You are on page 1of 245

C I T Y

S T A F F

Meg Johnson

Administrative Analyst II Transportation, Public Works

Raymond F. Pfeifer

Sergeant Police Department

Trina L. Reynolds

Typist Clerk II Water, Public Works

David J. Spease

Landscape Architect Parks & Community Development

Margaret Watson

Typist Clerk II Parking, Public Works

David Yatabe

Assistant Engineer

Kimland M. Yee

Associate Civil Engineer Transportation, Public Works

Gary F. Ziegenfuss

Associate Planner Planning

S A C R A M E N T O

C O U N T Y

COUNTY EXECUTIVE

Robert (Bob) Smith

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Grantland Johnson

First District

Illa Collin

Second District

Sandra Smoley

Third District

Jim Streng

Fourth District

C. Tobias (Toby) Johnson

Fifth District

C O U N T Y

S T A F F

Rodney Anderson

Sheriff's Department

Ann Baker

Planning Department

Tom Boswell

California Highway Patrol

Ron Maertz

Planning Department

Leighann Moffit

Planning Department

Duong (Winn) Nguyen

Water Resources

Ben Pugh

Department of Public Works Plan Coordinator

Steve Tracy

Planning Department

Chris Van Slyke

SMAQMD

Lois Woodruff

Parks Department

 

S A C R A M E N T O

C I T Y

- C O U N T Y

 

B I K E W A Y

T A S K

F O R C E

Mark Drake

 

Chairman

Jim Kirstein

Vice Chairman

Pete Baldridge

Secretary

Rick Blunden

 

Will Crozier

Robert Grant

Kent Link

Judy Montgomery

Susan Morris-Burns

Tom Neumann

Lois Weast

Ron Wilburne

ACKNOW/BMP 7/15/91

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Sacramento City-County Bikeway Task Force is indebted to many public agencies and individuals who assisted in the preparation of the 2010 Bikeway Master Plan. In particular we would like to mention the following:

County Planning Department - Cartographic Section County Parks Department - Planning Division & Maintenance Division All County Community Council Members County Dependent Park Districts Independent Park Districts City Planning and Community Development Department City Parks and Community Services Department All City Homeowners Associations All Other Individuals Who Attended Public Input Meetings

Ray Onga

County Planning

Lin Toyama

County Planning

Tim Imai

County Planning

Jim Jester

County Planning

Carl Elan

County Planning

Mike Winter

County Planning

Surinder Singh

County Planning

Larry Robinson

SMAQMD

Virginia Hadley

County Planning

Linda Wessitsh

County Transportation

T/CBKWYMASPLAN - 7/15/91

T A B L E

O F

C O N T E N T S

CHAPTER ONE - COMPENDIUM

A

Summary

B

Recommendations

CHAPTER TWO - PREFACE

A

Introduction

B

Bicycle History

C

Sacramento County Bicycle Nostalgia

D

Previous Bikeway Studies

E

Definitions

1 General Bicycle

2 Traffic Signal

F

Bikeway Master Plan Area

G

Demographic Background

CHAPTER THREE - GOAL

A The Bikeway Master Plan Goal

1 Coordination Objective

a Needs and Issues

b Policy

c Program

2 Safety and Security Objective

3 Design Objective

4 Maintenance Objective

5 Aesthetics Objective

6 Implementation Objective

CHAPTER FOUR - BICYCLING

A Bicycling Environment

B Bicycle Types

C Frame Styles

D Mountain Bicycling Program

1 Description

2 Introduction

3 Legislation

4 User Conflicts

CHAPTER FOUR – CONTINUED

5 Design Standard

6 Guidelines for Multi-Use Trails

7 Multi-Use Trail Corridor

8 Conclusion

CHAPTER FIVE - PLANNING

A General Planning Criteria

I. Introduction

II. Role of Bikeway

III. Decision to Develop Bikeways

IV. Selection of Type of Facility

B Specific Planning Criteria

C Bikeways as a Transportation System Management Tool

CHAPTER SIX - BICYCLE ACCIDENT HISTORY/SAFETY

A Introduction

B Accident History - National

C Accident History - Other Jurisdictions

D Accident History - Sacramento County

E Current Accident Statistics - Sacramento County

F Accident History - City of Sacramento

G Bicycle Safety

CHAPTER SEVEN - EDUCATION

A Bicycle Education

CHAPTER EIGHT - ENFORCEMENT

A Bicycle Enforcement

B Bicycle Theft

C Bicycle Registration

CHAPTER NINE - DESIGN STANDARDS

A Philosophy

B Application of Standards

1

General

2

Approvals

3

FHWA and AASHTO Standards and Policies

4

Mandatory and Advisory Standards

a Mandatory Standards

b Advisory Standards

c Permissive Standards

d Mandatory Procedural Requirements

C Class I Bikeways (Bike Path)

1.

Widths

2.

Clearance to Obstructions

CHAPTER NINE - CONTINUED

3. Striping

4. Intersections with Highways

5. Separation between Paths and Highways

6. Paths in Medians

7. Design Speed

8. Horizontal Alignment and Superelevation

9. Stopping Sight Distance

10. Length of Crest, Vertical Curves

11. Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves

12. Grade

13. Structural Section

14. Drainage

15. Barrier Posts

16. Landscaping

17. Roundabouts (Traffic Circles) and Intersections

18. Stairway Ramps

19. Drainage Easement and/or Natural Stream Bikeways

20. Bikeway Capacity

D Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes)

I. Introduction

II. Widths

III. Striping and Signing

IV. Intersection Design

E Class III Bikeways (Bike Route)

I. Introduction

II. On-Street Bike Route Criteria

III. Sidewalk Bikeway Criteria

IV. Destination Signing of Bike Routes

F Multi-Use Recreational Trail System

G Miscellaneous Bikeway Criteria

I. Bridges

II. Surface Quality

III. Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, and Driveways

IV. At Grade Railroad Crossings and Cattle Guards

V. Hazard Marking

VI. Lighting

CHAPTER TEN - UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

A Uniform Signs and Markings

I. Introduction

II. Maintenance

III. Colors

CHAPTER TEN - CONTINUED

IV.

V. Class II (Bike Lanes)

VI. Class III (Bike Routes)

Class I

(Bike Path)

B Specific Traffic Control Devices

1

Signs

a

Application of Signs

b

Location and Position

c

Design

d

Regulatory Signs

e

Warning Signs

f

Guide Signs

2

Markings

a Functions and Limitations

b General Principles

c Marking Patterns and Colors

3

Traffic/Bicycle Signals

a Introduction

b Summary

c Bicycle Detection Currently in Use

d Bicycle Detector Analyses

e Combination Bicycle/Vehicle Systems

f Bicycle Detector Location

g Interim Bicycle Detection Improvement

h Policy and Recommendation

CHAPTER ELEVEN - USER SURVEY

A City/County Bicycle Information Survey

1 Survey Background

a Bicycle Count & Classification

b Bicycle Usage

c Bikeway Planning

2 Survey Methodology

3 Survey Results

4 Survey Conclusions

B Clean Air Partnership, Public Opinion Survey

CHAPTER TWELVE - PARKING

A Bikeway Parking and Amenities

I.

Introduction

II.

Bicycle Parking Benefits

III.

Bicycle Parking Principles

IV.

Planning Bicycle Parking and Signing

CHAPTER TWELVE – CONTINUED

B Class I Bicycle Parking Facility - (Highest Security)

I. Inside the Building

II. Lockers

III. Check-in

IV. Monitored Parking

C Class II Bicycle Parking Facility (High Security)

D Class III Bicycle Parking Facility (Medium Security)

E Bicycle Parking and Regional Transit

F Zoning Ordinance - Bicycle Parking - Sacramento County

G Zoning Ordinance - Bicycle Parking - City of Sacramento

H Zoning Ordinance - Shower and Locker Facilities - Sacramento County

I Zoning Ordinance - Shower and Locker Facility - City of Sacramento

CHAPTER THIRTEEN - COSTS

A Bikeway Costs

I. Class I

II. Class II

III. Class III

B Bikeway Maintenance Costs

I. Program Factors

II. Assumptions

III. Class I

I & M Costs

IV. Class II

I & M Costs

V. Class III

I & M Costs

VI. Composite Maintenance Factor

VII. Program Cost Development

C Bikeway Program Costs

1 City On Street

2 City Off Street

3 City Bikeway Bridges

4 County On Street

5 County Off Street

CHAPTER FOURTEEN - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

A Introduction

B Integrating Bicycle-Transit

C Bicycle Transit Program

D Bicycle Access to Transit Programs in Other Areas

E Bicycles and Sacramento Regional Transit

F Regional Transit/Bicycle Considerations

CHAPTER FIFTEEN - IMPLEMENTATION

A Bikeway Funding Philosophy

B Funding - Federal Sources

1 Urban Mass Transportation Act

2 Federal Aid Highway Program

3 Community Highway Safety Program

C Funding - State Sources

I. Proposition 116

II. Bicycle Lane Account

III. Transportation Development Act

IV. Propositions 108, 111 and Related Programs

D Funding - Local Sources

1 Measure A Sales Tax

2 Motor Vehicle Registration Surcharge

3 Development Fees and Building Permits

a Quimby Act

b Facilities Benefit Assessment District

c South Natomas Community Improvement Fund

d County Roadway and Transit Development Fee

4 Bicycle Registration

5 Air Quality Attainment Plan

E Bikeway Development Priorities

F Bikeway Advisory Committee

1

Introduction

2

Need

3

Purpose

4

Composition

5

Selection of Members

6

Membership Appointment

7

Committee Operation

8

Citizen Participation

9

Recommendations

CHAPTER SIXTEEN - INVENTORY

A Inventory Introduction

B Bikeway Studies

C The 2010 BMP Inventory

1 Program and Cost Summary

Total

2 Program Spreadsheets by Community

3 Five-Year Program Summary

4 Ten-Year Program Summary

Total

D Bikeway Mileage - 1976 BMP - 2010 BMP

CHAP1/BMP

7/16/91

CHAPTER ONE - COMPENDIUM

A.

