and shopping
malls.
4. Provide access within or through
the major central business
districts of the region.
5. Comprise part of the existing,
planned or proposed Bay Trail
system ( an interconnected system
of routes ringing San Francisco
and San Pablo bays being
implemented by the Association of
Bay Area Governments).
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 29
According to the 2000 Bay Area Travel
Survey, just one‐ quarter of regional bicycle
trips are for commute purposes ( see Table
3.3). However, a lack of reliable information
about other bicycle trip purposes has led the
field of bicycle planning to focus on work
trips, leaving routes that are considered to
be primarily recreational off of the RBN. All
of the Bay Area’s toll bridges are included in
the RBN.
Network modifications
Although RBN link selection criteria were
not changed for this update, the update did
involve an extremely data‐ intensive process
to identify and rectify network gaps,
inconsistencies and other erroneous
information contained in the 2001 network.
All congestion management agencies were
surveyed to determine needed updates to
RBN links in each county. During this
process, link mileage and end‐ point
information were added to the database.
With this information, MTC staff created a
RBN geographic information system ( GIS)
mapping layer, with attributes that
distinguish built links from unbuilt links.
Where local bicycle route information was
not available, MTC staff turned to digital
high‐ definition aerial photographs and the
BikeMapperSM database of existing
bikeways, which is based on direct feedback
from the region’s cities and counties.
BikeMapperSM is available at 511. org and is
described in more detail in the previous
chapter.
As of January 2008, the RBN was
nearly half complete.
The eight Bay Area toll bridges
together comprise just 1 percent
of total RBN mileage while the
combined cost to provide bicycle
access on the three remaining
bridges without access is one- half
of the total RBN cost.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL
The Bay Trail is a planned
recreational corridor that, when
complete, will encircle San Francisco
and San Pablo Bays with a continuous
500- mile network of bicycling and
hiking trails. To date, approximately
290 miles of the alignment— over half
the Bay Trail’s ultimate length— have
been completed.
The planning promotion and
implementation coordination of the
Bay Trail is managed by the San
Francisco Bay Trail Project, while
land ownership and trail segment
construction and maintenance is
handled by cities, counties, park
districts and other agencies with
land- management responsibilities,
often in partnership with local
nonprofit organizations, citizens’
groups or businesses
The Bay Trail Project is administered
by the Association of Bay Area
Governments ( ABAG).
Chapter 4
30 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Completing the Network
When completed, the RBN will be 2,140
miles long, including links within the nine
Bay Area counties and on the region’s eight
toll bridges ( see Table 4.1). As of January
2008, the RBN was nearly half complete.
This proportion varies considerably by
county: Whereas less than one‐ quarter of
network links in Sonoma County are built,
more than 50 percent are complete in Contra
Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa
Clara counties. This situation is likely due
to the more sparsely developed roadway
networks in the North Bay, which translates
to fewer, and often more expensive,
bikeway alignment options.
The eight Bay Area toll bridges together
comprise just 1 percent of total RBN
mileage; however, the combined cost to
provide bicycle access on the three bridges
where it does not currently exist and where
it is not scheduled to be built ( the
Richmond/ San Rafael Bridge, the West Span
of the San Francisco/ Oakland Bay Bridge
and the San Mateo/ Hayward Bridge) is one‐half
of the total RBN cost ( see Tables 4.2 and
5.1).
When evaluating the completeness of the
RBN, it is important to remember the
context of this 2,140‐ mile chain: the RBN
actually represents a small portion of all
planned Bay Area bikeways. Furthermore,
it does not include the myriad investments
beyond regional bikeway projects necessary
to create a truly bicycle‐ friendly region,
including bicycle parking, signage, transit
accommodations, facility maintenance and
operations, and encouragement and
education programs ( see Chapter 5 for
further discussion). If implemented at the
same time as the RBN, these other projects,
programs, and planning efforts will create a
safe and inviting bicycling environment for
hardy bicycle commuters, those who shop
by bike, occasional and avid recreational
cyclists, families with children, and anyone
whose travels can conveniently occur by
bike.
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 31
Table 4.1: Completion status of Regional Bikeway Network
County
Total
built
mileage1
Total
unbuilt
mileage2
Total
mileage3 % Built
Alameda 161 187 348 46%
Contra Costa 181 138 319 57%
Marin 37 81 118 31%
Napa 39 61 99 39%
San Francisco 58 47 106 55%
San Mateo 141 104 245 57%
Santa Clara 241 182 423 57%
Solano 71 110 180 39%
Sonoma 59 214 273 22%
Toll bridges4 15 14 29 51%
TOTAL 1,002 1,138 2,140 47%
1. Total built mileage = Built links ( from Appendix B) plus built and fully funded segments of ʺ unbuilt ʺ links ( from Appendix A)
2. From Appendix A.
3. Mileage includes all Bay Trail spine segments.
4. The RBN includes pathways on all eight Bay Area toll bridges, including those that are built and unbuilt, but does not call for shuttle or ferry service
on these routes.
Built mileage plus unbuilt mileage may not sum to total mileage due to rounding.
Chapter 4
32 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Table 4.2: Regional Bikeway Network toll bridge links ( built and unbuilt miles)
Bridge
Built
mileage
Unbuilt
mileage
Total
mileage
% Built
mileage
Antioch 1.0 0.0 1.0 100%
Benicia/ Martinez1 1.8 0.0 1.8 100%
Carquinez 1.2 0.0 1.2 100%
Dumbarton 1.6 0.0 1.6 100%
Richmond/ San Rafael 0.0 3.9 3.9 0%
San Francisco/ Oakland Bay2 7.0 1.9 8.9 79%
San Mateo/ Hayward 0.0 8.2 8.2 0%
Golden Gate 1.9 0.0 1.9 100%
Totals 14.5 14.0 28.5 51%
1. At publication time, a bicycle/ pedestrian pathway on the west side of the original Benicia/ Martinez span was fully funded and planned for
construction in 2009, and is therefore counted as built in this table.
2 At publication time, a bicycle/ pedestrian pathway on the new East Span of the Bay Bridge was fully funded and under construction, and is
therefore counted as built in this table.
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 33
Chapter 4
34 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 35
Chapter 4
36 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 37
Chapter 4
38 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 39
Chapter 4
40 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 41
Chapter 4
42 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 43
Bicycle access to public
transit
Despite the large, hilly, and water‐constrained
geography in the Bay Area,
bicycling can truly be a transportation
alternative to the single‐ occupant motor
vehicle when conveniently linked with the
region’s buses, trains, and ferries via secure
and plentiful bicycle parking at stations and
bicycle access onboard transit vehicles. The
combination of bicycling and public transit
offers many Bay Area residents, workers
and visitors perhaps the best alternative to
the flexibility and convenience of the single‐occupant
vehicle as a result of lower costs,
reduced parking stress and reduction of
contributions to greenhouse gases. Many
portions of the region are well‐ served by
bus, rail and ferry operators that traverse
long distances, climb steep hills, and
provide access to and across barriers that
prevent bicycle travel. With a bicycle, one
can avoid the sometimes necessary, time‐consuming
transfers at either or both ends
of a transit ride.
Bicycling can be the most convenient
method of reaching a transit stop, station or
terminal, and ultimate destination. The
bicycle offers the independence of the
automobile and costs less than auto parking
and gas. On transit systems that allow
bicycles onboard, the same bike can be used
on the origin and destination ends of the
trip, or transit riders may have two bicycles,
one for each end of the trip. Workplace
showers can allow longer‐ distance
commuters to bicycle to work, and arrive at
their desk fresh and clean.
