HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 RESOLUTION 11-79 - OCTA COMMUTER BIKEWAYS STRATEGIC PLANAGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2011
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
Agenda Item
Reviewed. -
City Manager
Finance Director
FROM: DOUGLAS S. STACK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
oil
N/A
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 11-79 TO APPROVE THE 2009 ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY COMMUTER BIKEWAYS STRATEGIC PLAN
SUMMARY
In order for the City to be eligible for grant funding under the State Bicycle Transportation Account,
the City must adopt a Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP). The Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) has prepared the 2009 Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan for the
County of Orange which complies with State requirements for a BTP. In lieu of preparing a
separate BTP, Tustin may adopt the OCTA plan, thereby making the City eligible for future State
funding.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-79, approving the 2009 Orange
County Transportation Authority Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan to serve as the City of Tustin
Bicycle Transportation Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. Adoption of the OCTA Commuter Bikeways
Strategic Plan will make the City eligible for future grant funding under the State Bicycle
Transportation Account.
DISCUSSION
The State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is a program which provides funds for projects
that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. In order to be eligible for BTA funding
the City must adopt a Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) which complies with the
California Streets and Highways Code. The OCTA has prepared the Commuter Bikeways
Strategic Plan (CBSP), dated May 2009, in compliance with California Streets and Highways Code
Section 891.2 to serve the County of Orange. Rather than prepare a separate BTP, the City may
adopt the OCTA CBSP and, therefore, become eligible for BTA grant funding.
The CBSP incorporates the Tustin Master Bikeway Plan, which is part of the Circulation Element of
the City's General Plan. Existing and proposed bikeways are included in Tustin's Master Bikeway
Plan to provide a continuity of routes and trails that do not terminate except at logical destinations
such as schools or parks. By adopting the CBSP as Tustin's BTP the City can apply for state BTA
grant funding to construct and/or maintain bikeways identified on the Tustin Master Bikeway Plan.
Approve 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
December 6, 2011
Page 2
It is requested that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-79, thereby approving the 2009 OCTA
Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan to serve as the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan. With this
action the City will be eligible to fund up to 90% of bicycle projects with a State BTA grant. This will
assist in implementing and maintaining the City's Master Bikeway Plan.
S. Stack, P.E.
of Public Works/City Engineer
Attachment: Resolution No. 11-79
S:\City Council Items\2011 Council Items\Adopt Reso 11-79 to Approve OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan - jm.docx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE 2009 ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY COMMUTER BIKEWAYS STRATEGIC
PLAN
WHEREAS, the State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is a grant program
which provides funds for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle
commuters; and
WHEREAS, in order to be eligible for BTA funding the City must adopt a Bicycle
Transportation Plan (BTP) which complies with the California Streets and Highways
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Transportation Authority has prepared the 2009
Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) for the County of Orange in compliance
with California Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2; and
WHEREAS, the CBSP incorporates the Tustin Master Bikeway Plan, which is
part of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City may adopt the OCTA CBSP to serve as the City's Bicycle
Transportation Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Tustin does hereby adopt the 2009 Orange County Transportation Authority Commuter
Bikeways Strategic Plan, thereby making the City eligible for funding under the State
Bicycle Transportation Account.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Tustin held on the 6t" day of December, 2011.
ATTEST: Jerry Amante, Mayor
Pamela Stoker
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS
CITY OF TUSTIN
1, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council is
five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-79 was duly and regularly passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of December,
2011 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER,
City Clerk
S:\City Council Items\2011 Council Items\Aftachments - Agreements, Resolutions & Ordinances, etc\Resolution 11-79 Adopting
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan.docx
2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
FINAL
forthe:
Orange County Transportation Authority
Prepared by:
Alta Planning + Design
KOA Corporation
May 3009
d r ''-�
17 _ Ly4Q-y vnn.e. Tu
;. .+fpi w6� .
k Ate'_
OCTA
CHAPTERY |N�R�������
^ ^~`^^^^^^^``^~^~`^`^^^`~~`^^^`^^`^^`~^~^^^^~^^~~................1
11. Purpose & Need ...... '............... ............... ...... ........ ......... ....... .......
------------------1
1.2. 3cuiog................. ............. ........ ............ ------.........
-----------------------�1
L1 Bikeway yuu6xmeomls... ....... ...... ----....... .......... ---
....... ...... .......... -------....... —'2
13.1. Classes ^fDikcwxy—....... ................ ................. ----------------.......... -------%
1.3.2, Bicyclist Skill, Levels. .... —............ ...... ........... —.............. ---............. ---------------2
CHAPTER 2. REGIONAL STRATEGY
3.1.
zLRegional
.~.^.^.~...^.,.^.,.......^..~~—..~.^.,..,.^.~.~.^.,.7
N^rds—_
2]1
.... .... ......... —... .......... ...... .................. ... --- ..... ... .... ........ --------�7
Citizens
39
2.1.1
CD8PAdvisory Grmupm—.... ----- ............. .............. ....... ---...... —_-------------`
45
2./.3,
General Po6lic... ...... ---- ..... —....... ----------_-------------------
50
z1.4.