SUMMARY:

The 2010 City/County Bikeway Master Plan was developed to serve the recreational and transportation needs of the public. Use of the bicycle will reduce the amount of vehicle emissions and therefore improve air quality. Because there has been a 42.9 percent increase in population from 1977 to 1990, there is a need for alternative transportation such as the bicycle.

A hobby horse with foot pedals was introduced in 1835 which was the forerunner of our modern bicycle. The earliest record of a bicycle (velocipede) in the Sacramento Valley was an article in an August 1880 edition of the Sacramento Bee about the Marysville District Attorney riding in Capitol Park. A cycling club called the Capital City Wheelmen was formed on June 25, 1886. Many cycling events occurred during the late 1880's between clubs and cities.

Several studies and reports have been produced for Sacramento during the past 30 years which detail bicycling, hiking, and horseback riding facilities. These are detailed in Chapter 2-D.

This Bikeway Master Plan includes all of Sacramento County which consists of 997 square miles and 3,887 miles of public roads. The cities of Folsom, Galt, and Isleton are included as conceptual plans only. The goal of the 2010 City/County Bikeway Master Plan is to develop a comprehensive plan which will meet the needs of all bicyclists.

Bicycle travel can be enhanced by improved street maintenance and by upgrading existing roads used regularly by bicyclists. On new construction and major reconstruction projects, adequate width should be provided to permit the shared use by motorists and bicyclists.

Bikeways are one element of an effort to improve bicycling safety and convenience. Off-street bikeways in exclusive corridors can be effective in providing new recreational opportunities and/or commuter routes. On-street bikeways can serve to enhance safety and convenience of both the motorist and bicyclist.

Air quality and traffic congestion continue to be two of the major issues for the Sacramento region The Sher Bill (California Clean Air Act) mandates the Sacramento Region to reduce air pollutant emissions by an average of five percent annually. Most of the air pollution problems we are facing are caused by the use of automobiles.

Sacramento City/County is projected to have an additional 450,000 residents within the next 20 years. Rapid population growth will result in additional vehicles on the roads with the peak hour traffic volume doubling. The traditional method of expanding the existing roadway system to accommodate the increased traffic volumes is no longer the best solution, in light of air quality considerations.

Steps must be taken to reduce automobile use and thus decrease the total number of auto trips. A solution to reduce the use of the automobile is to encourage alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, vanpooling, carpooling, bicycling, and walking. In an effort to improve air quality and mitigate traffic congestion, the City of Sacramento and County of Sacramento each have adopted two Trip Reduction Ordinances which require developers and employers to formulate trip reduction programs and transportation systems management plans. Bicycling is a component of TSM programs. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) has also identified bicycle safety, facilities, and enforcement as important transportation and indirect source control measures within its 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan.

Improved bikeway design does not totally address the bicycle safety problem. There is a need for a strong bicycle safety/education and public awareness program. Much of the safety problem is an attitude problem. In approximately 70% of the bike/auto accidents the bicyclist is riding in violation of the vehicle code, and the major bicyclist infraction is riding the wrong way (facing rather than with traffic).

Almost all bicycle/auto accidents are due to the bicyclist or motorist disobeying the law. Education would minimize the unintentional infractions and strict enforcement would limit both intentional and unintentional infractions.

The bikeway development process seeks to provide a degree of mobility that is in balance with other values. Social, economic, and environmental effects must be considered fully along with technical issues in the development of transportation projects. Projects must be selected for implementation on the bases of benefits and community goals, plans, and values. These decisions should emphasize different transportation modes working together effectively.

Highway design criteria and polices from the Caltrans Design Manual provide a guide to exercise sound judgement in applying standards to the design of projects. Design standards should equal or exceed the minimum given in the Manual. In addition to the standards of the Design Manual, the Caltrans Traffic Manual contains standards relating to signs, delineation, barrier systems, signals, and lighting.

Bikeway signs and markings should be standardized to provide universal understanding by bicyclists and motorists alike. Bicycle signs and markings should be properly maintained to command respect from both the motorist and the bicyclist.

The Bikeway Task Force requested that a random sample survey be conducted to gather information about the bicycling public. A total of 10,000 survey forms were mailed and 1,039 questionnaire forms were returned. The return rate was 10.4% which is considered very good.

This survey obtained three types of information:

1. Bicycle Count and Classification

2. Bicycle Usage

3. Bikeway Planning

The first item revealed that 95% of all residents own a bicycle. Fifty-three percent (53%) of the total bicycles are lightweight multispeeds and seventeen percent (17%) are mountain bikes.

The second item detailed that 70% of the total residents participate in bicycling. Eighty percent (80%) of total bicycle trips are recreational/exercise with work trips contributing to twelve percent (12%) of total trips.

The bikeway planning question found that the most important facility requested was more Class I Bike Paths. The two most important destinations were parks (1st) and schools (2nd). Also, we were pleasantly surprised to learn that 79% of the respondents knew where the designated bikeways were in their community.

It was found that secure and convenient bicycle parking is a major factor which would encourage the use of bicycles. Bicycles left unattended are prone to vandalism and theft. Bicycle parking systems have been developed which offer adequate security, especially when the location is well lighted and highly visible.

The cost per mile for each type of bikeway was developed as a joint effort between City/County Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments. A detailed analysis of this process is found in Chapter Thirteen. The factors used are:

Class I

(Bike Path)

$100,000

(with exclusions)

Class II

(Bike Lane)

$ 2,500

(without construction)

Class III (Bike Route)

$

500

The composite maintenance cost for Class I (Bike Path) is $6,380 per mile per year, and for Classes II and III is $1,563 per mile per year.

The Bikeway Program costs are as follows:

On-Street

 

5-Year Program

10-Year Program

City

$958,000

$1,880,000

County

$3,057,000

$5,854,000

Off-Street

5-Year Program

10-Year Program

City

$1,375,000

$1,773,000

County

$237,000

$554,000

An aggressive bicycle/transit program can enhance the movement of people throughout the metropolitan area. Bikes-on-bus and bikes-on-fixed-rail cars have met with great success in many areas.

Being lightweight and compact, bicycles can be carried aboard buses or rail cars. By combining the best features of both modes, bike-on-rail/bus can provide a high quality metropolitan and intracity mobility without relying on the automobile.

To provide a safe and convenient bikeway system implementation funding will be necessary. Some bikeway funding sources have evaporated, and new sources have been created. The City and County should seek to maximize the use of all funding sources to provide the bikeway plan as herein defined. A Bicycle Advisory Committee is recommended to assist with the implementation of the Master Plan.

The 2010 bikeway inventory is detailed in Chapter Sixteen of Volume I and Appendices I and J of Volume II. Total mileage as proposed in this Master Plan is as follows:

 

On-Street

Off-Street

City

333.93

94.65

County

770.75

110.84

TOTAL

1,124.69

205.29

During the five-year program the Master Plan outlines the mileages as follows:

 

On-Street

Off-Street

City

146.69

12.64

County

480.15

1.89

TOTAL

626.84

14.53

During the ten-year program the Master Plan outlines the mileage as follows:

 

On-Street

Off-Street

City

113.22

11.50

County

353.40

5.17

TOTAL

466.71

16.67

B.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That the City Council/Board of Supervisors accept 2010 City/County Bikeway Master Plan as presented with consideration to the following recommendations:

a. From Chapter 4:

(1) Request a feasibility study be conducted on the following recreational corridors to determine their suitability for multi- use trail systems:

(a)

Natomas East Main Drainage Canal

(b)

Dry Creek Floodway

(c)

Sacramento Northern Railroad Bike Path

b. From Chapter 6:

(1)

Request a staff report be prepared on the advisability of establishing a Bicycle Safety Program.

c. From Chapter 7:

(1)

Request a staff report be prepared on the advisability of establishing a subcommittee to the Bicycle Advisory Committee which would focus on bicycling education programs.

d. From Chapter 8:

(1)

Request a staff report be prepared on the advisability of establishing a bicycle law enforcement and registration program.

e. From Chapter 12:

(1) Request a feasibility study be conducted to fund and install additional bicycle parking facilities throughout the City/County.

f. From Chapter 14:

(1)

Requested a staff report on the advisability of encouraging Regional Transit to implement new programs which would interface bicycling and public transit.

g.

From Chapter 15:

(1)

Request staff to investigate and prepare a report detailing all available funding sources to implement the Bicycle Master Plan.

(2)

Take the necessary action to implement the Bicycle Advisory Committee.

CHAP2A

4/25/91

CHAPTER TWO

A. INTRODUCTION FOR THE 2010 BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN:

The Sacramento City/County Bikeway Master Plan is an effort to coordinate and develop a bikeway system that will benefit the recreational and transportation needs of the public. This plan also recognizes the use of the bicycle as an alternative form of transportation which will reduce the amount of vehicles emissions in this geographic area and contribute to an improvement in air quality. In addition, the provision of bikeways in Sacramento City and County increases the mobility of those people who rely upon bicycles for transportation because they cannot, or choose not, to own and operate a motor vehicle. The revised Bikeway Master Plan also reestablishes the inclusion of bicycles as a consideration in traffic planning and project funding.

Previously, the bicycle was viewed largely in terms of recreation. Although the prior plan recognized it as an alternative form of transportation and cited it as a means to improve individual physical fitness, the 1977 plan concentrated on the bicycle for recreation purposes.

Since the 1977 Sacramento Bikeway Master Plan was adopted, Sacramento's area population has increased and the needs and attitudes of the residents have changed. While the increase in population benefits the community in terms of cultural resources, commercial prosperity, and tax dollars for social programs and public improvements, the growth in population also brings associated problems. Increasing awareness by the public of environmental problems, such as decreasing air quality and diminishing natural resources, has and continues to subtly shape attitudes towards individual responsibility towards the environment, and conservation.

Although the emissions from the combustion engine vehicle are not the sole source of Sacramento's air pollution, auto emissions contribute significantly to the amount of the region's critical pollutants. Furthermore, legislation has been enacted (federal, state, and local) mandating a reduction in the amount of air contaminant emissions. Increasing the use of the bicycle as an alternative form of transportation will reduce the amount of vehicle emissions and contribute to an improvement in air quality.