The combination of bicycling and
public transit offers perhaps the
best alternative to the flexibility
and convenience of the single-occupant
vehicle.
For cyclists whose destination is within
convenient walking distance of transit,
plentiful, secure and rain‐ protected bicycle
parking — which is much less expensive for
transit operators to provide than auto
parking — gives bicycle/ transit commuters
an alternative to bringing their bikes
onboard. This leaves more space for other
transit passengers and may increase the
attractiveness of bicycling to transit for those
who, due to the cumbersome and sometimes
dirty nature of carrying one’s bicycle
onboard, may only consider biking if they
can stow their bicycle safely at public transit
stations.
In addition to onboard access and bicycle
parking, another aspect of bicycle‐ related
transit planning is the route a cyclist takes to
reach transit stops and stations. Unlike the
transit facilities and vehicles, local roads and
pathways are largely controlled by cities
and counties, not by transit operators.
Therefore, safer and more convenient
bicycle access to public transit facilities often
requires the cooperation and coordination of
multiple agencies.
Chapter 4
44 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
This section summarizes the policies and
practices of the Bay Area’s 10 largest transit
operators with respect to planning for and
accommodating bicycles at stops and
stations and onboard transit vehicles.
Transit agency bicycle
coordinators
Transit agencies with an in‐ house bicycle
planner on staff — often referred to as a
“ bicycle coordinator” — have a much
greater likelihood of operating systems that
welcome bicyclists, and of working with
their bicycling passengers to continually
improve bicycle parking and bike access to
and on their systems than systems that do
not have a bicycle coordinator. Effective
coordinators bridge the information gap
between experienced bicycle/ transit riders
and transit system managers, who strive to
operate systems that meet the needs of all
passengers. Bicycle coordinators have the
time and expertise to listen to cyclists’ needs
and to explain, and sometimes work to
change, transit policies. Bike coordinators
often staff transit bicycle advisory
committees ( BACs), an effective forum for
regular communication between bicyclists
and transit systems. One of their most
important roles is to apply for grant funds
and manage project implementation.
Of the transit operators surveyed, only the
Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) District and
VTA have full‐ time in‐ house bicycle
planning staff ( see Table 4.3). Although
Caltrain does not have a staff bicycle
coordinator, the agency has a BAC that is
staffed by their deputy director of rail
planning. Caltrain also hires contract
bicycle planners to perform some of the
intermittent functions of a bike coordinator,
such as developing a bicycle plan and
inventorying bicycle parking at stations.
Golden Gate Transit planning staff whose
duties include bicycle coordination also
have professional bicycle planning
expertise. San Francisco Muni does not
have a staff bicycle planner, but the City
Bicycle Program advises on many Muni
projects.
Transit agency bicycle planning
Regional transit agencies conduct planning
for bicycles in various ways ( see Table 4.3).
AC Transit does not have a bicycle plan, but
intends to develop a bicycle parking plan.
BART and VTA both have stand‐ alone
bicycle plans. Caltrain has hired a contract
planner and consultants to develop the
agency’s first‐ ever bicycle plan. The
published planning documents of Amtrak,
County Connection, Golden Gate Transit,
SamTrans, and the Water Emergency
Transportation Authority ( WETA) consider
bicycle access, both to their stops/ stations
and on their vehicles.
Effective bicycle coordinators
bridge the information gap
between experienced
bicycle/ transit riders and transit
system managers, who strive to
meet the needs of all passengers.
Bicycle parking at transit facilities
Public transit passengers who bicycle to
their stop, station or terminal need to be
assured of secure and weather‐ protected
bicycle parking ( see “ New methods of
bicycle parking” section later in this
chapter). Many Bay Area transit operators
offer a variety of bicycle parking
appropriate for the day‐ long or occasional
overnight stays of bicycle/ transit users.
These include covered bicycle racks that are
highly visible to deter theft and vandalism;
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 45
individually rented, key‐ operated bicycle
lockers; reserved or on‐ demand electronic
lockers; and attended or automated bike
stations.
It is in the interest of transit operators to
provide good long‐ term bicycle parking
because it is considerably less expensive to
construct than is automobile parking.
Regional and statewide funds are available
for bicycle parking ( see “ Costs and
Revenue” chapter).
Perhaps the most important element from
the transit operator’s perspective is that
every bicycle that is parked at the station is
one fewer that needs to be accommodated
onboard. Fewer bikes on a given transit
vehicle mean faster boarding and, therefore,
faster travel times and better schedule
adherence, more space for all passengers
( and their luggage), fewer conflicts with
passengers with disabilities ( in cases where
bicycles are stored in the wheelchair tie‐down
area), and fewer resources needed for
transit maintenance and cleaning of transit
vehicle interiors.
Inventorying what type of ( and how much)
bicycle parking is available at each transit
stop, station and terminal throughout the
region is needed. Absent this accounting,
this section identifies which transit
operators are tracking their supply, an
important first step toward providing
adequate bicycle parking ( see Table 4.3).
County Connection, SamTrans, Muni and
AC Transit do not provide bicycle parking
at bus stops; and the Water Emergency
Transportation Authority ( WETA) has not
yet built its first ferry terminal, but bicycle
parking is being incorporated into its
design. Bike parking at Amtrak stations is
usually administered by local jurisdictions.
Of the transit agencies surveyed that operate
bicycle parking at their facilities, all keep
track of bicycle parking to some degree.
BART and Caltrain have, perhaps, the most
detailed bicycle parking inventories in the
region: BART’s includes capacity and
average occupancy and is updated annually,
while Caltrain’s covers the number and
occupancy of bicycle lockers and rack
spaces, but is updated less regularly. VTA
also has an accurate bicycle locker inventory
and is updating its bicycle rack inventories
at light‐ rail stations, transit centers and
park‐ and‐ ride lots. Golden Gate Transit
updates its inventory of bicycle racks at bus
stops, transit centers and ferry terminals in
conjunction with the Short‐ Range Transit
Plan update.
Onboard policies
All transit operators surveyed accommodate
the transport of bicycles, with some
restrictions based on demand and time of
day ( see Table 4.3). While some policies are
common among most transit operators,
most differ by operator and, within
operators, by vehicle type. All operators
permit folded bicycles onboard all vehicles
Chapter 4
46 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
at any time. Notably, many transit
operators are switching to low‐ floor or level‐boarding
vehicles to improve access for
disabled passengers. This practice has the
added benefit of making it easier to bring
bicycles onboard.
Common onboard policies and
practices
All Bay Area transit operators surveyed
have a policy of not charging additional
fares for bicycles. Each also limits bicycle
access in some way, whether by time of day,
the location inside or on the vehicle where
bicycles must be stowed or the number of
bikes per vehicle. Although operators have
a variety of policies in place to guide how,
where and when bicycles may be brought
onboard transit vehicles, all have policies —
such as asking bicyclists not to board a
vehicle that is already too crowded or to not
ride on platforms — that rely on bicyclists’
common sense to prevent conflicts with
other passengers.
Onboard bus policies and
equipment
With limited exceptions, the buses of all
operators surveyed are equipped with front‐mounted
bicycle racks, each with a capacity
of two or three bikes. Since these racks first
gained popularity in the early 1990s, transit
operators and other vendors have modified
their design to overcome driver concern
about the racks obscuring headlights and
other operational issues. Although front‐mounted
racks allow bicyclists to travel long
distances with their bicycles, their limited
capacity reduces reliability for cyclists, who
don’t know whether or not the bus they’re
waiting for will be able to carry their bike
until it arrives. Other drawbacks of these
racks are that they can be confusing to first‐time
users, and that cyclists must be strong
enough to mount and dismount their own
bicycles, which also discourages use for
some cyclists.
