Bicycle Plan - Part 2

Review Of Existing Conditions

Go to Part 3

Introduction
This chapter presents the analysis of existing bicycle conditions in San Francisco. This analysis covers four subject areas:

An evaluation of existing Class I, Class II and Class III bicycle facilities on the Signed Bikeways Plan;
Identification of the main attractors and generators of bicycle trips;
Analysis of bicycle accident history; and
A review of the City and County organizational structure as it pertains to the planning, funding, implementation and maintenance of bicycle facilities.

Review of Current Bikeways Plan
This section describes the process used by the consultant to inventory and evaluate the bikeways on the Signed Bikeways Plan of the San Francisco Master Plan. The review of the routes on the current bikeways plan is composed of three main subtasks: rational data base development, field assessment and documentation. The remainder of this section will describe the evaluation process and present an overall assessment of the existing bikeway system. Recommendations as to whether any of these existing routes should be revised, abandoned or retained will be made in Chapter 3: Recommended Bikeway Network.

Description of the Evaluation Process
Developing a Rational Database: The City's existing (1982) Signed Bikeways Plan shown in the San Francisco Master Plan map has no route numbering system or other way of naming the routes. The map also does not differentiate between existing and proposed routes. The first step then, was to develop a system of identification for the various routes so that they could be systematically inventoried and analyzed. The City's existing bikeways were assigned a route number and name so that each route and each segment (street) within a route could be identified and incorporated into a data base. Twenty-four (24) routes were identified and numbered from #1 to #24. These routes are shown in Figure 2-1. Each route is comprised of 1-20 segments, a segment being designated for each portion of the route that is on a different street.

A database was designed to include the following evaluation criteria:

Width of curb travel lane (greater or less than 12 feet);
Number of traffic lanes in one direction;
Width of cycling zone (less or more than three feet);
Traffic mix and type of transit: auto, bus (diesel vs. overhead electric), light rail;
Traffic intensity: function of volume, congestion, speed;
Number of traffic controls: signals, STOP signs;
Amount and turnover of on-street parking;
General safety: sense of safety or risk, physical, social (crime);
Terrain: steepness, greater than 3 percent;
Obstacles: tracks, pavement conditions, multi-use path environments;
Turning: left or right involving risk conditions; and
Intersections: identification of key nodes within a segment.

Field Assessment of Riding Existing Routes: Each route of the City's Signed Bikeways Plan was evaluated in the field by riding a bicycle. Each route was assessed against the evaluation criteria on a qualitative basis. Other information that was gathered during this phase concerned major intersections along each route and main attractors served by each route. The emphasis of the field assessment was to objectively identify the features of each route rather than to judge or rate the route.

Documentation of the Evaluation: The survey data were entered into a Paradox data base. Each segment of the route has an address in the data base which will be useful for future implementation and planning activities. In particular, it can be integrated into a desktop mapping software such as MAPINFO. Bicycle amenities and routes should also be incorporated into Department of Public Works' GIS (Geographic Information Systems) projects.

The extensive information stored in the Paradox data base was extracted and summarized on tables. There are one to five tables per route depending on the complexity and variables of the route. These summary tables and a glossary are on file at DPT offices.

Summary of Assessment of the Existing Bikeway System
The bikeway system as presented in the Master Plan consists primarily of a single map which depicts Class I, Class II and Class III facilities. There is no documentation of the number of miles of the system by Class or in total. The map does not differentiate between existing and planned projects, and there is no description of planned or programmed additions or improvements to the bikeway system.

In the field, the system as a whole is not very visible. Few of the designated Class III Bike Routes are signed and in other cases, some signs are present but do not continue the full length of the designated route. The existing bikeway system consists predominantly of Class III bike routes.

Some of the Class II facilities indicated on the map are striped but not signed. Some bike lanes are located in commercial areas such as Upper Market where double parking in the bike lanes is common. Most of the indicated Class II facilities, such as on Cabrillo Street and Twentieth Avenue, have not been implemented.