Due to the combined growth of Sacramento City and County, there is a tremendous need for alternative transportation. From 1977 to 1990, Sacramento City and County has grown in population to a total of 1,026,800, a 42.9 percent increase. As the County has grown in its employment base and jobs/housing ratio, the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has also increased for commute and noncommute trips. While reliance upon the automobile has remained strong in the United States

for total trips traveled, many Western European nations are using alternative transportation for a significant portion of their total trips. It is interesting to note that Netherlands and Denmark use bicycles for 29.4 percent 20.0 percent, respectively, of their total trips. In comparison, the United States used bicycles for 0.7 percent of total trips (1978 data).

Implementation measures of the Sacramento County Draft General Plan Circulation Element encourage the use of transportation alternatives and improving facilities for modes of transportation within employment, public activity, and other development which do not rely on the use of the automobile. The Land Use Element presents strategies for accommodating growth that include land use-transit linkage. This strategy describes a new form of development, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), that also benefits and promotes bicycle and use and access.

This Bikeway Master Plan recognizes the use of the bicycle not only in terms of recreation, but also for its increasing prominence as an alternative transportation source.

BICYCLE OWNERSHIP AND USE IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

The Worldwatch Institute in Washington, DC recently produced an interesting paper on bicycles entitled "The Bicycle: Vehicle for a Small Planet". Selected statistics are shown below the Worldwatch Institute is an independent, nonprofit research organization created to analyze and to focus attention on global problems.

BICYCLE AND AUTOMOBILES IN SELECTED COUNTIES (circa 1985)

 

Bicycles

Autos

Cycle/Auto

Country

(millions)

(millions)

Ratio

China 1

300.0

1.2

250.0

India

45.0

1.5

30.0

South Korea

6.0

0.3

20.0

Egypt

1.5

0.5

3.0

Mexico

12.0

4.8

2.5

Netherlands

11.0

4.9

2.2

Japan 1

60.0

30.7

2.0

West Germany

45.0

26.0

1.7

Argentina

4.5

3.4

1.3

Tanzania

0.5

0.5

1.0

Australia 1

6.8

7.1

1.0

United States 1

103.0

139.0

0.7

1

1988

CYCLING AS A SHARE OF DAILY PASSENGER TRIPS FOR SELECTED CITIES

   

Percentage of

City

Country

Daily Trips

Tianjin

China

77

1

Shenyang

China

65

Groningen

Netherlands

50

Beijing

China

48

Delft

Netherlands

43

Erlangen

West Germany

26

Odense

Denmark

25

Tokyo

Japan

25

2

Moscow

Soviet Union

24

2

Delhi

India

22

Copenhagen

Denmark

20

Basel

Switzerland

20

Hannover

West Germany

 

14

Manhattan

United States

8

3

Perth

Australia

6

Toronto

Canada

3

3

London

England

2

Sydney

Australia

1

1 Share of non-walking trips 2 Share cycling or walking to work 3 Vehicle trips (versus passenger trips)

BICYCLE USE: MORE PEOPLE RIDING FOR ALL REASONS

The following estimates were developed by the Bicycle Institute of America, the bicycle industry's promotion organization, and provide a sense of the magnitude of various kinds of bicycle growth and trends. Of particular note is the increase in bicycle commuters, a trend expected to continue as more people discover bicycling as a way to circumvent urban traffic congestion.

 

BICYCLE USE IN 1989

 

U.S.

   

Male/Female

Bicyclists

In Millions

Percentage

Ratio (%)

Adults (Persons 16 and over)

48

53

44 - 55

Children

42

47

-

TOTALS

90

100

-

 

1989 Level

Percentage Estimated Increase

Category of Use

(In Millions)

1989-90

Adults cycling regularly (average once a week)

23.0

20

Bicycle commuters

3.2

20

Adults cycling in competition (racing)

0.20

20

All-terrain bike users

11.0

30

Tourists/Vacationers on bikes

1.1

10

Recreational event participants

2.7

10

 

SUMMARY: 1983-1989 (in millions)

 
 

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

Total U.S. Bicyclists

72.0

75.0

78.0

82.0

85.0

88.0

90.0

Adults Riding Regularly

10.0

11.0

12.0

14.0

17.0

20.0

23.0

Bicycle Commuters

1.5

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.7

3.2

All-terrain Bike Users

0.2

0.5

1.1

2.6

5.0

7.5

11.0

Tourists & Vacationers

0.5

0.55

0.60

0.75

0.85

1.0

1.1

Event Participants

N/A

1.0

1.2

1.5

1.8

2.4

2.7

Racing (in thousands)

40K

75K

100K

120K

50K

180K

200K

.04

.075

.10

.12

.05

.18

0.2

 

THE U.S. BICYCLE MARKET 1 (Shipments in Millions of Units)

 

Year

Domestic

   

Imports

 

Total

 

1960

 

2.6

 

1.1

 

3.7

1965

 

4.6

 

1.0

 

5.6

1970

 

5.0

 

1.9

 

6.9

1971

 

6.6

 

2.3

 

8.9

1972

 

8.8

 

5.1

 

13.9

1973

 

10.1

 

5.1

 

15.2

1974

 

10.1

 

4.0

 

14.1

1975

 

5.6

 

1.7

 

7.3

1976

 

6.4

 

1.7

 

8.1

1977

 

7.5

 

1.9

 

9.4

1978

 

7.5

 

1.9

 

9.4

1 SOURCE: Bicycle Manufaturers Association of America, 1990

1979

9.0

1.8

10.8

1980

7.0

2.0

9.0

1981

6.8

2.1

8.9

1982

5.2

1.6

6.8

1983

6.3

2.7

9.0

1984

5.9

4.2

10.1

1985

5.8

5.6

11.4

1986

5.3

7.0

12.3

1987

5.2

7.4

12.6

1988

4.5

5.4

9.9

1989

5.3

5.0

10.7

1990 (est.)

5.7

5.0

10.7

CHAP2B/BMP

5/16/91

B.

BICYCLE HISTORY:

The bicycle has evolved to its present form and popularity over an uneven, and sometimes unlikely course. First considered an expensive plaything of the elite in Europe, then an odd transportation vehicle viewed with skepticism if not hostility, virtually ignored for nearly seventy years following the invention of the automobile, and now rediscovered as a transportation alternative an healthy, recreational outlet accessible to and affordable for nearly everyone.

The relationship of bike and car is an old and interesting one. Many of the people whom we associate with the development of the automobile--Henry Ford, Glen Olds, and George N. Pierce--were bicycle mechanics before they manufactured the cars bearing their names. Their transition from bikes to cars was, of course, momentous for the history of transportation as well as their personal careers. When these men turned their attention to motor vehicles, the bicycle--which appeared headed to replace the horse as the primary vehicle of personal transportation--was relegated to the background and finally even to the realm of a child's toy. 2

The following table provides highlights of the bicycle's bumpy ride along its evolutionary trail.

 

BICYCLE HISTORY HIGHLIGHTS

YEAR

ITEM

NAME

1791

Wooden horse with two wheels introduced

Comte de Sivrac

 

No front fork, not steerable, no drive mechanism

 

1816

Hobby Horse or Draisenne introduced

Baron Karl von Draise

 

Steerable, no drive mechanism

 

1821

Rack and pinion added to Hobby Horse

Lewis Gompertz

1835

Foot pedal added to the front wheel of the Hobby Horse

Kirkpatrick MacMillan

1861

Manufacture of first pedal-driven bicycle

Michaux Brothers

1866

Wire spoke wheels first appear

 

2 Bicycle History, 1972

1868

Rubber Shod wheels first appear

 

1869

Early version of the Velocipede or Boneshaker introduced in U.S.

 
 

Riding academies with indoor rinks spring up

 

1872

Penny-Farthing or the Ordinary emerges in England with a five-foot wheel

 

1873

First Safety bicycle built and ridden

H.J. Lawson

1876

Ordinaries imported to U.S.

Colonel Albert A. Pope

1878

Ordinaries manufactured in Boston

Colonel Albert A. Pope

1880

League of American Wheelmen formed

 

1884

First person to cross the U.S. on bicycle - Oakland, CA to Boston, MA

thomas Stevens

 

Bicycles allowed on the Haddonfield NJ turnpike

 

1885

Safety bicycle with 28-inch wheels and brakes invented

J.K. Stanley

1888

First pneumatic tire invented

Dr. J.B. Dunlop

 

Governor of New York revokes all restrictions against bicycles

 

1894

First woman to tour the world

Annie Londonberry

 

First derailleur patented, 4 speeds

Linley and Biggs

1897

Two million bicycles manufactured in the U.S. in this year alone (One for every ten people)

 

1898

Coaster brakes added to the Safety

New Departure Company

1902

Bicycle racing champion wins his first automobile race

Barney Oldfield

1942

League of American Wheelmen folds

 

1950's

Adults in the U.S. rediscover th bicycle as healthy, light recreation

 

1960's

European 3-speed lightweights popularized in the U.S.

 

1964

League of American Wheelmen reactivated

Joe Hart

1970's

New biycle sales surpass new car sales

 
 

10-speeds popularized

 

1980's

Mountain biking popularized

1990's

Bicycling returns as a viable transportation alternative

S A C R A M E N T O

C O U N T Y

B I C Y C L E

F R O M

N O S T A L G I A

1 8 7 8

T O

1 8 9 6

BY

BEN PUGH

Sprung articulated bicycle proceeds with action of an inchworm, gait of a cantering horse when pedaled.

CHAP2-C/BMP

1/24/91

C.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY BICYCLE NOSTALGIA:

Since most urban dwellers prior to 1890 depended on streetcars and railroads for transportation, their trips and excursions were confined to those areas served by public transportation, and by operating schedules.