Many transit operators are
switching to low- floor or level-boarding
vehicles to improve
access for disabled passengers,
which has the added benefit of
making it easier to bring bicycles
onboard.
Muni’s newer models of diesel and trolley
buses are equipped with front‐ mounted
bicycle racks. SamTrans, VTA and County
Connection buses are also equipped with
racks. In addition, these operators also
allow a maximum of two bicycles inside
their buses, if the exterior rack is filled, the
bus is not already too crowded, and there
are not already wheelchairs in the tie‐ down
areas.
Three‐ quarters of Golden Gate Transit’s fleet
is equipped with front‐ mounted racks. ( The
Richmond‐ San Rafael Bridge routes also
allow two additional bicycles onboard,
subject to the same crowding exceptions
described above.) The remaining 25 percent
of Golden Gate’s bus fleet is comprised of
45‐ foot‐ long vehicles, which accommodate
bicycles in the under‐ floor luggage
compartments. Due to the need to slide out
these under‐ carriage racks, bicycles can only
be boarded and alighted at locations with
sufficient space ( locations are listed on the
Golden Gate Transit District Web site). This
combination of technologies means that all
Golden Gate Transit buses can each
accommodate a minimum of two bicycles.
In addition to front‐ mounted racks, AC
Transit’s transbay commuter coaches each
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 47
accommodate two bikes in the cargo bays
when the front rack is full. Four bikes can
also be stored in custom‐ made
undercarriage racks on selected AC Transit
commuter coaches crossing the San Mateo‐
Hayward and Dumbarton bridges.
Loading a bicycle onto the luggage bay of
an AC Transit transbay bus
Onboard rail and ferry policies and
equipment
BART allows bicycles in all cars except the
first, and on all trains except those traveling
in the peak direction during commute
hours. The commute‐ trip restriction frees
up standing room for additional non‐ cycling
passengers, but also creates a significant
impediment to bicycle/ transit use,
particularly for commute trips. Bicycles are
not allowed on crowded trains at any time.
BART is currently testing various new
seating configurations, which all remove
some seats to create more space for priority
bicycle storage ( see photo below of first test
of BART’s BikeSpace program). Additional
space for bicycles is also being considered
by BART in the preliminary designs for new
rail cars.
BART’s experimental BikeSpace seat
configuration
All Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin rail
cars are equipped with bicycle racks that
collectively hold between 12 and 22 bicycles
per train, depending on the type and
number of cars used on a particular train.
The Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin
promote the ability to bring bikes onboard
and allow bicycles to be stored inside the
cars without being restrained in a rack when
these racks are full.
Caltrain provides dedicated bicycle cars that
are located at the northern end of all trains.
Each bike car can accommodate either 16
( Bombardier train sets) or 32 ( Gallery train
sets) bicycles. Today’s fleet is 80 percent
Gallery cars and 20 percent Bombardier
cars. Through time, Caltrain plans to
replace the Gallery cars ( and expand the
vehicle fleet) with new rolling stock that
may have less onboard bicycle capacity.
Caltrain has promoted a destination tag
system to expedite bicycle stacking,
boarding and alighting. There are no peak‐period
restrictions on bringing bicycles on
board Caltrain vehicles. Despite substantial
bicycle capacity, Caltrain attracts more
passengers who want to bring their bicycles
onboard than can be accommodated. In
response, the agency is reviewing
operational policies and technology
Chapter 4
48 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
regarding bike‐ onboard issues and is taking
measures to improve bicycle parking at its
stations.
Bicycles are not permitted on Muni’s
historic streetcars, cable cars or Muni Metro
light‐ rail vehicles, although a Bicycles on
Light‐ Rail Vehicles study is planned to begin
in 2010/ 11. VTA light‐ rail vehicles are
equipped with internal bicycle racks, which
carry four bicycles per train. In addition, up
to four more bicycles are permitted when
the racks are full, in the turntable sections of
the train.
Bicycles are permitted on all Bay Area ferry
boats. Capacities vary from 11 to over 70
bicycles. All WETA boats are being
designed and built to hold at least 35
bicycles.
BICYCLE ACCESS ON RAIL
Rail passengers who need a bicycle on both ends of their trip consider the ability to bring
a bicycle onboard to be essential. The potential barriers to onboard bicycle carriage —
which can also apply to strollers, luggage and wheelchairs — include:
Space constraints. Since one bicycle can occupy the same amount of space as one or
more passengers, rail systems must balance the needs of all passengers, including those
with bicycles and those without.
Dwell time. Regardless of how efficient a cyclist is, boarding and de- boarding a train with
a bicycle takes longer than without. Depending on passenger loading, this additional time
can increase how long a train must stay in the station, which translates to higher
operating costs and longer travel times for all passengers.
Safety. Trains are moving vehicles that sometimes move unpredictably. Anything carried
onboard, particularly something as heavy and unwieldy as a bicycle, has the potential to
cause harm unless safely stowed, secured or held.
Bay Area rail operators accommodate bicycles to varying degrees and in myriad ways,
including allowing passengers to hold their bicycles on trains, space permitting, hanging
them on specially- designed racks and otherwise securing them to interior train walls.
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 49
Table 4.3: Bicycle access to Bay Area’s 10 largest transit operators
Transit
Operator
Bicycle
Coordinator Bike Planning
Bike Parking
Inventory Bikes (#) on/ in vehicles1
AC Transit — Designing w/ Transit ( 2002) No
Front rack on standard buses ( 2)
Front rack plus luggage bay on transbay
buses ( 4‐ 6)
Amtrak2 — State Rail Plan ( 2005) No Yes (# not specified)
Bay Area Rapid Transit
( BART)
􀀹 Bicycle Access & Parking Plan ( 2002) 􀀹 Yes (# not specified; peak hour
restriction)
Caltrain —
Caltrain Bicycle Access and Parking Plan
( 2008)
􀀹 Yes (# depends on equipment & # of
equipped cars; northernmost car)
( Contra Costa) County
Connection
— Short Range Transit Plan ( 2008) No Front rack or undercarriage ( 2)
Inside ( 2) 3
Golden Gate Transit — Short Range Transit Plan ( 2007) 􀀹 Front rack ( 2) 4
Luggage bays on 45 ʹ buses ( 2)
San Francisco Municipal
Railway ( Muni)
5 San Francisco Bicycle Plan ( 2005) No Front rack on buses only
SamTrans — Short Range Transit Plan ( 2008) No Front rack ( 2)
Inside ( 2) 3
Valley Transportation
Authority ( VTA)
􀀹 Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan
( 2000) 6
􀀹 Bus: Front rack ( 2); Inside ( 2) 3
Light‐ rail: Inside ( 8)
Water Emergency
Transportation Authority
( WETA)
— Technical designs No Yes
No: Agency neither owns nor operates bicycle parking.
1 Racks with a capacity of two‐ to‐ three bicycles are mounted on the front of most Bay Area transit buses.
2 Amtrak operates the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin rail lines.
3 Passenger and wheelchair load permitting.
4 Exception: GGT routes 40 and 42 accommodate bicycles onboard buses.
5 No, although the San Francisco Bicycle Program is involved in many Muni projects.
6 VTA wrote the Countywide Bicycle Plan as the Congestion management agency, rather than as the transit agency.
Chapter 4
50 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Emerging bicycle
innovations
In the seven years since the original Regional
Bicycle Plan was adopted, many Bay Area
jurisdictions have developed, are
experimenting with and are considering
specially‐ designed roadway treatments,
specially‐ designed traffic signal, new
methods of bicycle parking and other
innovations to encourage bicycling and
make it safer. This section describes these
innovations, including those in use locally
as well as those from other parts of the
country and world that could have
promising Bay Area applications. Detailed
guidance on when and where each is
appropriate is provided in MTC’s Bicycle
and Pedestrian Safety Toolbox, which is
described in Chapter 3, and in some of the
resources that are summarized in
Appendix G.