OCTA Committees ----------------------------------------'8
53
2.13.
Outreach Results ------'---------------------------'-----8
2.2.
i'vIodeling Analysis and Regional Improvement Opportunity Prioritization......
9
2.3.
............ .........
Performance Criteria....
62
14�
OCTA Action Plan ....................... .................... —..... ...... ................ ............. ----....... .......
15
23
Funding Qpp*zmni6r ------------------------_—_-----------l6
67
2.51.
Federal Funding Sources ......... ........ .......... ... .... ...... ..... —....... —............... ...... .......... ........
16
2.52.
Statewide Funding Sources ......... ............... ... ........ ...... ........... ........ .......... .... ... ....................... �18
—84
2,5.3,
Local and
15A,
Non -Traditional Funding 6000*— .... --...... ----------........ --........... ......... ----...
u
2,6�
Design Guidelines ................... ......... _---------........ --- ........ ......... ...... ------....... —....
20
2.61.
Caltrans �o���uo
~ _____________________________________-------'20
262
CAMUITCDGd�u.0
108
117.
~.^~...... ........ —.......... --........ —............ ... ....... —.........
22
3.18.
Laguna Woods ..... .............. .......... .......... ....... ....... ..... —....... --... .................. ...... ....... ..... --1|7
CHAPTER 3. BIKEWAY INFORMATION BYJURISDICTION .............................. 35
3.1.
Aliso Viejo �..... ..... ... ___ ........... —...... ........ ...... —............ --...... ....... ........ —....... --.......
... J6
32
Anaheim .................. -------------.............. ---- ... .... —........ --------------....
39
33.
Drem---.... —.... ........ ........ ----...... -------.......... --........ --............ --- ............ —'
45
3.+
Buena Park —... ......... ...... ......... _......... ---- ... .... __........................ ...... —....
50
3,5.
Costa Mesa- ..... —.... ...... --............ ........... —...... —.......... ......
53
].6.
.... ... —.......... ....... ..... .... —. ..
Cypress .... _.......
....... --- ...... .......
xzDana
yoint.—...... ........ ....... -------...... ----... ... ...... -------.......
62
3.8.
...........
Fountain \aK^r—... ---.....
3,9.
—.... ....... —.......... ............ ---...... ... —......... ........ ... ... ---.............
Fullerton--
67
lMGarden
Grove ... ................ ------------...... ----....... —...... --.............. --.......... —'79
3.11. .
— 8cuc6--............... --...... --....... ........ --------------'--...... .......
—84
zlI
Irvine.,
oJS,
La Habra .... .......... —..................................... ................. --.................. ............. ------------'
95
114.
La Palma ......... ....... ---'------...... ......... ...... --- ........................ ...... .................... ...... ---lO0
3.15.
Laguna Beuc6'.... ......... ...... —....... ......... ...... ..... —............. --....... ...... ... .... ....... .............. ........ '104
316.
Laguna Hills ..... .................... .......... .............. ..... ........ .... --..... ........ —........... ..........................
108
117.
Laguna Nignel—............ ..................................... .... ....... —............... -------'--...............
113
3.18.
Laguna Woods ..... .............. .......... .......... ....... ....... ..... —....... --... .................. ...... ....... ..... --1|7
3J9.
Lake Iozest ........ ...... ---- ..... .......... ............ --- ....... --- ...... __............. ................. —..................
121
3.20,
Los ^�m�m~^~~,....... ..... ........ .... --- ....... _... ...... ..... --- .................
32LMission
..... .... ........ ........ -----12&
Viejo .... '....................
........ ......... '.... .............. ....... ..... '...... —............ ---...... .....
|JO
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
321
Omoge�—...... —....... ........ --'------------....... ----------------_--l42
3,24.
Placentia
... ___ ........ _..... _....... .......
14Y
125.
Rancho Santa Margarita_ ... --_--...... ------------_---...... ---------|50
3.26.
San Clemente.,....
127,
3^o/uuoCupistrmo..... ........ —.......... ...... --------------------...... ------'lM2
3,28,
Santa Ana_..
3.29
Seal ------------------------------------------------
172
3.30.
Stanton ... —... ....... —.... ... ...... --------------------....... ---.......... ~...... ----�D6
]�1 �
��6o ---------------------------------------------------'/80
3.32.
Villa Park ... ___ ............. ........... ........
..... |85
3]I
Westminster... ~ ___________________________--------.l89
334.
Y*6^Iin^da .......... ___ .... ........ _......... .......... ..... _...... _--..........
—.... z9J
3.35.