It is no wonder, then, that the advent of the bicycle was received as a symbol of freedom. Working men bought bicycles to ride to work, while other acquired them for social, recreational, or health purposes. As one historian has noted: "no

sport

physicians, and it helped to bring about more rational fashions for women."

attracted

so many participants as bicycling;

it

was recommended by

An early form of the bicycle, the velocipede, had been invented in Europe between 1855 and 1865. Popularly called "the boneshaker," it consisted of a high wooden wheel with iron tires in front, with a small wheel in the rear. The diameter of the front wheel was constantly enlarged to permit greater speed.

The velocipede had been brought into the valley by 1878, when the Marysville District Attorney and an ex-constable raced along "D" Street for a one thousand dollar bet. The Sacramento Bee also noted in August 1880 that:

A young man attracted considerable attention in Capitol Park last evening by

his skillful management of a Columbia bicycle, such as is used by members

of the eastern clubs. The high wheeled concern moved along noiselessly and

smoothly and, when its rider so desired, with remarkable speed. It would seem that the bicycle might well answer the same purpose of a saddle horse, with this advantage - it costs nothing to feed it.

The bicycle had become so popular in the eastern United States by 1880 that the League of American Wheelmen was organized in that year, with memberships confined to cycling clubs in various cities. Sacramento joined this organization on June 25, 1886, when the Capitol City Wheelmen were organized.

The new cycling club had relatively few members and received only limited publicity in local newspapers until 1892. Most of its activities seemed to involve racing, which meant that only the select few joined the organization.

The annual relay races between the Capitol City Wheelmen of Sacramento and the Oak Leaf Wheelmen of Stockton began on April 24, 1892, and, with the exception of 1895, were held every year until 1902. The first race consisted of a five-man relay team for each side, riding fifty-two miles and delivering that day's newspaper

to the opposing town. Sacramento won the race with a time of three hours, nine minutes, beating the Oak Leafs by eleven minutes.

The next year, the race was extended to a round trip 104-mile run with both teams leaving Stockton at the same time and racing against each other. The Oak Leafs won this second race with a time of six hours, eight and a half minutes, besting the Sacramento team by twelve minutes. The Sacramento-Stockton relays aroused widespread interest and enthusiasm in both cities.

The rapidly increasing number of bicycles in Sacramento had by 1892 produced new problems for the city. Cyclists complained that he city's sprinkling system left the streets either muddy or dry as dust, both of which hampered bicycle riding. "Reckless riding" complaints were voiced through the newspapers, and accidents did occur because bicycles could be ridden only on one side of the street. City officials finally passed an ordinance in December 1893 prohibiting the riding of bicycles on sidewalks and requiring wheelmen to carry a bell, horn, or lamp at night.

It appeared that bicycling was declining when the Capitol City Wheelmen disbanded in 1894. Another club with the same name was organized on June 17, 1895.

Interest in bicycling, which was represented by the club's revival in 1895, was also reflected in the fact that the Sacramento Record Union began a special column of cycling news in that same year. It contained such interesting information as the estimate that there were two thousand bicycles, costing $175,000, in Sacramento alone.

It kept its readers informed of the latest developments, such as how to make a bicycle lamp or descriptions of the latest styles for lady bicycle riders. On the more practical side, it advocated the use of a "dog gun," filled with ammonia which, when discharged into the face of a pursuing canine, proved most discouraging. It even printed poetry, on occasions, such as:

There is something captivating And upon my word, elating That is quite exhilarating In the merry cycling girl.

The recreation and social aspects of the Capitol City Wheelmen were enough to make it a memorable and significant organization in the Sacramento of the 1890's. But there was another activity which was to be even more significant; that was it contribution to the emerging "Good Roads" movement in California.

Bicycle riders were concerned about streets and roads from the very beginning, and frequently complained to city officials of rocks, stone, and bits of glass to be found on the streets. Roads in the county were even worse since they were too muddy for bicycling in the rainy season and too dusty for comfort in the dry season.

Faced with these unpleasant conditions, the Capitol City Wheelmen decided to do something about it. It voted on March 30, 1896, to build a bicycle cinder path to Folsom to provide a pleasant ride for its members. However, they first built an experimental path from 31st and J Streets to the levee near Brighton Junction, scraping off the stones and leveling it.

When this path proved successful, plans for the wheelway to Folsom were launched. Each club member was assessed one dollar, and Sacramento merchants and citizens were solicited to raise a total of about nine hundred dollars. People who contributed were presented with an orange ribbon with the imprint "Patron of the Wheelway, C.C.W."

Work began on the cinder path to Folsom, with the first section to Brighton Junction opened on April 12, 1896, when five hundred bicyclists rode the finished wheelway for the first time. The second section was completed to Alder Creek before funds began to run out, and the Wheelmen appealed to Folsom citizens to complete the path from Alder Creek to their city. Folsom merchants subscribed liberally to the project, thereby enabling the wheelway to be completed.

The bicycle path was officially named the C. C. Wheelway (Capitol City Wheelway), rules were posted along its route, and the Board of Supervisors prohibited other vehicles from using it. Nevertheless, nearby farmers found the wheelway far superior to the adjacent muddy road in winter, especially between Brighton and Perkins, so that this portion had to be rebuilt with decomposed granite. Speedsters, of course, had to test the new path and try to beat the old record to Folsom of one hour and forty minutes. A new record of one hour and two minutes was established indicating the efficacy of the new road.

The success of the Folsom wheelway prompted the building of other bicycle paths to other communities. The Galt Wheelway was completed on June 5, 1896, and the Stockton Wheelway, which extended from Sacramento to the county line, on June 22. Wheelways were also planned to Roseville or Rocklin with a branch going north to Lincoln and south to Folsom. This network would have provided an excellent, pleasant, and comfortable club run, but was never completed.

Public demand for improved roads had reached such a point by 1896 that state officials began to think in terms of a state road system. Some have said that the Folsom wheelway was the first improved, smooth road in the state. It is certain that the Capitol City Wheelmen joined the "good Roads Movement," and that their enthusiasm contributed significantly to the fact that Sacramento County had some of the best roads in the state.

The age of bicycling coincided with the 1890's, before the automobile made its appearance in the valley, but it was to continue for many years thereafter for a small segment of the population. The bicycle had introduced a new component in the

revolutionary changes which occurred between 1880 and 1910, for the auto was, in reality, only an extension of the idea of personal transportation. The revolution in transportation, when combined with that in communication, illumination and power, transformed the valley from the dim, gas lit horse and buggy Nineteenth Century into the brilliantly illuminated, fast moving Twentieth Century.

Note: Information obtained from the following newspapers for Sacramento County Bicycle Nostalgia: Marysville Appeal, San Francisco Call, Sacramento Record Union, and from a research paper titled "The History of the Bicycle in Sacramento

1890-1897."

CHAP2-D/BMP

12/11/90

D. PREVIOUS BIKEWAY STUDIES

1. Several previous Bikeway Studies have been completed for the Sacramento area. It is desirable to be aware of these studies, their status, and their

recommendations.

a. The first Sacramento cycling club, Capitol City Wheelmen, was formed June 25, 1886. This organization voted on March 30, 1896, to build a cinder bike path to Folsom. When this path named the "Capitol City Wheelway" proved to be very successful, bike paths were built in both Galt and Stockton in 1896.

b. During the late 1960's, a group of bicycling enthusiasts formed a bicycle advocacy called "Bikeway Action Committee". This Bicycle Action Committee published a document called "Bikeways, Sacramento Region". Their regional bikeway concept recommended that the local governments provide for recreational cycling, and provide safe bikeways for utilitarian transportation including commuting from residences to the downtown area and State offices. Regional nodes were outlined and it was suggested that transportation planning include bicycling. Also, the urban core concept was discussed and core pilot projects recommended.

c. During February 1971, the County Department of Public Works completed a report titled "Bikeway for Transportation -Sacramento Region", which was an in-depth feasibility study of bike lanes in and along the county streets.

d. On March 26, 1973, the County Board of Supervisors received a detailed report titled "Bikeway Development for Transportation and Recreation". The goal of this report was to provide a countywide transportation and recreation bikeway network within a ten-year period. It included design standards and projected costs to complete 276 miles of on-street bikeways.

e. In December 1973, a Joint City/County Bikeway Task Force was established and charged with the responsibility of developing a master plan for bikeways within the boundaries of the City-County.

f. In preparation for the first City/County Bikeway Master Plan, a separate report titled "Off-Street Bike Route Study" was completed in September 1974. The on-street bike route implementation process

is relatively simple to accomplish because it consists mainly of designating portions of existing roadway facilities for use by bicycles. On the other hand, the off-street routes are inherently much more complex with respect to all the factors of right-of-way, construction, maintenance, and law enforcement. It was decided to investigate twenty-three (23) potential off-street bike routes. Of these three (3) routes were not studied in depth. Of the remaining twenty (20) routes studies, seven (7) were assigned a high priority, five (5) were classified as medium priority, and eight (8) were stated as low priority. This report listed 80.4 miles of potential off-street bike paths.

g. In January 1975, the City-County Bikeway Task Force presented the "Sacramento Bikeways Master Plan" the County Board of Supervisors and the City Council. This was the first comprehensive "Stand Alone" Bikeways Master Plan for the Sacramento Region. It contained design criteria, design standards; and discussed bicycle safety, parking, education, and enforcement. The plan listed 248.6 miles of on-street bikeway in the County and 162.1 miles of on-street bikeway in the City.

h. In February 27, 1976, the City-County jointly submitted a proposal for the Sacramento Northern Railroad Bikeway to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This proposal was in compliance with the FHWA, Special Programs, Section 14, for a Bikeway Demonstration Program. This proposal was accepted and funded by the FHWA. A Class I Bike Path has been completed on 10.4 miles of the abandoned Sacramento Northern Railroad (SNRR) right-of- way. Several miles of additional bike path are being planned for this right-of-way.

i. In March 1984, the County received a Bikeway Safety Evaluation Report from the consulting firm of Omni-Means Ltd. This was part of a California Traffic Safety Program funded by the FHWA, Office of Traffic Safety. The bikeway study is a part of a continuing effort by Sacramento County to provide a comprehensive bikeway system to meet the transportation and recreation needs of its bicycling community. The purpose of this bikeway study is to evaluate approximately 450 miles of roadway (or 900 single direction bike lane miles) on the existing and proposed bikeway system identified in the Sacramento County Bikeway Master Plan. The objectives of the study are to determine current deficiencies in the system and to prioritize improvement recommendations.

j. On May 26, 1988, the County Board of Supervisors received the Trails and Bikeways Report from the Open Space Task Force. The

Trails and Bikeway Committee of the Open Space Task Force met on a regular basis and their charge was to review Sacramento County County for open space areas which would be desirable as trail corridors. From this open space inventory the Committee then established a network of Class I Bike Trails and Equestrian/Hiking Trails. In summary, the report identifies and describes 83 miles of completed bike trails, 161 miles of proposed bike trails, 43 miles of completed equestrian/hiking trails, and 390 miles of proposed equestrian/hiking trails.

k. In March 1989, the County Bikeway Coordinator completed a report titled "Bicycle Traffic Trends".