Many of the Class I facilities are effectively multi-use trails and are not designed to the highest standards for such trails (twelve feet or more of pavement with a two-foot buffer on either side). Some do not meet even the minimum standards. Depending on time of day or day of week, they are often usable for only leisurely rides due to the variety of the trail users and their vastly varying speeds. Such trails are often unusable for a fast-paced bicyclist, because the trails are too narrow to accommodate several different modes at several different speeds. There are notable exceptions, most importantly the Panhandle bike path which is signed as a bike route. The major drawback of a Class I bike path parallel to a major roadway, such as the Panhandle path, is the potential for conflicts at intersections. Left-turning motorists in particular do not see and therefore do not yield to bicyclists entering the intersection from the path. Visibility here is limited and is difficult to mitigate. The visibility problem at the intersection of Masonic Avenue and Fell Street during non-peak hours is compounded by parked cars between the travel lane and the bike path which shield the bikes from the motorists' view.

The most common deficiencies of the existing route system are:

Designating trails that are used by a variety of modes (pedestrians, baby-strollers, roller bladers, persons walking dogs, etc.) as Class I facilities. Examples include the Great Highway path and the Lake Merced path. Until these multi-use trails are widened to accommodate the mixed volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists, they should not be designated as Class I facilities.
Applying the Class I designation to paths that also serve as sidewalks. Examples of this are Sunset Boulevard and O'Shaughnessy Boulevard. Due to the lack of formal sidewalks, both of these paths also function as the sidewalk. The pavement on the path is not as well maintained as the roadway. Litter and debris do not get swept regularly. Potholes and cracks in the pavement are not repaired. Along Sunset Boulevard, there are many cross-streets which a northbound bicyclist on the path has to cross in a direction against the normal flow of traffic. Even southbound bicyclists are not as visible to right-turning motorist as they would be if they were riding on the road. In conclusion, the two major advantages of riding on the roadway rather than on such paths (over and above the sharing-with-pedestrians issue discussed above) are:
- Bicyclists are more visible to motorists when entering intersections; and
- Bicyclists can travel at higher speeds and can expect a higher quality pavement surface.
Bike lanes, whether adjacent to the curb or adjacent to a row of parked cars are often utilized by parked or double-parked vehicles, particularly in commercial areas. Illegally parked vehicles can also be a problem in locations with wider curb lanes.
Bike routes that jog from street to street expose bicyclists to more motor vehicle conflicts.
The effectiveness of many bike routes suffers from the placement of numerous STOP signs. These signs slow bicycle traffic. One STOP sign is equivalent in travel time to making the route 0.1 mile longer. On Twentieth Avenue, the problem is compounded by the use of two-way STOP sign controls, giving cross-traffic the right-of-way. The bicyclist must then wait until there is an adequate gap in traffic before proceeding.
Many of the roadways that are the most direct and flattest are also major thoroughfares and transit routes. The road system for San Francisco was initially developed so that the major roadways were aligned along the flattest contours. Consequently, the flattest route from Point A to Point B is often along a major thoroughfare such as Sloat Boulevard. Using Vicente Street and/or Wawona Street as a lower volume alternative route requires significantly more climbing.
Many of the City's streets are laid out in a grid pattern, which is a positive attribute as it allows for several bike route alternatives. However, some parts of the City have only one main route through them because of topographical constraints. Portola Drive and O'Shaughnessy Boulevard are good examples. In some cases the diagonal route is the most direct, such as Ocean Avenue or Third Street between Islais Creek and Candlestick.

While the latter two points are not deficiencies of the existing bikeway system, they do highlight the unique characteristics of the street system of San Francisco. Recognizing the limitations of the various corridors will be an integral part of the alternatives analysis prior to the development of the recommended route system.

