HomeMy WebLinkAboutBakersfield BTP Final 2013.10.28 AppendicesDesign Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-1
Appendix A. Design Guidelines
This appendix presents an overview of bicycle facility designs, based on appropriate California Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) and Highway Design Manuals, and supplemented by
AASHTO best practices and Bakersfield-specific design guidelines. The purpose is to provide readers and
project designers with an understanding of the facility types that are proposed in the Plan, and with specific
treatments that are recommended or required.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-2 | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix A Table of Contents
A.1. Bicycle Design Standards ..................................................................................................................................... A-4
A.2. Bikeway Classification .......................................................................................................................................... A-6
A.2.1. Bikeway Classification Overview ............................................................................................................... A-6
A.3. Shared Use Paths ..................................................................................................................................................... A-8
A.3.1. General Design Practices: ............................................................................................................................. A-8
A.3.2. Pathway Design ............................................................................................................................................... A-9
A.3.3. Bollards ............................................................................................................................................................. A-11
A.3.4. Recommended Path Signage ...................................................................................................................... A-12
A.4. Pathway Crossings ................................................................................................................................................ A-13
A.4.1. Path Crossing at Intersection .................................................................................................................... A-14
A.4.2. Uncontrolled Mid-Block Crossing ........................................................................................................... A-17
A.4.3. Crossing Beacons .......................................................................................................................................... A-19
A.4.4. Signalized Mid-Block Crossing ................................................................................................................ A-20
A.5. On-Street Bicycle Facility Design ..................................................................................................................... A-21
A.5.1. Bike Lane with No On-Street Parking .................................................................................................... A-22
A.5.2. Bike Lane With On-Street Parallel Parking .......................................................................................... A-23
A.5.3. Buffered Bike Lanes ..................................................................................................................................... A-24
A.5.4. Colored Bike Lanes ...................................................................................................................................... A-25
A.5.5. Manholes & Drainage Grates ................................................................................................................... A-26
A.6. Bike Routes............................................................................................................................................................. A-27
A.6.1. Bike Route ..................................................................................................................................................... A-28
A.6.2. Class III Bike Route with Shared Lane Markings (SLM) .................................................................. A-29
A.6.3. Additional Bike Route Signage ................................................................................................................. A-30
A.6.4. Bicycle Boulevards ........................................................................................................................................ A-31
A.7. Intersection and Interchange Design for Bicyclists .................................................................................... A-33
A.7.1. Bicycle Detection at Signalized Intersections ........................................................................................ A-33
A.7.2. Loop Detector Pavement Markings and Signage .................................................................................. A-35
A.7.3. Bike Lane at Intersection with Right Turn Only Lane ........................................................................A-36
A.7.4. Bicycle Boxes .................................................................................................................................................. A-37
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-3
A.7.5. Interchange Design ....................................................................................................................................... A-38
A.7.6. Accommodating Bicyclists at On and Off-Ramps ............................................................................... A-39
A.7.7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Design ......................................................................................... A-41
A.7.8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing Design ..................................................................................... A-43
A.8. Design of Interpretive and Wayfinding Signage .......................................................................................... A-45
A.8.1. Wayfinding Signage - General .................................................................................................................. A-45
A.9. Bicycle Parking ...................................................................................................................................................... A-47
A.9.1. Bicycle Rack Design .................................................................................................................................... A-47
A.9.2. Bicycle Locker Design ................................................................................................................................. A-49
A.10. Maintenance Standards ...................................................................................................................................... A-50
A.10.1. Bicycle Access During Construction Activities .................................................................................... A-50
A.10.2. Shared Use Path Maintenance Standards .............................................................................................. A-52
A.10.3. On-Street Facility Maintenance Standards ........................................................................................... A-54
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-4 | Alta Planning + Design
A.1. Bicycle Design Standards
The City of Bakersfield Bicycle Design Guidelines present standards and recommendations that specifically
provide for consistency in the City of Bakersfield, or where details are needed beyond what is provided by
state and federal design standards. All projects must also meet state and federal design standards. Therefore,
in addition to these City of Bakersfield Design Guidelines, engineers, planners and designers should also refer
to the following documents and their subsequent updates when planning and designing bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
Signage in Bakersfield is governed by the California MUTCD. As of January 13, 2012, the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has adopted the California MUTCD 2012 edition. The California
MUTCD 2012 edition includes the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) MUTCD 2009 edition dated
December 19, 2009, as amended for use in California. In the event that a specific treatment is not in the
California MUTCD, it may be necessary to go through experimental testing procedures. Experimental testing
is overseen by the California Traffic Control Devices Committee.
The following manuals, guides, policies, directives, and plans informed these design guidelines:
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2012.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca_mutcd2012.htm
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Federal Highway Administration.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
Caltrans Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for
Bicyclists and Pedestrians (2010).
Caltrans Policies and Directives. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy.htm
including:
o Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06 “Provide Bicycle and Motorcycle Detection on
all new and modified approaches to traffic-actuated signals in the state of California.”
o Caltrans Deputy Directive DD-64 “ Complete Streets – Integrating the Transportation
System.”
o Caltrans Highway Design Manual. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm
o Caltrans Design Information Bulletins. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/dibprg.htm
including:
DIB 80-01 Roundabouts
DIB 82-03 Design Information Bulletin 82-03 “Pedestrian Accessibility
Guidelines for Highway Projects”
o Caltrans Standard Plans.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/HTM/06_plans_disclaim_US.htm
ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG). http://www.access-
board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-5
Revised Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way, Access Board. http://www.access-
board.gov/prowac/draft.htm
Guidelines for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO. Guidelines for the Planning, Design,
and Operations of Pedestrian Facilities, AASHTO. https://bookstore.transportation.org/home.aspx
A Policy on Geometric Designs of Highways, AASHTO.
https://bookstore.transportation.org/Item_details.aspx?id=110
National Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Bikeway Design Guide
http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/
This appendix is not intended to replace existing state or national mandatory or advisory standards, nor the
exercise of engineering judgment by licensed professionals.
Cost estimates cited in the document are included for reference only. All costs are for equipment and
materials, and do not include labor. Actual costs to construct the facilities may vary depending on market
fluctuations, design specifications, engineering requirements and availability of materials.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-6 | Alta Planning + Design
A.2. Bikeway Classification
A.2.1. Bikeway Classification Overview
Discussion Design Example
Caltrans has defined three types of bikeways in Chapter 1000 of
the Highway Design Manual: Class I/shared use path, Class II/Bike
Lane, and Class III/Bike Route. This document uses the generic
terms “shared use path”, “bike lane” and “bike route”.
Class I Shared Use Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Design Summary
Path Width:
8 feet is the minimum allowed for a two-way bicycle path and is
only recommended for low traffic situations.
10 feet is recommended in most situations and will be adequate
for moderate to heavy use.
12 feet is recommended for heavy use situations with high
concentrations of multiple users such as joggers, bicyclists,
rollerbladers and pedestrians. A separate track (5’ minimum) can
be provided for pedestrian use.
Bike Lane Width with Adjacent On-Street Parking:
5 feet minimum recommended when parking stalls are marked
Bike Lane Width without Adjacent Parking:
4 feet minimum when no gutter is present (rural road sections)
5 feet minimum when adjacent to curb and gutter (3’ more than
the gutter pan width if the gutter pan is greater than 2’)
Recommended Width: 6 feet where right-of-way allows
Lane Width for Bicycle Route With Wide Outside Lane:
Fourteen feet (14’) minimum is preferred. Fifteen feet (15’) should
be considered if heavy truck or bus traffic is present. Bike lanes
should be considered on roadways with outside lanes wider than
15 feet.
Sign Spacing
Bikeway signs shall be installed at the beginning of bikeways and
at every decision point (intersection). Signs should be placed at
every decision point and at quarter mile intervals. End signs may
be placed at the end of bikeways.
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-7
Recommended Design
Guidance Cost
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000: Sections
1003.1(1) and (2), 1003.2(1), 1003.3(1), and 1003.5)
California MUTCD Chapter 9
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,
Chapter 2
Class I Path: $500,000 - $4,000,000 per mile
Class II Bike Lane: $5,000 - $500,000 per mile
Class III Bike Route: $1,000 - $300,000 per mile
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-8 | Alta Planning + Design
A.3. Shared Use Paths
A shared use path (Class I) allows for two-way, off-street bicycle use and also may be used by pedestrians,
skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users. These facilities are frequently found in
parks, along rivers, beaches, and in greenbelts or utility corridors where there are few conflicts with
motorized vehicles. Class I facilities can also include amenities such as lighting, signage, and fencing (where
appropriate).
A.3.1. General Design Practices:
Both the California Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000 and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities generally recommend against the development of shared use paths directly adjacent to
roadways. Also known as “sidepaths,” these facilities create a situation where a portion of the bicycle traffic
rides against the normal flow of motor vehicle traffic and can result in wrong-way riding when either entering
or exiting the path. This can also result in an unsafe situation where motorists entering or crossing the
roadway at intersections and driveways do not notice bicyclists coming from their right, as they are not
expecting traffic coming from that direction. Stopped cross-street motor vehicle traffic or vehicles exiting
side streets or driveways may frequently block path crossings. Even bicyclists coming from the left may also
go unnoticed, especially when sight distances are poor.
Shared use paths may be considered along roadways under the following conditions:
The path will generally be separated from all motor vehicle traffic.
Bicycle and pedestrian use is anticipated to be high.
In order to provide continuity with an existing path through a roadway corridor.
In order to direct bicycle and pedestrian traffic away from freeway ramps
The path can be terminated at each end onto streets with good bicycle facilities, or onto another well-
designed path.
There is adequate access to local cross-streets and other facilities along the route.
As bicyclists gain experience and realize some of the advantages of riding on the roadway, many stop riding on
paths adjacent to roadways. Bicyclists may also tend to prefer the roadway as pedestrian traffic on the bicycle
path increases due to its location next to an urban roadway. When designing a bikeway network, the
presence of a nearby or parallel path should not be used as a reason to not provide adequate shoulder or
bicycle lane width on the roadway, as the on-street bicycle facility will generally be superior to the “sidepath”
for experienced bicyclists and those who are cycling for transportation purposes. Bicycle lanes should be
provided as an alternate (more transportation-oriented) facility whenever possible.
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-9
A.3.2. Pathway Design
Discussion Recommended Design
Ten-foot wide paved paths are usually best for accommodating
all uses, and better for long-term maintenance and emergency
vehicle access. When motor vehicles are driven on shared use
paths, their wheels often will be at or very near the edges of the
path. Since this can cause edge damage that, in turn, will reduce
the effective operating width of the path, adequate edge support
should be provided. Edge support can be either in the form of
stabilized shoulders, a concrete “ribbon curb” along one or more
edges of the path, or constructing additional pavement width or
thickness. Constructing a typical pavement width of 10 feet,
where right-of-way and other conditions permit, lessens the edge
raveling problem.
Surfacing and Path Construction
Thicker surfacing and a well-prepared sub-grade will reduce
deformation over time and reduce long-term maintenance costs.
At a minimum, off-street paths should be designed with sufficient
surfacing structural depth for the sub-grade soil type to support
maintenance and emergency vehicles.
Asphalt and concrete are the most common surface treatment for
multi-use paths, however the material composition and
construction methods used can have a significant determination
on the longevity of the pathway. Surface selection should take
place during the design process.
If trees are adjacent to the path, a root barrier should be installed
along the path to avoid root uplift.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-10 | Alta Planning + Design
Design Summary Design Example
Width
8 feet minimum paved path width (Caltrans). AASHTO
recommends a paved width of 10 feet.
A 3 to 4-foot wide native surface path may be
considered alongside shared-use paths for runners. (This
design differs from the Caltrans required 2-foot
shoulders for Class I paths in that wider shoulders are
optional if accommodation of joggers is desired.)
Paving
Hard, all-weather pavement surfaces are usually
preferred over those of crushed aggregate, sand, clay or
stabilized earth (AASHTO).
Separation From Highway
When two-way shared use paths are located adjacent to
a roadway, wide separation between a shared use path
and the adjacent highway is desirable. Bike paths closer
than 5 feet from the edge of the shoulder shall include a
physical barrier to prevent bicyclists from encroaching
onto the highway (Caltrans). Where used, the barrier
should be a minimum of 42 inches high (AASHTO).
Guidance
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000 Section
1003.1(1) and (2), and 1003.5)
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,
Chapter 2
California MUTCD Chapter 9B. Signs Guidelines for Accessible
Public Rights-of-Way
Cost
Class I Path: $500,000 - $4,000,000 per mile (Note 1: This
assumes an asphalt or concrete path. Note 2: The concrete
option is likely to cost 50 percent more than a standard
asphalt pathway.)