(1)

1973-74 Bicycle Traffic Study.

A comprehensive bicycle

traffic study of 50 intersection locations concluded that bicycle traffic increased at an annual rate of 5.8% per year. During this period the national scene experienced a gasoline shortage and an explosion in bicycle sales. In all probability, bicycle traffic increased at a much higher rate during the early mid-1970's than at any time past or present.

(2)

1982-88 Bicycle Traffic Study. Bicycle traffic at three Class II bikeway intersections plus the Class I American River Bike Trail increased at an annual rate of 3.4% during the six- year study period. We would anticipated that this rate would increase somewhat in future years.

CHAP2-E/BMP

4/19/91

E.

DEFINITIONS

1. General Bicycle:

a. AASHTO

American

Association

of

Highway

- Transportation Official and including their publications.

State

and

b. All-Terrain Bike (ATB) Trail - An unpaved trail winding through areas of natural beauty with only a minimum of grading required. Some brush removal may be advisable to offer an unobstructed path. This type of trail should have some short, steep grades to challenge the rider, however, level, wide trails would appeal to the majority of riders. The most satisfactory ATB trail is not shared with other users.

c. Bicycle

- A device upon which any person may ride, propelled

exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, gears, or pedals

and having one or more wheels.

d. Bicycle-Friendly

- Used to describe man-made environments

designed to accommodate bicycles and facilitate their use.

e. Bicycle Institute of America (BIA)

- An international, nonprofit

organization promoting bicycle sales and use through increased media coverage.

f. Bicycle Parking Cage - A steel or wood frame open structure with sides and top of chain link fence or expanded sheet steel to permit continual security inspection. The interior of the parking cage can accommodate Class II or Class III parking racks. A bicyclist must obtain a key to the entrance door.

g. Bicycle Shower/Locker Facility

- A shower/locker facility of

sufficient size to accommodate both male and female employees who

commute to work by bicycle.

h. Bicyclist/Cyclist - Any bicycle operator

i. Bike-Hiking

fast-growing

involves using a mountain bike for "hiking." Trails and dirt "fire roads" are the most popular facilities.

which

A

new

recreation

activity

-

j. Bikeway - A facility that provides for bicycle travel.

k. Century

- A 100-mile bicycle ride.

The term is also used for

bicycle rides of 25 miles (quarter century) and 50 miles (half century).

l. Class I (Bike trail or bike path) - A completely separated facility designated for the use of bicycles. The facility is separated from any street or highway by a physical space, berm, fence, or other barrier.

m. Class II (Bike lane) - A lane within a street or roadway designed for the one-way use of bicycles. It is an on-street facility with signs, striped lane markings, and pavement legends.

n. Class III (Bike Route) - Any on street right-of-way recommended for bicycle travel which provides for shared use with motor vehicles or pedestrian traffic.

o. Class I Bicycle Parking Facility - An enclosed box with a locking door, typically called a bicycle locker, where a single bicyclist has access to the bicycle storage compartment.

p. Class II Bicycle Parking Facility

- A stationary bicycle rack

designed to secure the frame and both wheels of the bicycle, where

the bicyclist supplies only a padlock.

q. Class III Bicycle Parking Facility

- A stationary bicycle rack,

typically a cement slab or vertical metal bar, where the bicyclist supplies a padlock and chain or cable to secure the bicycle to the stationary object.

r. Clearance, Lateral - Width required for safe passage of a bicycle as measured in a horizontal plane.

s. Clearance Vertical

- Height necessary for the safe passage of a

bicycle as measured in a vertical plane.

t. Goal

- An end toward which effort is directed; it is general and

timeless.

u. Grade Separation - Vertical isolation of travelways through use of a structure so that traffic crosses without interference.

v. Guide Signs - A green standard bike route sign (G-93) is the basic device to advise the motorist to expect bicycles along a particular route. The G-93 bike route sign be placed at all route turns and after leaving main intersections.

w. Hiking, Jogging Trail

- A facility with the same geometrical

configuration as a Class 1 Bikeway; however, it may be surfaced with a non-hardening finish such as disintegrated granite or it may be

unsurfaced. A surfaced hiking and jogging trail may be shared with bicycles. The facility is separated from motorized vehicles and cross-flow of traffic is minimized.

x. League of American Wheelmen

- (LAW--the initials L.A.W. are

always pronounced individually). Founded in 1880, the LAW is a national organization of bicyclists and bicycle clubs. It promotes cyclists' rights, sponsors rallies, and provide members with touring information. Also called "the League."

- A 6-inch wide solid white line used to

separate a bike lane from a motor vehicle lane. A 4-inch wide solid white line used where there is sufficient width to allow parking adjacent to a bike lane.

z. MUTCD - Abbreviation for Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices approved by the Federal Highway Administration as a national standard for placement and selection of all traffic control devices on or adjacent to all highways open to public travel.

y. Longitudinal Striping

aa.

May

- A PERMISSIVE condition.

No requirement for

application is intended. If a particular device is used under a

"may" condition, however, its design shall follow the prescribed format.

bb.

Multi-use Trail System - A trail corridor of sufficient width developed to accommodate touring/commuter bicycling, horseback riding, hiking, jogging, and all-terrain bikes with appropriate trail surfacing may be classified as a multi-use trail system.

cc.

Needs and Issues

-

A statement which describes activities

that should be improved or continued in order to achieve desirable levels of service. Issues are unresolved concerns which must be corrected to provide adequate service. Needs and issues are achieved or resolved by implementing specific policies and actions or programs.

dd.

Objective - A result to be achieved by a stated point in time. It is capable of being quantified and realistically attained considering probable funding and political constraints. Objectives are successive levels of achievement in movement toward a goal, and should be tied to a time-specific period for implementation programs.

ee.

Off-Street - Includes all property outside the dedicated road right-of-way including both public and private ownership.

ff.

On-Street

- All street or road right-of-way including curb,

utters, and sidewalk, also, in some cases may include a

setback behind the back of sidewalk.

gg.

Open Space

- Any public or private undeveloped or

predominately undeveloped land in Sacramento County which has value now or in the future (year 2000) for parks and recreation purposes, for conservation of land and other natural resources or for historic or scenic purposes.

hh.

Pavement Legends

- A standard pavement legend is the

words "Bike Lane" supplemented by an arrow showing the direction of travel. The arrow is used in combination with the words at each location where a legend is painted.

ii.

Pedestrian

- Any person afoot or any cyclist having

dismounted a bicycle and the proceeding to move the bicycle

afoot.

jj.

Policy - A direction statement that guides actions for use in determining present and future decisions.

kk.

Program

- A specific action, procedure, or technique that

carries out plan policy. An implementation measure, standing alone, which dictates that an action will occur; the action may be measurable and time-specific.

ll.

Recreation Cyclist - An individual(s) who uses a bicycle for the trip enjoyment itself. Ultimate destination is of secondary importance.

mm.

Regulatory Signs

- A black and white regulatory "Bike

Lane" sign (R81) is used when positive control signing is

needed in addition to the G-93 "Bike Route" sign to deter vehicle or other encroachments on bike lanes.

Other regulatory signs may be needed relative to the interaction between motor vehicles and bicycles on roadways with bike lanes, particularly in the vicinity of intersections.

nn.

Right-of-Way

- The right of one vehicle or pedestrian to

proceed in a lawful manner in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian.

oo.

Sag Wagon

- A support vehicle that might accompany a

race or tour to provide mechanical or personal assistance. Also called a "broom wagon" because such vehicles usually

follow, or sweep, a race or tour.

 

pp.

Separation

- An intervening space or a physical barrier

between the bike path and the roadway so that the bike path is not contiguous to the outer edge of the paved highway

shoulder.

qq.

Shall

-

A

MANDATORY

condition.

Where

certain

requirements in the design or application of the device are described with the "shall" stipulation, it is mandatory that these requirements be met. rr. Should - An ADVISORY condition. Where the word "should" is used, it is considered to be advisable usage, recommended, but not mandatory.

ss.

Sight Distance

- A measurement of the cyclist's visibility,

unobstructed by traffic, along the normal travel path to the

furthest point of the roadway surface.

tt.

Skew Angle

- Less

than at right angle to a bikeway.

Generally an oblique angle of 45 degrees or less.

uu.

Traffic Volume - The given number of vehicles that pass a given point for a given amount of time (hour day, year).

vv.

Utility Cyclist

- An individual(s) who uses a bicycle

primarily to reach a particular destination to purchase or

deliver goods and services. utility cyclists.

Messengers are classified as

ww.

Warning Signs - A yellow bicycle crossing sign (W11-1) as

established in the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is the standard warning sign for use in advance of a point where an officially designated bike path or bike

trail crosses a roadway.

2. Traffic Signal:

a.