Roadway improvements
Bicycle boulevards
Bicycle boulevards are roadways that are
shared by cyclists and motorists, but which
prioritize bicycles through the use of
diverters and other traffic controls. Bike
boulevards can reduce crashes from wrong
way riding, improper passing and excessive
motor vehicle speeds. Bicycle boulevards
are most effective when a grid system is in
place so motor vehicles can use a parallel
route and cyclists can follow a bike
boulevard to within a block or two of their
destination.
Bicycles can traverse the length of bicycle
boulevards, but through car traffic is
prohibited. Special bicycle stencils and signs
are used on bicycle boulevards. Stop signs
are often turned on these roadways to
prevent cyclists from having to stop at each
intersection, and budget permitting signals
are installed at busy intersections to allow
safe cyclist crossings. The City of Berkeley
has the most extensive network in the Bay
Area, but there are bicycle boulevards in the
cities of Palo Alto and Emeryville.
Sharrows
Sharrows are pavement markings along
Class III bike routes designed to alert
motorists to the presence of bicyclists and to
indicate to bicyclists where they should ride
to avoid the “ door zone” adjacent to parked
cars.
CLASSES OF BICYCLE FACILITY
The California Streets and Highway
Code and Caltrans Highway Design
Manual define three classes of
" bikeway," a facility that is provided
primarily for bicycle travel:
Class I Bikeway ( Bike Path)
Provides a completely separated
right of way for the exclusive use of
bicycles and pedestrians with
crossflow by motorists minimized.
Cost: high
Class II Bikeway ( Bike Lane)
Provides a striped lane for one- way
bike travel on a street or highway.
Cost: medium
Class III Bikeway ( Bike Route)
Provides for shared use with
pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.
Cost: low
Under the guidelines proposed for inclusion
in the revised Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices, sharrows would be
indicated for stretches of road with narrow
travel lanes adjacent to parked cars where
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 51
agencies are unable to incorporate a bicycle
lane due to right‐ of‐ way constraints.
A sharrow in San Francisco
The San Francisco Shared Lane Pavement
Markings: Improving Bicycle Safety study
found that implementing these pavement
markings improves the following behaviors:
sidewalk riding; wrong‐ way riding; distance
cyclists ride from parked cars; distance
cyclists ride from cars in travel lanes; and
distance between auto drivers in travel lane
and parked cars ( when no bicycles are
present). Other Bay Area cities currently
using sharrows include Berkeley ( Gilman
Street), San José ( San Fernando Street and
Park Avenue) and San Rafael ( 14 routes
throughout the city).
Contra- flow bicycle lanes
Contra‐ flow bicycle lanes allow bicyclists to
travel in the opposite direction as motor
vehicle traffic on one‐ way streets, thereby
providing cyclists with a direct route and
avoiding the need to traverse additional
blocks to reach their destination. These lanes
are clearly separated from opposing lanes
with double yellow lines and, depending on
conditions, sometimes have partial
separation at intersections or mid‐ block, or
complete separation. Factors to be
considered during design include vehicle
and bicycle turning movements, vehicle and
bicycle ADT ( average daily traffic), available
A contra- flow bicycle lane in London, UK
street width, existence of on‐ street parking
and rate of turnover, and transit routes.
There are contra‐ flow lanes in San Francisco
and Santa Cruz.
Colored pavement
Colored pavement is used to increase the
visibility of bikeways or, more commonly,
zones with a high potential for motor
vehicle/ bicycle conflicts, by indicating cyclist
right‐ of‐ way with a distinctive color. This
convention is designed to remind motorists
that they are crossing or adjacent to an area
where they can expect to see cyclists and to
take extra caution. Colored pavement can
be used for very short sections of pavement
( such as where a trail crosses an
intersection) or for the full length of a bike
lane.
On the down side, colored pavement can
create a false sense of security for cyclists;
confuse motorists since the technique is new
and unfamiliar; and have high initial and
maintenance costs. Options for creating
colored pavement have varying degrees of
permanence. Agencies interested in
experimenting with colored pavement on a
temporary basis can use regular paint or
tennis court paint ( for green lanes). These
Chapter 4
52 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
paints fade quickly and must be reapplied to
maintain an impact. A more permanent
option is to embed color in the last lift of an
asphalt overlay, although reapplication
requires a grind‐ out and re‐ paving.
Blue bicycle lanes in Sunnyvale
Portland, Ore. is the primary U. S. city using
colored bike lanes; however, Sunnyvale is
experimenting with blue bike pavement and
Petaluma is trying out red bike pavement.
The city of San Francisco has requested
permission to experiment with colored
bicycle lanes from the California Traffic
Control Devices Committee, the first step
toward establishing guidelines for the use of
colored lanes.
Traffic signal accommodations
Traffic signal detection
Like in‐ pavement loop detectors, which
have been in use throughout the Bay Area
for decades, video detection allows
bicyclists to trigger traffic signals at
intersections. The technology uses
“ detection zones” for motorists and cyclists
( see image) and is most often used at
signalized intersections with dedicated
bicycle lanes and that are already equipped
with motor vehicle video detection.
Video detection is superior to loops because
it can detect any bicycle, regardless of frame
material, and is not disrupted by asphalt
work or other maintenance. However, if a
bicyclist does not stop in the detection zone,
the camera can miss her, thereby leaving the
signal phase on red in the cyclist’s direction
of travel. Furthermore, this technology is
compromised by weather conditions, such
as heavy fog and bright sunlight. Video
detection is currently in use in Santa Rosa.
Senate Bill 1581, signed into law by
Governor Schwarzenegger in January 2008,
adds a section to the California Vehicle code
requiring new traffic signals to detect
bicycles and motorcycles. The bill does not
apply to existing signals, however. Caltrans
is currently charged with developing new
signal detection method guidelines for local
jurisdictions.
Video detection zones ( Zones Z7 and Z6
are bicycle zones.)
Bicycle signals
Bicycle signals are traffic signals equipped
with signal heads that apply exclusively to
cyclists. Rather than showing simple red,
yellow or green lights, these specially
designed signals show red, yellow or green
bicycle icons, and can be used in conjunction
with a pedestrian phase. Since the
California Vehicle Code requires bicyclists,
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 53
like autos, to obey traffic signals, local
municipal codes must be changed to allow
bicycles to obey bicycle signals instead.
The city of Davis has installed three of these
signals at tee‐ intersections, such as where a
bicycle path meets an intersection. The city
of San Francisco is planning to install a
bicycle signal at Fell Street and Masonic
Avenue as part of improvements to that
intersection.
Bicycle boxes
A Bicycle Box is an area designated for
cyclists to wait at an intersection during a
red signal phase. Cyclists are more visible in
the box and this treatment reduces conflicts
by designating the correct position for cars
and cyclists at intersections. This waiting
area – in front of motor vehicles, but behind
the crosswalk – is typically painted a
contrasting color and contains a bicycle
stencil in the middle of the box. In order to
provide maximum safety to bicycles, cars at
these intersections are prohibited from
making right‐ hand turns on red.