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-11
A.3.3. Bollards
Discussion Recommended Design
Minimize the use of bollards to avoid creating obstacles for
bicyclists. Bollards, particularly solid bollards, have caused serious
injury to bicyclists. The California MUTCD explains, “Such devices
should be used only where extreme problems are encountered”
(Section 9C.101). Instead, design the path entry and use signage
to alert drivers that motor vehicles are prohibited.
Bollards are ether fixed or removable and may be flexible or rigid.
Flexible bollards and posts are designed to give way on impact
and can be used instead of steel or solid posts. Bollards are
typically installed using one of two methods: 1) The bollard is set
into concrete footing in the ground; and 2) the bollard is attached
to the surface by mechanical means (mechanical anchoring or
chemical anchor).
Barrier Post Striping
Flexible Bollards
Source: Lighthouse Bollards Source: Andian Sales
Removable Bollards
Source: Reliance Foundry Co. Ltd
Design Summary
Where removable bollards are used, the top of the mount
point should be flush with the path’s surface so as not to
create a hazard. Posts shall be permanently reflectorized for
nighttime visibility and painted a bright color for improved
daytime visibility.
Striping an envelope around the post is recommended.
When more than one post is used, an odd number of posts at
1.5m (5-foot) spacing is desirable. Wider spacing can allow
entry by adult tricycles, wheelchair users and bicycles with
trailers.
Guidance
MUTCD – California Supplement (Section 9C.101-CA)
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Chapter 2
Cost
Bollard, fixed: $220 - $800 each
Bollard, removable: $680 - $940 each
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-12 | Alta Planning + Design
A.3.4. Recommended Path Signage
Discussion Recommended Design
Custom signage may be installed to guide trail users on proper
trail etiquette (see graphic), especially in areas where conflicts are
likely to occur. Because pedestrians typically travel at slower
speeds than bicyclists, it is recommended that any signage direct
pedestrians to walk on the right. Where signage is necessary, any
of the three types of signage to the right are recommended as
ways to encourage path users to yield to each other and to keep
the paths clear.
A centerline marking is particularly beneficial in the following
circumstances: A) Where there is heavy use; B) On curves with
restricted sight distance; and C) Where the path is unlighted and
nighttime riding is expected.
User Etiquette Signs along Multi-Use Paths
Design Summary
Signage
The Shared-Use Path Restriction (R9-7) sign may be installed on
facilities shared by pedestrians and bicyclists.
Guidance Cost
MUTCD, Sections 9B.12 and 9C.03
MUTCD – California Supplement, Section 9B.11 and 9C.03
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,
Chapter 2
Signs, trail regulation: $150 each
Signs, trail wayfinding / information: $500 - $2,000 each
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-13
A.4. Pathway Crossings
Shared use paths can intersect with roadways at midblock locations, or as part of a roadway-roadway
intersection. Common issues at intersections of shared use paths and roadways include:
Bicyclists entering or exiting the path may travel against motor vehicle traffic;
Motorists crossing the shared use path at driveways and intersections may not notice path users,
particularly path users coming from the right;
Stopped motor vehicle traffic or vehicles exiting side streets or driveways may block the path; and
Motorists may not expect or be able to yield to fast-moving bicyclists at the intersection.
Treatments
Bicycle and pedestrian pathway designers and traffic engineers generally have four options for designing
multi-use pathway crossings. These include:
Option 1- Reroute to the nearest at-grade controlled intersection crossing;
Option 2- Create a new at-grade midblock crossing with traffic controls where the pathway intersects
with the roadway;
Option 3- Create a new unprotected midblock crossing where the pathway intersects with the
roadway; and
Option 4- Create a grade-separated undercrossing or overcrossing of the roadway where the pathway
intersects the roadway.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-14 | Alta Planning + Design
A.4.1. Path Crossing at Intersection
Discussion Design Summary
The evaluation of a roadway crossing involves analysis of
vehicular traffic and path user travel patterns, including speeds,
street width, traffic volumes (average daily traffic, peak hour
traffic), line of sight, and trail user profile (age distribution and
destinations).
When engineering judgment determines that the visibility of the
intersection is limited on the shared-use path approach,
Intersection Warning signs should be used.
A path should be routed to a signalized intersection if the path
would cross a major arterial with a high ADT within 350 feet of a
signalized intersection.
Signage
Intersection Warning (W2-1 through W2-5) signs may be used on
a roadway, street, or shared-use path in advance of an
intersection to indicate the presence of an intersection and the
possibility of turning or entering traffic. A trail-sized stop sign
(R1-1) should be placed about 5 feet before the intersection.
Traffic Calming
Reducing the speed of the conflicting motor vehicle traffic should
be considered. Options may include: transverse rumble strips
approaching the trail crossing or sinusoidal speed humps.
Crosswalk Markings
Colored and/or high visibility crosswalks should be considered.
Path Speed Control
A chicane, or swerve in multi-use path approaching the crossing
is recommended to slow bicyclist speed. Path users traveling in
different directions should be separated either with physical
separation (bollard or raised median) or a centerline. If a
centerline is used, it should be striped for the last 100 feet of the
approach.
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-15
Recommended Design
Recommended “Typical” At-Grade Crossing at an Intersection Where Trail is Adjacent to a Road
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-16 | Alta Planning + Design
Design Example Recommended Design (Continued)
Typical “at grade” roadway crossing.
Source: PBIC Image Library
Photographer: Danny McCullough
Recommended “Typical” At-Grade Crossing of a Major Arterial
at an Intersection Where Trail is Within 350 Feet of a Roadway
Intersection
Guidance
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000 Section
1003.1(4))
MUTCD – California Supplement, Part 9
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and
“A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets”
FHWA-RD-87-038 Investigation of Exposure-Based Pedestrian
Accident Areas: Crosswalks, Sidewalks, Local Streets, and
Major Arterials.
Cost
Crosswalk, Transverse (parallel) Lines: $320 - $550 each
Crosswalk, Thermoplastic: $6 per square foot
Stop bar: $210 each
Stop Limit Bars / Yield Teeth: $210 - $530 each
Stop Pavement Markings: $420 each
Curb Ramps, Retrofit (diagonal, per corner): $800 – 5,340 each
Curb Ramps, Retrofit (perpendicular, per corner): $5,340 -
$10,000 each
Signs, High-Visibility: $430 each
Bollard, fixed: $220 - $800 each
Bollard, removable: $680 - $940 each
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-17
A.4.2. Uncontrolled Mid-Block Crossing
Discussion Recommended Design
The table on the following page is a summary for implementing
at-grade roadway crossings in the City of Bakersfield. The
number one (1) indicates a ladder style crosswalk with
appropriate signage is warranted. (1/1+) indicates the crossing
warrants enhanced treatments such as flashing beacons, or in-
pavement flashers. (1+/3) indicates Pedestrian Light Control
Activated (Pelican), or Hawk signals should be considered.
Source: California MUTCD, Figure 3B-15
Design Summary
Placement
Mid-block crosswalks should be installed where there is a
significant demand for crossing and no nearby existing
crosswalks.
Yield Lines
If yield lines are used for vehicles, they shall be placed 20 to 50
feet in advance of the nearest crosswalk line to indicate the point
at which the yield is intended or required to be made and ‘Yield
Here to Pedestrians’ signs shall be placed adjacent to the yield
line. Where traffic is not heavy, stop or yield signs for pedestrians
and bicyclists may suffice.
Warning Signs
The Bicycle Warning (W11-1) sign alerts the road user to
unexpected entries into the roadway by bicyclists, and other
crossing activities that might cause conflicts.
Pavement Markings
A ladder crosswalk should be used. Warning markings on the
path and roadway should be installed.
Other Treatments
See table on the following page to determine if treatments such
as raised median refuges, flashing beacons should be used.
Beacons
See Section A.4.3. of this document
Guidance Recommended Design (continued)
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)
MUTCD – California Supplement, Parts 2 and 9
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
CA MUTCD
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-18 | Alta Planning + Design
Crosswalk Decision Matrix
Roadway Type
(Number of Travel
Lanes and
Median Type)
Vehicle ADT
< 9,000
Vehicle ADT
(> 9,000 to 12,000)
Vehicle ADT
>12,000 to 15,000
Vehicle ADT
> 15,000
Speed Limit**
<30
MPH
35
MPH
40
MPH
<30
MPH
35
MPH
40
MPH
<30
MPH
35
MPH
40
MPH
<30
MPH
35
MPH
40
MPH
2 Lanes 1 1 1/1+ 1 1 1/1+ 1 1 1+/3 1 1/1+ 1+/3
3 Lanes 1 1 1/1+ 1 1/1+ 1/1+ 1/1+ 1/1+ 1+/3 1/1+ 1+/3 1+/3
Multi-Lane (4 or
more lanes ) with
raised median***
1 1 1/1+ 1 1/1+ 1+/3 1/1+ 1/1+ 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3
Multi-Lane (4 or
more lanes) without
raised median
1 1/1+ 1+/3 1/1+ 1/1+ 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3
*General Notes: Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased risk to bicyclists and pedestrians,
such as where there is poor sigh distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or other dangers,
without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossing
safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for bicyclists and pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks
are installed, it is important to consider other facility enhancements (e.g. raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing,
enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming measures, curb extensions), as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing. These
are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding which treatment to
use. For each trail-road way crossing, an engineering study is needed to determine the proper location. For each engineering
study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight
distance, vehicle mix, etc. may be needed at other sites.
**Where the speed limit exceeds 40 MPH (64.4 km/h), marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations.
***The raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 ft (1.2 m) wide and 6 ft (1.8 m long) to adequately serve as a refuge
area for pedestrians in accordance with MUTCD and AASHTO guidelines. A two-way center turn lane is not considered a median.
1 = Type 1 Crossings. Ladder-style crosswalks with appropriate signage should be used.
1/1+ = With the higher volumes and speeds, enhanced treatments should be used, including marked ladder style crosswalks,
median refuge, flashing beacons, and/or in-pavement flashers. Ensure there are sufficient gaps through signal timing, as well as
sight distance.
1+/3 = Carefully analyze signal warrants using a combination of Warrant 2 or 5 (depending on school presence) and EAU
factoring. Make sure to project usage based on future potential demand. Consider Pelican or Hawk signals in lieu of full signals.
For those intersections not meeting warrants or where engineering judgment or cost recommends against signalization,
implement Type 1 enhanced crosswalk markings with marked ladder style crosswalks, median refuge, flashing beacons, and/or
in-pavement flashers. Ensure there are sufficient gaps through signal timing, as well as sight distance.
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-19
A.4.3. Crossing Beacons
Discussion Recommended Design
Beacons enhance uncontrolled crosswalks by using devices that
call attention to pedestrians. There are two types of crossing
beacons recommended in this Plan: the pedestrian hybrid
beacon and the rectangular rapid flash beacon.
Pedestrian hybrid beacons, also known as a HAWK (High
intensity Activated crossWalK) Signal. It includes three signal
sections, two red circular indications above one yellow
circular indication (see upper photo). The signal is dark until
activated. When activated, the signal flashes yellow to
inform drivers to stop. The signal then becomes solid yellow
followed by a duel solid red. It then flashes alternating red
flashing as a pedestrian signal head flashes DON’T WALK.
HAWK signals are experimental in California. Pedestrian
hybrid beacons are FHWA approved and incorporated in the
2012 CA MUTCD.
Rectangular rapid flashing beacons are also pedestrian
actuated devices; however they are mounted adjacent to the
roadway (see lower photo). The beacon lights are
rectangular LED lights installed below a pedestrian
crosswalk sign that flash in an alternating pattern when
activated. The beacon is dark when not activated. Caltrans
has received approval from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for use of RRFBs on a blanket basis at
uncontrolled pedestrian and school crosswalk locations in
California, including State highways and all local
jurisdictions’ roadways.
HAWK Crossing
Design Summary
Traffic Control Signal Warrants
If a traffic control signal is not justified under the signal warrants
of CA MUTCD Chapter 4C and if gaps in traffic are not adequate to
permit pedestrians to cross, or if the speed for vehicles
approaching on the major street is too high to permit pedestrians
to cross, or if pedestrian delay is excessive, the need for a
pedestrian hybrid beacon should be considered on the basis of
an engineering study that considers major-street volumes,
speeds, widths, and gaps in conjunction with pedestrian volumes,
walking speeds, and delay.
Design
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons are governed under Section 4F.02 of
the CA MUTCD.
Guidance Cost
CA MUTCD Section 4F
Caltrans RRFB Approval number IA-11-83-RRBF-California
Statewide.
HAWK: $85,000-$100,000 each
RRFB: $15,000 each
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-20 | Alta Planning + Design
A.4.4. Signalized Mid-Block Crossing
Discussion Recommended Design
Warrants from the MUTCD combined with sound engineering
judgment should be considered when determining the type of
traffic control device to be installed at path-roadway
intersections. Traffic signals for path-roadway intersections are
appropriate under certain circumstances. The MUTCD lists 11
warrants for traffic signals, and although path crossings are not
addressed, bicycle traffic on the path may be functionally
classified as vehicular traffic and the warrants applied
accordingly.
