Bicycle Advisory Committee

The San Francisco Bicycle Plan
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10

Findings and Recommendations
Introduction
The San Francisco Bicycle Plan ("Bicycle Plan") presents a guideline for the City to provide the safe and attractive environment needed to promote bicycling as a transportation mode.

Bicycling is a pollution-free, economical and healthy alternative transportation mode for many work, shopping and recreational trips in San Francisco and between San Francisco and other Bay Area locations. Bicycles have been used for transportation in San Francisco since the turn of the century. The City has an almost ideal climate for bicycling: temperate, without ice or snow and with a long dry season. It is home to a large and active bicycle population with a Bicycle Advisory Committee (SFBAC) appointed by the Board of Supervisors and a Bicycle Coalition (SFBC), an advocacy group. The limited supply and high cost of parking as well as traffic congestion and the City's compactness make bicycling an attractive option for many.

The City's topography, level of development, and high traffic volumes provide the greatest challenge to providing a safe environment for bicyclists. There are a limited number of flat or even relatively flat through routes in the City and bicycles must compete for space on these streets with automobiles and the City's extensive transit system.

The report presents a comprehensive review of the many aspects of the policies, procedures, practices and physical infrastructure of the City that affect bicycling. It recommends ways to make bicycling safer and more convenient through a variety of efforts including street improvements, bicycle parking facilities, new city policies, education programs, promotional efforts and transit access.

Further study will be required before many of the projects described in this plan can be fully implemented. It is acknowledged that many of these recommendations will need to phased due to funding constraints. In total, these recommendations will ensure that bicycling is an attractive transportation mode in the City.

The various aspects of the bicycle plan were analyzed in substantial detail in the study and are presented in subsequent chapters of the report. This section of the report summarizes the principal findings and recommendations of the study and is organized as follows:

Goals and Objectives
Recommended Bicycle Network
Recreational Element
Organizational Changes
Funding for Bicycle Projects
Design Standards
Maintenance
Traffic Calming
Parking
Transit Access
City Ordinances and Policies
Safety: Education and Enforcement
Promotion of Bicycling

Each section heading is followed by the chapter number in which that subject area is contained in the body of the plan.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (Chapter 1)

Chapter 1 provides a set of goals and objectives to guide bicycle planning in San Francisco. The goal of the Bicycle Plan is to provide a comprehensive guide for efforts that will make San Francisco a more "bicycle-friendly" city. Within that overall goal are a number of objectives that were developed during the course of the study by the City, SFBAC, SFBC and the consultants:

1. Improve Facilities for Bicyclists

* Provide a comprehensive network of signed and mapped routes for bicyclists and provide improvements that expedite travel and improve safety along these routes;⁽¹⁾* Improve maintenance of all streets as well as designated bikeways so that all streets are bicycle-friendly;
* Integrate consideration of bicycle travel in all roadway planning and design;
* Increase the number of secure parking areas for bicycles;
* Provide for uniform markings and design standards; and
* Improve access to transit modes and over bridges.

2. Improve Bicycle Safety

* Provide safer facilities for existing bicyclists;
* Provide safer facilities which will encourage a modal shift to bicycling;
* Educate bicyclists and motorists on regulations, rules of the road and safe sharing of the roads; and
* Increase enforcement of bicycle-related violations on the part of both motorists and bicyclists.

3. Promote Bicycling in the City

* Increase bicycle use as an alternative to the auto;
* Encourage bicycle use by potential cyclists; and
* Encourage bicycle use by visitors to the City.

4. Increase Bicycle Funding

* Establish priorities for project funding;
* Match projects and funding sources; and
* Identify new funding sources.

RECOMMENDED BICYCLE NETWORK (Chapter 3)

A system of bicycle routes was developed to (1) incorporate in the City's Master Plan (2) be used for maps that will be made available to bicyclists throughout the City and (3) to help prioritize investment in route facilities. Three general principles were followed in identifying these routes:

1. Provide the quickest and most direct way to travel by bicycle in the City.

2. Attract bicyclists who are intimidated by traffic, steep hills and other potential deterrents.

3. Serve major attractions and every City neighborhood with the most direct and safe bicycle routes.

In addition, whenever possible, streets selected as bicycle routes were those without transit or heavy truck traffic. However, in some parts of the city, geographical or other factors necessitated the selection of certain streets which do have significant volumes of either trucks or transit vehicles. Examples include Columbus Avenue, Laguna Honda Boulevard and Third Street.

No overt distinction has been made in the recommended bicycle network between commute routes and recreational routes. Many routes which may seem to be primarily recreational are also used by commuters.

The recommended routes were put in five categories, expanding on the standard three classifications identified in the California Highway Design Manual (HDM) to provide more information about the specific types of improvements:

Class I = Off-street path
Class II = Bicycle lane
BPS/TC = Bicycle priority street through traffic calming
Wide Curb Lanes = Bicycle route with wide curb lanes
Class III = Signed Bicycle route - improvements vary

A bicycle route signage program is critical to the successful implementation of the City's bicycle route network. Bicycle route signs, like highway signs, must be consistent throughout the system and easily recognizable to the bicyclist and motorist alike by using a unique logo or other identifying symbol. At a minimum, the bicycle route signs should include the identifying logo, the route number (if a numbering system is being used) and the direction of travel. Signs for regional routes that coincide with City routes should accompany the City signage along the route segments that are shared.

The recommended routes provide a minimum level of mobility for bicyclists to circulate throughout the City. Over time, it is hoped that more routes will be added to improve bicycle circulation. The most significant route improvement projects included in this plan are listed below:

Bayshore Boulevard/Cesar Chavez Street/Highway 101 Interchange - Reconstruct the bicycle path paralleling Cesar Chavez Street to improve the connection to southbound Bayshore Boulevard, and build a bike-pedestrian bridge over the exit ramp from southbound Highway 101 to westbound Cesar Chavez Street. Bike lanes and paths should be added on the streets leading to this intersection.

Marina Boulevard - Widen junction where existing bicycle path intersects Beach Street/Laguna Street. Divide existing sidewalk into two sections: a pedestrian sidewalk and a parallel adjacent bicycle path.

Fell/Masonic - Provide left-turn lane and left-turn phasing for motorists and bicycles-only signal phase to improve safety for bicyclists on the Panhandle bike path crossing this intersection.

Duboce Avenue - Close Duboce Avenue between Market and Church Streets to motor vehicle traffic and implement a two-way bicycle-only facility.

Kezar Drive - Construct a bicycle path along the east side of Kezar Drive from J.F. Kennedy Drive to Lincoln Way.

Stern Grove - Construct a bicycle path along the outside edge of Stern Grove from 20th Avenue on the north side to 21st Avenue on the south side.

* Install traffic signals at selected intersections to enable bicycles to safely cross major streets along designated bicycle routes.

RECREATIONAL ELEMENT (Chapter 3)

The focus of the recreational element is on the following areas:

* Family-oriented routes and learning areas
* Scenic bicycle loop
* Requirements for major facilities

Youth and Family

Bicycle learning facilities are recommended in Golden Gate Park, Lake Merced Park, McLaren Park, Candlestick Point State Recreation Area (that is not a city park) on days when there are no games, the Presidio (off Lincoln Boulevard and on Crissy Field) and Mission Bay (at China Basin).

Scenic Bicycle Loop

An important component of the overall recreational element is the proposed scenic bicycle loop. The loop would have three purposes:

1. To encourage local bicyclists to do more recreational riding in the City.

2. To promote San Francisco as a destination for tourists interested in bicycling.

3. To relieve traffic congestion and parking problems at tourist destinations.

4. To encourage tourists to venture beyond the traditional sightseeing spots of San Francisco.

The idea behind the scenic bicycle loop is similar to the existing 49-Mile Scenic Drive. It would be signed as a special bicycle route and could be promoted by the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau (SFCVB) and probably by retail bicycle shops in the City. Funding could come from the SFCVB and the advertising of bicycle shops and bicycle equipment on a map. It could also be combined with a map that shows recommended walking tours and could be sold in stores.