ATTRACTORS AND GENERATORS

The major attractors of bicycle trips in San Francisco are presented in Figure 2-2. This inventory is preliminary. Additional attractors and generators will be added as they are identified. The attractors shown here include the major employment, education (colleges, universities and high schools), government, retail/shopping, medical, and recreation centers. The primary generators are residential land uses. Also included in the category of generators are transit centers and connections to regional bike routes. The purpose of the attractor/generator analysis is to identify the most significant locations to be served by the bike route plan. For example, is S.F. City College being served? Is the Outer Richmond connected to the Financial District? Findings of this analysis will also help to determine where bicycle parking is most needed.

SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE ACCIDENT REVIEW

The Department of Parking and Traffic provided the consultant with bicycle accident data from the Police Department for the past five years, 1989-1993. These data were sorted for several main characteristics, in order to identify accident patterns.

In addition, SWITRS (State-Wide Integrated Traffic Record System) accident data for the past three years (1991-93) were analyzed. SWITRS is an accident database system compiled by the State Highway Patrol using accident reports from local jurisdictions. The SWITRS database includes statistics which are not summarized in the Police Department's database such as: the California Vehicle Code (CVC) violation (if any), party at fault, daylight or darkness, collision type and more detail about the victim: type (driver, passenger, bicyclist, pedestrian), age, sex, and extent of injuries. The SWITRS database lists a total of 1,078 bicycle accidents between 1991 and 1993. The consultant and the SF Bicycle Program Manager would like to acknowledge Tim Roach of the City of Santa Cruz, without whose help this analysis of SWITRS data would not have been possible.

Finally, the San Francisco Department of Public Health's report Profile of Injury in San Francisco, March 1994, was reviewed for pertinent information regarding bicycle injuries.

While the SWITRS database categorizes bicycle accidents by several statistics not included in the SFPD's database, it is not complete: SWITRS lists 1,078 reported accidents for the three-year period 1991-1993 while SFPD statistics indicate 1,445 reported accidents.

On the other hand, the existing accident summary database used by the SFPD also has some shortcomings. Under "directional code," which describes the movement of vehicles prior to the accident, there is a catch-all category for "collision with bicycle, streetcar, train, etc." Thus, the type of bicycle accidentCleft-turn, rear-end, head-onCcannot be determined from the database summary.

It is recommended that in a car-bike collision, a bicycle should be treated as a second vehicle, and a type (#1-26) should be selected to describe the accident. Thus, bicycle should be eliminated from Code B (Directional Indicator Codes #43 and 50). Codes 1-26 should not reference motor vehicle, and bicycles should be considered a vehicle for the purpose of accident analysis. In addition, it is recommended that the SFPD's computerized accident summary database be revised to provide the following information:

Party-at-fault;
CVC section violated;
Age of victim;
Bicycle lighting; and
Color of clothing

The party-at-fault and CVC section violated can replace the existing category of "cause" and will provide more accurate data than either the existing SFPD database summary or the SWITRS data base.

Accident Trends

Between 1989 and 1993, there were 35,239 total reported vehicle accidents and 2,353 reported accidents involving a bicyclist. The trend of bicycle accidents from 1989 to 1993 is presented below:

Table 2-1 REPORTED BICYCLE ACCIDENTS AND TOTAL ACCIDENTS 1989-1993
Number of Accidents	1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	Total
Total	12,621	13,767	13,105	12,834	12,109	64,436
Involving Bikes	424	484	469	496	480	2,353
Percent of Bike Accidents of Total Accidents	3.36%	3.52%	3.58%	3.86%	3.96%	3.65%
Source: City of San Francisco Accident Records.

The number of reported bicycle accidents per year appears to have remained relatively steady, with between 424 and 496 reported bicycle accidents per year. They have remained particularly constant in the last four years, ranging from 469 to 496 per year. The number of reported motor vehicle accidents has decreased slightly in the past five years. Thus, the proportion of bike accidents to total accidents has increased from 3.4 percent to almost 4 percent.