Pedestrian volumes can also be used for warrants.
Experimental Treatment
A Toucan crossing (derived from: “two can cross”) is used in
higher traffic areas where pedestrians and bicyclists are crossing
together.
Design Summary
Warrants
Section 4C.05 in the CAMUTCD describes pedestrian volume
minimum requirements (referred to as warrants) for a mid-block
pedestrian-actuated signal.
Pavement Markings
Stop lines at midblock signalized locations should be placed at
least 40 feet in advance of the nearest signal indication.
Design Example Guidance
Toucan Crossing (This experimental treatment has not been
approved for use in California)
MUTCD – California Supplement, Chapters 3 and 9 and
Section 4C.05 and 4D
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,
Chapter 2
Cost
Crossing, Toucan: $90,000 each
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-21
A.5. On-Street Bicycle Facility Design
Bike Lanes
Bike lanes or Class II bicycle facilities (Caltrans designation) are defined as a portion of the roadway that has
been designated by striping, signage, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.
Bike lanes are generally found on major arterial and collector roadways and are 4 to 7 feet wide. Bike lanes can
be found in a large variety of configurations, and can even incorporate special characteristics including
coloring and placement, if beneficial.
Bike lanes enable bicyclists to ride at their preferred speed without interference from prevailing traffic
conditions and facilitate predictable behavior and movements between bicyclists and motorists. Bicyclists
may leave the bike lane to pass other bicyclists, make left turns, avoid obstacles or debris, and to avoid other
conflicts with other roadway users.
General Design Guidance:
Width: Varies depending on roadway configuration, see following pages for design examples.
Striping:
Line separating vehicle lane from bike lane (typically left sideline): 6 inches
Line separating bike lane from parking lane (if applicable): 4 inches
Dashed white stripe when:
Vehicle merging area: Varies
Delineate conflict area in intersections(optional): Length of conflict area
Signing:
Use R-81 Bike Lane Sign at:
Beginning of bike lane;
Far side of all intersection crossings;
At approaches and at far side of all arterial crossings;
At major changes in direction; and
At intervals not to exceed ½ mile.
Pavement Markings:
There are three potential variations of pavement markings for bike lanes allowed by the
California MUTCD. Most cities nationwide use the graphic representation of cyclist
with directional arrow (pictured right). This stencil should be used at:
Beginning of bike lane;
Far side of all bike path (Class I) crossings;
At approaches and at far side of all arterial crossings;
At major changes in direction;
At intervals not to exceed ½ mile; and
At beginning and end of bike lane pockets at approach to intersection.
R-81 Sign
Bike Lane Stencil
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-22 | Alta Planning + Design
A.5.1. Bike Lane with No On-Street Parking
Discussion Recommended Design
Recommended bicycle lane width is 5 feet minimum when
adjacent to curb and gutter. Wider bicycle lanes are desirable in
certain circumstances such as on higher speed arterials (45
mph+) where a wider bicycle lane can increase separation
between passing vehicles and bicyclists, which is especially
preferable on uphill grades. Appropriate signing and stenciling is
important with wide bicycle lanes to ensure motorists do not
mistake the lane for a vehicle lane or parking lane. Bicycle lanes
wider than seven feet are not recommended.
Design Summary
Bike Lane Width:
4 feet minimum when no gutter is present (rural road sections)
5 feet minimum when adjacent to curb and gutter (3’ more than
the gutter pan width if the gutter pan is greater than 2’)
Recommended Width:
6 feet where right-of-way allows and up hills
Guidance Cost
MUTCD
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)
MUTCD – California Supplement
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Class II Bike Lane: $5,000-$500,000 per mile
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-23
A.5.2. Bike Lane With On-Street Parallel Parking
Discussion Recommended Design
Bike lanes adjacent to parallel parking should be designed to be
wide enough to allow bicyclists to ride outside of the “door zone”
(i.e., five feet minimum).
Design Summary
Bike Lane Width:
5 feet minimum recommended when parking stalls are marked
7 feet maximum (wider lanes may encourage vehicle loading in
bike lane)
12 feet for a shared lane adjacent to a curb face (13 feet is
preferred where parking is substantial or turnover is high), or 11’
minimum for a shared bike/parking lane on streets without curbs
where parking is permitted.
Guidance Cost
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)
MUTCD – California Supplement
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Class II Bike Lane: $5,000-$500,000 per mile
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-24 | Alta Planning + Design
A.5.3. Buffered Bike Lanes
Discussion Recommended Design
A buffered bike lane, also called an enhanced bike lane or
protected bike lane, is a five-foot-wide bike lane that is buffered
by a striped “shy zone” between the bike lane and the moving
vehicle lane. With the shy zone, the buffered lane offers a more
comfortable riding environment for bicyclists who prefer not to
ride adjacent to traffic. This design makes movement safer for
both bicyclists and vehicles. Motorists can drive at a normal
speed and only need to watch for cyclists when turning right at
cross-streets or driveways and when crossing the buffered lane to
park. The advantages of the buffered bicycle lane design are that
it provides a more protected and comfortable space for cyclists
than a conventional bike lane and does not have the same
turning movement constraints as cycletracks that accommodate
two-way bicycle travel along one side of the roadway.
The buffer area may only be painted on the road or it may be
physically separated by devices such as bots dots or bollards.
Design Summary Guidance
A spatial buffer increases the distance between the bike lane
and the automobile travel lane or the parking zone.
Appropriate for roadways with high automobile traffic speeds
and volumes, and/or high volume of truck/oversized vehicle
traffic, and roadways with bike lanes adjacent to high
turnover on-street parking.
Buffered bike lanes are allowed as per federal MUTCD
guidelines for preferential lanes (section 3D-01) however have
not been adopted in the CA MUTCD.
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: http://nacto.org/cities-
for-cycling/design-guide/bike-lanes/buffered-bike-lanes/
Design Example Cost
Buffered bike lane in Fairfax, CA
Varies depending on existing roadway cross section;
comparable to bicycle lane costs where existing lanes can be
narrowed.
Bike lanes with 2-foot buffers on each side were installed for
3,000 linear feet in Portland for $45,000 in 2009.
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-25
A.5.4. Colored Bike Lanes
Discussion Recommended Design
Color applied to bike lanes helps alert roadway users to the
presence of bicyclists and clearly assigns right-of-way to cyclists.
Motorists are expected to yield to cyclists in these areas. Some
cities apply color selectively to highlight potential conflict zones,
while others use it to mark all non-shared bicycle facilities in high
volume traffic situations.
Color Considerations:
There are three colors commonly used in bicycle lanes: blue,
green, and red. All help the bike lane stand out in merging areas.
The City of Portland began using green lanes in 2008, as blue, the
color used previously, is a color associated with ADA related
signage on roadways. Green is the color recommended for use in
the City of Bakersfield.
Material Options:
Colored bike lanes require additional cost to install and maintain.
Techniques include:
Paint – less durable and can be slippery when wet
Colored asphalt – colored medium in asphalt during
construction – most durable.
Colored and textured sheets of acrylic epoxy coating.
Colored bike lanes are used to designate a conflict zone
Design Summary Guidance
Bike lane width: See Section A.5.
Appropriate for heavy auto traffic streets with bike lanes; at
transition points where cyclists, motorists and/or pedestrians
must weave with one another; conflict areas or intersections
with a record of crashes; and to emphasize bicycle space in
unfamiliar or unique design treatments.
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
FHWA provides blanked approval for green colored pavement
in marked bike lanes and bike lane extensions.
Caltrans has approval (IA-14.10 – Green Colored Pavement for
Bike Lanes – California Statewide).
Agencies that use this treatment must provide location to the
CTCDC.
Design Example Cost
Paint: $0.6/Sq. Ft. for raw materials,
$1.20 - $1.60/Sq. Ft. installed
Thermoplastic: $3 - $6/Sq. Ft. for raw materials,
$10 - $14/Sq. Ft. installed
Colored Pavement: When applied as a thin top layer within
new construction, pigmented asphalt costs between 30 and
50 percent more than a non-colored structural asphalt
section. For thin overlay applications, the difference in cost
will be greater.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-26 | Alta Planning + Design
A.5.5. Manholes & Drainage Grates
Discussion Recommended Design
Utility infrastructure within the roadway can present significant
hazards to bicyclists. Manholes, water valve covers, drain inlets
and other obstructions can present an abrupt change in level, or
present a situation where the bicyclist’s tire could become stuck,
potentially creating an accident. As such, every effort should be
made to locate such hazards outside of the likely travel path of
bicyclists on new roadway construction.
For existing roadways, the roadway surface can be ground down
around the manhole or drainage grate to be no more than half an
inch of vertical drop. When roadways undergo overlays, this step
is often omitted and significant elevation differences can result in
hazardous conditions for bicyclists.
Bicycle friendly drainage grates should not have longitudinal slats
that can catch a bicycle tire and potentially cause an accident.
Acceptable grate designs are presented (top right) as A:
patterned, B: transverse grate, or C: modified longitudinal with no
more than 6” between transverse supports). Type C is the least
desirable as it could still cause problems with some bicycle tires.
The drop in-inlet avoids all issues with grates in the bicyclists’ line
of travel, however, these drainage inlets are not recommended
by Caltrans for use on California Highways.
The CA MUTCD recommends providing a diagonal solid white
line for hazards or obstructions in bikeways (see right).
Bicycle Compatible Drainage Grates
Drop-in inlet flush with in the curb face (Oregon DOT)
Figure 9C-8
Design Summary
Placement:
Manholes should be placed outside of any bike lanes. Drainage
grates should be of one of the types at right.
Guidance
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)
MUTCD – California Supplement
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Cost
Striping: $2 per linear foot
Drainage grate: $500
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-27
A.6. Bike Routes
Bike routes, or Class III bicycle facilities – (Caltrans designation) are defined as facilities shared with motor
vehicles. They are typically used on roads with low speeds and traffic volumes, however can be used on higher
volume roads with wide outside lanes or with shoulders. Bike routes can be established along through routes
not served by shared use paths (Class I) or bike lanes (Class II), or to connect discontinuous segments of
bikeway. A motor vehicle driver will usually have to cross over into the adjacent travel lane to pass a bicyclist,
unless a wide outside lane or shoulder is provided.
Bicycle Routes can employ a large variety of treatments from simple signage to complex treatments including
various types of traffic calming and/or pavement stenciling. The level of treatment to be provided for a specific
location or corridor depends on several factors.
General Design Guidance:
Signing:
Use D11-1 Bicycle Route Sign at:
Beginning or end of bicycle route (with applicable M4 series sign);
Entrance to bicycle path (Class I) – optional;
At major changes in direction or at intersections with other bicycle routes
(with applicable M7 series sign); and
At intervals along bicycle routes not to exceed ½ mile.
Pavement Markings:
Shared Lane Markings may be applied to bicycle routes per Section A.6.2.
D11-1 Sign
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-28 | Alta Planning + Design
A.6.1. Bike Route
Discussion Recommended Design
Bicycle routes on local streets should have vehicle traffic volumes
under 1,000 vehicles per day. Traffic calming may be appropriate
on streets that exceed this limit.
Bicycle routes may be placed on streets with outside lane width
of less than 15 feet if vehicle speeds and volumes are low.
Design Summary
Bicycle Route signage may include City specific logos. See design
example below.
Route signage should be applied at intervals frequent enough to
keep bicyclists informed of changes in route direction and to
remind motorists of the presence of bicyclists.
Design Example
Guidance
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)
MUTCD – California Supplement
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Cost
Class III Bike Route: $1,000-$40,000 per mile (assumes no
major renovation is required)
$150,000 - $300,000 (assuming moderate to major roadway
renovation)
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-29
A.6.2. Class III Bike Route with Shared Lane Markings (SLM)
Discussion Recommended Design
A marked shared roadway is a general purpose travel lane
marked with shared lane markings (SLM) used to encourage
bicycle travel and proper positioning within the lane. In
constrained conditions, the SLMs are placed in the middle of the
lane to discourage unsafe passing by motor vehicles. On a wide
outside lane, the SLMs can be used to promote bicycle travel to
the right of motor vehicles. In all conditions, SLMs should be
placed outside of the door zone of parked cars.
Though not always possible, placing the SLM markings outside of
vehicle tire tracks will increase the life of the markings and the
long-term cost of the treatment.
Design Summary
Door Zone Width:
The width of the door zone is generally assumed to be 2.5 feet
from the edge of the parking lane.