Bicycle boxes increase safety by preventing
a common collision at intersections known
as the “ right hook” where a vehicle making
a right turn hits a cyclist proceeding straight
through the intersection. Bicycle boxes are
widely used in Europe and a few American
cities have started to install them, including
Cambridge, Ma. and Portland, Ore.
New methods of bicycle parking
According to the Association of Pedestrian
and Bicycle Professionals, the lack of secure
bicycle parking keeps many people from
using their bikes for basic transportation.
Many people are deterred from riding to
work, school, shopping and other
destinations, and instead drive, because of
an experience with theft or the threat of
theft. Providing a secure place to store bikes
at cyclists’ destinations is a key component
of a robust regional bicycling network.
Many Bay Area employers, jurisdictions and
other public agencies have experimented
with various bicycle parking designs for
decades, including electronic lockers, bicycle
stations, and various types of bicycle racks.
This section provides an overview of these
bicycle parking innovations and a brief
discussion of the situations in which each is
most appropriate.
Electronic lockers
For bicyclists who need to leave their
bicycles for long periods of time at transit
stations or the workplace, security is a key
concern. Long‐ term bicycle parking
solutions have historically been limited to
lockers, bicycle “ lids,” and other options
that provide sheltered parking controlled
with a key or padlock. The primary
shortcoming of bicycle lockers is that just
one user holds the key to each locker,
leaving many lockers frequently empty but
unavailable for rental to casual cyclists.
Furthermore, while an agency may have the
resources to purchase and install bicycle
lockers, maintenance and administration are
Chapter 4
54 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
ongoing challenges. Lockers may be
abandoned or vandalized, and frequently
there are insufficient resources to maintain
an accurate list of current users or respond
to potential locker‐ renters in a timely
manner.
Opening an electronic bicycle locker with a
smart card
One solution to the challenges posed by
traditional bicycle lockers is the electronic
locker, which is rented on an hourly basis on
demand, rather than being reserved for
months at a time by a single user. This
allows each locker to be used by many
people over a given period of time,
increasing the number of bicycles stored in
the lockers. Electronic lockers typically
charge a small fee to discourage misuse,
which is paid with a specially‐ designed
debit card. Features that are currently being
considered by BART and cities such as
Berkeley and Oakland include compatibility
with the TransLink ® universal transit card
and an online reservation system.
Electronic lockers are currently available at
the Belmont and Sunnyvale Caltrain
stations; the Harbor Bay ferry terminal and
new city parking structure in the city of
Alameda; in downtown Palo Alto; and at 13
BART stations. BART plans to install
hundreds more eLockers throughout 2009
and in 2012 when additional funds are
expected ( see Table 4.4). At present, an
outstanding issue is if the locker payment
systems of various transit operators and
cities will be compatible.
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 55
Table 4.4: BART electronic bicycle locker installation schedule
Station Installed 2009 2012 Total
Alameda County
North Berkeley 48 48
Ashby 12 8 20
Rockridge 32 32
MacArthur 40 40
19th Street* 8 8
12th Street* 8 8
West Oakland 6 24 30
Lake Merritt 32 32
Fruitvale 8 8
Coliseum 8 8
San Leandro 20 12 32
Bayfair 12 12
Hayward 4 4
Union City 20 20
Fremont 36 36
Castro Valley 20 20
Dublin/ Pleasanton 12 16 28
* Installed by other jurisdictions adjacent to or on BART property
Station Installed 2009 2012 Total
Contra Costa County
Bay Point/ Pittsburg 46 46
North Concord 13 13
Concord 16 53 69
Pleasant Hill* 12 54 66
Walnut Creek 42 42
Lafayette 12 33 45
Orinda 10 31 41
Richmond 16 46 62
El Cerrito Del Norte 14 29 43
El Cerrito Plaza* 48 18 66
San Francisco County
Glen Park 12 12
Balboa Park 8 8
San Mateo County
Daly City 20 20
TOTAL 294 240 385 919
Chapter 4
56 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Bicycle stations
Bicycle stations offer attended or automated
long‐ term bicycle parking. Other services
can also be available, such as bicycle repairs,
sharing, rentals and retail sales. Bicycle
stations at the Downtown Berkeley and
Embarcadero BART stations and the Palo
Alto Caltrain station are operated by
BikeStation, an organization that serves
members and nonmembers by contracting
with local partners to manage bicycle
parking, service and retail facilities. In
addition, there are other, independently
operated Bay Area bicycle stations at the
Fruitvale BART and San Francisco Caltrain
stations.
The annual operating cost of a bicycle
station range from $ 25,000 for a small,
unstaffed facility to $ 120,000‐$ 150,000 for a
fully staffed, full‐ service facility. Capital
costs range from $ 25,000 for a secure room
or cage to over $ 3 million for a more
extensive facility. Bicycle stations have
struggled to identify long‐ term revenue
sources to cover their operating costs and
are often subsidized by outside funding,
including membership fees, grants and
operating funds from transit agencies.
Retrofitted Parking Meters
Traditional parking meters each serve a
single parked car. On a given block face
( depending on its length), there can be up to
20 meters. This proliferation of meters is
costly to administer, creates sidewalk
obstructions and the meters themselves are
easy to vandalize. However, these meters
also serve as de facto bicycle parking, often
allowing cyclists to lock their bicycles to a
parking meter directly in front of their
destination which increases cyclists’ sense of
security.
Several Bay Area cities, including Redwood
City, Berkeley and Oakland, are replacing
parking meters with parking kiosks, which
each serve between three and five parking
spaces. These kiosks allow motorists to use
change, dollar bills or credit cards; are
difficult to vandalize and easier to
administer; and cut down on sidewalk
obstructions. However, because the design
of parking kiosks does not allow a bicycle to
be attached, an inadvertent side effect is a
loss of bicycle parking, which is particularly
problematic in areas with few bicycle
parking racks.
Rather than remove all of the old parking
meters, the cities of Berkeley and Oakland
have retrofitted some original meters for
bicycle parking. After meter heads were
removed in Berkeley, a metal ring was
welded to the remaining post to allow two
bikes to be securely attached. On blocks
where the city of Oakland installs parking
kiosks, they leave two meters per block face
and attach a distinctive yellow bicycle
parking sticker to each, but remove the
internal metering mechanisms. This
arrangement preserves some bike parking
spaces, but has been confusing to some
motorists.
Other Bicycle Storage
Bicycle stations at the Palo Alto Caltrain
station and Berkeley and Embarcadero
BART stations have had success with
double‐ stacked bicycle parking. Double‐
A Survey of Regional Bicycle Facilities
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 57
decker storage racks are available in units
that hold eight, 10, 12, 14 or 16 bicycles at
one time. Because loading and removing a
bicycle from the upper level can be difficult,
these racks may be best used where there is
an attendant on duty; however, the storage
units also work with U‐ locks and cable
locks.
Other innovative parking technologies are
currently employed outside the United
States. In Wales, Cyclepods — sometimes
called “ bicycle trees” — offer room for eight
bicycles parked vertically, which minimizes
the rack’s footprint by 30 percent, compared
to traditional horizontal racks. Vertical
racks made by U. S. manufacturers may also
be a viable option for bicycle parking.
Other innovations
Stairway channels
Bicycle stairway channels are narrow ramps
located adjacent to stairwells – often directly
beneath the handrail – that allow cyclists to
wheel a bicycle up or down a flight of stairs.
These ramps, which are typically used at
transit stations, increase the ease of using
transit by reducing the effort needed to
transport a bike up and down stairs,
especially a bicycle with full saddlebags.