Public Health Records

Motor vehicles cause thirteen percent of all injury deaths in San Francisco and seven percent of all injury hospitalizations. Two percent of the deaths caused by motor vehicle crashes are bicyclists and three percent of these hospitalizations are bicyclists. In comparison, the proportion of motor vehicle crashes that resulted in pedestrian death and hospitalization are 25 percent and 32 percent, respectively, and the motorcycle deaths and hospitalizations are 3 percent and 27 percent, respectively (see Table 2-2 below).

Table 2-2 DEATHS AND HOSPITALIZATIONS DUE TO MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS IN SAN FRANCISCO
Resulting in	Bicyclist	Pedestrian	Motorcyclist	Motor Vehicle Occupant
Hospitalizations July 1990 - June 1991	3	32	27	38
Deaths 1986 - 1991	2	25	3	70
Source: Profile of Injury in San Francisco, March 1994, S.F. Dept. of Public Health

Of emergency room visits to San Francisco General Hospital in 1992, five percent were bicyclists, a slightly greater proportion than overall injury hospitalizations due to motor vehicle crashes. The "Profile of Injury" also analyzed paramedic calls to bicycle injuries in 1991. Of the 164 911 responses to bicycle injuries, 122 or 74 percent involved an automobile. Geographically, these 911 injury accidents were clustered along Market Street in the Financial District, Civic Center and Upper Market area as well as in the Western Addition and the Haight-Ashbury areas. The report concluded that bicyclists between the ages of 20 and 30 are at the greatest risk for hospitalization from a motor vehicle collision.

Analysis of Reported Bicycle Accidents

High Accident Locations - The Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) has identified the 1993 High Accident Locations - those with eight or more reported accidents of any type in the year 1993. In 1993, there were 63 intersections with eight or more accidents, 34 intersections with ten or more accidents and twelve intersections with fifteen or more accidents. This list is presented in Appendix A. The intersections with the highest number of bicycle accidents were identified by analyzing the SF Police database. Fourteen intersections experienced five or more reported bicycle accidents in the last five years. These locations are depicted in Figure 2-3. Over half of these locations are on either Market Street or Mission Street (five on Market Street and three on Mission Street).

There was some overlap between these two subsets of intersections, but most bicycle accident locations were not on DPT's High Accident Intersection list. The three high bicycle accident intersections that were on DPT's High Accident Intersection list are:

5th and Folsom
Bay and Columbus
Duboce and Valencia

The accident types at the fourteen high bicycle accident locations were reviewed in more detail. While the specifics of each individual accident were not examined, some general trends were discerned. In virtually all cases, the bicyclist is the party most severely injured. Two of the most common accident types involve the running of a red light by either a bicyclist or motorist and left-turn accidents. Measures that would potentially reduce accidents caused by running red lights range from longer red clearance intervals to more enforcement to creating attractive bike routes on streets with fewer cross streets, less traffic, less congestion, and thus fewer potential conflicts at intersections.

Left-turn accidents are common at both signalized at unsignalized intersections and are usually the fault of the motorist. At signalized intersections, both the motor vehicle and the bicyclist may be trying to take advantage of the yellow time. Another factor in some collisions may be the fact that the downgrades at some intersection approaches allow a bicyclist to travel at speeds of 25 to 35 mph. Motorists are accustomed to judging bicycle traffic at speeds of 10 to 15 mph. In general, hurried decisions or inattention on the part of the motorist contributes to the motorist misjudging bicycle speeds and causing accidents.

Motorist education about bicycle travel speeds would help reduce this type of accident. Signs reading LEFT TURNS YIELD TO BICYCLES or a similar message may be appropriate for limited application such as at the intersections which have the most conflicts. A more restrictive but more effective measure to reduce left-turn accidents would be to have protected left-turn phasing or to prohibit left-turns. Specific recommendations for improving intersection safety will be presented under the enforcement, education and implementation elements of the plan.