Recommended SLM placement:
A minimum of 11 feet from edge of curb where on-street parking
is present, 4 feet from edge of curb with no parking. If parking
lane is wider than 7.5 feet, the SLM should be moved further out
accordingly.
Where there are two or more travel lanes per direction, if the
outside lane is less than 14 feet, or where there is high parking
turnover or where bicyclists may need positioning guidance, the
SLM may be placed in the middle of the outside travel lane.
Guidance
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
California MUTCD, 2012
Federal MUTCD – Section 9C.07
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
Cost
Stencils only: $250 each
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-30 | Alta Planning + Design
A.6.3. Additional Bike Route Signage
Discussion Recommended Design
‘Share the Road’ signs are intended to ‘reduce motor
vehicle/bicyclist conflict’ and are appropriate to be placed on
routes that lack paved shoulders or other bicycle facilities. They
typically work best in rural situations, or when placed near
activity centers such as schools, shopping centers and other
destinations that attract bicycle traffic.
In urban areas, many cities around the country have been
experimenting with a new type of signage that encourages
bicyclists to take the lane when the lane is too narrow. This type
of sign is becoming known as BAUFL (Bikes Allowed Use of Full
Lane). This can be quantified to lanes being less than 14 feet wide
with no parking and less than 22 feet wide with adjacent parallel
parking. The 2009 update to the MUTCD recognizes the need for
such signage and has designated the white and black sign at
right (R4-11).
The 2012 CA MUTCD states that Shared Lane Markings (which
may be used in addition to or instead of Bikes May Use Full Lane
signage) should not be placed on roadways that have a speed
limit above 35 mph. Dedicated bicycle facilities are
recommended for roadways with speed limits above 35 mph
where the need for bicycle access exists.
Share The Road Signs
CA MUTCD Sign R4-11 Design Summary
Placement:
Signs should be placed at regular intervals along routes with no
designated bicycle facilities.
Guidance
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
California MUTCD, 2012 (section 9C.07)
Caltrans’ California HDM, 2012
Cost
Sign, regulation: $150 each
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-31
A.6.4. Bicycle Boulevards
Discussion Design Example
Bicycle boulevards have been implemented in a variety of
locations including Palo Alto, San Luis Obispo, Berkeley and
Davis, California and Portland, Oregon. Bicycle boulevards, also
known as bicycle priority streets, are non-arterial streets that are
designed to allow bicyclists to travel at a consistent, comfortable
speed along low-traffic roadways and to cross arterials
conveniently and safely. Bicycle boulevards typically include
treatments that allow bicyclists to travel along the bicycle
boulevard with minimal stopping while discouraging motor
vehicle traffic. Traffic calming and traffic management
treatments such as traffic circles, chicanes, and diverters are used
to discourage motor vehicles from speeding and using the
bicycle boulevard as a cut-through. Quick-response traffic
signals, median islands, or other crossing treatments are provided
to facilitate bicycle crossings of arterial roadways.
See next page.
Design Summary
Residential streets with low traffic volumes (typically between
3000 to 5000 average daily vehicles).
Can include secondary commercial streets.
Bicycle boulevard pavement markings should be installed in
conjunction with wayfinding signs.
Can be designed to accommodate the particular needs of the
residents and businesses along the routes, and may be as
simple as pavement markings with wayfinding signs or as
complex as a street with traffic diverters and bicycle signals.
Guidance
This treatment is not currently present in any State or Federal
design standards
Berkeley Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guidelines:
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=6652
Cost
$310,500 per mi (source: San Benito Bike Plan, 2008)
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-32 | Alta Planning + Design
Design Example
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-33
A.7. Intersection and Interchange Design for Bicyclists
Adequately accommodating bicyclists at traffic intersections and interchanges can be challenging for traffic engineers
as the needs and characteristics of bicycles and motor vehicles vary greatly. This chapter contains sections on
detection of bicycles at signals, bicycle pavement markings at signals, and bicycle signals.
A.7.1. Bicycle Detection at Signalized Intersections
Discussion Recommended Design
Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06, issued August 27, 2009
by Caltrans modified CA MUTCD 4D.105 to require bicyclists to be
detected at all traffic-actuated signals on public and private roads
and driveways. If more than 50 percent of the limit line detectors
need to be replaced at a signalized intersection, then the entire
intersection should be upgraded so that every line has a limit line
detection zone. Bicycle detection must be confirmed when a
new detection system has been installed or when the detection
system has been modified.
The California Policy Directive does not state which type of
bicycle detection technology should be used. Two common
types of detection are video and in pavement loop detectors.
Push buttons may not be used as a sole method of bicycle
detection.
Source: Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06
Video Detection – Designs not available
Design Summary
Limit Lines
The Reference Bicycle Rider must be detected with 95%
accuracy within a 6 foot by 6 foot Limit Line Detection Zone.
Loop Detection
In order to minimize delay to bicyclists, it is recommended to
install one loop about 100 feet from the stop bar within the
bike lane, with a second loop located at the stop bar.
Details of saw cuts and winding patterns for inductive detector
loop types appear on the following page and Caltrans Standard
Detail ES-5B.
NOTE: In California, Caltrans “Type C” and “Type D” quadruple
loop detectors have been proven to be the most effective at
detecting bicycles at signalized intersections and are presented
on the following page.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-34 | Alta Planning + Design
Design Examples Guidance
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)
Caltrans Standard Plans (1999) ES-5B
MUTCD – California Supplement
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Caltrans Traffic Operation Policy Directive 09-06
Cost
Bicycle Loop Detector: $1,000-$2,500 each
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-35
A.7.2. Loop Detector Pavement Markings and Signage
Discussion Recommended Design
Bicycle Detector Pavement Markings guide bicyclists to position
themselves at an intersection to trigger signal actuation.
Frequently these pavement markings are accompanied by
signage that can provide additional guidance (see right).
Figure 9C-7 – CAMUTCD
Accompanying Signage (R10-22)
Design Summary
Locate Bicycle Detector Pavement Marking over center of
quadrupole loop detector if in bike lane, or where bicycle can be
detected in a shared lane by loop detector or other detection
technology.
Design Example
Guidance
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)
Caltrans Standard Plans (1999) ES-5B
MUTCD – California Supplement
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Cost
Bicycle Loop Detector, Install stencils: $100 per intersection
leg
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-36 | Alta Planning + Design
A.7.3. Bike Lane at Intersection with Right Turn Only Lane
Discussion Recommended Design
A bicyclist continuing straight through an intersection from the
right of a right turn lane would be inconsistent with normal traffic
behavior and would violate the expectations of right-turning
motorists. Specific signage, pavement markings and striping are
recommended to improve safety for bicyclists and motorists.
The appropriate treatment for right-turn only lanes is to place a
bike lane pocket between the right-turn lane and the right-most
through lane or, where right-of-way is insufficient, to drop the
bike lane entirely approaching the right-turn lane. The design
(right) illustrates a bike lane pocket, with signage indicating that
motorists should yield to bicyclists through the merge area.
Dropping the bike lane is not recommended, and should only
be done when a bike lane pocket cannot be accommodated.
Travel lane reductions may be required to achieve this design.
Some communities have experimented with colored bicycle
lanes through the weaving zone. See Portland’s Blue Bike Lanes:
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=5884
2.
Where the right turn only lane is separated with a raised island,
the island should be designed to allow adequate width to stripe
the bike lane up to the intersection.
Bike Lane Next to a Right Turn Only Lane
Bike Lane Next to a Right Turn Only Lane Separated by a
Raised Island
Design Summary
Bike Lane Placement
A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a
right turn only lane.
Bike Lane Width
Bike Lane through merge area of 5 feet is required.
Bike Lane Striping
When the right through lane is dropped to become a right turn
only lane, the bicycle lane markings should stop at least 100 feet
before the beginning of the right turn lane. Through bicycle lane
markings should resume to the left of the right turn only lane
(MUTCD).
Where motorist right turns are permitted, the solid bike lane shall
either be dropped entirely, or dashed beginning at a point
between 100 and 200 feet in advance of the intersection.
Signage
Refer to CA MUTCD
Guidance
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)
MUTCD – California Supplement Section 9C.04
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-37
A.7.4. Bicycle Boxes
Discussion Recommended Design
A bike box is generally a right angle extension to a bike lane at
the head of a signalized intersection. The bike box allows
bicyclists to get to the front of the traffic queue on a red light and
proceed first when that signal turns green. The bike box can also
act as a storage area if heavy bicycle traffic exists. On a two-lane
roadway the bike box can also facilitate left turning movements
for bicyclists. Motor vehicles must stop behind the white stop line
at the rear of the bike box.
Bike Boxes should be located at signalized intersections only, and
right turns on red should be prohibited unless a separate right
turn pocket is provided to the right of the bike box.
Bike boxes can be combined with dashed lines through the
intersection for green light situations to remind vehicles to be
aware of bicyclists traveling straight, similar to the colored bike
lane treatment in Section A.5.4. Bike Boxes have been installed
with striping only or with colored treatments to increase visibility.
Design Summary
Bike Box Dimensions
The Bike Box should be 10-14 feet deep to allow for bicycle
positioning.
Signage
Appropriate signage as recommended by the MUTCD applies.
Signage should be present to prevent ‘right turn on red’ and to
indicate where the motorist must stop.
Design Example
Guidance
This treatment is currently under experiment.
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: http://nacto.org/cities-
for-cycling/design-guide/
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-38 | Alta Planning + Design
A.7.5. Interchange Design
Discussion Recommended Design
Interchanges often provide the only bicycle access across a
highway within one or more miles, but are not always designed
to provide comfortable or safe bicycle access. The best
interchange configurations for bicyclists are those where the
ramp intersects the crossroad at a 90 degree angle and where the
intersection is controlled by a stop or signal. These characteristics
cause motorists to slow down before turning, increasing the
likelihood that they will see and yield to non-motorists. If an
impact occurs, severity is lessened by slower speeds.
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual classifies interchanges into
13 different types. As illustrated to the right, six of these types
have ramp intersection designs that meet the crossroad at 90
degrees and are STOP-controlled or signalized. These
interchanges generally incorporate diamond-type ramps or J
loop ramps.
On high traffic bicycle corridors non-standard treatments may be
desirable over current practices outlined in Figure 9C-103 in the
CA MUTCD. Dashed bicycle lane lines with or without colored
bike lanes may be applied to provide increased visibility for
bicycles in the merging area.
Interchange types that accommodate bicyclists
Source: Figure 502.2 Caltrans Highway Design Manual Design Summary
Alignment
Ramps intersection the crossroad at a 90 degree angle.
The intersection is stop- or signal-controlled.
Bike lane/shared roadway width
See Chapter 3. The minimum shoulder width through the
interchange area is four feet, or five feet if a gutter exists.
Guidance
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 500)
MUTCD – California Supplement Section 9C.04 and Figure 9C-
103
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, p. 62
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-39
A.7.6. Accommodating Bicyclists at On and Off-Ramps
Discussion Recommended Design
When crossing free-flow ramps, pedestrians and bicyclists face
challenges related to motorists not yielding, high motor vehicle
speeds, limited visibility, and the absence of bicycle or pedestrian
facilities. Bicyclists additionally face challenges related to unclear
path of travel.
Treatments for addressing pedestrian and bicyclist concerns at
on- and off-ramps range from using striping and signage to make
motorists more aware of and more likely to yield to pedestrians
and bicyclists, to reconstructing the intersection to eliminate all
free-flow turning movements and reconfiguring intersections so
that on and off ramps meet the crossroad at or near 90 degrees.
Signage and Striping Treatments for Free-Flow Ramp
Design Summary
Bike Lane Width
Bike Lane should follow guidance in Chapter 3.
Signage
Install warning signage at all uncontrolled crossings.
Striping
Stripe high-visibility crosswalks at all intersections. Stripe on- and
off-ramps so that through-moving bicyclists do not need to
weave across turning motorists, but instead can travel straight.
Where bicyclists weave across a vehicle lane, drop the bicycle
lane to encourage the bicyclist to use their judgment when
deciding when to weave. Where bicyclists travel between
moving vehicles for more than 200 feet, install a painted or raised
buffer. Install yield lines at all uncontrolled crossings.
Beacons
Install pedestrian-actuated beacons at all uncontrolled crossings.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-40 | Alta Planning + Design
Guidance
Recommended Design (continued)
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 500)
MUTCD – California Supplement Section 9C.04 and Figure 9C-
103
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, p. 62
Treatments for Dual-Lane On-Ramps
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-41
A.7.7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Design
Discussion Design Example
Overcrossings require a minimum of 17 feet of vertical clearance
to the roadway below versus a minimum elevation differential of
around 12 feet for an undercrossing. This results in potentially
greater elevation differences and much longer ramps for bicycles
and pedestrians to negotiate.
See following page for additional discussion.
See next page.