The San Mateo Caltrain station and the VTA
Great Mall light‐ rail transit station have stair
ramps. After extensive design work, bicycle
stair ramps were installed at the
16th/ Mission BART station in San Francisco
in March 2007 for a six‐ month pilot
program. BART is developing facility
design criteria and standard specifications
for the installation of stair ramps at other
BART stations.
Bicycle- sharing
Bicycle‐ sharing is an arrangement whereby
a pool of bicycles is available on demand in
a particular geographic area – usually a
compact downtown district. Individuals
can check out a bike from one of many
locations and return it to the same or to a
different bike‐ sharing location. Customers
typically use shared bikes for trips that are
too far to walk, to link with public transit or
just to enjoy a ride on a beautiful day.
Theft has historically been the biggest
challenge to bicycle‐ sharing programs. The
ability to identify customers without adding
a time‐ consuming and labor‐ intensive
check‐ out process is essential to these
programs’ success. Recent smart‐ card
technology has allowed bike‐ sharing
programs to blossom in more than a dozen
European cities, including Paris, Vienna and
Copenhagen. Civic leaders in Lyon, France
attribute a 4 percent dip in auto traffic to
that city’s bike‐ sharing system. Paris’s Velib
system provides 15,000 bicycles throughout
the city, which are used for a total of 75,000
daily trips.
Closer to home, Washington D. C. is
experimenting with a 200‐ bicycle fleet of
shared bicycles, and Portland, Ore. and New
York City are considering such a move. The
San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency ( MTA), in conjunction with the City
Chapter 4
58 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
of San Francisco Mayor’s Office, is currently
negotiating for a bicycle‐ sharing program in
San Francisco.
Bicycle subsidy programs
The Santa Cruz County Regional
Transportation Commission offers a $ 200
bicycle subsidy purchase program for
electric and folding bicycles. The program is
administered through a local non‐ profit that
provides a mandatory bicycle education and
skills class prior to the bicycle purchase. A
check is sent to the participant that must be
used towards the purchase of a new bicycle
at participating bicycle shops.
The bicycle subsidy program seeks to
encourage transit passengers to bring their
bikes inside local buses when front‐ loading
racks are filled. These bikes also appeal to
residents living in small housing units, who
might not otherwise have room for a bicycle.
Some private employers and universities in
the United States offer bicycle purchase
subsidies, while in countries like the
Netherlands, employees can purchase bikes
pre‐ tax every three years.
In 2009, Congress approved a bicycle
commuter tax provision that allows
employers to provide their bicycle‐commuting
employees up to $ 20 per month
tax‐ free for reasonable related expenses,
such as equipment, repair and storage.
Traffic laws
Unlike some states, the California Vehicle
Code confers the same rights and
responsibilities to bicycles as to motor
vehicles. Bicycles are permitted anywhere
on the roadway, except where explicitly
prohibited.
Several states go farther and have other laws
to encourage bicycling, improve safety and
increase awareness of cycling. Arizona and
New Hampshire have laws requiring a
minimum 3‐ foot buffer between motor
vehicles and the bicycles they are passing,
although some feel that requiring half the
width of the travel lane is more appropriate.
Defining a minimum distance for safe
passing provides an awareness that
motorists need to provide cyclists with
enough clearance to avoid a sideswipe. Even
if there is no contact, large vehicles can
churn up enough air to push cyclists a few
feet from their line of travel. States such as
Ohio, Vermont, Maryland, Oregon and
California have considered safe passing
laws to improve safety of cyclists.
Idaho has unique laws for cyclists at
intersections controlled by stop signs or
stoplights, unlike anything currently on the
books in California. Since 1982 the Idaho
motor vehicle code allows cyclists to treat
stop signs as yield signs. And, while cyclists
are still required to stop at stoplights during
the red phase, since 2005, they have been
permitted to proceed through signalized
intersections if clear.
The Idaho law was passed in recognition of
the infeasibility of retrofitting all signals to
detect bicycles. Idaho police and
Department of Transportation officials tout
the safety benefit of the law in that it allows
cyclists to clear intersections before turning
vehicles and where parked cars on the far
side of the intersection squeeze cyclists into
narrow traffic lanes. Several other states,
such as Minnesota, Montana, and Oregon,
have considered or are considering similar
laws for cyclists. MTC has conducted
research on the concept.
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 59
5 | Costs and Revenue
This chapter provides an estimate of the cost
to construct the Regional Bikeway Network
( RBN) presented in Chapter 4, and the
corresponding revenue expected to be
available to complete the network through
2035, the horizon year of Transportation 2035
and the Regional Bicycle Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area. All figures are in 2007
dollars, the base year of both plans.
Cost of regional network
The cost to complete the RBN is estimated to
be approximately $ 1.4 billion ( see Table 5.1).
This figure includes the cost to construct all
unbuilt network segments in each county
($ 710 million or about 50% of the total RBN
cost) and pathways on the three toll bridges
that currently prohibit bicycle travel: the
West Span of the San Francisco/ Oakland
Bay Bridge, the San Mateo/ Hayward Bridge
and the Richmond/ San Rafael Bridge ($ 700
million, also about half of total RBN costs).
The pathway on the East Span of the Bay
Bridge is fully funded and under
construction, and the pathway on the
Benicia/ Martinez Bridge is fully funded and
about to be constructed.
The cost to complete the RBN is
estimated to be approximately
$ 1.4 billion.
To gain an understanding of the relative cost
of the average project in each county and the
magnitude of impact that the three toll
bridge projects have on the total RBN cost,
Table 5.1 shows the average cost per mile of
RBN projects in each county, on the toll
bridges, and regionwide. Countywide
average costs range from less than $ 200,000
per mile in Contra Costa County to over
$ 1.5 million per mile in Marin County, with
an average cost ( without the toll bridges) of
about $ 632,000 per mile. Cost information
found in Table 5.1 is detailed in Appendix
A. Rather than indicate that construction
costs are higher for the same project in one
county than another, Appendix A shows
that cost variation among counties is a
function of the type of unbuilt projects that
characterize a given county’s network ( e. g.,
trails and bridges are typically more
expensive per mile to construct than bicycle
lanes).
Chapter 5
60 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
In contrast to this $ 200,000 to $ 1.5 million
per mile range, adding bicycle facilities to
the toll bridges is estimated to cost an
average of $ 50 million per mile, 80 times the
average non‐ toll‐ bridge RBN link cost.
All cost figures were calculated by
escalating to 2007 dollars ( the base year for
the Regional Transportation Plan update) the
cost of still‐ unbuilt segments reported to
MTC in 2004 by the county congestion
management agencies and transportation
authorities. Escalated costs were reviewed
by these agencies for this Plan update. MTC
staff calculated the cost of segments for
which no cost information was available
using the construction cost assumptions
published in the 2006 Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency
Countywide Bicycle Plan. 3 All existing and
unbuilt links of the San Francisco Bay Trail
spine are included in the RBN and are,
therefore, reflected in Table 5.1.
3 Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan, Table 5‐ 2,
Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency, 2006.