Actuation

- The output from any type of detector to the controller

unit.

b. Amplifier, Detector

- A device that is capable of intensifying the

electrical energy produced by a sensor. A loop detector unit is commonly called an amplifier even though its electronic function is

actually different.

c. Area Detection - The continuous detection of vehicles over a length of roadway wherein the call is intended to be held as long as there is a vehicle in the detection area.

d. Call

- A registration of a demand for right-of-way by traffic at a

controller unit. The call comes to the controller from a detector unit

that is outputting an actuation.

e. Cycle - A complete sequence of signal indications for all approaches for which there is a demand or call by traffic.

f. Detector System

- The complete sensing and indicating group

consisting of the detector unit, transmission lines and sensor.

g. Extension Time

- Extra time resulting from detector actuations to

allow safe passage of vehicles through an intersection.

h. Inductance

- That property of an electric circuit or of two (2)

neighboring circuits whereby an electromotive force is generated in one circuit by a change of current in itself or in the other. The ratio of the electromotive force to the rate of change of the circuit.

i. Loop Detector - A detector that senses a change in inductance of its inductive loop sensor caused by the passage of presence of a vehicle near the sensor.

j. Magnetic Detector

- A detector that senses changes in the earth's

magnetic field caused by the movement of a vehicle near its sensor unit.

k. Magnetometer - A detector that measures the difference in the level of the earth's magnetic forces caused by the passage or presence of a vehicle near its sensor.

l. Pedestrian Detector

- A detector, usually a push button, that is

responsive to operation by or the presence of a pedestrian.

m. Pedestrian Phase

- A traffic phase allocated to pedestrian traffic

either concurrently with a vehicle phase or exclusive of other phases.

n. Phase

- A part of the cycle allocated to any traffic movements

receiving the right-of-way.

o. Phase Sequence

cycle occur.

- A predetermined order in which the phases of a

p. Point Detection

- The detection of vehicles as they pass a specific

point on the roadway, also referred to as small area detection.

q. Presence Loop Detector

- An induction loop detector which is

capable of detecting the presence of standing or moving vehicles

within the effective area.

r.

Probe

-

The

sensor

form

that

is

magnetometer type detector unit.

commonly

used

with

a

s. Quadrupole - A loop configuration that is essentially two (2) loops with a common side. The wires are wound continuously in a figure eight (8) pattern so that current flow in the common side is in the same direction. The design improves sensitivity to small vehicles and reduces adjacent lane detection. (See Figure 6-9.)

t. Sensitivity

- The setting on the detector unit that determines the

amount of inductance shift required to actuate the detector. High

sensitivities require low inductance shifts.

u. Sensor Unit

- An electrical conductor ("loop") in the roadway

designed such that the presence or passage of a vehicle causes a

decrease in the inductance of the loop.

v. Sonic Detector

- A vehicle detector which emits high frequency

sound energy and senses the reflection of that energy from a vehicle

in its field.

w. Ultrasonic Detector - A detector that senses the presence or passage of vehicles through its field of emitted ultrasonic energy.

CHAP2F

4/25/91

F.

BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN AREA:

The area of this 2010 Sacramento City/County Bikeway Master Plan is Sacramento County including the incorporated cities of Sacramento, Folsom, Isleton, and Galt. Sacramento County consists of 997 square miles and 3,887 miles of public roads and streets. (See Chapter Two, Section G, "Demographics", for more details.)

TABLE OF PUBLIC STREET MILEAGE

Sacramento County

2,548

City of Sacramento

1,150

City of Folsom

132

City of Galt

51

City of Isleton

6

TOTAL

3,887

Sacramento City and County have combined their efforts to produce this Bikeway Master Plan which has been through the Environmental Review process. Resolutions adopting the plan are included.

The Cities of Folsom, Galt, and Isleton are included as conceptual plans only, and have not been officially adopted by their respective governing bodies. Therefore, the mileage and locations of bikeways for these cities are for informational purposes only and do not constitute a commitment on their part.

CHAP2G

12/12/90

G. DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND

1. Introduction.

The City/County Bikeway Master Plan describes a bikeway

system that meets the needs of bicycling for both recreational and utilitarian uses. The purpose of the Bikeway Master Plan is to serve as a guide for the

City/County within the next twenty years. The Plan takes into account the rapid growth of the City/County with respect to the goals and policies which guide actions and provide basis for program implementation The Plan is consistent with the existing needs of the community and the resources available.

Sacramento City/County has experienced an increased interest in bicycling as a recreational activity and also as an alternative form of transportation. Not only is bicycling god for health, it is also an energy efficient alternative means of transportation which reduces traffic congestion, and improves air quality. In addition, the level topography and temperate climate of the Sacramento region is well suited for bicycling.

The Master Plan focuses upon the anticipated growth in the community and its physical development in order to adequately address and provide the safety, convenience and needs of the bicyclist. The following section describes local demographics as a necessary background to bikeways system planning.

2. Scope of Plan.

The County is located between the confluence of the

American and Sacramento Rivers and consists of 997 square miles. It is located 85 miles east of San Francisco and is comprised of relatively flat topography with rolling hills to the east. The four incorporated cites in the County are Isleton, Galt, Folsom, and the City of Sacramento. The major freeways accommodating the County are Interstate 5 and State Route 99, trending north-south, and Interstate 80 and U.S. 50 accommodating east- west traffic.

The County of Sacramento is bounded by eight adjacent counties: Sutter County, Placer County, El Dorado County, Amador County, Yolo County, Solano County, Contra Costa County, and San Joaquin County (see Figure 1). In the past 30 years, the area had experienced high population growth due to the rapidly expanding adjacent counties and current economic activities of the Sacramento area. The City of Sacramento was incorporated in 1849 and consisted of an area of only 4.5 square miles and a population size of 9,078. Today, Sacramento City encompasses 97 square miles; and as of January 1990, the Department of Finance estimated 346,000 people residing in Sacramento County whereas the County of Sacramento had a

population of 1,026,800. The downtown area is still considered to be the urban core for the metropolitan area in terms of both economical and cultural activities.

FIGURE 1: REGIONAL MAP OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY

FIGURE 1: REGIONAL MAP OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY

3. Historical

Growth.

The

County

and

City

of Sacramento have been

experiencing steady population growth over the past several decades. Looking at the County population figures first, Sacramento County's population growth rate in the 1940's was only slightly higher compared to the rate experienced by the State of California. However, from 1950 to 1960, the County's growth rate exceeded the State's growth rate, by about 33 percent. Table 1 reflects the historical population growth comparison between Sacramento City, Sacramento County, and the State of California. In 1950, the population of Sacramento County amounted to 277,140 and by 1960, it had increased phenomenally to 502,778 an 81.4 percent increase over the past decade. The phenomenal increase in population experienced by the County of Sacramento in the 1950's could be directly attributed to the growth of the local aerospace industry (Aerojet-General, Douglas Aircraft, etc.); the expansion of the the three military installations (Mather AFB, McClellan AFB, and the Army Depot); and the increased demands and offerings of government services within Sacramento County. Although the population of the County further rose to 634,190 by 1970, its growth rate of 26.1 percent from 1960 to 1970 was slightly lower compared to the rate experienced by the State (27 percent). Sacramento County continued to experience steady population growth throughout the 1970's and 1980's. In 1980, the population of the County stood at 783,381 and is estimated to be slightly over 1,000,000 as of 1990.

TABLE 1 3 HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH COMPARISON CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1940 - 1980

 

City of Sacramento

Sacramento County 4

California

   

10-Yr.

 

10-Yr.

 

10-Yr.

Year

Pop.

Change

Pop.

Change

Pop.

Change

1940

105,958

-

170,333

-

6,907,387

-

1950

137,572

29.8

277,140

62.7

10,586,223

3.3

1960

191,667

39.2

502,778

81.4

15,717,204

48.5

1970

257,105

34.1

634,190

26.1

19,953,134

27.0

1980

275,741

7.2

783,381

23.5

23,667,902

18.6

The City of Sacramento also experienced a steady growth trend over the last few decades. It can be determined from Table 1, that the City's population grew from 137,572 in 1950 to 191,667 in 1960, reflecting a 29.8 percent increase. The population of the City further increased by 39.2 percent to 257,105 in 1970; and by 1980, its population totaled 275,741--an increase of 7.2 percent over the last decade. Perhaps the greatest factor that contributed to the steady population growth in Sacramento City can be traced to the

3 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census

4 Includes incorporated and unincorporated areas of Sacramento County

annexation of several surrounding areas. Between the 1950's and 1960's, several communities within the County consolidated with the City of Sacramento thus increasing the size and population base of the City. It is noteworthy to mention that the City's share of total County population jumped from 38.1 percent in 1960 to 40.5 percent in 1970 but only to decrease to 35.2 percent in 1980. A similar trend of steady population growth was also achieved by the State of California. The State's population stood at 6,907,387 in 1940 and increased to 10,586,223 in 1950, resulting in a 53.3 percent growth rate. California continued to experience tremendous population growth during the 1950's. Its population increased by more than five million persons or 48.5 percent, rising from 10,586,223 in 1950 to 15,717,204 persons in 1960. California continued to witness population growth during the next two decades, but at a lower rate when compared to the growth experienced by the State during the 1940's and 1950's. The State's population grew by 27 percent from 1960 to 1970 and 18.6 percent from 1970 to 1980.

4. Population

California

estimates the most current population statistics for counties within the state by utilizing three separate techniques; the Ratio Correlation Method (regression), Administrative Records Method utilizing federal income tax returns, and a Composite Migration Method using drivers' licenses address changes. The population estimates for the County of Sacramento shown in Table 2 have been generated by using these techniques and the 1980 decennial census as the benchmark data of all estimates. The County's population is estimated to increase at a steady growth rate of about 2.2 to 3.4 percent annually from 1980 to 1990. The 1980 federal census records Sacramento County population of 783,381 whereas the Department of Finance estimates the population of the County to be at 1,026,800 as of January 1990. On the other hand, population estimates for cities within the state are conducted by the Department of Finance by utilizing the Housing Unit Method, where trends in terms of total housing units, average household size, group quarter population, new housing construction, etc., are examined. Using the 1980 population census as the benchmark data, the population estimate for the City of Sacramento can be seen in Table 2.

Projections.