Design Summary Guidance
Width
8 feet minimum, 14 feet preferred. If overcrossing has any scenic
vistas additional width should be provided to allow for stopped
path users. A separate 5 foot pedestrian area may be provided for
facilities with high bicycle and pedestrian use.
Height
10 feet headroom on overcrossing; clearance below will vary
depending on feature being crossed.
Signage & Striping
The overcrossing should have a centerline stripe even if the rest
of the path does not have one.
ADA Compliance
Either ramp slopes to 5% (1:20) with landings at 400 foot intervals
or ramp slopes of 8.33% (1:12) with landings every 30 feet.
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapters 200 & 1000)
Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications
MUTCD – California Supplement
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
AASHTO Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-42 | Alta Planning + Design
Recommended Design
Additional Discussion – Grade Separated Overcrossing
Ramp Considerations:
Overcrossings for bicycles and pedestrians typically fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which strictly limits ramp
slopes to 5% (1:20) with landings at 400 foot intervals, or 8.33% (1:12) with landings every 30 feet.
Overcrossing Use:
Overcrossings should be considered when high volumes of bicycles and pedestrians are expected along a corridor and:
Vehicle volumes/speeds are high.
The roadway is wide.
An at-grade crossing is not feasible.
Crossing is needed over a grade-separated facility such as a freeway or rail line.
Advantages of Grade Separated Overcrossing
Improves bicycle and pedestrian safety while reducing delay for all users.
Eliminates barriers to bicyclists and pedestrians.
Disadvantages / Potential Hazards
If crossing is not convenient or does not serve a direct connection it may not be well utilized.
Overcrossings require at least 17 feet of clearance to the roadway below involving up to 400 feet or greater of approach ramps at
each end. Long ramps can sometimes be difficult for the disabled.
Potential issues with vandalism, maintenance.
High cost.
Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-43
A.7.8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing Design
Discussion Recommended Design
See following page for discussion.
Design Summary
Width
14 feet minimum to allow for access by maintenance vehicles if
necessary
Greater widths may increase security
Height
10 feet minimum
Signage & Striping
The undercrossing should have a centerline stripe even if the rest
of the path does not have one.
Lighting
Lighting should be considered during design process for any
undercrossing with high anticipated use or in culverts or tunnels.
Design Example Guidance
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-44 | Alta Planning + Design
Additional Discussion – Grade Separated Undercrossing
General Notes On Grade-Separated Crossings
Bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings and undercrossings provide critical non-motorized system links by joining areas separated by any
number of barriers. Overcrossings and undercrossings address real or perceived safety issues by providing users a formalized means
for traversing “problem areas” such as deep canyons, waterways or major transportation corridors. In most cases, these structures are
built in response to user demand for safe crossings where they previously did not exist. For instance, an overcrossing or undercrossing
may be appropriate where moderate to high pedestrian/ bicycle demand exists to cross a freeway in a specific location, or where a
flood control channel separates a neighborhood from a nearby bicyclist destination. These facilities also overcome barriers posed by
railroads, and are appropriate in areas where frequent or high-speed trains would create at-grade crossing safety issues, and in areas
where trains frequently stop and block a desired pedestrian or bicycle crossing point. They may also be an appropriate response to
railroad and other agency policies prohibiting new at-grade railroad crossings, as well as efforts to close existing at-grade crossings for
efficiency, safety, and liability reasons.
Overcrossings and undercrossings also respond to user needs where existing at-grade crossing opportunities exist but are undesirable
for any number of reasons. In some cases, high vehicle speeds and heavy traffic volumes might warrant a grade-separated crossing.
Hazardous pedestrian/bicycle crossing conditions (e.g., few or no gaps in the traffic stream, conflicts between motorists and
bicyclists/pedestrians at intersections, etc.) could also create the need for an overcrossing or undercrossing.
Undercrossing Use
Undercrossings should be considered when high volumes of bicycles and pedestrians are expected along a corridor and:
Vehicle volumes/speeds are high.
The roadway is wide.
An at-grade crossing is not feasible.
Crossing is needed under another grade-separated facility such as a freeway or rail line.
Advantages of Grade Separated Undercrossing
Improves bicycle and pedestrian safety while reducing delay for all users.
Eliminates barriers to bicyclists and pedestrians.
Undercrossings require 10’ of overhead clearance from the path surface. Undercrossings often require less ramping and elevation
change for the user versus an overcrossing, particularly for railroad crossings.
Disadvantages / Potential Hazards
If crossing is not convenient or does not serve a direct connection it may not be well utilized.
Potential issues with vandalism, maintenance.
Security may be an issue if sight lines through undercrossing and approaches are inadequate. Undercrossing width greater than
14 feet, lighting and /or skylights may be desirable for longer crossings to enhance users’ sense of security.
High cost.
Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-45
A.8. Design of Interpretive and Wayfinding Signage
A.8.1. Wayfinding Signage - General
Discussion Recommended Design
The 2000 Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan recommended
wayfinding signage and bicycle signal detection along the 37.4-
mile North-South Bike Route corridor paralleling El Camino Real.
Wayfinding signage acts as a “map on the street” for cyclists,
pedestrians, and trail users. Signage and wayfinding is an
important component for trail users. Visitors who feel
comfortable and empowered will keep coming back to an area,
and an effective wayfinding system is key to creating that
comfort level. Wayfinding also plays an important role in trail use
safety, connecting users with emergency services.
Wayfinding signs are typically placed at key locations leading to
and along bicycle facilities, including where multiple routes
intersect and at key bicyclist “decision points.” Wayfinding signs
displaying destinations, distances and “riding time” can dispel
common misperceptions about time and distance while
increasing users’ comfort and accessibility to the priority street
network. Wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists that they
are driving along a bicycle route and should correspondingly use
caution. Note that too many road signs tend to clutter the right-
of-way, and it is recommended that these signs be posted at a
level most visible to bicyclists and pedestrians, rather than per
vehicle signage standards.
Design Summary
If used, Bicycle Route Guide (D11-1) signs should be provided
at decision points along designated bicycle routes, including
signs to inform bicyclists of bicycle route direction changes.
Bicycle Route Guide signs should be repeated at regular
intervals so that bicyclists entering from side streets will have
an opportunity to know that they are on a bicycle route.
o Similar guide signing should be used for shared
roadways with intermediate signs placed for bicyclist
guidance.
o Signage should be focused along major routes near key
destinations.
o Signage should be oriented toward both commuter and
recreational cyclists.
Destination signage should be easy to read. Signage should
be installed on existing Bike Route or Bike Lane signs where
possible to avoid sign clutter.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-46 | Alta Planning + Design
Design Example Guidance
City of Berkeley, CA Wayfinding Sign
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)
MUTCD, Section 9B.20
MUTCD – California Supplement, Section 9B.19 through 21
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Cost
Sign, regulatory: $150 - $250 per sign
Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-47
A.9. Bicycle Parking
A.9.1. Bicycle Rack Design
Design Summary City StandardDesign
Bicycle racks should be a design that is intuitive and easy to
use.
A standard inverted-U style rack or pot-and-loop shall be the
standard for the City of Bakersfield.
Bicycle racks should be securely anchored to a surface or
structure.
The rack element (part of the rack that supports the bicycle)
should keep the bicycle upright by supporting the frame in
two places without the bicycle frame touching the rack. The
rack should allow one or both wheels to be secured.
Position racks so there is enough room between parked
bicycles. Racks should be situated on 36” minimum centers.
A five-foot aisle for bicycle maneuvering should be provided
and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle racks.
Empty racks should not pose a tripping hazard for visually
impaired pedestrians. Position racks out of the walkway’s
clear zone.
For sidewalks with heavy pedestrian traffic, at least seven feet
of unobstructed right-of-way is required.
Racks should be located close to a main building entrance, in
a lighted, high-visibility area protected from the elements.
Inverted-U Bicycle Rack
Manufacturers
Palmer: www.bikeparking.com
Park-a-Bike: www.parkabike.com
Dero: www.dero.com
Creative Pipe: www.creativepipe.com
Cycle Safe: www.cyclesafe.com
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-48 | Alta Planning + Design
Recommended Design (continued)
Design Example Guidance
Short-term bicycle parking showing recommended clearances
(non-local)
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP)
Bicycle Parking Guidelines (2nd edition 2010)
Cost
Bicycle racks: $150-$200 each
Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-49
A.9.2. Bicycle Locker Design
Design Summary Recommended Design
Bicycle lockers should be a design that is intuitive and easy to
use.
Bicycle lockers should be electronically accessed.
Electronic bicycle locker models from eLocker and CycleSafe
allow users to access lockers with a SmartCard (linked to a
credit card) or mobile phone, respectively.
Bicycle lockers should be securely anchored to a surface or
structure.
Bicycle lockers should be constructed to provide protection
from theft, vandalism and weather.
A five-foot aisle for bicycle maneuvering should be provided
and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle lockers.
Lockers should be located close to a main building entrance, in
a lighted, high-visibility area protected from the elements.
Long-term parking should always be protected from the
weather.
Manufacturers
Palmer: www.bikeparking.com (includes keyed lockers with
optional conversion to use a “u-lock” to lock the locker)
Park-a-Bike: www.parkabike.com
Dero: www.dero.com
Creative Pipe: http://www.creativepipe.com/
Cycle Safe: http://cyclesafe.com/
Elock Technologies / BikeLink: www.bikelink.org
Operators
BikeLink: www.bikelink.org
CycleSafe SmartTek: http://cyclesafe.com/
Guidance
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP)
Bicycle Parking Guidelines (2nd edition, 2010)
Cost
Bicycle lockers: $1,350-$2,000 each
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-50 | Alta Planning + Design
A.10. Maintenance Standards
A.10.1. Bicycle Access During Construction Activities
Discussion Recommended Design
When construction impedes a bicycle facility, the provision for
bicycle access should be developed during the construction
project planning. Long detour routing should be avoided due to
lack of compliance.
Advance warning of the detour should be placed at appropriate
locations and clear wayfinding should be implemented to enable
bicyclists to continue safe operation along travel corridor.
Bicyclists shall not be led into conflicts with mainline traffic, work
site vehicles, or equipment.
Caltrans Traffic Operation Policy Directive 11-01 states bicyclists
shall not be led into direct conflicts with mainline traffic, work site
vehicles, or equipment moving through or around the temporary
traffic control (TTC) zone.
National MUTCD
California MUTCD
Design Summary
Construction Detour Signs
Detours should be adequately marked with standard temporary
route and destination signs (M409a or M4-9c). The
Pedestrian/Bicycle Detour sign should have an arrow pointing in
the appropriate direction.
When existing accommodations for bicycle travel are disrupted
or closed in a long-term duration project and the roadway width
is inadequate for allowing motor vehicles and bicyclists to travel
side-by-side, “share the road” signage (W11-1 and W16-1) should
be used to advise motorists of the presence of bicyclists in the
travel lane.
Signs should be places such that they do not block the bicyclist’s
path of travel and they do not narrow any existing pedestrian
passages to less than 1200 mm (48 in).
Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-51
Design Example Guidance
California MUTCD – Part 6
California Highway Design Manual
Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 11-01
Cost
Sign, regulation: $150 each
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-52 | Alta Planning + Design
A.10.2. Shared Use Path Maintenance Standards
Recommended Standards Summary
Like all roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities require regular maintenance. This includes sweeping, re-striping,
maintaining a smooth roadway, ensuring that the gutter-to-pavement transition remains relatively flat, and installing
bicycle-friendly drainage grates. Shared use paths also require regular plant trimming. The following
recommendations are provided as a maintenance guideline for the City of Bakersfield to consider as it augments and
enhances its maintenance capabilities.
Maintenance Activity Frequency
Surface gap repair As needed (see additional guidance below)
Inspections Twice a year
Pavement sweeping/ blowing As needed
Pavement markings replacement 3-5 years
Signage replacement As needed when vandalized, 5-10 years as maintenance
Shoulder plant trimming (weeds, trees, brambles) Yearly
Tree and shrub plantings, trimming 1 – 3 years
Major damage response (washouts, fallen trees, flooding) As soon as possible
SURFACE GAP REPAIR
Path Surface
The surface of the pedestrian access route shall be firm, stable and slip resistant (Draft Guidelines for Public Rights of Way, Section
R301.5).
Vertical Changes in Level
Changes in level up to ¼ inch may be vertical and without edge treatment. Changes in level between ¼ inch and ½ inch shall be
beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2. Changes in level greater than ½ inch shall be accomplished by means of a ramp that
complies with ADAAG Section 4.7 or 4.8 (ADAAG Section 4.5.2).
Surface discontinuities shall not exceed ½ inch maximum. Vertical discontinuities between ¼ inch and ½ inch maximum shall be
beveled at 1:2 minimum. The bevel shall be applied across the entire level change (Draft Guidelines for Public Rights of Way, Section
R301.5.2).