It is certain that the exact alignment of the route will change as the route is developed with input from the bicycling community and the SFCVB. It is envisioned that the route will be designed as a self-guided tour, so riders can choose the length of the route that suits their time frame and physical ability.

It is recommended that the published map indicate:

* Points of interest (museums, historic sites, etc.)
* Scenic overlooks
* Grades of greater than 5 percent
* Bicycle repair shops
* Neighborhoods
* Bicycle parking facilities

Recommendations for Future Planning Efforts

Major new developments and re-development areas*such as Mission Bay and The Embarcadero, should have a dedicated bicycle element as part of their circulation/open space plan. These elements should also indicate connections with the Citywide bikeway system.

FUNDING FOR BICYCLE PROJECTS (Chapter 4)

Traditional Funding Sources

The City and County of San Francisco, unlike most other major U.S. cities, does not currently budget any funds for bicycle programs or projects, except a small portion of the local one-half cent transportation sales tax. Other available sources can only be used for bicycle projects under very specific conditions and/or as components of other projects. Local, regional, state and federal funding sources which can be used for bicycle projects are listed in Chapter 4 of the report.

The following grants have been obtained by San Francisco during the period 1992 to 1994:

* SF Transportation Authority Proposition B ** Sales Tax: Bicycle Plan and Spot Improvement Program.

* Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AB434): Bicycle lockers.

* Transportation Development Act (TDA Article 3): Various projects.

* Proposition 116 Rail Bonds: Curb lane widening in various locations; Valencia Street median removal and curb lane widening; Commute route signage.

* Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) - Surface Transportation Program (STP): Lake Merced Boulevard median relocation and curb lane widening.

* Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) - Registration and travel expenses for two bicycle facilities planning courses.

Each source of funds is limited to certain projects and has its own unique application forms and procedures, requiring considerable time to prepare grant applications. Although the Bicycle Program Manager has been successful in every grant application filed, the amount of potentially available traditional funds is severely limited by the small amount of time available to the Bicycle Program Manager to apply for these funds.

Non-Traditional Funding

Grant and Foundation Opportunities - Given adequate staff support, or through citizen volunteer efforts, it is recommended that a variety of three page proposals be prepared for selected San Francisco based foundations (identified in Chapter 4 of the report). For those organizations that provide funds primarily for youth related activities, the letters of intent should be tailored to the children's bicycle safety program and perhaps a free children's helmet campaign for low income areas of the City. For those foundations focused upon the arts, recommendations should also include art related elements.

Development of Mutual Interest Alliances: It is recommended that the City pursue key alliances to enhance the immediate opportunities available for non-traditional funding. These potential alliances include:
1. San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau (SFCVB). The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee and/or the City could possibly acquire meeting planner support for the development of a potential for holding the 2000 Pro-Bike/Pro-Walk Conference in San Francisco by working with the SFCVB. Support in the selection of a conference site and potential contributors to the conference itself might also result from this effort.

SFCVB could be involved in development of the scenic bicycle route map. Profits from such a map could then be used to support bicycle education and safety programs and perhaps add additional staff to the Bicycle Program Manager's office.

2. Selected Corporate Sponsors. In exchange for exclusive advertising rights to public announcements, T-shirts, signage and event logos, selected sponsors can support various bicycle events or programs. Recommendations for the San Francisco program might include the Levi Strauss Company, Nike, Gap, and the Bank of America.

3. National Park Service/Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Many of the concepts recommended in this report would be enhanced if coordinated with representatives of the National Park Service.

Funding From Large Employers/Developers - The key to implementing a bicycle support program for new development or redeveloped sites is to either require the bicycle improvements, as part of the City's review process, or provide financial incentives to encourage their installation. Specific recommendations might include:

1. Requiring building management/leasing companies to provide secure bicycle parking facilities (see section on "parking").

2. Providing transportation allowances for employees that bicycle or walk to work. This allowance should equal the current subsidy that employers can receive for transit passes.

3. Initiating a tax incentive structure for those employers that provide facilities for employees that bicycle to work.

4. Allocating money for a Bicycle Fund for those developers required to contribute to infrastructure improvements as part of their project approval. Although specific bicycle related roadway infrastructure may not be required immediately adjacent to the new development, this fund could provide an overall bicycle path/lane system that could be accessed by employees of the newly developed site.

Utility Relocation Improvements/Requirements - Recommendations regarding the improvement of street surfaces or the striping of future bicycle lanes should be coordinated with the local private utility companies. In the State of Washington, utility companies have worked with local bicycle planners to coordinate their utility system maintenance program with specific bicycle lane striping projects.

National Office of Transportation Safety - Both the national and state offices of transportation safety maintain potential grant funding programs for bicycle safety. The National Transportation Safety Board provides educational funds to selected programs on a grant submittal basis. Although bicycle operations are not a large portion of the office's focus, there has been interest in maintaining and promoting children's helmet ordinances.

Adopt-A-Trail/Path Programs - Modeled upon the Southern California program of highway maintenance contributions, this program would post signs to indicate which individual or group has contributed to the either the development, installation or maintenance of a particular bicycle facility.

Memorial Funds - These programs are advertised as potential donor projects to be funded via on-going charitable contributions or funds left to a particular project through a will. Most memorial projects include the location of a memorial plaque at a location specific to the improvement or a scenic vista points.

Revenue Producing Operations - As part of the development of a trail or bicycle path, plans can specifically include the location of a revenue producing operation adjacent to the proposed improvement. Bicycle rental facilities, food and drink establishments, bicycle storage facilities and equipment centers, and/or equestrian centers, would be appropriate uses. The on-going lease revenues from these operations could be used for trail/path maintenance.

CITY ORGANIZATION (Chapter 4)

The Bicycle Plan outlines many activities, including planning, implementation, project management, grant writing, and construction, that require involvement of the Bicycle Program Manager. Since these activities stretch over a wide range of disciplines, as common to many other city bicycle programs, but require coordination, a bicycle "group" of staff to administer the bicycle program is recommended. The staff should have the various skills required for implementing the bicycle program, although it is not necessary to have each staff member skilled in all areas.

To strengthen the role of the bicycle program within the transportation arena of the City, a core of bicycle staff within a department, working with other departments, should be established. The Bicycle Program Manager would manage staff and activities. Reviews of other cities indicate that bicycle activities are managed from the transportation or traffic divisions. So, it is recommended that the City's Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) continue to house the coordination of bicycle activities by having the bicycle division as part of DPT.

The following recommendations for staffing were based on the extent of activities outlined in the Bicycle Plan:

* The Bicycle Program Manager should be a supervisory position, Transit Planner IV or higher. The Coordinator would manage bicycle projects, be responsible for coordinating activities with other departments, and seek funding. The Bicycle Program Manager would also manage the staff within the bicycle group.

* Other staff would be a full-time Planner position, a part-time Traffic Engineer and a part-time Management Assistant to add up to two full-time equivalent employees.

* The Planner should be a Transit Planner I or II position. The Planner would manage bicycle projects such as implementation of traffic-calming measures. The Planner would also participate in planning, education, and enforcement activities, as necessary, and provide day-to-day support to the Bicycle Program Manager.

* The Engineer should be a Junior Transportation Engineer or an Assistant Transportation Engineer. The Engineer would review project plans for bicycle-related concerns, manage bicycle-related maintenance, signage, and traffic activities, and coordinate with departments for the Spot Improvement Program. The Engineer would also provide support to the Bicycle Program Manager.