The

State

Department

of

Finance

 

TABLE 2 5 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND SACRAMENTO COUNTY 1982 - 1990

 

City of Sacramento

Sacramento County 6

 

Population (as of 1-1)

2-Year

Population (as of 1-1)

2-Year

Year

% Change

% Change

1980

275,741

-

783,381

-

1982

288,600

4.7

818,600

4.5

1984

303,900

5.3

859,300

5.0

1986

317,900

4.6

901,300

4.9

1988

334,700

5.3

961,900

6.7

1990

346,600

3.6

1,026,800

6.7

5 Source: California Department of Finance, Population Research Unit

6 Includes incorporated and unincorporated areas of Sacramento County

The City is estimated to have a steady growth rate, growing from 275,741 residents in 1980 to 346,600 residents as of January 1990. Also, the City's population is estimated to have an annual growth rate of around 1.8 to 2.7 percent, which is slightly lower when compared to the growth rate of the County. Based upon the population estimates generated by the Department of Finance, the future population projections for the County and City are further developed by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). Table 3 represents the population projections for Sacramento City, County of Sacramento, and the State of California. Note that the projections were conducted by utilizing the estimated 1988 population as the benchmark for all projections. Sacramento County is projected to have a population increase of 97,342 from 1990 to 1995 as the population is expected to increase from 1,006,685 in 1990 to 1,104,027 in 1995. Between 1995 to 2000, the population is further anticipated to increase by 97,822 from 1,104,027 to 1,201,849. Finally, Sacramento County is also subjected to have a population increase of 89,996 from 2000 to 2005 and an increase of 91,169 from 2005 to 2010. Overall, according to SACOG's projections, the population of Sacramento County is expected to increase by 421,118 from 1988 to 2010, which corresponds to a 43.8 percent growth rate.

CHAP3-A/BMP

4/11/91

CHAPTER THREE

A. THE BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN GOAL

To develop a comprehensive updated Sacramento City/County Bikeways Master Plan which will meet the needs of the bicyclists.

1. Coordination Objective.

To develop and maintain a coordinated approach

by City/County and other agencies to implement the plan as funding becomes available or as development occurs.

a. Needs and Issues.

(1)

(2)

(3)

b. Policy

To continue to coordinate efforts by the city, county, and other agencies to implement and construct a bikeway system in accordance with the revised Bikeway Master Plan.

The bikeway plan should contain enough detail to provide various city, county, and other agencies sufficient direction to implement bikeway facilities during the development of property, and to allocate funds during the preparation of capital improvement programs.

Coordinate the location and availability of bicycle parking facilities between agencies.

(1) Integrate efforts of planning, recreation, public works, and other departments of city and county government and other agencies that are involved in planning, construction or operational elements of the bikeway system.

c. Program

(1)

Review the design of bikeways that provide a connection between different local jurisdictions in order to ensure they are developed in a compatible manner.

(2)

Provide other jurisdictions and governmental agencies the opportunity to review and comment on development projects

that incorporate bikeways which connect with their systems including parking facilities.

(3)

As bikeways are developed along drainage areas, ensure that they are contiguous between jurisdictions.

2. Safety and Security Objective. safety and security for cyclists.

To achieve the highest possible level of

a. Needs and Issues

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

b. Policy

(1)

(2)

Bikeways shall be designed according to standards which maximize the safety of bicyclists.

Off-street bikeways require police protection to minimize criminal activity.

Concentrate law enforcement at the locations of highest incidence of bicycle accidents.

Bicyclists should be provided adequate traffic safety training with emphasis on bicycling rules of the road.

Secure bicycle parking facilities should be available.

Provide a network of safe and convenient bikeways.

Promote law enforcement and educational awareness programs which would improve bicycling safety.

c. Program

(1)

Design bikeways to provide safe and convenient access between the origin and destination points.

(2)

Design safe linkages between bikeways and street crossings.

(3)

Explore how additional police protection and enforcement of traffic laws can be provided.

(4)

Within two years after adoption of the bikeway master plan, an educational program should be implemented.

(5)

Design secures bicycle storage, which complies with the Class I, II, and III facilities as described herein.

3. Design Objective.

To provide adequate design consideration for bicycle

facilities in all development plans and programs.

a. Needs and Issues

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

b. Policy

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Given the adoption of new city and county land use plans to accommodate expected growth, bikeways should be designed to provide access to places of work, shopping, schools, mass transportation facilities, and recreation areas.

Improve transitional access from on-street bikeways to off- street bikeway systems and from local to regional bikeways.

Additional on-street and off-street bikeways are needed. Bikeways should be constructed according to adopted design criteria.

Bicycle storage and parking facilities are inadequate. Appropriate measures should be taken to provide secure on- street and off-street bicycle parking and storage at work, shopping, schools, at mass transportation facilities, and recreational facilities.

Incorporate adequate street widths into street plans and developments to ensure a reasonable level of safety for bicyclists and motorists.

Design on-street and off-street parking facilities for maximum security and, when possible, for protection from the elements.

Provide adequate signing, and other traffic control measures in all bikeway design plans to insure a reasonably high level of safety for the bicyclist and motorist.

Provide appropriate bicycle signing for parking and storage facilities.

c. Program

(1)

During the next revision of Street Standards, review the pavement width being provided to assure that sufficient space is available for bicyclists.

(2)

During the first two fiscal years after the bikeway master plan is adopted, review the entire completed bikeway system and then modify it to meet current design standards.

(3)

Review all new bikeway plans prior to construction for compliance with current design standards.

(4)

Review new residential, nonresidential, recreational projects, and regional transit plans to assure that adequate/secure parking facilities and other bicycling amenities are available.

(5)

When necessary to prevent trespassing and to protect adjacent property, trail corridors shall be fenced at the time the project is developed.

(6)

Improve and expand existing parking and storage facilities.

4. Maintenance Objective. To develop a comprehensive bikeway maintenance

program.

a. Needs and Issues

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

b. Policy

(1)

(2)

Due to funding constraints, bikeway maintenance, including sweeping and striping, is inadequate.

Activities that require repaving in the bikeway need to be given additional attention.

Bikeway maintenance for routes which extend into other jurisdictions should be coordinated.

Adequate maintenance needs to be provided for bicycle parking, storage, and shower facilities.

Promote and fund an effective maintenance program for bikeways and related facilities.

Bikeway maintenance should provide a safe, clean, smooth riding surface.

c.

Program

(1)

Identify methods to finance an adequate bikeway maintenance program to include bicycle parking, storage and shower facilities.

(2)

Establish a bikeways maintenance line item in the City and County budgets for the Public Works and Parks Departments.

(3)

A bikeway sweeping schedule shall be of a frequency which will provide a clean riding surface.

(4)

Roadside vegetation shall be trimmed at a frequency, which will yield unobstructed bikeways.

(5)

Coordinate utilities to minimize pavement cuts after repaving of bikeways.

(6)

The City and County shall develop a stringent pavement repair and inspection program to ensure a smooth riding surface along bikeways.

5 Aesthetics Objective.

To develop a bikeway system which incorporates

aesthetics and the historical characteristics of the Sacramento area.

a. Needs and Issues

(1) Sacramento has many beautiful, natural areas as well as important historical sites, therefore, bikeways should be designed which will allow cyclists to experience the natural beauty and history of the Sacramento area.

b. Policy

(1) Bikeways should take full advantage of the beauty and natural features of the Sacramento area by blending with the terrain and topography.

c. Program

(1)

During review of development plans, recommend that scenic and open space areas include bikeways.

(2)

When reviewing proposed bikeway plans, assure that they provide the most favorable and impressive approach to special scenic attractions.

(3) When approving new bikeway plans, assure that they provide opportunities for bicyclists to experience natural beauty and human history.

6. Implementation Objective. preceding Sections 1 thru 5.

a. Needs and Issues

To take necessary actions to implement the

(1)

(2)

(3)

b. Policy

(1)

(2)

New and innovative ways shall be explored to encourage government and private developers to share in the construction of bikeways.

Community plans shall be modified as necessary to implement the revised Bikeway Master Plan.

Bikeways can provide an alternative transportation mode that conserves energy, is non-polluting and reduces traffic congestion.

Actively support legislation, which will promote the policies of this plan.

Require future developments to conform to the Bikeways Master Plan.

(3)

(4)

(5)

Promote bicycling as a feasible transportation alternative which conserves energy, improves air quality, reduces traffic congestion, and improves public health.

Develop

maintain bikeways.

new

financing

mechanisms

to

construct

and

At the time of new street construction, pavement overlays, or seal coat operations, all bikeways within the project limits as detailed in this master plan shall be implemented.

c. Program

(1)

Require the dedication of trail corridors and street rights-of- way as property is reviewed and approved for development.

(2)

Provide incentives to developers at the time of plan submission which would encourage the dedication and development of bikeway corridors with proposed subdivision/commercial plans.

(3)

Review State legislative proposals as to their impact on existing and future bikeway program.

(4)

Require that environmental impact reports and statements address bicycling and the corresponding air quality benefits.

CHAP4A-BMP 5/9/91

CHAPTER FOUR - BICYCLING

A. BICYCLING ENVIRONMENT:

1. Types of Bicycle Travel.

How many commuter/recreational bicycle trips

will be made in our City/County this year and how many will be made ten years from now? How much money should be spent to provide for such

trips now and in ten years?

Bicycle trips may be made to shopping areas, parks, schools, visiting, to work, or just for recreation/exercise. The survey conducted for this Master Plan indicates that there are 95 bicycles for every 100 city/county residents. Seventy (70) percent of the total City/County residents participate in bicycling. Eighty (80) percent of bicycle trips residents make are recreation/exercise, twelve (12) percent are work trips, and the remainder are shopping, school, etc.

A comprehensive bikeway system is necessary to accommodate the existing bicycling demand and to encourage additional ridership. Without a continuous bikeway system providing connections between points of origin and destination within the metropolitan area, the utility of the bicycle will be severely limited. Competing with the automobile for street space is a major deterrent to increasing the percentage of bicyclists commuting to work.

2. Types of Cyclists.

A substantial variation exists in the ages, physical

capabilities and riding philosophies of cyclists currently active in Sacramento. This variation results in differences in both the level of expertise among riders and subsequently, the types of trips which they are willing to make. The planning, design, and implementation of the bikeway system must be predicated on a capability to serve a much of this varied population as possible.