Gaps and Elongated Openings
If gratings are located in walking surfaces, then they shall have spaces no greater than ½ inch wide in one direction. If gratings have
elongated openings, then they shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the dominant direction of travel
(ADAAG Section 4.5.4).
Walkway Joints and Gratings. Openings shall not permit passage of a sphere more than ½ inch in diameter. Elongated openings
shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the dominant direction of travel (Draft Guidelines for Public Rights of
Way, Section R301.7.1).
Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | A-53
Discussion Maintenance Challenges
Basic Maintenance
Path pavement should be repaired as need to avoid safety
issues and to ensure ADA compliance.
Paths should be swept regularly.
Shoulder vegetation should be cleared and trimmed regularly.
Long-Term Maintenance
Paths should be slurry sealed, at minimum, 10 years after
construction.
Paths should receive an overlay, at minimum, 15 years after
construction.
Agencies or districts with dedicated funding for maintenance
generally provide more maintenance activities.
Most agencies pay for sidewalk and path maintenance out of
their maintenance and operations budget. This funding is
generally enough to provide seasonal maintenance, but is not
enough to fund long-term preventative maintenance, such as
overlays.
Grant funding is not generally available for maintenance
activities.
Guidance
ADAAG
Draft Guidelines for Public Rights of Way (2005)
Cost
$1,000-14,000 per mile per year
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-54 | Alta Planning + Design
A.10.3. On-Street Facility Maintenance Standards
Recommended Standards Summary
Maintenance Activity Frequency
Inspections Seasonal – at beginning and end of Summer
Pavement sweeping/blowing As needed, weekly in Fall
Pavement sealing, potholes 5 - 15 years
Culvert and drainage grate inspection Before Winter and after major storms
Pavement markings replacement (including crosswalks) 1 – 3 years
Signage replacement 1 – 3 years
Shoulder plant trimming (weeds, trees, brambles) Twice a year; middle of growing season and early Fall
Tree and shrub plantings, trimming 1 – 3 years
Major damage response (washouts, fallen trees, flooding) As soon as possible
NOTE: Caltrans recommends tolerance of surface discontinuities no more than ½ inch wide when parallel to the direction of travel on
bike lanes (Class II) and bike routes (Class III).
Discussion
Basic Maintenance
Bicyclists often avoid shoulders and bike lanes filled with sanding
materials, gravel, broken glass and other debris; they will ride in
the roadway to avoid these hazards, causing conflicts with
motorists. A regularly scheduled inspection and maintenance
program helps ensure that roadway debris is regularly picked up
or swept. Roadways should also be swept after automobile
collisions.
Long-Term Maintenance
Roadway surface is a critical issue for bicyclists’ quality. Bicycles
are much more sensitive to subtle changes in roadway surface
than are motor vehicles. Examine pavement quality and
transitions during every roadway project for new construction,
maintenance activities, and construction project activities that
occur in streets.
Cost
$1,000-$2,000 per mile per year
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-1
Appendix B. Relevant Plans and Policies
This appendix reviews existing plans and policies that are relevant to the City of Bakersfield Bicycle
Transportation Plan (BTP). Plans and policies are organized by City of Bakersfield, regional, and state
documents. Upon production of the Bicycle Master Plan, plans and policies discussed in this section will be
referenced for consistency and compliance. The following table of contents lists the documents included in
this chapter.
B.1 City of Bakersfield ............................................................................................................................................................... B-2
B.1.1 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (2002) ..................................................................................................... B-2
B.1.2 Municipal Code Ordinances ...................................................................................................................................... B-5
B.1.3 Division Five Streets: Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual .............................................................. B-6
B.1.4 Northeast Bakersfield Specific Parks and Trails Plan (2003) ........................................................................... B-7
B.1.5 Rosedale Ranch Parks and Trails Plan (2008) ..................................................................................................... B-11
B.1.6 West Ming Specific Plan (2007) .............................................................................................................................. B-11
B.1.7 McAllister Ranch Specific Plan (1993) .................................................................................................................. B-15
B.1.8 RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan (2002) ................................................................................................................ B-17
B.2 Regional (Kern County) ................................................................................................................................................... B-19
B.2.1 Kern County Bicycle Master Plan and Complete Streets Recommendations (2012) ..............................B-20
B.2.2 Destination 2030 – Regional Transportation Plan (2004) .............................................................................B-20
B.2.3 Kern River Parkway Master Plan (1988) ............................................................................................................. B-22
B.2.4 Kern River Specific Trails Plan (2003) ................................................................................................................. B-22
B.3 State of California................................................................................................................................................................ B-25
B.3.1 Bicycle Transportation Act ....................................................................................................................................... B-25
B.3.2 California Government Code §65302 (Complete Streets) .............................................................................. B-26
B.3.3 Deputy Directive 64 ................................................................................................................................................... B-26
B.3.4 Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06 ........................................................................................................... B-26
B.3.5 California SB 375 – Sustainable Communities (2008) ..................................................................................... B-26
B.3.6 California Green Building Standards Code (2010) ............................................................................................ B-27
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
B-2| Alta Planning + Design
B.1 City of Bakersfield
B.1.1 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (2002)
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan gives long-term guidance on planning for the future of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area, which includes the unincorporated county as well as areas within the
city boundary. The area covered by the Plan coincides with the Bakersfield Metropolitan Priority Area of the
Kern County General Plan. The Land Use, Circulation, and Kern River Elements are relevant to this Bicycle
Transportation Plan, and are discussed below.
The City is in the process of updating its comprehensive General Plan. The update began in 2007 and has
included an extensive public outreach process, including town hall meetings and surveys.
B.1.1.1 Circulation Element
The Circulation Element guides the movement of people and goods within Metropolitan Bakersfield. One of
the overarching goals identified is to “provide for safe and efficient motorized, non-motorized, and pedestrian
traffic movement.” Included in the Element is a Bicycle Master Plan, shown in Figure B-1. The plan was
updated in 2006 to reflect minor changes to the Plan map.
The Circulation Element states that bicycling makes up less than 2 percent of total miles traveled in
Bakersfield, but that approximately one-third of residents bicycle in one form or another. Encouragement to
use bicycles is identified as an issue since this necessitates the provision of bike lanes and bike paths.
Table B-1 identifies goals, policies, and implementation programs related to bicycling in Chapter III -
Circulation Element - Bikeways. At the end of each policy the code referring to the pertinent implementing
program is listed in parenthesis, beginning with the letter "I" and followed by a number.
Table B-1: Circulation Element Bicycle-Related Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs
No. Language
Goals
1 Encouragement to use bicycles necessitates the provision of bike lanes and bike paths
2 Provide a circulation system that minimizes cyclist/motorist conflicts
3 Provide a continuous easily-accessible bikeway system within the metro area
4 Provide mechanisms to ensure the prompt implementation of the bikeway system
Policies
1 Require bicycle facilities to be designed in accordance with the State Bikeway Design Criteria (I-1)
2 Periodically review, and update if needed, street standards to accommodate bicycle lanes where indicated
on the Bikeway Master Plan (I-2)
3 Design bridges, over passes, under passes, etc. to be compatible with bicycle travel (I-3)
4 Maintain bicycle facilities so they do not become hazardous (I-4)
5 Consider bicycle safety when implementing improvements for automobile traffic operations (I-3)
6 Coordinate the Metro Bakersfield Bikeway Master Plan with the regional bicycle system (I-5)
7 Provide bicycle parking facilities at activity centers such as shopping centers, employment sites, and public
buildings (I-6)
8 Provide an information/education program to encourage use of the system and to promote safe riding (I-7)
9 Require new subdivisions to provide bike lanes on collector and arterial streets in accordance with the
Bikeway Master Plan (I-2)
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-3
No. Language
10 Encourage new subdivisions to provide internal bike paths where feasible and where natural features make
bike paths desirable (I-2)
11 Construct bike lanes in conjunction with all street improvement projects that coincide with the Bikeway
Master Plan (I-3, I-10)
12 Where feasible, stripe and sign existing streets to include bike lanes as shown on the Bikeway Master Plan (I-
8)
13 Give priority to bikeway construction that will link existing sections of the system (I-9)
Implementation
1 Update, as needed, the public works design specification sheets to conform with State Bikeway Design
Criteria
2 Revise city and county subdivision ordinances as necessary to incorporate bicycle lane requirements
3 Review all street design plans, including those of Caltrans and the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade
District, for compatibility with bicycle travel
4 Include bicycle lanes and public paths on public property in the street maintenance program. Require
publicly used bike paths on private property be maintained by a special maintenance district or other entity
5 Maintain consistency between the policies of the Regional Bicycle Plan and the Metro Bakersfield Bikeway
Master Plan
6 Revise city and county zoning ordinances to address bicycle parking facilities as needed
7 Produce and distribute to the public a descriptive pamphlet of the existing bikeway system. Ensure that safe
riding techniques are taught in the elementary schools.
8 Continue inclusion of bike lane striping in the city's and county's annual Capital Improvement Program
9 Prioritize bikeway linkages when including bikeway projects in the Capital Improvement Program
10 Seek alternative methods of funding for the bikeways system
B.1.1.2 Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan establishes policies that govern
development within the City of Bakersfield. Two basic principles govern this element: the focusing of new
development into distinctive centers which are separated by low land use densities and the siting of
development to take advantage of the environmental setting. The concept of “centers” is meant to allow
people to live and work in the same area, which provides environments where travel by bicycle is feasible. The
Land Use Element also states that where feasible, open space linkages should be provided to the Kern River
and foothill areas, highlighting the opportunity for bikeway connections.
There is one policy related to bicycling in the Land Use Element. Policy 61 states that the City shall “provide
signage which is adequately spaced and clearly visible during the day and night to control vehicular traffic,
bicycles, and pedestrians.”
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan B-4| Alta Planning + Design
Figure B-1: Bikeway Master Plan
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-5
B.1.2 Municipal Code Ordinances
The Bakersfield Municipal Code includes policies that guide planning and development within the City.
Several sections of the Code include ordinances that govern the use of bicycles. Bicycle-related policies that
are relevant to the Bicycle Master Plan are summarized in Table B-2.
Table B-2: Relevant Bicycle-Related Municipal Code Ordinances
Ordinance Summarized Text
10.52.020 Bicycle lanes A. Upon showing of necessity by a survey conducted by the traffic authority and/or
the city engineering department, bicycle lanes may be established on any city street
where the need exists and no hazard would be created, except on those highways
exempted by state law.
B. Each bicycle lane is to be separated from other lanes of traffic by appropriate signs,
painted markings, and when practical, curbs, barriers or marker buttons.
C. On any street where a bicycle lane has been established, bicycles shall be
restricted to that bicycle lane and shall be required to follow any direction or
pavement markings pertaining to the bicycle lane.
D. Bicycles shall have the right-of-way over all other vehicles when properly within
the bicycle lane.
10.72.090 Requirements for
bicycle racks on sidewalks
Whenever the traffic authority designates limited area upon any sidewalk within a
parking mall or in any business district within the city, as a bicycle rack location, it is
lawful to place and maintain a bicycle rack at such location for the purpose of
parking and securing of bicycles by the public; provided, that such placement and
maintenance meets all of the following requirements:
A. Such bicycle racks, which shall not exceed forty inches in width, shall be provided
without cost or expense to the city.
B. Such bicycle racks shall be placed in a secure manner by the city in places deemed
by the traffic authority to be the safest and most convenient locations for bicycle
parking, for pedestrians on the sidewalk, and for automobile parking.
C. The design and color of the racks shall be subject to the approval of the traffic
authority.
D. There shall not be placed more than two bicycle racks per block on each side of
the street.
E. The person, firm, business or corporation originally providing the racks shall
remain the owner thereof and responsible for maintaining them in good condition
and repair.
F. The traffic authority shall have the right to remove such racks and deliver them to
the owner whenever they are not being maintained in proper condition and repair.
G. The traffic authority shall have the right to remove such racks whenever it is
determined that the use of such racks is not sufficient to warrant the retention of
such racks.
10.52.010 Restrictions on use Except as to areas which are specifically designated and posted to permit such uses,
it is unlawful for any person upon a bicycle, skates (inline or otherwise), skateboard or
by means of any coaster, toy vehicle or similar device to go upon any sidewalk in the
central traffic district and/or Old Town Kern, as those terms are defined in Section
10.08.020, or upon the steps, landings, entranceways or halls of city hall or any other
city-owned building.