* The Management Assistant should provide grant-writing assistance to the Bicycle Program Manager. There are significant resources for securing funding for a variety of bicycle-related projects that currently can not be sought due to staff and time constraints. The Management Assistant would work with the Bicycle Program Manager and other departments to produce applications for funding. For example, the Management Assistant could work with the City's Department of Health to gather input for compiling a grant application for bicycle safety training.

* The bicycle division positions should be funded 75 percent by project funds and 25 percent by City general funds. The project-funded goal would allow for expansion of staff as needed.

DESIGN STANDARDS (Chapter 5)

Chapter 5 provides design standards to set forth adequate dimensions, maintenance, and other features of bicycle facilities.

Bike Paths

Chapter 5 provides design standards to set forth adequate dimensions, maintenance, and other features of bicycle facilities. An eight foot cross section is adequate for a bicycle path of any length where few pedestrians are expected. However, this situation occurs very infrequently in San Francisco, so that most bicycle paths are essentially multi-use trails, and should be designed to more than minimum standards. For paths with low pedestrian volumes, (approximately 50-100 pedestrians per peak hour) the minimum paved width is recommended to be 10 feet. For moderate pedestrian volumes (approximately 100-400 pedestrians per peak hour) the recommended paved width should be between 12 and 16 feet. For heavy pedestrian volumes (greater than approximately 400 pedestrians per peak hour), two parallel facilities are recommended: one for faster traffic, such as bicycles and roller blades, and one for pedestrians. To increase motorists' awareness that bicycle traffic is crossing a street, the use of an eight-foot band of distinctive colored pavement for the bicycle's path across the intersection should be considered.

Bike Lanes

For safety reasons, the minimum bicycle lane width specified in the California Highway Design Manual of four feet (five feet if there is curb parking) should not be applied to streets with high traffic volume and speed. On streets with over 500 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) and/or speeds of 35 mph or more, the goal should be bicycle lanes of six feet in width. Double parking in bicycle lanes, particularly wide bicycle lanes, is a serious concern in some areas, and is addressed in more detail in Chapter 8 of the report.

Class III Bike Routes and Wide Curb Lanes

It is recommended that a pavement stencil be used in the right-hand portion of the lane. This stencil should be supplemented with "Share the Road" signs for lane widths of 12 to 14 feet and with "Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane" for lane widths 11 feet or less. It is recommended that these signs and pavement stencils be used on designated bikeways and other roadways with heavy traffic volumes and narrow lanes i.e. more than 600 vphpl and curb lane widths of 14 feet or less (22' or less with parking). City staff and the bicycle community should work together to obtain approval from the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) for these signs and pavement stencils.

When paved street surfaces are interspersed by utility hole covers or drainage grates, it is important that the seam between asphalt roadways and the concrete gutter or other obstacles be set flush with the paved roadway. The HDM specifies that a step between the pavement and obstruction be less than 3/4 of an inch perpendicular to travel, and 3/8 inch parallel to travel. Ideally, whether perpendicular or parallel to travel, the allowable tolerance in roadway surface should be within 1/16 of an inch.

Implementation

At the very least, the improvements discussed herein should be implemented when a street is resurfaced or reconstructed (every 15 to 25 years when funds permit). It is recommended that the City adopt a procedure to identify locations that are in need of redesign through the existing Spot Improvement Program (see next section). A dedicated annual budget for such improvements for the Spot Program would ensure progress in providing safer streets in San Francisco and help the city defend itself in potential liability cases.

The design guidelines that have been recommended as part of the San Francisco Bicycle Plan can only benefit the City and its residents if they are implemented. The key to a successful implementation strategy, as evidenced by the experience of other cities, has been the routinization of bicycle planning considerations in the on-going planning and design phases of a capital construction project. In particular, the inclusion of bicycle design standards must be at a phase sufficiently early in the project's development that there are no adverse cost implications that might curtail their inclusion.

Based on the recommendations that have been put forth as "Recommended Design Standards", the following recommendations are suggested as implementation guidelines. Recommendations include quarterly review meetings with City representatives responsible for capital construction projects; the development of a bicycle design standards summary brochure; the computerization of recommended design standard elements; and the coordination of design recommendations with the City's ongoing curb cut program (to facilitate bicycle access to multi-use paths), pavement system management program, redevelopment district planning, transit preferential/pedestrian streets, and the signal replacement program.

MAINTENANCE (Chapter 8)

Procedures

In 1993, a "Spot" Bicycle Improvement Program was initiated to identify and implement various bicycle-related improvements. This program is handled by the City's Bicycle Program Manager in the Department of Parking and Traffic. Problems are identified through mail-in postcards which are distributed to various bicycle organizations in the City. The postcards received by mail are logged into a data base and sorted by type of repair requested. The repair work is then accomplished by the DPT or Department of Public Works (DPW), with DPT as the lead department.

A more systematic inventory of street safety improvements for bicyclists is recommended since many safety related improvements remain unreported through the pilot Spot Improvement Program and other sources. Adequate budget for staffing to coordinate policies, priorities and remedial activities with follow-up is needed to make the program effective.

Standards

Street Cut Improvements

* Open street cuts should be identified with barriers or covered with two inches of asphalt on top of the dirt from the gouge.

* Street cut surfaces should be flush to the adjacent surface.

* Steel plates used to cover work in progress should have no-skid surfaces and either have beveled edges or be built up on all sides with asphalt.

* Heat resistant concrete pads of at least a three-foot radius from the edge of the utility hole cover should be used to prevent warping of the asphalt near the edges. If possible, concrete should be installed above submerged steam pipes where applicable, to prevent humping of street surface.

Paving, Patching

* Asphalt pavement replacement must be flush with surrounding pavement, including the adjacent concrete gutter. It must be inspected up to one year after installation to check for settling, and be replaced if defective. The City should put legislation in place to require that utility companies and private contractors replace defective pavement for up to one year after installation at no cost to the City (as is done in Palo Alto).

* Fresh loose asphalt materials should be swept off the shoulder before they have a chance to adhere to the shoulder pavement.

* Shoulder blade patching should cover the entire shoulder width, and smoother grader tires should be used, or the shoulder area should be well-rolled after the last pass of the grader.

Striping, Pavement Legends and Edge Line Markings

* The use of pavement marking tape for bicycle lane legends increases safety as it is less slippery, and much thinner than thermoplastic. However, it is only feasible to install pavement marking tape when the street is being resurfaced or rebuilt. Otherwise it is too expensive.

* Edge lines should not be supplemented with raised pavement markers which present obstacles for bicyclists. Where edgeline raised reflectors are needed for motorists, they should be installed on the motorists' side of the edge line.

* Botts or ceramic dots used as guidelines at certain intersections should not be installed on Bicycle Route streets and should be discouraged on other streets. Guide strips and other aids to disabled citizens should be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they do not pose a danger to cyclists and other road users. DPW, DPT, and the bicycle and disabled communities should work together to develop a mutually satisfactory solution that does not pose a danger to cyclists, pedestrians, or any disabled individuals.

Roadway and Shoulder Sweeping

* A minimum weekly sweeping schedule should be maintained in addition to sweeping bikeways whenever there is an accumulation of gravel, glass, sand or other materials on the bikeway.

Catch Basin Grates/Utility Covers

* Street, sewer and storm drainage grates should be oriented so that the bars are perpendicular to the direction of travel, to create bicycle-safe grates. Low catch basin grates should be raised to the proper pavement elevation to improve bicycle safety and enhance smooth riding.

* Utility covers must be flush with the surrounding pavement.