Fatalities and Injuries - The intersections that were the sites of fatal bicycle accidents were identified on Table 2-3. In the five year period (1989-93), there were ten fatal bicycle accidents. These occurred at ten different intersections. None of these intersections were identified as High Bicycle Accident Locations. Several pertinent statistics about the fatal accidents are summarized in Table 2-2. One fatal accident occurred in 1989, two in 1990, four in 1991, one in 1992 and two in 1993. Two of the ten fatal accidents were single bike accidents, two involved a bike/truck collision, one involved a bike/bus collision, four involved a bike/car collision, and one involved a bike/pick-up truck collision. Seven of the victims were adults, one was a thirteen year old, and the ages of the other two were not available. It is not known how many of the victims were wearing helmets.

The police reports attributed the party at fault in two of the fatal accidents to be the motor vehicle driver. In the first case the cause of the accident was a parked vehicle starting when unsafe. In the second case, the cause was the motor vehicle travelling at an unsafe speed. In neither case did the driver receive a citation. However, it is common in accident reports for a party to be noted but not cited for a vehicle code violation.

The causes of the remaining eight accidents were attributed to the bicyclists. A bicyclist travelling at an unsafe speed was considered a primary or contributory factor in three collisions, running a STOP sign was the primary cause of one collision, passing on the right was a primary factor in two collisions, turning the wrong-way onto a one-way street was the primary factor in one collision, and a bicyclist veering into and side swiping a tractor trailer reportedly caused one collision. It should be noted that the bicyclist's version of the accident is not provided in these eight reports as they were all fatal collisions. The causes of the accidents were determined by the officers on the scene after interviewing the motor vehicle drivers and the witnesses to the accidents.

In addition to these ten accidents, there were 48 accidents that resulted in two or more injuries. These 48 accidents occurred at 47 different intersections, so no trend was discerned from the multiple injury accidents.

Extent of injury data was obtained from the SWITRS database. 1.4 percent of all bike collisions involved property damage onlyCno injury. In the three year period, there were eight fatal accidents, (0.7 percent) and 44 severe injury accidents (4.1 percent). 53 percent resulted in other visible injury and 42 percent resulted in complaint of pain, the two least severe categories of injury. Non-injury accidents typically are not reported.

Age of Bicyclist - Of the 1,078 accidents reported by SWITRS between 1991 and 1993, 836 or 81 percent involved a bicyclist over age 17. Seventy-seven accidents or 7.5 percent involved a bicyclist between 13 and 17, and 8.5 percent involved a bicyclist under age 13. The preponderance of adult accident victims may not indicate that children are safer bicyclists than adults, but rather that there is a smaller percentage of children relative to adults who bicycle in San Francisco. Over half of adult victims, (45.1 percent of the total victims) are between the ages of 20-29. This is consistent with the conclusion of the Profile of Injury report. Over one-quarter of adult victims (23.1 percent of the total) are between the ages of 30-39. Four percent are either 18 or 19, six percent are 40-49 and 2.7 percent of the total are 50 years of age or older.

Temporal/Seasonal - Most bicycle accidents (78 percent) occurred during daylight hours. Sixteen percent occurred at night, and three percent occurred either at dusk or dawn. The two-hour period that had the most frequent bicycle accidents was 4:00-6:00 PM. These are also the hours with the highest volume of traffic. The next most common hours during which bicycle accidents occurred were those beginning at 2:00 PM, 3:00 PM and 12:00 Noon.

More bicycle accidents occurred during the spring, summer and fall, than during the winter months. The months with the highest number of accidents were September, August, October and April, with between 220 and 234 accidents over the five-year period. The months with the lowest number of accidents were January, February, March and December, with 150, 170, 176, and 177 accidents over the five-year period, respectively This is perhaps due to lower bicycle use in winter. Many more accidents occurred on weekdays than weekends. Due to holidays, the average accident rate for Mondays was less than on other weekdays, but more than on weekends. Tuesday through Friday averaged between 380 and 395 bicycle accidents, while Saturday and Sunday had 246 and 250 accidents for the five year period, respectively. These data suggest that more accidents occur while commuting than while riding for recreation.