17.52.020 Uses permitted B. Uses for land classified as being within a PUD zone are as follows:
15. Hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails
10.68.060 Prohibited acts It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for any person:
F. To deface, injure, tamper with, open, or willfully break, destroy or impair the
usefulness of any parking meter installed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter,
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
B-6| Alta Planning + Design
Ordinance Summarized Text
or to hitch any animal thereto, or to lean any bicycle against any meter
12.56.050 Prohibited acts in
parks
Within the limits of any park, it is unlawful for any person, other than a duly
authorized city employee in the performance of his or her duty, to do any of the
following:
F. Operate, drive, ride or propel any motor vehicle, bicycle, unicycle, horse, cattle, or
any other animal, or to bring or keep any animal other than a domestic animal
17.08.140 Design standards
for large retail developments
D. Parking Lot Design
3. Areas for bicycle parking shall be provided throughout the center and shall not
interfere with pedestrian walkways.
17.60.070 Specialized signs A. Off-site residential subdivision/project directional kiosk sign program. The
following is intended to provide for the administration of a uniform, coordinated sign
program of kiosks that offer developers of new residential subdivisions means of
providing direction to their projects. The kiosk signs will minimize confusion among
prospective purchasers of new homes to find those developments, promote traffic
safety by removing competing signs from busy streets, and reduce visual blight of
incompatible sign types in residential neighborhoods. No such off-site directional
sign other than those in conformance with this chapter shall be erected or
maintained within the city.
1. Requirements for directional kiosks.
j. Kiosks shall not obstruct the use of sidewalks, walkways, bicycle or hiking trails, and
shall not obstruct the free and clear vision of motor vehicle operators, cyclists,
pedestrians, or visibility of traffic control signs and lights as determined by the public
works director or appointed designee.
B.1.3 Division Five Streets: Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual
B.1.3.1 Revised Sections Proposed for the New Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual
The City of Bakersfield is in the process of updating its Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual. The draft
“Traffic” section has been completed. It should be noted that this is information is part of a draft and is
therefore subject to change.
The Manual only references bicycling in diagrams and cross-sections showing lane width standards for
roadways with bikeways. Bikeways displayed in the cross-sections are 5 feet wide. Diagrams displaying bike
lanes at intersections show the bike lane dropping at the start of the right-turn lane and picking up as a
through bike pocket (lane) adjacent to the right-turn lane.
A memorandum to the Community Services Committee dated November 30, 2011 provided by City staff notes
that the Committee recommended the following policies:
New arterials (with planned bike lanes) – 6’ wide bike lanes
Existing arterials – retain 5’ wide bike lanes, but allow 6’ lane if outside (3rd) travel lane is not to be
striped in the near future
Use 6’ wide bike lanes whenever possible if safe for drivers and bicyclists
Explore using more collectors for bike lanes if lane striping and parking requirements allow and if the
volume of vehicular traffic is not too great to permit safe bicycle travel
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-7
The Manual states that Level of Service "C" will be the Peak Hour design objective for all vehicle movements,
and under no circumstances will less than Level of Service "D" be accepted for site and non-site traffic
including existing traffic at build out of the study area.
B.1.4 Northeast Bakersfield Specific Parks and Trails Plan (2003)
The Northeast Bakersfield Specific Parks and Trails Plan provides a comprehensive network of parks and
trails in northeast Bakersfield that connect with neighborhoods and other key destinations. The
recommended parks and trails network from the Plan is shown in Figure B-2.
Relevant implementation policies identified in the Trails Plan are shown in Table B-3. Trail Design Standards
are displayed in Table B-4.
Table B-3: Implementation Policies
Policies
Within the 1996 Specific Trails Plan Area
Within the planning area, provide combination local park/staging areas adjacent to open space, trails and the Kern
River where possible to provide local park facilities and enable the public direct non-motorized access to natural
amenities.
Parks within the planning area adjacent to the NBOSA and Kern River may, at the City’s discretion, include non-
manicured and/or natural open space areas if the unimproved land helps implement general or specific plan policies,
such as providing trail connections or connections to the Kern River.
Park development fees collected pursuant to BMC Chapter 15.82 may be used for park, trail and staging area
improvements.
Gated subdivisions within the planning area shall be designed to provide public access to parks and trails and allow
trail linkages through subdivisions where needed.
Trails and staging areas within the 1996 Specific Trails Plan shall be provided in accordance with that Specific Trails
Plan.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
B-8| Alta Planning + Design
Policies
Outside of the 1996 Specific Trails Plan Area
Provide staging areas up to 2 acres in size as determined by the City to provide points of access to the trail system.
Provide trails through open space areas and development as shown on the plan to link neighborhoods, park sites,
open space, public lands, points of interest and recreational amenities for the enjoyment of the public.
Where possible, trails are to be located in open space areas or around the perimeter of development adjacent to the
open space as opposed to going through subdivisions and other improved projects.
Trails may be placed within development to provide connections to open space areas, parks, other trails or amenities
as deemed appropriate by the City.
Where possible, road crossings for trails should be at controlled intersections. Signalized intersections serving the
trail system shall include high mount equestrian push buttons on traffic signal poles…Culverts beneath roadways
may be considered for trail connectivity where physically and economically feasible.
Project design shall accommodate trail and open space connections where appropriate, such as open ended cul-de-
sacs or easements between lots to allow access to open space and trails.
The unpaved multi-use trails required in this plan shall be for the use of pedestrians, hikers, equestrians, and
mountain bikers.
Bike routes, trails, and paths shall be provided pursuant to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Bikeway Master
Plan.
Table B-4: Trails Design Standards
Standards
Trails within the Specific Trails Plan area adopted March 6, 1996 shall comply with the standards described in that
plan. Trails within the remainder of the plan area shall be unpaved multi-use trails. These trails shall utilize existing
disturbed trail alignments where possible. Trail dedications shall be minimum 20 feet in width in open space areas
and 28 feet in width (combined trail, sidewalk and landscaping) through developed areas, additional slope
easements may be required in steep areas. Actual tread width shall be six feet wide or the area of disturbance
established through historic use.
Through developed areas, trails shall be provided within required landscaped areas (Figure B-3 and Figure B-4). To
avoid conflicts with driveway access points, trails shall not be placed in front of single family residential property.
Trails may be located in landscaped areas adjacent to the rear of double frontage lots and along the side yard lots
within a subdivision, subject to approval by the City.
Trails through open areas (Figure B-3) are to remain in their natural state. Trails within developed areas (Figure B-4
and Figure B-5) shall utilize decomposed granite surfacing to reduce dust.
When no existing disturbed trail exists in open space areas, developers may be required to establish a 6’ tread width
within the trail easement.
The Specific Parks and Trails Plan also identifies measures for acquisition and improvements, as well as
maintenance and operations. Though not directly relevant to this Bicycle Transportation Plan, these measures
should be referred to in the plan implementation process.
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-9
Figure B-2: Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield (Map 2)
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
B-10| Alta Planning + Design
Figure B-3: Unpaved Multi-Use Trail through Open Space or Around Perimeter of Development
Figure B-4: Unpaved Multi-Use Trails Within Improved Areas
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-11
Figure B-5: Plan View unpaved Multi-Use Trail Within Improved Areas
B.1.5 Rosedale Ranch Parks and Trails Plan (2008)
Rosedale Ranch is a master planned community (currently undeveloped) in northwest Bakersfield. Within
the specific plan is a consolidated trails plan for the project to connect residential neighborhoods with parks,
schools, lakes, private recreation, and shopping. Trail segments and bicycle facilities proposed in the specific
plan are displayed in Figure B-6.
B.1.6 West Ming Specific Plan (2007)
The West Ming Specific Plan is for a 2,182 acre master-planned community (currently undeveloped) in the
southwestern portion of Bakersfield. The project includes 56 acres of public parks; trails are listed as a park
amenity. The circulation system includes a trail system, shown in Figure B-7, which will provide access to the
various elements of the community, including the Town Center, parks, and local schools. All project trails
shown in the West Ming Specific Plan will be ten feet wide and constructed of concrete or asphalt. Two trail
grade separated crossings will be constructed at White Lane and Allen Road. Additionally, a connection to
the Kern River Parkway Bicycle Trail will be provided.
Implementation measures are identified for each section of the plan. Those related to bicycling are displayed in
Table B-5.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan B-12| Alta Planning + Design
Figure B-6: Rosedale Ranch Parks and Trails Plan Map
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-13
Table B-5: Bicycle-Related Implementation Measures
Number Implementation Measure
Air Quality
C-1 Bicycle racks/facilities will be provided at recreation areas, commercial areas and employment
centers to encourage bicycle usage.
Trail System
C-6 The developer shall construct all trails. Trails located within rights-of-way will be constructed at the
time associated street improvements are made.
C-7 Street improvements plans shall be reviewed by the City to ensure that trails are designed to
provide connectivity with existing and future trail segments.
C-8 The major trail segment through the open space element will be constructed in conjunction with
improvements to the surrounding area.
C-9 The connection to the City of Bakersfield Kern River Bicycle Trail will be constructed by the
developer in conjunction with improvements to the surrounding area. The trail connection will be
constructed to a width of approximately twelve feet and in accordance with standards as
approved by the City of Bakersfield.
C-10 On-street trails will be maintained by the City or private entity as determined by the classification
of the street as private or public. Trails located within open space or parks will be maintained by
the same maintenance entity that is responsible for maintenance of that park or open space area
and will be determined at subdivision approval.
The Plan notes that the number of cul-de-sacs incorporated into the circulation system will be kept to a
minimum to encourage pedestrian and bicycle usage. It also states that schools are often sited adjacent to
trails to encourage children to bike and walk to school.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan B-14| Alta Planning + Design
Figure B-7: West Ming Specific Plan Trails Plan
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-15
B.1.7 McAllister Ranch Specific Plan (1993)
The McAllister Ranch Specific Plan (currently undeveloped) area encompasses approximately 2,070 acres of
which approximately 290 acres are designated for recreationally designated land. Areas zoned as
neighborhood commercial are located for convenient access and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle access.
The Circulation Element (Chapter 3) of the Plan features multi-purpose hard surface pedestrian/bicycle paths
on major and secondary roads throughout the project area. The paths are meant to link residential
neighborhoods with commercial, residential and/or recreational areas, as well as the Kern River Parkway trail
system. Bikeways identified in the Specific Plan correspond with those shown in the Bikeway Master Plan, as
well as in landscaped parkways along McAllister Drive, Canfield Parkway, Stetson Drive and Marino
Parkway, and along portions of the lake development and linear parkways. Proposed bikeways are shown on
the Circulation Plan in Figure B-8.
The plan also includes policies relevant to bicycling:
3. The Circulation Plan should provide trails for pedestrians, bicycles and horses, and whenever practical,
separate them from roads.
4. …Bicycle racks near freeway corridors, rail facilities, and in commercial areas near bus stops will be
required…
There is also an implementation measure in the Plan that states, “The developer or Architectural Review
Committee shall require applicant, as a condition of tract map approval or other applicable discretionary
action, such as golf course, Precise Development Plan, CUP, etc., to include such items as bicycle racks, bus
shelters, bus turnouts, and feeder trails to facilitate alternate modes of travel.”
The Rosedale Rio Bravo and Buena Vista water storage districts purchased the ranch from bankruptcy in
2008, and the potential for residential development, trail development or other bicycle access is not known at
this time.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan B-16| Alta Planning + Design
Figure B-8: McAllister Ranch Specific Plan Circulation Element
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-17
B.1.8 RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan (2002)
The RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan was originally adopted in 1990 and last updated in 2002 and is mostly
developed. The Plan area is 1,900 acres in the northwest portion of Bakersfield, approximately 3.5 miles west
of State Route 99. One of the Plan objectives is to assure sufficient land and population to support bicycle
paths.
The Specific Plan states that the project will be an integrally planned community composed of a series of
distinctive and varied residential neighborhoods that are interconnected by an extensive open space system as
well as by pedestrian and bicycle paths. There will be extensive landscaped corridors along major arterials and
collectors with pedestrian and bicycle paths linking the planned community with other parts of the city.
Many of the planned facilities have been built.
Bikeways will be located primarily along routes shown on the Open Space Plan (Figure B-9), within Arterial
and Collector street sections, and conforming to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Bikeway Master Plan. Bikeways
shall also be located in landscaped parkways along Coffee Road, and along portions of the south lake
development. Pavement width for right-of-way widths for arterials and collectors incorporating bike lanes
shall conform to the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Table B-6 displays goals and objectives identified in the plan that relate to bicycling.
Table B-6: Bicycle-Related Goals and Objectives
Number Goals and Objectives
4.1 - Circulation Objectives
2 Provide also for secondary recreational opportunities by incorporating pedestrian and bicycle
pathway circulation along open space elements
4.2 - Circulation Goals
8
Locate pedestrian and bicycle paths within street right-of-way widths as well as where feasible along
portions of the lake development. These paths shall provide for transportation linkages as well as for
recreational opportunities
6.2 – Conservation / Open Space Concept
5
…Recreational amenities of the lakes and beach club may include fishing, non-motorized passive
boating, with the exception that electric powered boating will be allowed, swimming, a limited
pedestrian and bicycle pathway, picnicking and sand volleyball.