* Regular inspection of curb and gutter should identify those that are raised, sunken or that have some vertical differential that would cause ponding, and these should be repaired.

* Small asphalt dams to divert storm water into catch basins should not be constructed on shoulder bikeways.

Railroad Tracks

* Where possible, abandoned railroad tracks should be removed to improve safety conditions for bicyclists. Active railroad track crossings should be made safer by installing rubberized surfaces adjacent to the tracks including LRV and cable car tracks where possible. It is recommended that all railroad tracks across which a bicyclist would travel, i.e., in all intersections, receive such treatment. Highest priority should be given to tracks that cross cyclists' travel direction at a diagonal.

Bicycle Pathway Maintenance System

* A Bicycle Pathway and/or Pavement Maintenance System should be a part of a computer database which can provide reports on the current condition of every bicycle lane or pathway in the City. This should be kept updated through regular street condition surveys. A computerized system will permit identification of priority maintenance needs throughout the City.

* A signing/lighting plan is needed for all maintenance activities on the City's bicycle paths and bicycle lanes. Advance warning of maintenance work and designation of a detour route should be made.

TRAFFIC CALMING (Chapter 6)

Traffic Calming is the term applied to a variety of physical measures intended to reduce the dominance of automobile and truck traffic in urban areas. Traffic calming does not attempt to ban the automobile, but primarily to reduce the speed of automobile traffic or to reduce the amount of non-local traffic on the street. It benefits the neighborhood by reducing the ill-effects of automobile traffic such as noise and pollution, while improving safety and ambiance. Any implementation strategy should involve the affected neighborhood closely, as described in Chapter 6.

Bicycle Priority Streets

Bicycle priority streets or bicycle boulevards can provide a more comfortable alternative to busy streets and can be created on residential streets on which bicycle paths and bicycle lanes are unsuitable. They provide two advantages that do not exist in the current street network:

1. A low traffic volume alternative where bicycles and motor vehicles can share the roadway without conflicts; and

2. Significantly reduced travel time since bicyclists on the route are granted the right-of-way at as many intersections as possible. This would be possible, by converting four-way STOP signs to two-way stops or switching two-way STOP signs to stop the cross street rather than the designated bicycle priority street. A traffic engineering study should be undertaken to ensure that safety is taken into account when reordering or removing STOP signs.

Traffic calming strategies are needed to prevent the diversion of motor vehicle traffic to the newly prioritized bicycle street that would occur when the number of STOP signs is reduced.

The most bicycle-compatible traffic calming measures are the following:

* Speed humps⁽²⁾ and speed tables.

* Traffic circles (on streets with already fairly low traffic volumes).

* Reduced corner radii to slow the speed of turning traffic (most likely to be useful in combination with other measures that operate midblock).

* Road closures (traffic barriers*the most effective of all traffic calming measures).

* Half closures (less intrusive than full closures and offering greater flexibility in the accommodation of emergency vehicles).

* Forced turn channelization (highly effective if existing geometry permits it to be used).

* Median barriers configured to prevent through vehicular movements but permit other movements.

* Traffic signals in the CBD coordinated for a speed suitable to bicycle travel.

* Textured surfaces as a visual cue to reinforce more restrictive design features.

Streets that are candidates for conversion to bicycle priority streets should meet the following criteria:

* The concept should have the support of residents.

* The route should appeal to casual bicyclists by being on streets with low traffic volumes.

* The route should appeal to experienced bicyclists by being as direct and fast as possible.

* The route should not be a street classified as a major thoroughfare or a transit preferential street. (Note: If MUNI operates on the street, MUNI will be involved from the beginning of the project.)

* The route should reduce delays to the bicyclist by assigning the right-of-way to travel on the route.

* Motor vehicle access should be restricted only enough so that autos are not diverted from other thoroughfares onto the bicycle route.

* Intersections with major streets are or could be controlled by traffic signals.

* No major commercial businesses should be located on the bicycle boulevard.

The corridors that have been identified as providing the most benefit to bicyclists as bicycle priority streets are:

* Cabrillo Street between La Playa Street and Arguello Boulevard

* Cayuga Avenue between Still Street and Ottawa Avenue

* Clay Street between Webster and Cherry Streets

* Downey Street between Waller and Ashbury Streets

* Duboce Avenue/Steiner Street/Waller Street/Scott Street (between Market and Page Streets)⁽³⁾

* Eureka Street/23rd Street/Diamond Street/Jersey Street/Chattanooga Street/22nd Street (between Market Street and Potrero Avenue)

* Francisco Street between Lyon Street and Cervantes Boulevard and between Polk and Laguna Streets

* Greenwich Street between Octavia and Lyon Streets

* J.F.K. Drive between The Great Highway and Kezar Drive (in Golden Gate Park)

* Holloway Avenue between Junipero Serra Boulevard and Plymouth Avenue

* Hugo Street between 7th and 3rd Avenues

* Kirkham Street between Seventh Avenue and Lower-Great Highway

* Lake Street/Sacramento Street between 30th Avenue and Cherry Street

* Pacific Street between Mason and Powell Streets

* Octavia Street/Green Street between Francisco and Polk Streets

* Page Street between Stanyan & Market Streets

* Sacramento Street between Cherry Street and Arguello Boulevard

* Tiffany Avenue/29th Street/Dolores Street/30th Street/Chenery Street/Diamond Street/Circular Avenue/Hearst Avenue/Gennessee Street (between Valencia Street and Judson Avenue)

* Taraval Street/Madrone Avenue/Ulloa Street/16th Avenue between Dewey Boulevard and Vicente Street

* Vicente Street between Lower Great Highway and 14th Avenue

* Webster Street between Clay Street and Pacific Avenue

* 15th Avenue from Lake to Cabrillo Streets

* 17th Street between Market and Kansas Streets

* 20th Avenue between Lincoln Way and Wawona Street

* 21st Avenue between Sloat Boulevard and Ocean Avenue

* 23rd Avenue between Lake and Fulton Streets

* 34th Avenue and Clearfield Drive between Lincoln Way and Lake Merced Boulevard

These are not the only candidate streets for traffic calming but are streets that have the highest priority due to their importance to bicyclists. When traffic calming is considered for any street, the effect of the diversion of traffic onto parallel streets, especially arterials, will also be analyzed.

BICYCLE PARKING (Chapter 7)

Parking Requirements

The San Francisco Planning Code requires one bicycle parking space for every 20 off-street automobile parking spaces. However, since off-street auto parking is not required for most types of development in downtown San Francisco and within neighborhood commercial areas, bicycle parking is not often provided within new developments.

Bicycle parking is inexpensive to provide compared to automobile parking. In order to better match supply to demand, San Francisco should adopt bicycle parking requirements based on the type of land use rather than the number of automobile parking spaces provided. The requirements should apply to any new building, addition to or enlargement of an existing building, or any change in use of a building. Initially, it is recommended to adopt guidelines developed by the League of American Bicyclists for a community with a bicycle commute rate similar to San Francisco's. These requirements should then be modified to match local needs and political acceptance. The ideal outcome would be to always have a slight excess of bicycle parking spaces.

Building Access

Currently many building owners do not allow bicycles into their buildings. This adversely affects many potential bicycle commuters who do not feel secure leaving a bicycle that can cost up to $1,000 or more in a vulnerable, outdoor rack.

The City should require all new and renovated buildings to set aside space for indoor bicycle parking. The City should adopt a policy that leases for commercial buildings cannot deny tenants the right to bring bicycles into their leased space. Requests for exceptions to this policy should be made to the Department of Parking and Traffic, and allowed only if the building owner provides another type of Class I facility within the building such as check-in parking, monitored parking or restricted access parking. New buildings providing building access would receive credit towards meeting Class I parking requirements.