Non- Regional Bikeway
Network costs
While it is instructive to know the cost of the
RBN, it is equally important to get a grasp of
the other expenditures needed to create a
cohesive regionwide bicycle system ( see
“ Completing the Network” section of the
previous chapter). Costs for non‐ network
expenditures have not been estimated and
are not included in the cost to complete the
RBN. These additional costs fall into the
following categories:
Efforts to promote bicycling
Promotions, such as Bike‐ to‐ Work and Safe
Routes to School; other encouragement
programs, such as the Transportation and
Land Use Coalition’s TravelChoice4
program; and traffic safety education
programs aimed at motorists, bicyclists and
the traffic engineers who design the facilities
all modes must share help cyclists and non‐
4 TravelChoice provides households with
personalized transportation information
with the goal of reducing solo driving trips
and increasing transit usage, biking, and
walking.
cyclists alike learn to use the bicycle to
safely travel throughout the region. Many
of these expenses are ineligible for most
grant‐ funding sources, which focus
spending on planning, design and
construction of facilities. The true cost of
creating a comprehensive regional bikeway
system that includes these other
components is unknown at this time.
Bicycle parking
To provide safe and appropriate places to
park at destinations throughout the region,
new and updated racks, bicycle lockers
( including new electronic lockers), and
staffed and electronic bicycle stations ( see
“ Bicycle parking” section of Chapter 4) are
needed.
Way- finding and other signage
Signs along recommended bicycle routes
and numbered bike routes, and to
destinations of regionwide significance are
needed to allow visitors to navigate
unfamiliar bikeways and to educate local
non‐ cyclists on the viability of cycling.
Onboard transit accommodations
This includes maintenance and replacement
of front‐ loading racks and accommodations
Costs and Revenue
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 61
for bicycles inside bus, rail and ferry
vehicles.
Local projects
There are hundreds of projects detailed in
dozens of citywide and countywide bicycle
plans that are needed to link cyclists safely
to local origins and destinations.
Cost to maintain and operate facilities
Beyond capital expenditures, striping
bicycle lanes, repaving trails and bicycle
lanes, replacing damaged signs, and
operating attended bicycle parking facilities
are essential to creating a regionwide bicycle
system.
Revenue
In July 2008, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission pledged to fully
fund the Regional Bikeway Network
described in Chapter 4, with the exception
of the toll bridge links. Although a program
has not yet been created to fulfill this
commitment – estimated to cost on the order
of $ 710 million in 2007 dollars – the concept
is to fund construction of all unbuilt non‐ toll
bridge‐ links in the Regional Bikeway
Network by 2035 ( see Table 5.1 and
Appendix A) 5. This program will replace
the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian
Program ( RBPP), which was created in
conjunction with the 2001 Regional
Transportation Plan.
Beyond MTC’s commitment to fund
completion of the Regional Bikeway
Network, over $ 1 billion is expected to be
available through 2035 to fund bicycle
projects and programs, assuming that
5 Transportation 2035 shows costs escalated
to the dollars of the year of expenditure,
while all costs in this plan are listed in 2007
dollars.
today’s fund sources and approximate
funding levels will continue through the
plan horizon year of 2035 ( see Table 5.2).
This funding will flow through 12 sources
that routinely fund the development of
bicycle facilities and, in some cases,
programs. The first six are administered by
MTC.
MTC has pledged to fully fund the
Regional Bikeway Network by
2035.
As the Bay Area’s federally‐ mandated
Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO),
MTC is responsible for programming many
federal funds, including the Transportation
Enhancements ( TE) and Congestion
Management and Air Quality Improvement
( CMAQ) programs, as well as the State
Transportation Improvement Program
( STIP) and Transportation Development Act
( TDA). Some of these, such as TE, are
allocated directly to Bay Area claimants,
while MTC uses others, such as CMAQ and
STIP funds, to finance Bay Area‐ specific
funding programs such as Transportation
for Livable Communities ( TLC) and the
Chapter 5
62 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
former Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian
Program ( RBPP).
Regional agencies beyond MTC administer
bicycle project funding as well, including
the Association of Bay Area Governments
through the Bay Trail Grant Program and
the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District through the Transportation Fund for
Clean Air ( TFCA). State funding sources for
bicycle projects include the Hazard
Elimination Safety ( HES) program, the
Bicycle Transportation Account ( BTA) and
the Safe Routes to Schools ( SR2S) program,
which are all administered by Caltrans.
Although completely unrelated to each
other, the region’s seven transportation sales
tax measures are treated in Table 5.2 as a
single source. See Appendix D for detailed
descriptions of each revenue source.
Analysis
The cost to complete the remaining 1,138
miles of the RBN is estimated to be
approximately $ 1.4 billion, split about
evenly between the toll‐ bridge and non‐ toll‐bridge
segments. About $ 1.9 billion is
expected to be available for bicycle projects
from non‐ Regional Bikeway Network
program funds between 2008 and 2035.
Since $ 710 million of expected revenue will
be dedicated to the construction of the
Regional Bikeway Network, about $ 1.16
billion is projected to be available to fund
bicycle projects and programs beyond the
Regional Bikeway Network, like those
discussed in the “ Non‐ Regional Bikeway
Network costs” section earlier in this
chapter.
When comparing expected costs and
revenues, it is important to consider that it is
unlikely that any of the funding sources
listed in Table 5.2 will fund bicycle access on
the remaining bicycle‐ inaccessible toll
bridges. Most funding is available on an
annual basis, not in one 28‐ year chunk, the
duration of the RTP, which would be
necessary to fund projects of this
magnitude. Furthermore, using these funds
in this way would require cooperation
among multiple funding agencies and
agreement that they want to forego funding
decades of smaller, local projects.
Therefore, if the $ 1.16 billion of projected
revenue above the cost of the Regional
Bikeway Network is assumed to be
unavailable to fund bicycle access on Bay
Area toll bridges because of fund source
criteria, then it can be used to fund some of
the non‐ network costs detailed in the “ Non‐
Regional Bikeway Network costs” section
earlier in this chapter. Transportation
planners and advocates need to know the
cost of local bikeway projects, planned
bicycle parking, way‐ finding and other
signage, improved onboard transit facilities,
bicycle facility operation and maintenance,
and programs to encourage bicycling in
order to prioritize these bicycle funding
investments and advocate for toll bridge
access funding.
Costs and Revenue
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 63
Table 5.1: Regional Bikeway Network cost
County
Unbuilt
mileage
% Regionwide
unbuilt mileage
Total cost
( 2007 $’ s)
Average cost
per mile
% Regionwide
cost
Not including Bay Area toll bridges
Alameda 187 17% $ 165,510,000 $ 884,000 23%
Contra Costa 138 12% $ 25,943,000 $ 188,000 4%
Marin 81 7% $ 128,859,000 $ 1,585,000 18%
Napa 61 5% $ 18,227,000 $ 301,000 3%
San Francisco 47 4% $ 24,335,000 $ 515,000 3%
San Mateo 104 9% $ 34,257,000 $ 329,000 5%
Santa Clara 182 16% $ 205,290,000 $ 1,128,000 29%
Solano 110 10% $ 40,651,000 $ 371,000 6%
Sonoma 214 19% $ 66,809,000 $ 312,000 9%
Total ( not including toll bridges) 1 1,124 100% $ 709,881,000 $ 632,000 100% 2
Toll bridges lacking bicycle access ( from Table 4.2)
Richmond/ San Rafael 3.9 0.3% $ 57,750,000 $ 14,986,000 4%
San Francisco/ Oakland Bay ( west span) 1.9 0.2% $ 518,338,000 $ 272,858,000 37%
San Mateo/ Hayward 8.2 0.7% $ 123,363,000 $ 14,986,000 9%
Toll Bridge Total 14 1.2% $ 699,452,000 $ 50,013,000 50%
Grand total 1,138 $ 1,409,333,000 $ 1,238,000 100% 3
1. Costs and mileage include all Bay Trail spine segments.
2. 100% of nontoll bridge costs.
3. 100% of all Regional Bikeway Network costs, including toll bridge costs.