6 …The pedestrian and bicycle path along the Friant-Kern Canal will be deleted from the plan.
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
B-18| Alta Planning + Design
Figure B-9: River Lakes Specific Plan Open Space Plan
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-19
B.1.9 Old River Ranch Specific Plan (2005)
The Old River Ranch Specific Plan was adopted in 2005. The Plan area is in southwest Bakersfield between
Panama Lane and Taft Highway bound on the west by Allen Road and Old River Road on the east. The
Specific Plan envisions the project to be home for over 21,000 residents and will offer a variety of recreation
activities. The project will include a network of parks interconnected with a system of trails. Trails will
connect to the Bakersfield Sports Village Soccer Complex and the Kern River paths.
Figure B-10 illustrates the bikeway facilities identified in the plan.
Figure B-10: Old River Ranch Park and Trail Plan Exhibit
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
B-20| Alta Planning + Design
B.2 Regional (Kern County)
B.2.1 Kern County Bicycle Master Plan and Complete Streets Recommendations
(2012)
The Kern County Council of Governments (Kern COG) developed a Kern County Bicycle Master Plan (BMP)
and Complete Streets Recommendations. The BMP includes proposed bicycle facilities, locations for end-of-
trip facilities, and programmatic improvements to encourage bicycling throughout Kern County. The
Complete Streets Recommendations provide guidance to communities in Kern County of how to effectively
provide facilities for all road users and thus making their streets more multi-modal.
Figure B-11 displays proposed bikeways in unincorporated Kern County that are adjacent to City of
Bakersfield city limits..
B.2.2 Destination 2030 – Regional Transportation Plan (2004)
Destination 2030 is Kern County’s Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program.
The Plan identifies the extension of the Lake Ming bike path as a proposed facility and notes that the Kern
Council of Governments (COG) will assist in seeking the necessary funding to implement the bike path’s
routing through the county. Destination 2030 also notes that Kern COG will promote the purchase and
construction of bicycle racks and lockers for Kern County multimodal stations, as well as the inclusion of bike
tie-downs and racks on commuter trains and buses.
Near-Term (2004-2009) bicycle-related policies include:
Encourage COG member jurisdictions to implement their adopted local bicycle plans and to
incorporate bicycle facilities into local transportation projects
Continue to seek funding for bicycle projects from local, state and federal sources
Continue to seek funding to help maintain existing bikeways
Long Term (2010-2030) bicycle-related policies include:
Periodically update the bicycle plan
Continue to seek funding for bicycle projects from local, state and federal sources
Continue to seek funding to help maintain existing bikeways
The Kern COG Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) functions as the implementation
document for the County’s Long-Range Transportation Plan. The FTIP identifies the popularity and growth
of bicycling in Kern County and supports the development of mixed-use zoning to support and expand
bicycling. The FTIP identifies key funding sources that will help build the bikeway network in Kern County,
including:
Transportation Enhancements Program (TE)
Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-21
Figure B-11: Kern County Bicycle Master Plan (Draft) – Proposed Bakersfield-Arvin Bicycle Facilities
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
B-22| Alta Planning + Design
B.2.3 Kern River Parkway Master Plan (1988)
The Kern River Parkway Master Plan consists of a map that describes proposed development along the river
between Stockdale Highway and Manor Street. The map is shown in Figure B-12. The Plan includes a
proposed bike path along the south side of the river to connect with the existing bike path. The map also
shows a future bike path bridge east of Pierce Road (renamed Buck Owens Boulevard) and a trailhead at
Manor Street.
B.2.4 Kern River Specific Trails Plan (2003)
The Kern River Specific Trails Plan (KRSTP) was adopted in 2003 with the objective to create a
“comprehensive plan to guide the planning and development of multi-use trails along the Kern River corridor.”
The vision of this document is to develop a system of trails that connect residents to open space, parks and
other recreational facilities adjacent to the Kern River.
The KRSTP identifies various types of trails and facilities within its plan, and calls for the following bicycle
facilities to develop a complete multi-modal network in relation to the river:
Bicycle, Equestrian and Pedestrian Multi-Use Trails
Bicycle and Pedestrian (only) Multi-Use Trails
Class I Bike Paths
Class II Bike Lanes
Class III Signed, Shared Roadways
The first goal of the KRSTP states that the Plan hopes to “create a comprehensive multi-use trail plan.”
Recognizing bicyclists as a major user of multi-use trails for both transportation and recreation, the KRSTP
plays an important part of developing bicycle infrastructure and completing the County bikeway network
along the Kern River.
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-23
Figure B-12: Kern River Parkway Master Plan (Western Segment)
(western segment)
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan B-24| Alta Planning + Design
Figure B-13: Kern River Parkway Master Plan (Eastern Segment
(eastern segment)
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-25
B.3 State of California
B.3.1 Bicycle Transportation Act
The California Bicycle Transportation Account (1994) is perhaps one of the most important pieces of bicycle-
related legislation and requires all cities and counties to have an adopted bicycle master plan in order to be
eligible to apply for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding. Table B-7 identifies the requirements for
BTA funding.
Table B-7: BTA Requirements
Letter Requirement
a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in
the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the plan.
b)
A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include,
but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers.
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways.
d)
A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall
include, but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
e)
A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for
connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but not be limited to,
parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots,
and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
f)
A map and description of existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and
equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near
bicycle parking facilities.
g)
A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included within the
plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in
the area to enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle operation, and the resulting
effect on accidents involving bicyclists.
h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan,
including, but not limited to, letters of support.
i)
A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with
other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not
limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting.
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation.
k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that
improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
B-26| Alta Planning + Design
B.3.2 California Government Code §65302 (Complete Streets)
California Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, also known as the Complete Streets Bill, amended the California
Government Code §65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or county’s Circulation Element include
provisions for the accommodation of all roadway users including bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodations
include bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb extensions. The Government Code §65302 reads:
(2) (A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revisions of the circulation element, the
legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal
transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and
convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general
plan.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, ‘users of streets, roads, and highways’ means bicyclists, children,
persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public
transportation, and seniors.
B.3.3 Deputy Directive 64
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adopted two policies in recent years that are relevant
to bicycle planning initiatives. Similar to AB 1358, Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64-R1) requires that Caltrans
address the “safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, regardless of
funding.”
B.3.4 Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06
Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06 includes more specific applications such as the requirement that
new and modified signal detectors provide passive bicyclist detection if they are to remain in operation. The
directive also states that new and modified bicycle path approaches to signalized intersections provide
bicyclist detection or a bicyclist pushbutton.
B.3.5 California SB 375 – Sustainable Communities (2008)
Senate Bill (SB) 375 is intended to compliment Assembly Bill (AB) 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 and encourage local governments to reduce emissions through improved planning. Under SB 375, the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to establish targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region
covered by one of the State’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Each of California’s MPOs will
then prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that demonstrates how the region will meet its
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning.
One way to help meet the emissions targets is to increase the bicycle mode share by substituting bicycle or
walking trips for automobile trips. Bakersfield’s efforts to encourage bicycle transportation will contribute to
the regional attainment of these targets.
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alta Planning + Design | B-27
B.3.6 California Green Building Standards Code (2010)
Officially known as the CALGreen Code, this standard includes bicycle parking requirements for new
developments which may be mandatory depending on the type of occupancy (Table B-8).
Table B-8: California Green Code Bicycle Parking Requirements
Category Description
Bicycle Parking and
Changing Rooms
Comply with sections 5.106.4.1 and 5.106.4.2; or meet local ordinance or the University
of California Policy on Sustainable Practices, whichever is stricter.
Short-Term Bicycle Parking If the project is expected to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored
bicycle racks within 100 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5
percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two-bike
capacity rack.
Long-Term Bicycle Parking For buildings with over 10 tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5
percent of motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space.
Acceptable parking facilities shall be convenient from the street and may include:
Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles
Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks
Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers
B-28| Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance
Alta Planning + Design | C-1
Appendix C.
Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance
Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account is a significant source of funding for bicycle facilities. To be eligible
for BTA funding, applicants must have an adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan that is approved by Caltrans.
Table C-1 demonstrates how this Bicycle Master Plan complies with BTA requirements and is provided for the
convenience of Caltrans reviewers.
Table C-1: BTA Compliance Table
BTA 891.2 Required Plan Elements Compliant
Elements in Plan
Page
(a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters
in the plan area and the estimated increase in the
number of bicycle commuters resulting from
implementation of the plan.
Existing Bicycle Commuters 3.5 Estimated Commuter
and Utilitarian Bicyclists
3-10
Future Bicycle Commuters 6.2 Future Usage and
Benefits
6-1
(b) A map and description of existing and proposed land
use and settlement patterns which shall include, but
not be limited to, locations of residential
neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers.
Map and description of existing and proposed land
use.
Figure 2-1: Metropolitan
Bakersfield Land Use Map
2-1
(c) A map and description of existing and proposed
bikeways.
Map and description of existing and proposed
bikeways
4. Bikeway Network
Recommendations
4-1
(d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-
of-trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include,
but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping
centers, public buildings, and major employment
centers.
Map and description of existing and proposed end of
trip bicycle parking facilities.
4.5 Bicycle Parking
Recommendations
4-20
City of Bakersfield | Transportation Plan
C-2 | Alta Planning + Design
BTA 891.2 Required Plan Elements Compliant
Elements in Plan
Page
(e) A map and description of existing and proposed
bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections
with and use of other transportation modes. These
shall include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at
transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and
landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for
transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail
vehicles or ferry vessels.
Map and description of existing and proposed bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connection with use
of other transportation modes
4.1 Network
Improvements
4-3
through
4-8
(f) A map and description of existing and proposed
facilities for changing and storing clothes and
equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to,
locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle
parking facilities.
Map and description of existing and proposed facilities
for changing and storing clothes and equipment
2.3.4 Bicycle Parking and
End of Trip Facilities
(existing)
No proposed facilities.
2-8
(g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs
conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts
by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic
law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce
provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle
operation, and compile existing data on the resulting
effect on accidents involving bicyclists.
Description of bicycle safety and education programs 2.5 Education Programs
(Existing)
5. Program
Recommendations
2-12
5-1
(h) A description of the extent of citizen and community
involvement in development of the plan.
Description of the extent of citizen and community
involvement
1.3 Bicycle Transportation
Plan Process
1-3
Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance
Alta Planning + Design | C-3
BTA 891.2 Required Plan Elements Compliant
Elements in Plan
Page
(i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan
has been coordinated and is consistent with other local
or regional transportation, air quality, or energy
conservation plans, including, but not limited to,
programs that provide incentives for bicycle
commuting.
Description of coordination and consistency with other
local or regional plans.
Appendix B. Relevant
Plans and Policies
B-1
(j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and
a listing of their priorities for implementation.
Description of the project prioritization. Chapter 7.
Implementation
7-1
(k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities
and future financial needs for projects that improve
safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the
plan area.
Description of past expenditures on bicycle facilities
and future financial needs.
Appendix D. 10 Year
Bikeway Investment
Summary
Chapter 7.
Implementation
D-1
7-1
City of Bakersfield | Transportation Plan
C-4 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
10 Year Bikeway Investment Summary
Alta Planning + Design | D-1
Appendix D. 10 Year Bikeway Investment Summary
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
D-2| Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
10 Year Bikeway Investment Summary Alta Planning + Design | D-3
Table D-1: 10 Year Bikeway Investment Summary
Project
Fiscal Year ($)
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
Bike Lane Maintenance - Arterials 973,500 959,772
273,636 549,516 408,408 2,280,991 297,000 443,520 635,681
Bike Lane Maintenance - Collectors 115,735 104,142
263,811 266,801 286,872 286,627 304,913 255,826 262,991 311,406
Bike Lane - White Lane
34,300
Bike Lane - Hughes Lane
36,600
Bike Lane - Monitor
67,100
Bike Lane - Auburn Street
19,100
Bike Lane - Bernard Street
15,300
Bike Lane - Olive Drive
41,000
Biking for Fun Inc
50,000
Mill Creek – Bike Path 291,494 Bike Storage Lockers 2,400 2,400 2,400 Bike Lanes - Belle Terrace
35,000
Bike Lanes - Alta Vista
60,000
Panorama Drive - Juniper to SC 115,000 Northeast Bike Path Phase II 150,000 Flashing Beacon - Wilson at K 43,000 Flashing Beacon - Stine Elementary 40,000 Flashing Beacon - Pauly School 36,640 Flashing Beacon – S. High School 36,640 Total Expenditures 265,735 1,195,0421,225,983585,837 1,167,882 768,315 2,711,304552,826 844,511 1,042,087
City of Bakersfield | Bicycle Transportation Plan
D-4| Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.