CVC Violations and Party at Fault - Of the 1,078 accidents in the SWITRS database, a CVC violation code was cited in 1,072 cases. The party at fault was listed as the bicyclist in 530 incidents (49 percent), 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. While bicyclists were at fault in about half of the accidents resulting in bicyclist injury, motorists were at fault in almost two out of five accidents. These statistics indicate that both bicyclists and motorists need to improve their driving behavior in order to increase the safety of bicyclists on San Francisco streets.

The most commonly violated CVC sections (primary cause of fifty or more accidents in the last three years) are listed in Table 2-4 for the years 1991-1993. They are broken down by auto driver-at-fault or bike-at-fault. The five most common vehicle code violations (by either a motor vehicle or bicyclist) resulting in a bicycle accident are listed below. The number of accidents attributable to each CVC violation is in parentheses.

Unsafe speed (104 accidents)
Stop at red light (86 accidents)
Opening car door when unsafe (86 accidents)
Yield to approaching traffic (74 accidents)
Failure to yield when turning left (56 accidents)

The five most common vehicle code violations resulting in a bicycle accident caused by an automobile driver are: (in this order):

Opening car door when unsafe (86 accidents)
Failure to yield when turning left (53 accidents)
Unsafe turn and/or without signaling (36 accidents)
Unsafe speed (35 accidents)
Stop at red light (28 accidents)

As indicated above, "Motorists opening car door when unsafe" is the most common cause of reported bicycle accidents caused by the motorist. This is followed by "motorist making unsafe left-turns", followed by "motorists making unsafe turns". It should be noted that there is not a specific CVC section for making an unsafe right-turn, as there is for an unsafe left-turn. CVC 22107 (unsafe turn, the third most common cause of motorist at fault bicycle accidents) is a catch-all category that includes unsafe right-turns as well as veering unsafely to the right or left when proceeding down the street. (In addition, CVC section 21451a covers the situation of proceeding at a green light (through, right or left) and not yielding to vehicles or pedestrians lawfully within the intersection). Therefore, it would be necessary to review each of the accident reports involving a CVC 22107 violation to determine the number of bicycle accidents that were caused by a right-turning motorist failing to yield to a bicycle proceeding parallel to the motorist.

In any case, when violations of CVC 21801a and CVC 22107 are added together, motorist making unsafe turns becomes the most common type of reported bicycle accident caused by a motorist.

The five most common vehicle code violations resulting in a bicycle accident and caused by a bicyclist are (in this order):

Unsafe speed (69 accidents)
Yield to approaching traffic (64 accidents)
Passing on right when unsafe (59 accidents)
Stop at red light (58 accidents)
Wrong-way riding (51 accidents)

Unsafe speed and failure to yield to approaching traffic are the two most common reasons for accidents caused by bicyclists. Passing on the right when unsafe is the third most common cause. When CVC 21755 is combined with CVC 22107 (assuming all the latter accidents were right-turns), right-turns and passing on the right becomes the most common cause of a bicycle accident regardless of party at fault. The SFPD was contacted for clarification of the rights and responsibilities of the motor vehicle and the bicyclist in a right-turning situation. If the vehicle turns right into a bicycle that is on its right side or ahead of him, the fault lies with the vehicle, and the vehicle may be cited for CVC 22107 (unsafe turn). But if the vehicle is clearly ahead of the bicycle and waiting to turn right with its turn signal on, and the bicyclist passes the stopped vehicle on the right and is hit, the primary cause of the accident is attributed to the bicyclistCCVC 21755, unsafe passing on the right. Due to street geometrics and traffic, it is clear that many bicyclists feel they have no choice but to pass on the right. But the current California Vehicle Code expects bicyclists to wait behind a right-turning vehicle or to pass on the left as a motor vehicle would.

Bicycle Infractions - The bicycle infractions received by bicyclists between 1991 and 1993 were compared to the CVC section cited as the primary cause of bicycle accident when the bicycle was at fault. This comparison is shown in Table 2-5.

Over half of the infractions are for running a red light, and 11 percent are for running a STOP sign. No other one category contained more than three percent of the infractions. When compared to the primary cause of an accident, running a red light was responsible for eleven percent of accidents and running a STOP sign was responsible for nine percent of accidents.