Bicycles should be allowed in City owned buildings unless alternative Class I parking is available for employees. Acceptable locations should be specified by the individual departments and subject to safety regulations and available space. In the interim before building access is universal, the City of San Francisco should not lease any space for City employees unless bicycles are allowed access into the buildings.⁽⁴⁾

Retail Districts and Activity Hubs

The City should install on-street bicycle parking in retail districts, activity centers or developments in areas where businesses or landlords are not individually responsible for off-street parking. The current program where the City responds to requests of businesses has not been effective because of substantial paperwork, required fee payments and liability assumption requirement for the property owner.

By actively installing racks at locations of its own choosing, as is done in Chicago and Seattle, the Department of Parking and Traffic can provide a sufficient supply of bicycle racks and ensure compliance with placement criteria so that liability will not be an issue. Businesses should be actively consulted to identify rack locations, but should not be responsible for paperwork, waivers, fees or liability. Bicycle parking will benefit both the small business owners and their patrons who would then be able to bicycle to these locations.

It is recommended that this program be extended to bicycle parking in both the public right-of-way and in the private off-street parking lots of existing businesses, including supermarkets, super drugstores, retail stores, shopping malls, and employment sites.

City-Owned Garages

Currently, four of the 15 city-owned garages provide bicycle racks and/or lockers: Civic Center (racks for 20 bicycles), Sutter-Stockton (racks for 7 bicycles and lockers for 8 bicycles), 5th and Mission (racks for 33 bicycles and lockers for 8 bicycles), and Golden Gateway (racks for 13 bicycles).

All city-owned parking garages should provide bicycle-parking for at least four to ten bicycles, depending on expected initial demand. If the racks are regularly used to capacity, additional bicycle racks should be installed. The fact sheet on City-owned Parking Garage Rates prepared by the Department of Parking and Traffic should be updated to indicate whether bicycle parking is provided in each garage and what the parking fee is, if any.

The City should consider a joint cooperative effort with BART to provide bicycle lockers at City garages closest to the downtown BART stations. Currently, BART commuters using these stations have no bicycle parking facilities available to them. These bicycle lockers also would be attractive to bicycle commuters who work downtown.

Major Employment Sites Outside the Central Business District

The responsibility for providing parking at non-City owned locations such as hospitals, universities and employment sites should fall to the property owners and employers. While new buildings will be subject to the zoning ordinance, existing locations should be encouraged to abide by the intent of the ordinance.

Transit Stations

Bicycle access to transit is a logical combination of modes and supports efficient land use objectives by minimizing the potential use of motor vehicle parking facilities adjacent to transit stations. San Francisco has a Transit First policy and very high transit ridership, yet the City currently lacks sufficient bicycle parking facilities adjacent to transit access sites and is far behind cities in Europe and Japan in the development and implementation of secure bicycle parking at transit stations. To remedy this situation, it is recommended that:

1. The major focus of bicycle parking improvements should be on the upgrade of parking facilities at the highest patronage stations.

2. Bicycle parking should be easily visible so that the potential or casual bicycle rider knows that bicycle facilities are available at the transit station. Even when sight accessibility is not available, appropriate bicycle parking signage can be used at elevators, escalators and entrances.

3. Bicycle lockers, or another form of guarded bicycle parking, should be available on a daily basis. Unlike most cities' bicycle locker systems that require monthly locker fees and often have waiting lists, some form of parking should be available on a daily basis to support the spontaneous decision to bicycle to the bus or rail system.

4. Over the next two years, major planning and design activities will be directed towards San Francisco's Ferry Building, the CalTrain Station at Fourth/Townsend, and the Transbay Terminal. All of these plans should have a significant bicycle parking element including but not limited to guarded parking, bicycle rental facilities, and bicycle support/maintenance facilities, if feasible.

5. Discussions between the City of San Francisco, BART, the San Francisco Congestion Management Agency, and MTC should be initiated to address BART's current opposition to secure, guarded bicycle parking facilities, located below grade at major San Francisco BART stations.

6. Parking at downtown BART stations should be available via a cooperative effort between the City and BART.

The following recommendations apply to specific stations:

1. CalTrain Station - The existing bicycle lockers should be relocated to a more hospitable site adjacent to Fourth Street. Lockers for an additional 24 bicycles are recommended for this site. Care should be taken not to impede pedestrian traffic.

2. Transbay Terminal - Additional bicycle parking lockers should be located in the Terminal.

3. 16th Street Mission BART Station - One or two bicycle lockers at one of the corners of the intersection of 16th and Mission Streets would help meet the existing parking demands. It would be important to strategically locate the lockers to minimize vandalism and obstruction to pedestrian traffic and to maximize their viability.

4. 24th Street Mission BART Station - Four free standing lockers adjacent to the escalators are recommended for this site.

5. Glen Park BART Station - Four additional lockers should be provided on Bosworth Avenue, next to the bus pullout.

6. Balboa Park BART Station - Eight new lockers should be provided at the site, south of Geneva Avenue, adjacent to the existing bicycle racks.

Major Events

In the past, private bicycle organizations such as the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, East Bay Bicycle Coalition, and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition have provided free valet bicycle parking at public events, using inexpensive equipment such as portable fences, portable racks, and cables. The City should require organizers of large events to provide similar parking, either on their own or by contracting with local bicycle organizations.

Innovative Parking

Minneapolis provides a bicycle garage, in the form of a trailer that offers free indoor valet parking. If mobile, such a trailer could also provide bicycle parking at large public events such as festivals, sports events, concerts, and conventions. It might be publicly owned and rented to clients for a moderate fee. City bicycle parking requirements for such events could provide a strong incentive for privately owned trailers to fulfill the need.

Many locations in Europe offer guarded bicycle parking, sometimes in conjunction with repair and rental services. Japan and the Netherlands provide automated bicycle parking carrousels, which allow storage of a large number of bicycles in a small space while preserving security. It might be efficient for a number of downtown businesses to satisfy their bicycle parking requirements by sharing the cost of the facility.

Parking Fees

Class II bicycle parking (racks that permit locking the bicycle frame and one wheel with a U-lock (a heavy but theft-resistant locking device), and that support the bicycle without damage to wheels, frame, or components (which excludes many traditional types of racks)) should be provided free, whether the rack is provided on the street, in a city building or in a parking garage. Class I bicycle parking (that protects the entire bicycle and its components and accessories against theft, vandalism, and weather; such as lockers, check-in facilities, monitored parking, restricted access, and storage in a building in view of the owner) should be free where automobile parking is free. To encourage the use of bicycles for commuting, yearly fees for Class I bicycle parking should probably not exceed $80/year ($7/month or $0.25/day). This maximum fee should only be charged when the cost of providing Class I parking exceeds $5/month per bicycle. If the costs of providing Class I parking are less, the fees should also be less.

TRANSIT ACCESS (Chapter 7)

Current Policies

Bicycle access on transit vehicles, connecting San Francisco to other areas, includes bicycles on buses, rail vehicles, ferries, and shuttles. The San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI), serving San Francisco, provides extremely limited bicycle access. The policies for each transit provider are summarized in the following table.

CURRENT BAY AREA TRANSIT POLICIES

Transit
Agency

Bicycle Access
Policy

Permit/
Fees

Other
Restrictions

MUNI

Two buses on Line 76 have bike racks.

N/A

SamTrans

Bicycles allowed if the bus is less than 50% occupied.

No.

Two bicycles per bus, seniors and wheelchair passengers have priority, cyclist must be at least 16 years old.

Golden Gate Transit

No access, except the Route 40, San Rafael to Richmond line, and Route 80-SF to Santa Rosa.

No.