Chapter 5
64 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Table 5.2: Projected revenue for bicycle projects & programs
Funding source Annual estimate
Total estimate
( 2008- 2035)
Administered by Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Transportation Enhancements ( TE) 1 $ 600,000 $ 16,800,000
Transportation for Livable Communities ( TLC) 2 $ 18,000,000 $ 504,000,000
Regional Bikeway Network ( RBN) 3 $ 36,000,000 $ 710,000,000
Safe Routes to Transit ( SR2T) 4 $ 2,000,000 $ 56,000,000
Transportation Development Act, Article 3 ( TDA‐ 3) 5 $ 2,900,000 $ 81,200,000
Climate Action Program ( CAP) 6 $ 20,000,000 $ 100,000,000
Administered by other regional, state or countywide agencies
Bay Trail Grants7 $ 1,250,000 $ 5,000,000
Transportation Fund for Clean Air ( TFCA) 8 $ 600,000 $ 16,800,000
Hazard Elimination Safety ( HES) 9 $ 160,000 $ 4,480,000
Bicycle Transportation Account ( BTA) 10 $ 1,840,000 $ 51,520,000
Safe Routes to School ( SR2S) 11 $ 2,600,000 $ 72,800,000
Countywide sales tax measures12 $ 8,973,000 $ 251,244,000
Total $ 94,923,000 $ 1,869,844,000
RBN funds ( created for Regional Bikeway Network construction) $ 710,000,00013
Funds available for other bicycle projects and programs $ 1,159,844,000
All revenue in 2007 dollars.
See facing page for footnotes.
Costs and Revenue
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 65
Footnotes for Table 5.2
General assumptions
• 20% of competitive statewide sources will go to the Bay Area, based on population.
• Funding sources will continue through 2035 or be replaced with other sources with similar levels of funding.
Source- specific assumptions
1. TE: $ 60 M per year; 25% statewide; 20% to the Bay Area; 20% for bicycle improvements
2. TLC: $ 60 M per year; 30% for bicycle improvements
3. RBN: $ 710 M until 2035 to fully fund RBN, with exception of toll bridges. Funding stream ( i. e., $ 36 M/ year) not guaranteed.
4. SR2T: $ 20 M for first 10 years
5. TDA‐ 3: $ 290 M per year; 2% under Article 3; 50% for bicycle improvements
6. CAP: Among other programs, includes $ 10 M per year each for SR2S and SR2T for five years. 50% for bicycle improvements. Funding not
guaranteed to be allocated in equal increments every year.
7. Bay Trail: Program is dependent on receipt of grant funds, so amount and availability of funds can vary considerably from year to year. Amounts
listed in table are estimates based on funds secured as of Regional Bicycle Plan publication. See www. baytrail. org for updates on the availability
of Bay Trail Grant funds.
8. TFCA: $ 600,000 per year
9. HES: $ 16 M per year; 20% to the Bay Area; 5% for bicycle improvements
10. BTA: $ 9.2 M per year; 20% to the Bay Area
11. SR2S: $ 26 M per year; 20% to the Bay Area; 50% for bicycle improvements
12. Countywide sales taxes: $ 10.55 M per year; 75% for bicycle improvements ( with exception of SF, which is 100% bikes). This total excludes revenue
from the Santa Clara county sales tax measure because it does not set aside funding for bicycle projects, although bike projects are eligible for
funding.
13. $ 710 million in RBN funds is equivalent to $ 1 billion in 2033 dollars, the year of expenditure for the Transportation 2035 plan.
66 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA | 67
6 | Next Steps
In order to execute the policies laid out in
Chapter 2, complete the Regional Bikeway
Network, and implement other bicycle‐related
projects and programs needed to
create a truly bicycle‐ friendly Bay Area, a
number of steps are needed. These include:
ensuring that bicycle facilities are routinely
accommodated on all transportation
projects; full funding of the Regional
Bikeway Network and needed support
facilities; improving bicycle safety
throughout the region; acknowledging the
importance of non‐ capital investments such
as maintenance, operations, and educational
and promotional programs; local and
regionwide planning; and improved data
collection.
1. Routine accommodation
Build on MTC’s Routine Accommodation
policy ( see Appendix C) – which impacts
only projects funded by MTC – by
encouraging local jurisdictions and other
agencies to adopt similar policies for all
transportation projects, including those that
are locally funded.
2. The Regional Bikeway Network
a) Complete construction of the Regional
Bikeway Network, including pathways on
all Bay Area toll bridges that do not
currently permit bicycle access. Allowing
cyclists to cross all of the region’s toll
bridges will provide another travel option
on crowded transbay corridors, both for
current and future cyclists.
b) Update the Regional Bikeway Network
between Plan updates. Although the
Regional Bicycle Plan is updated between
Regional Transportation Plan updates, the
Regional Bikeway Network ( RBN) is
constantly changing. To maintain the RBN’s
usefulness to potential project sponsors and
others tracking progress and routing, it
needs to be updated at least as frequently as
the Regional Transportation Plan ( i. e., every
four years).
c) Reassess the Regional Bikeway Network.
The criteria used to identify the links in the
RBN originated in 2001 during the
development of the original Regional Bicycle
Plan ( see Chapter 4). However, priorities
have changed in the intervening years, and
it may be useful to reassess the criteria used
to determine which links should be included
Chapter 6
68 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission
in the RBN, and a corresponding analysis to
ensure that the resulting network is
sufficiently comprehensive. ( The updated
Regional Bikeway Network described in this
plan update reflects RBN projects that have
been completed since 2001, but is not the
result of a reconsideration of the original
criteria.)
This discussion should include the
following considerations:
• Whether the Regional Bikeway Network
will still be the appropriate focus of
regional funding priorities if future
regional bicycle investment is focused
primarily in Priority Development Areas
( PDAs) to achieve Transportation 2035
performance objectives ( see chapter 2 for
more discussion of PDAs).
• An analysis of what sort of destinations
regional bikeways should serve and the
criteria for selecting the best routes for
investment.
• The need for the Regional Bikeway
Network to serve all types and levels of
bicyclists, and the corresponding role of
public transit in the RBN.
3. Bicycle safety
Help local jurisdictions improve bicycle
safety. MTC could help identify resources
to assist Bay Area jurisdictions and other
agencies to implement the concepts
presented in the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Safety Toolbox ( see Chapter 3).
4. Maintenance and operations
Identify and develop ongoing bicycle facility
operations and maintenance funding.
Without regular maintenance, the surface
quality of bikeways can be degraded with
gravel, glass and cracking. Some bicycle
facilities, such as attended parking, require
ongoing operations funding. While the
previous chapter demonstrated that there
may be ample funds for capital projects,
particularly on the Regional Bikeway
Network, there is a strong need to develop
sources of ongoing operations and
maintenance funding.
5. Bicycle education and
promotion
Identify funding sources to fund bicycle
education and promotion programs. These
programs encourage people to bicycle for all
sorts of trip purposes, teach cyclists how to
ride more safely and show motorists how to
drive more safely in the vicinity of bicyclists.
Interior of Caltrain bicycle car
6. Multimodal integration
Broaden the transit focus of the Regional
Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay
Area. Future Plan updates could provide
detailed transit station bicycle parking
inventories; identify gaps between transit
stations and the bikeway network; analyze
ridership and land‐ use data to determine
where there may be latent demand for
bicycle parking at transit stations; and
provide bicycle parking‐ related policy
recommendations for transit agencies,
including installation guidelines and
funding strategies.
Next Steps
REGIONAL