Running a red light is one of the most visible types of bicycle misbehavior and it is easy to see why it is by far the most frequently enforced violation. However, several other actions by bicycles are responsible for the same proportion of accidents as running red lights, i.e. passing on right when unsafe, wrong-way riding, and not yielding to approaching traffic. More discussion on enforcement issues will be presented in Chapter 9: Safety Education and Enforcement.

EXISTING BICYCLE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

Currently, the implementation of the City's bicycle facility program crosses the jurisdiction of various City departments. Elements of the City's program take place in the Departments of Parking & Traffic, City Planning, Public Works, Recreation and Parks, and Police. The Department of Parking & Traffic (DPT) established a Bicycle Program Manager position in the Department of Parking & Traffic in July 1992 to direct bicycle improvements, coordinate with the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and pursue funding for bicycle programs.

The following section describes the role of the Bicycle Program Manager and identifies the planning, funding, and implementation activities currently involved in the administration of the City's bicycle program. Lastly, this section discusses issues for further consideration during the development and analysis of various coordination program options (including the existing organizational structure).

Role of the Bicycle Program Manager

The Bicycle Program Manager currently oversees the bicycle activities in San Francisco and is key to the administration of the bicycle facility program. The Bicycle Program Manager prepares grant applications to finance bicycle programs and projects. He works with various departments to plan, design and implement projects which have approved funding. The bicycle programs and projects that have been implemented or have received funding include, but are not limited to:

The spot improvement program
Restriping for widened curb lane
Valencia Street bikeway project
Bicycle commute route signage
Class I facility maintenance
Lake Merced bikeway project
Loop detector markings
Implementation of the Golden Gate Bridge camera
Development of the Comprehensive Bicycle Plan.

* Approximately $400,000 per year is available for bicycle and pedestrian projects in San Francisco County from TDA funds, of which about one-half is typically used for bicycle projects. Although the TDA funds do not have to be evenly split between bicycles and pedestrians, there has been an informal agreement between DPT and DPW that one-half of the funds would go towards bicycle projects and one-half of the funds would go towards pedestrian projects.

* Proposition 116 included approximately $20 million for bicycle projects statewide on a competitive basis. Three San Francisco projects have been awarded funding. They are:

Median and street improvements along Valencia to provide widened curb lanes ($285,000);
Installation of signage along all of the proposed bicycle commuter routes ($85,000); and,
Restriping of streets to provide widened curb lanes ($263,000).

* Proposition B, the 24 sales tax in San Francisco County (approved by voters in 1989 for a twenty year period), includes $12.5 million for bicycle and pedestrian circulation. The $12.5 million is allocated to three programs, one of which is for bicycle, pedestrian and disabled accessibility projects (Program 47). Per a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Parking and Traffic and the Department of Public Works (DPW), half of the Program 47 funds, or $2.25 million, are earmarked for bicycle projects which will be administered by the Department of Parking and Traffic. Some of this money is currently being spent on bicycle projects such as the "Spot" Improvement Program and Comprehensive Bicycle Plan.

P AB 434 legislation allowed an assessment of $4.00 per vehicle on auto registrations for air quality enhancing projects, which generates a total of approximately $1.39 million in San Francisco County and $13 million in the nine-county Bay Area. Forty percent of the funds is returned to the counties, in San Francisco's case the Transportation Authority. In 1993-94, this amounted to $556,000 for San Francisco. Sixty percent or about $7 million is distributed on a competitive basis to the nine-county Bay Area region. Applicants are limited to 10 percent of the available funds or $700,000. In San Francisco, AB 434 has provided funds for the purchase of bicycle lockers and bicycles for the parking control officers.

* Office of Traffic Safety provides funds for safety training. The Bicycle Program Manager has taken training courses relating to bicycle safety that were paid for through this source.

* ISTEA funding for median relocation and street improvements on Lake Merced Boulevard to provide widened curb lanes.