Two bicycles per bus, wheelchair and disabled have priority, bus must not be full.

AC Transit

No access, except certain buses on lines 65 and 67 to Tilden Park and all buses operated between 12:30 AM and 5:00 AM. These late night buses include Line F to San Francisco. Folding bicycles always permitted on all buses. Approximately 100 new buses with exterior bicycle racks are on order. A Bicycle Committee will help determine to which routes they will be assigned.

No.

Passengers have priority for seating areas, wheelchair passengers have priority.

Caltrain

All trains now have a bicycle car that carries a total of 24 bicycles.

No

24 bicycles on every train

BART

Bicycles allowed, except when traveling in commute directions during peak hours. Cannot use 12th or 19th Street Oakland stations during peak periods.

No (6 month trial period as of 10/1/96)

Cyclist must be at least 14 years old or accompanied by an adult. Folding bicycles allowed on all trains. Bicycles allowed on any car except the lead car (6-month trial period as of Oct. 1/96).

Golden Gate, Red & White and Blue & Gold Ferries

Bicycles allowed. Ferries operate to Alameda, Oakland, Sausalito, Tiburon, Vallejo and Larkspur.

No.

Caltrans Bay Bridge Bike Shuttle

Operates at 45 minute headways during peak periods only between MacArthur BART and Transbay Terminal

Fare is $1 each way.

Much progress has been made in the last several years to improve bicycle access on transit in the San Francisco Bay Area. When the Southern Pacific operated what is now the Caltrain rail service, bicycles were not allowed, except during one six-month trial period. In May 1994 Caltrain used some of San Francisco's Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to remove seats and install bicycle racks on 52 cars. Subsequently, the number of trains allowing bicycles steadily increased to 90 percent of all weekday trains. Currently, all trains now have a bicycle car that carries a total of 24 bicycles.

SamTrans now allows bicycles on all of its buses, subject to some restrictions. AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit have begun allowing bicycles inside buses on some lines. BART has allowed bicycles on non peak period trains since 1972. Obtaining a permit was a very inconvenient process until they become available by mail. Permits have been eliminated for a six-month trial period as of October 1, 1996. MUNI has installed bike racks on two buses that operate the Sunday and holiday Line 76 Marin Headlands service across the Golden Gate Bridge.

Recommended Actions

The following actions are recommended to be taken by the City of San Francisco to improve bicycle access:

* Assist the BAC, SFBC, and the Regional Bicycle Advisory Committee (REBAC) in their ongoing efforts to improve bicycle access. The following specific improvements are of high priority to the bicycle community:

* BART: Retain the BART Bicycle Accessibility Task Force as a permanent body. Support the continuation of BART's policy that allows bicycles in cars other than the last one since late at night personal safety can be a concern in this car. Support the continuation of BART's policy of not requiring bicycle permits. Support the continuation of BART's education and outreach program to inform BART users of bicycle related rules. Expand bicycle access hours and consider a retrofit (similar to Caltrain) or modification of new cars to allow greater bicycle access. Allow reverse commute bicycle access on Daly City/Colma line between the Embarcadero Station and the Colma Station.

* MUNI: Increase bicycle access to additional routes. Also, see the action item below.

* AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit: See the action item below.

* The City's Bicycle Program Manager should actively pursue the following bicycle access policies on MUNI:

* Expand the MUNI bike rack on bus program on Line 76 to other MUNI routes with the goal of installing bicycle racks on all MUNI revenue vehicles.

* Allow bicycles on board (space permitting) on Line 76 and on lightly patronized neighborhood service in hilly areas of the City. Line 36 Teresita serving Mount Davidson is a good example.

* Allow cyclists to bring disabled bicycles (due to mechanical failure or accident) on board MUNI vehicles, space permitting. The BAC has suggested this and the MUNI Planning Department is willing to consider such a policy.

* Assist Caltrain in securing funding (such as the City's TDA funds) to provide more bicycle racks on reverse commute trains that are already at the 24 bicycle capacity.

* Encourage AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit to install bike racks on all buses serving San Francisco and help them secure funding. Golden Gate Transit staff has proposed installing racks on Lines 80, 63, 65, and 40 and has obtained two test racks. They have requested that the three counties in which they operate apply for TDA funds for this project. However, only San Francisco agreed to apply.

Bridge Access

Of San Francisco's two bridges, only the Golden Gate Bridge allows bicycling. On weekdays, cyclists share the east sidewalk with pedestrians. On weekends and weekday afternoons, bicyclists have exclusive use of the west sidewalk. At night (9:00 PM to 5:00 AM) cyclists may cross the bridge on the east sidewalk, where electronically controlled gates allow passage.

There are no sidewalks on the seven-mile long Bay Bridge and bicycles are not allowed. However, bicycles are accommodated in this corridor at various times on BART, Red and White ferries, and a Caltrans shuttle vehicle. There is no bicycle access when BART is closed.

The following actions are recommended to be taken by the City of San Francisco to improve bicycle access:

* Encourage Caltrans to increase the frequency and add additional East Bay pick up points to the Bay Bridge Shuttle. Help them in securing funding. Caltrans looked into this as a project to be funded by increased tolls proposed in the Bay Bridge Congestion Pricing Study, but it was not included in the funding package.

* Encourage the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District to improve the current circuitous bicycle access to the west walkway on the San Francisco side of the bridge.

CITY ORDINANCES AND POLICIES (Chapter 8)

The following policies are recommended for adoption by San Francisco. Many of these policies are already in use in other U.S. cities including Palo Alto, Davis, Seattle, Portland, and Boulder.

* Amend the Traffic Code to delete superfluous and contradictory definitions and regulations.

* Adopt parking requirements based on land uses rather than number of auto spaces provided.

* Add language to the Traffic Code governing the behavior of bicyclists with respect to pedestrians and the disabled.

* Re-evaluate the regulation of bicycle messengers.

* Refine language in the Traffic Code regarding parking of bicycles on sidewalks and roadways.

* Request that the Legislature amend the Vehicle Code so that:

* Bicycles can be exempted from regulatory signs (such as: Do Not Enter) at local discretion.

* Bicycles can travel in bus-only lanes.

* Adopt new ordinances:

* Establishing all bicycle lanes in the San Francisco Master Plan in toto, not individually, (and as thereafter amended).

* Requiring showers in new buildings.

* Adopt a comprehensive program to deter bicycle theft and recover stolen bicycles without mandatory registration.

* Amending the Congestion Management regulations to exempt bicycle projects that may adversely impact level of service should be considered.

* All multi-lane streets that currently have excess capacity should be reviewed for inclusion in the bicycle network such as the possibility of removing a travel lane to add bike lanes or other bicycle-friendly treatments.

* It should be a policy of the City of San Francisco that bicycling within the City should be at least as convenient as driving.

* Whenever new on-street spaces are created, especially the conversion of parallel parking to diagonal parking, the potential detrimental effect on cyclists should be considered.

* Provide through lanes where straight-through bicycle lanes are not provided to the left of right-turn-only lanes, additional width for bicyclists in the right-most through lane. This should be done regardless of whether bicycle lanes are provided on the street.

* Recognize the needs of bicyclists for smooth and level pavement in maintenance policies.

* Reimburse city employees for expenses when they travel by bicycle on official business.

* Maintain fleets of bicycles and helmets for use by City employees along with motor vehicle fleets (as done by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Caltrans District 1).

* Authorize MUNI bus and trolley drivers to allow access to bicyclists experiencing mechanical difficulty after a policy guiding driver discretion is developed.

* Require hospitals, emergency rooms, and clinics to report all instances of bicycle injury to the San Francisco Police Department and to the Bicycle Program Manager. This information can help determine patterns and causes of injuries and aid in accident and injury prevention.