Bicyclists may be classified by trip purpose into three groups: neighborhood, commuter, and recreational cyclists. Each requires a different skill level and uses each type of facility to a different degree.

Neighborhood cyclists include those individuals who use the bicycle for short trips within the immediate neighborhood to school, shopping areas, a friend's house, neighborhood parks or playgrounds, etc. Cycling skills required are generally low and local or collector streets usually provide adequate routes. The greatest number of neighborhood cyclists are school- age children or young adults.

Commuter cyclists utilize the bicycle as their means of transport for a variety of trips (work, university, shopping, entertainment, etc.) which usually extend beyond the immediate neighborhood. Commuter cyclists require the highest level of cycling expertise since they sometimes must use arterial streets for travel, mixing with heavy auto traffic and negotiating hazardous intersections. Most commuter cyclists are from 18-40 years of age as commuter cycling requires the greatest degree of physical ability as well as skill.

a

recreational destination. Skill levels vary widely, from school-age children to families to touring cyclists. Facilities may overlap with neighborhood or commuter routes, but are often separate facilities developed primarily for recreational use, such as bike trails.

Recreation

cyclists

ride

bicycles

for

enjoyment

or

exercise

or

to

When options are available, cyclists generally choose a route which provides the best balance of the following desirable characteristics:

- directness between the origin and destination points,

- minimal gradients to be negotiated,

- a high quality and well-maintained riding surface,

- lower volumes of motor vehicle traffic,

- adequate space for allowing faster traffic to safely bypass, and

- pleasant environmental riding surroundings.

For commuter purposes, the cyclist is most likely to place a significant amount of importance on the first three characteristics mentioned, because they directly affect the (human generated) energy requirements for making a trip by bicycle.

Lower volumes of motor vehicle traffic and adequate space to allow faster traffic to safely bypass are desirable for commuter travel but may be sacrificed for speed and directness. These characteristics are necessary, however, for neighborhood and recreational cyclists. Pleasant environmental surrounding are only essential for recreational cyclists, but are desirable for all types of bicycling.

Neighborhood and recreational cyclists are usually willing to change their routes for safety considerations, and are less willing than commuter cyclists to compete with automobile traffic, preferring instead to operate in specially designated bicycle facilities. Commuter cyclists, whose expertise is usually greater, prefer the most expeditious and direct route, and are therefore more willing to share space on the roadways with motor vehicles.

3.

Bikeway Facilities.

The definition of what will comprise an adequate

bikeway system for the City/County is open for debate. Distance between bikeways and types of facilities are important to formulate an acceptable answer. It is generally accepted that a grid system of bikeways spaced one mile apart would be ideal. In some cases, more closely spaced routes may serve residential areas. Outlying areas may see 1-1/2 to 2 mile spacing. All streets that serve as radial feeders to the central business district or major employment centers are prime candidates for inclusion as bikeways, regardless of distance between the feeders.

Class I Bikeways (Bike Path) are the most popular type of facility. This is substantiated by the Master Plan bicycle survey. Because the availability of uninterrupted rights-of-way are limited, this type of facility is difficult to locate and expensive to build. Also, the position of bike paths may not serve large numbers of bicycle commuters. Prime locations for the bike paths are areas such as power line easements, utility easements, canal banks, river levees, drainage easement, abandoned railroad or highway rights-of-way, or regional community parks.

Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) are for preferential use by bicycles and are established within the paved area of the roadway. Bike lanes are intended to promote an orderly flow of bicycle and vehicle traffic. This type of facility is established by using the appropriate striping, legends, and signs. Bike lanes will be located on arterial and collector streets as designated in the Bikeway Master Plan.

Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes) are facilities shared with motor vehicle traffic. Bike routes must be of benefit to the bicyclist and offer a higher degree of service than adjacent streets. They provide for specific bicycle demand and may be used to connect discontinuous segments of bike lane streets. Also, bike routes are located on residential streets, and rural roads. If the pavement width is sufficient and traffic volume/speeds warrant, an edge line may be painted to further delineate the bike route. Bike routes are signed with the G-93 Bike Route marker, but no striping or legends are required

3. Bicycle Services. Services for the bicycle owner can take many forms, such as bicycle and bicycle accessories purchasing, riding techniques, effective cycling, safety training, bicycle club programs, repair services, classes for owner repairs/maintenance, employer incentives for commute bicycling, bicycle parking facilities, workplace shower facilities, and transit interface with bicyclists.

When purchasing a bicycle for a child or adult, it should be assumed that the vehicle is not a toy. All states recognize that the bicycle is a vehicle and is subject to the rights and responsibilities as such. It is important that a bicycle

be the proper size to fit the intended rider. A bicycle which is larger than the rider can handle with ease is a hazard to all. Bicycle shops, safety centers, service organizations, bicycle clubs, etc., are good resources for assistance in sizing the bicycle to the rider.

Bicycle riding techniques vary from the simple, for a child starting with balance to advanced effective cycling for adults choosing a bicycle as primary transportation. Parents must determine the responsibilities of bike riding for their offspring Is my child old enough to understand the responsibilities of riding in traffic? Also, parents must be willing to help their children learn how to safely ride in traffic, learn traffic laws, and what to do in the event of an accident. Some basic adult bike riding instruction is also beneficial such as always ride on the right side of the road, moving with the flow of traffic. For the serious adult rider, a very intensive course such as "Effective Cycling" is highly recommended.

Bicycle clubs are an excellent source of training, camaraderie, organization of bike rides, equipment advice, vacation bike trips, etc. Bike club information can be found in bike shops and local newspapers.

Most bike club events stress the importance of proper dress, especially the wearing of a helmet. An approved helmet is the single most important item for all bicyclists. Accidents can happen to the most careful. Road rash and broken bones are painful, but they heal. Head injuries can be permanent. Seventy-five (75) percent of all bicycle injuries and deaths involve head injuries. BIKE HELMETS DO SAVE LIVES!

Services for the bicyclist are also discussed in more detail in the following chapters:

Chapter Six

-

Safety

Chapter Seven

-

Education

Chapter Eight

-

Enforcement

Chapter Twelve

-

Parking

Chapter Fourteen

-

Public Transportation

CHAP4B-D/BMP 4/11/91

B. TYPES OF BICYCLES

Today's bicycles come in several models. They are built basically in two styles:

the fat tire (balloon), and lightweight models. Each has a range of equipment to match your needs and your budget.

1. Fat Tire (Balloon).

The single speed balloon tire bike, also called the

"cruiser," usually weights 40-45 pounds with a 26-inch diameter wheel. The balloon tires are low pressure and give a smooth ride even over gravel roads. The padded seat absorbs shocks. This bike is primarily for short distance riding. It has coaster brakes, the best braking system for any young beginner.

2. Motocross (BMX).

Street versions of this type weight about 30 pounds;

track versions weigh less. It has semi-highrise handlebars with a padded crossbar for added strength. The heavy duty frame will withstand rough riding, and the wheel rims often have large "mag style" spokes for strength. It has small 20-inch wheels with knobby tread tires for traction. Some models are equipped with hand or caliper brakes. All of them come with a rear coaster brake.

3. Highrise.

High handlebars and a rear

sitting position make it easy to fall off. They have a shorter wheelbase, smaller wheels and a long banana seat. They have coaster or caliper brakes and gears. They enable bicyclists to make quick turns and perform trick

maneuvers. They weight about 35-40 pounds and are similar to the motocross.

The high rise is not for beginners.

4. All-Terrain Bike (Mountain Bike). The all-terrain bike is a diamond frame multi-speed bicycle. The frame is light but strong. It is very durable and is usually equipped with knobby balloon tires, it was originally designed or off-road use. However, when equipped with "street" tires, it can make a useful, practical urban commuting bike.

5. Lightweight. The lightweight bicycle is built for long-distance travel. It is light in weight with a range of gearing that allows you to ride up hills which otherwise you might walk with a single speed bike. It has narrow, high- pressure tires and dropped or touring style handlebars. Tires are the clincher inner tube type.

Most lightweight bicycles have derailleurs, a mechanism which changes the

There may be 5, 10, 12, 15, 18, or up to 21 gears on a multi-speed

gears.

bike, depending on the number of chain wheels (front) and sprockets (rear).

The use of handbrakes on this bike and the potential for higher speeds makes it a bike for mature cyclists.

6. Sidewalk. This bicycle is for young beginners. It looks like a small single speed bike, usually with rear training wheels for extra stability. It must have coaster brakes to be safe. The better brands have wide inner tube tires rather than solid rubber tires. This model should be used only on sidewalks and other safe areas.

7. Adult Triwheeler.

The large tricycle design is useful for shopping, when

equipped with a wire carrying basket between the two rear wheels. It often has front caliper brakes in addition to the usual rear coaster brake.

8. Tandem.

This is a bicycle built for two.

These bicycles can be fun

providing that you and your partner are experienced bicyclists. The two of

you should agree when to press forward and when to hold back. At slow speeds, steering or turning this bicycle is difficult.

9. Collapsible (Folding).

The minibike and collapsible ten-speed models are

for adults. Both types fold for easy storage. The minibike has a small

frame and wheels, with gears like a lightweight. The collapsible ten-speed

is a full-size lightweight.

10. Road Racing.

This type of bike is an ultra lightweight multi-speed bike

with special gearing and lightweight components. It has high pressure

tubular tires and a narrow unpadded racing seat. The design of racing bicycles requires a high level of handling skill.

C. FRAME STYLES:

1. Open.

The open frame is designed to allow the rider to get on and off

easily. It is not as strong as other frame styles, and tends to flex as you ride,

especially with heavy loads on the rear. It is good for learning to ride and for light use.

2. Diamond. The diamond frame is the strongest type. The top tube provides

a strong tie between front and rear, so the bicycle has less flex while moving.

3. Mixte. The mixte frame is almost as strong as the diamond frame.

This style is best for people who may feel unstable on a diamond frame, who are very short, or for women who often wear dresses when riding.

1.

Description.

ATBs have straight handlebars which provide a comfortable