Implementation Activities

As noted earlier, the Bicycle Program Manager oversees most of the bicycle activities in the City and County. These activities include the implementation of a wide range of projects. Projects that involve elements that are not typically managed by DPT, such as roadway reconstruction, are performed by other departments.

DPW implements bicycle projects involving roadway construction and, occasionally, operation and maintenance of bicycle lanes. When a project has been planned for construction, DPT and DPW negotiate a budget for design, construction and construction management of the project. DPT will then work order funds to DPW. For major construction projects, DPW would perform design and engineering services and put the project out to bid for construction. Only DPW has the authority to do construction projects, i.e. DPT could not hire a construction contractor. DPW would hire a contractor for construction of the project. DPT would provide an oversight role as the lead department of the project and would provide construction management.

A key implementation program is the "San Francisco Bicycle Facility Improvement Program". In 1994, the Transportation Authority granted $100,000 to conduct the "Bicycle Spot Improvement Program" which is designed to enhance bicycle safety and encourage bicycling by implementing low cost improvements suggested by concerned cyclists (such as signage, pavement striping, rack installation, pavement maintenance, etc). The program provides improvement request forms in areas frequented by cyclists such as bicycle repair shops. The form is a postage-paid postcard on which a concerned cyclist may note a suggestion and the location of the suggested improvement. The postcard is returned to the Bicycle Program Manager who identifies the need for the improvement and contacts the appropriate department for implementing the improvement. The effectiveness of this program has been affected by the following:

* There is not sufficient staff to follow-up on the information that comes in on the cards;

* The program has not been promoted extensively and bicyclists are unaware of the full range of improvement recommendations the program attempts to solicit.

Other Activities

A variety of other activities related to bicycles in the City are discussed below.

* The Police Department should coordinate with the Bicycle Program Manager to develop a Citywide voluntary bicycle registration program to deter bicycle theft and help to identify the owners of recovered bicycles.

* The San Francisco Injury Center is involved with the promotion of bicycle helmet use and has played an advocacy role in motor vehicle helmet use legislation. The Injury Center has been involved with the Office of Traffic Safety's Safe Cities Program in coordination with the Department of Public Health. The Injury Center has no current funding specific to promoting bicycle safety, although the center is interested in seeking grants to conduct safety programs and in working with City departments and organizations.

* With the Bay Area's and the State's clean air legislation, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Coordinators of agencies and employers have a large role in promoting the use of alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. Bicycling is one mode that has had little consideration in years past but is becoming a more viable, and promoted, mode in this era of commute alternatives. The TDM Coordinators, such as the City Employee Commute Coordinator, need to be aware of the activities in the City that will improve and increase the number of bicycle facilities, and thereby make bicycling a more viable choice of commute modes. The City's TSM Coordinator should be actively involved in the outreach program described in more detail in Chapter 10.

Bicycle Program Administration Issues

The City's bicycle program has become much more effective since the creation of the Bicycle Program Manager position. However, as the need for creating attractive options to the single-occupant automobile increases, the importance of the planning, development and operation of a strong bicycle program will increase. Chapter 4 recommends a program of coordination that will allow various bicycle-related activities to work together more effectively. Recommendations will include number of staff members, roles and classifications of the staff, committee involvement and department coordination.

. Of the 164 911 responses to bicycle injuries, 122 or 74 percent involved an automobile. Geographically, these 911 injury accidents were clustered along Market Street in the Financial District, Civic Center and Upper Market area as well as in the Western Addition and the Haight-Ashbury areas. The report concluded that bicyclists between the ages of 20 and 30 are at the greatest risk for hospitalization from a motor vehicle collision.

. When the Bicycle Program Manager was hired in 1992, there was a 3-year backlog of TDA projects.

) to develop and prioritize projects. The Bicycle Program Manager has been a member of the Regional Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Committee. He participates in planning efforts for Golden Gate Park and the Presidio. by the Board of Supervisors and serve 3-year terms.

Bicycle Plan - Part 2

Stay Connected