* Amend the Guidelines for Environmental Review: Transportation Impacts, published by the San Francisco Department of City Planning for consultants who are conducting transportation analyses for both Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations. These guidelines should require that all traffic counts conducted as part of the study also include bicycle counts at the same locations where motor vehicles are counted. An inventory of existing bicycle parking should also be conducted within a two-block radius of the site. The project's impacts on bicycle travel on any street in the City should be identified. Mitigation measures should not hamper bicycle circulation.

* Train all San Francisco City-employed traffic engineers and transit planners in the needs and concerns of bicyclists, to make them aware of issues that affect bicycles. This training is especially important because most university civil engineering and city planning curricula all but ignore the bicycle, and on-the-job training must fill the void.

* Utilize the existing registration and CLETS programs to assist in enforcing bicycle theft law.

BICYCLE SAFETY: EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT (Chapter 9)

Accidents

There is an urgent need to improve bicycle safety conditions in the City. Between 1989 and 1993, there were 35,239 reported total vehicle accidents, of which 2,353 involved a bicyclist. The number of bicycle accidents per year appears to have remained relatively steady, with between 424 and 496 reported bicycle accidents per year. Since the number of reported motor vehicle accidents has decreased slightly, the proportion of bicycle accidents to total accidents has increased from 3.4 percent to almost 4 percent. Since many bicycle accidents are not reported to the Police Department, these figures understate the actual number of bicycle accidents. Reports of non-injury or minor accidents should be taken by SFPD where there is property damage to a bicycle.

The party at fault was listed as the bicyclist in 49 percent of these reported accidents involving a bicyclist. The driver or parked vehicle was listed as the party at fault in 37 percent of the cases, the pedestrian was listed at fault in two percent of the cases, and no party at fault was identified in 11 percent of the cases. These statistics indicate that both bicyclists and motorists need to improve their driving behavior in order to improve the safety of bicyclists on San Francisco streets.

The five most common Vehicle Code violations resulting in a bicycle accident caused by an automobile driver are:

* Opening car door when unsafe

* Unsafe Speed

* Failure to yield when turning left

* Failure to stop at red light

* Unsafe turn and/or without signaling

The five most common vehicle code violations resulting in a bicycle accident caused by a bicyclist are:

* Unsafe Speed

* Failure to stop a red light

* Failure to yield to approaching traffic

* Wrong-way riding

* Passing on right when unsafe

A combination of education and enforcement (in addition to design and maintenance features cited previously) are recommended to improve bicyclist safety in the City.

While the SFPD's database for accidents is useful, some changes are recommended: In a car-bike collision, a bicycle should be treated as a second vehicle. The database should also include the following items: party at fault, age of victim, and the CVC section violated.

Education

The recommended Education Plan is divided into programs for two distinct audiences:

* Children's Education Program: To provide school-age children with a strong foundation for safe bicycling,

* Motorist/Cyclist Education Program: To promote the safe sharing of roadways between motorists and cyclists.

Children's Education Program

After researching and assessing existing educational programs geared towards children, three components are needed to make the proposed plan successful:

* An Action-Oriented Teaching Approach - Learning must take place on a bicycle rather than in a classroom-like setting. When each child is on his/her own bicycle, it will allow them to learn safe/riding techniques more readily than by a classroom presentation alone.

* A Repetitive-Practice Teaching Process - Sessions will emphasize a short list of concepts at each session and will repeat them for reinforcement. Riding a bicycle under the supervision of an instructor on numerous occasions will increase the students' level of comprehension and retention.

* A Sense of Accomplishment for Completing the Program - Rewards in the form of discounts for bicycle-related goods and certificates of completion will be handed out at the end of the program. Incentives for completing the program will not only boost the initial interest in the plan but it will also help to keep children interested throughout the four-week course.

Recommendations for Children's Bicycle Safety Education

A four week program of three two-hour weekly learning sessions and one bicycle rodeo is proposed to give participants hands-on knowledge of how to travel safely throughout the City of San Francisco on a bicycle. The program is also designed to promote bicycling as a fun activity for youths, who in the future could choose bicycling as a transportation alternative. It is timed to coincide with the conclusion of the proposed "San Francisco Bicycle Safety Week" (see Motorist/Cyclist Plan) in June.

The Children's Program will target elementary school age children in San Francisco. This age range *third through sixth grades*will reach children who are still in the formative years of bicycle riding. Even within this limited age span, a fairly wide range of bicycle ability among the participants will exist; the children will probably need to be broken into two groups due to the difference of aptitude. Staff will need to work with the San Francisco Unified School District to promote the program in the elementary schools.

The plan calls for a four-week program that will meet on Saturday mornings. The first three weeks will be two-hour educational sessions, with the fourth week being a city-wide bicycle rodeo for graduates of the Children's Program.

Since a four-week program is a serious time commitment, an incentive is required for the children to complete the program. This incentive comes in the form of a bicycle rodeo for only the children who have completed the three-week education sessions. The bike rodeo is not only the culminating event for the participants, but it is the event where the Children's Program's sponsors will get the most exposure. With a media sponsor on board, the rodeo and its sponsors will most likely receive some media coverage. The rodeo also provides all of the sponsors a forum to reach their target audience*bicycle riders and their parents*with their products.

Aside from the bicycle rodeo, perhaps the biggest incentive for the children to complete the Children's Program is the opportunity to buy bicycling equipment at discounted prices through the help of the sponsors. All rodeo participants will receive coupons for discounted items at the local bicycle store sponsor, while the other sponsors can donate prizes for winners of the bicycle rodeo.

It is acknowledged that this safety education program will reach only a small fraction of San Francisco's school children. A more intensive program to reach all school children would require the commitment of the San Francisco Unified School District or the State of California. However, providing safety education for children and their parents who want it should be considered a public service and be given high priority.

Motorist/Cyclist Education

The goal of the Motorist/Cyclist Program is to educate cyclists about their responsibilities for safe operation of a bicycle and to teach motorists about bicyclists' rights and responsibilities and appropriate methods for sharing the road with bicyclists. The program has a number of components:

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) - Working with the DMV will allow the campaign to reach drivers*a key target audience for this campaign. It is proposed that an add-in brochure be enclosed in the annual renewal notice for automobile registration to the owners of cars registered in San Francisco. There is precedent for DMV mailer add-ins, since they already include items on insurance and alcohol consumption limits.

In addition, it is recommended that the DMV work with the California Bicycle Advisory Committee to revise the Driver's Manual to include more information for motorists regarding bicycles on the roadway*what to expect and how to respect their travel space.

Finally, it is recommended that the City request that the DMV review questions developed by the League of American Bicyclists and revise as appropriate their written questions for the driver's exam relating to bicycle issues.

Media Campaign/Public Service Announcements (PSAs) - The PSA component will be a key element in the success of the Motorist/Cyclist Program. Whether the PSAs are broadcast on television or radio, the message of safe road sharing will reach a mass audience, and support the mailer portion of the campaign. An on-air media person, local celebrity, actor, politician or athlete could be used to deliver the message of safe road sharing.

Awareness/Outreach Events - Another way to promote the Motorist/Cyclist Program will be the proclamation of "Bicycle Safety Week" by the Mayor. It is proposed that "Bicycle Safety Week" include a series of events leading up to the American Youth Hostel Great San Francisco Bicycle Adventure, an annual bicycle fun ride which is held on the second Sunday of June.

The week of activities would include:

* Mayor's Press Conference
* Bicycle Safety Demonstrations
* Employer Outreach Event (a bicycle ride through the Financial District for the ten participating companies)
* Children's Program Bicycle Rodeo

American Youth Hostel Great San Francisco Bicycle Adventure - This event is an excellent opportunity to distribute bicycle safety and road-sharing pamphlets. Information will be distributed prior to the ride.

Critical Mass Ride - Distribute safety materials at Critical Mass, a gathering of bicycle enthusiasts which begins at Justin Herman Plaza, across from the Ferry Building, at 5:30 PM on the last non-holiday Friday of each month.

Enforcement

Enforcement of traffic laws should be composed of several strategies: citations, training for police officers, traffic school, fix-it tickets, verbal warnings, notes to parents (for juveniles), as well as positive reinforcement techniques such as rewards for proper or exemplary behavior. The public should be informed in advance before any new enforcement measures are implemented.

Citations - The San Francisco Police Department issued 630 citations to bicyclists in 1991-1993. It is unknown how many citations were issued to motorists for failing to yield the right-of-way to a bicyclist or otherwise causing or almost causing a bicycle accident. A review of the most severe car-bicycle crashes*those that resulted in a fatality*revealed that motorists did not receive a citation when the motorist was deemed at fault.

In a city with many other serious enforcement priorities, it is important to get across the message to the police that bicyclist and motorist violations are a significant problem (see following section).

Training for Police Officers - Training for officers can take place through existing channels such as inter-office memos and correspondence, and also through peer education using the officers that patrol on bicycles. Support from higher up in the administration will be essential if an increased enforcement program is to succeed.

Reduction in Bail for Bicyclists - State law AB669 (passed in 1994) allows cities the discretion to reduce fines for infractions of the vehicle code incurred by bicyclists. The assumption behind the legislation was that some police departments are hesitant to enforce certain bicycle violations, particularly when no threat to public safety is involved, due to the extreme fines involved: up to and exceeding $200. This authority that is being relinquished to localities should be embraced by the City of San Francisco. It is recommended that the City of San Francisco reduce fines for most bicyclist infractions.

Traffic School - Once a bicyclist or motorist has received a citation, it should be viewed by the City as an opportunity to educate him/her. It may be very helpful to combine both bicyclists and motorists in the same class so a dialogue can ensue and they can learn from each other. As an alternative to the fine, violators should be given the option of enrolling in such a traffic school. Traffic school curriculum should be developed that focuses primarily on bicycle issues from both the bicyclist's and the motorist's perspectives. Motorists cited for bicycle infractions and opting for traffic school would be required to enroll in the bicycle-issue oriented school if they opt for a traffic school. Traffic school for bicycle offenders and motorist offenders would, of course, not go on their record.

PROMOTION OF BICYCLING (Chapter 10)

TDM Programs

Bicycling is an ideal commute alternative in San Francisco, a city seven miles wide, where 80.4 percent of the employed residents also work in the City. Unfortunately, only one percent of the employees in San Francisco chose a bicycle as their form of transportation in 1993. This percentage ranked sixth among the eight counties in the Bay Area Region, ahead of only Solano and Contra Costa Counties.

Many San Francisco companies and institutions are mandated by law to have a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to promote alternative modes of transportation to single occupant vehicles. These programs have focussed on education, information and incentives to get people to stop driving alone to work. Carpools, vanpools, and transit are the most popular alternative modes. Bicycle commuting is often an overlooked or underutilized opportunity for attaining these trip reduction goals.

An effective bicycle commuting encouragement program must include the following:

* The TDM program must identify bicycle commuting as an option;
* The TDM program must provide an incentive to use bicycle commuting; and
* The TDM program must support and applaud bicycle commuting.

Identify Bicycle Commuting as an Option - An extensive advertising campaign should include information about monetary, environmental and health benefits of bicycle commuting. It should also address and attempt to dispel many of the perceived obstacles. Many of the TDM programs currently in effect use newsletters, special events, and workshops to educate potential bicycle commuters. A bicyclist information network can be used by the potential bicycle commuter to learn what the best commute routes are for their personal needs, to locate experienced bicycle commuters in their area who are willing to advise and escort during the first bicycle commutes, and to learn of upcoming events and activities.

Provide an Incentive For Bicycle Commuting - The most effective incentives for bicycle commuting currently being used are:

* The provision of secure, protected, convenient and free bicycle parking.

* Cash Incentives, which have taken a number of forms:

* A cash dividend for bicycle commuters for each day that they commute by bicycle.
* Reimbursing the employee $0.07/mile for company business travel made on a bicycle; and
* Assisting the employee in the purchase of a bicycle.

* Convenience Incentives;

* Guaranteed ride home;
* Fleet bicycles for the use of the employee during business hours which are often also available for the employee to use for his/her commute on a trial basis;
* On-site bicycle repair kits;
* On-call repair services with a local bicycle shop;
* Flex hours so the employee can avoid rush hour or darkness;
* Showers and locker rooms for clean-up and changing after the commute;
* Closet space for storage of clean clothes; and
* Relaxed dress codes for bicycle commuters.

Support and Applaud Bicycle Commuting - Endorsement of bicycle commuting by those in charge is a significant aspect of a promotion program. Prospective bicycle commuters are more apt to try out this unconventional mode if it is acceptable to their supervisors. Organized and advertised rides such as "Ride with the CEO" or "Ride with the Mayor" clearly demonstrate their support and enthusiasm. Advertising campaigns aimed at informing commuters on the merits of bicycling should include endorsements by key officials as well as interviews with peers who currently commute by bicycle. Programs by a city or company to promote bicycle commuting should be as comprehensive as the programs established to encourage transit use. If cash subsidies are offered for transit use but not for bicycling, the message that bicycles are not as acceptable as transit is clearly being given.

Recommended Employer Outreach Campaign

A pilot program to introduce San Francisco companies to bicycling as a viable commute alternative and to encourage their employees to consider using a bicycle is proposed. The pilot program is targeted at 10 of San Francisco's largest employers and has been designed to encourage them to include bicycling in their Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. The Pilot Employer Outreach Campaign will strongly encourage and support inclusion of bicycling as one of the alternatives to driving alone that these companies can offer their employees. Details of a proposed strategy are contained in Chapter 10.

Existing San Francisco Bicycle Events

During the year there are many sporting and other theme events held in San Francisco. These events can attract regional and even national attention and offer the City and other organizations an opportunity to reach many people while providing a good time.

The most well known and well attended bicycle events in San Francisco are the Macy's/AYH Great San Francisco Bicycle Adventure, the Tour de San France-isco, and the Different Spokes AIDS bike-a-thon. These events are charity fund raisers and attract bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Promotion efforts could be directed towards safety education and the advantages of bicycle commuting. Event directors could use the opportunity to teach participants the rules of bicycling courtesy.

Another opportunity for bicycle commuting promotion and education are those events which are directed at changing our commute habits. Bike-to-Work Day, Beat-the-Backup, and Earth Day are existing events which could be expanded to encourage more participation. Instead of having only an annual Bike-to-Work Day, it might be preferable to have Bike-to-Work Week or a monthly Bike-to-Work Day.

Other events in San Francisco such as street fairs, Festival d'Italia, Cherry Blossom Festival, and July 4th fireworks should provide good bicycle access with free and secure bicycle parking. As part of the event advertising, the best bicycle route to the event should be published along with the location of the bicycle parking.

1 () The establishment and signing of routes will not in any way preclude or discourage the maintenance or improvement of other streets.

2 () Speed humps, or pavement undulations are twelve feet long raised asphalt surfaces over which cars can comfortably travel at 25 mph. They are much different from speed bumps which are often used in parking lots and which force cars to slow to 5 mph. See Chapter 6 for more discussion of speed humps.

3 () Otherwise known as the wiggle.

4 () Since this plan was written, San Francisco has adopted an ordinance requiring bicycle parking in all City-owned and leased buildings.