Unincorporated `°""`/... —..................... ---....... --...... ...................... ... ... ----....... ---'198
204 4PPEN0IC3ES.........—,~.~..^~^,...^,,.,.^~^^^^^^^^^^~^^^^^^^~^`^^—^~^^^^^^^^^~^^~^^~^~'^~^'^^``
A-1:Survey_ ............. .............. -----------_--_---....... --...... ----------'2U5
A-2:Survey Results ..... --------...... ---_-------........ ---------_--.... %O8
A-3: User Estimation ��d
~~__--------21S
A-4: Orange County Existing & Proposed Bikeway Maps JPr. .... ....... —............ ...... ---------215
A'5:Destination Demand Maps- .... .... ................... ------------------...... —........ 224
A-6: Caltrans
A-7:DSD(T A —
.`.^^~^^..^~�"�'"�"."^,""="ozuo /o��-----------------------24O
A-8:OCTA Congestion Management vrvgrom—...... —.......... ____ .................... --...... 243
A-9: Local Fair Share Program for Street Maintenance and Improvements ...... ___ 245
List of Figures
Figure 2/:Bicycle Facility I7po--,...... ... ___ ...... —....... ... ......... ...... —..... ...... ---...... ----
...... —'2l
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
Table 2-1: Priority Regional 9uoj,cts.—... _----...... —' 12
laub�
�:G"oey0ms�nvl-------_---------------------_— ---'
Ia�e&�'Sumcy0oc�oo3--'--'--'-------.--_----------_---'--------^~'
Io6�A~�3up,�'O��doo4 ---------~~'
------------------------------------ 210
zaurA�:Sur=�0ucmino6 '—'
____________________________---�� 210
zamc4�:3urmy0uomjvn8 -----
_______________________________--� 211
zabhA�:Survey 0ocsdonY �----�
U���m~^m�
=~,�� Maps
Map 1JExisting Bikeways and Proposed Bikeways .......... ......... —........ ...... -------....... _— 4
x�qp12E�o6og BUew«�--_----_------------_--'_-------'— ----�
Y��11gu��o�Cvmmu�rB�cw^yY�nd�Zvum -------~
'-----------'---'--- ll
Map I1Aliso Viejo Land Use. ...... ........ ...... ......
...
-----------------_---------
xu,pI2Aoubc��Land Uo ----------------''—'---------- ''
Dapl�B�xI�u6Ov�—'----------------_-------------------------'—`~
I48uou^Pu6'LxodU,c— -----' '~
�&p
------------------------------� I5Co,�Meo Land D�.-------_---------_------� 5l
Map 16 ----'------'--- --'—�~'
Map
&��`17Dana po�tluodUse --------'----'----------� -------------'~'
63
uu�,�x/ouom�v^UeyLa^JD, '--------------------------- _—�----�—
&apI9Pu8,�,uIa^JDo�' ---------------'---- ------ -----~~
MupI1OG:ul�`G,orelao6U�---------''------------� � � --------------'~
uuup�nBuvdo�onBc�bL^uJ(�c-----------------------_---_----�----'--
Map �l21rdoe Land D*c---'----.'----------------------'-------�-------~~
8{xpIlj[*na6r IaudU�--------------'----'--'--- �--------------'~'
&f�,�l4l^9JoaIaodUo -------'--�----''~
____________--'---- 201
o^upI15La;mz ��m�LxndD` -----'
Laguna ~_______________------'__--- l05
Mupl16Ia8on^K�"Lxo6Uor ------�
------�--�'---'--�-------------'--'----- I09
ux�.Il7Log�oN�uu�uo8lbc --''-
-- ------------------------------' D4
mupI1GLngouu\�vo6,Lm�Uo ------'
------------------------------- Il8
xx�`�19Lake pn�o Land Use -------�
--'---------------'------------'----- l22
»�^pS20Loo4�oimoL^u6Ux ----�
~_______ 1Z7
Map I21[hyof Ml��oV��laoJQu Policy Map.,
mu�3220oppn�Beach Land Us —'---'
~____________________________�_------� z]0
Map 3.23 Orange Land -----------------_----- ----�
Map 3�4P�ceuduLand D»c --------'^~'
____________�—_—�---------'l50
uuupI35Rancho 8xo�Mxq�6�Land Use ----------_------_'_------------�l54
m�l�S�O��w��6�
________________ l58
Map 3273oo]uvuCxp�uamLand Uoo -------�
_________________� 262
Map ]288uomAna Land Do '--------'
____________________________—_—_— l68
»uupl29Sex D�uc6I�o6�u -------''
- ---------------------------'------� �7]
M�l��o���U� --
________________---' x77
Map 3�1Too�zLand Uo .-------'
-----'----'-----�'---------------'---- 101
8{qp�32\��Px�Land U�� --------�
----'------'-----------------------'--� l96
uu^p�}]\mc �doa�rlao6Uu ------
--'-----------------------------'-- /vO
mup]J4To�^OoJxLxuJO,� —'----
___________________lY4
u«q,l35U�oc"q,om�6Co"o�Land Do�''-----'----'—'--_---'--'-----'—_-----
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
iv OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Pian
I
This Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) has been developed by the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) to encourage the enhancement of Orange County's regional
bikeways network, in order to make bicycle commuting a more viable and attractive travel option.
There are a number of challenges that must be overcome for Orange County to excel as a bicycling
region, including improving safety, access to key destinations, coordination of plans, and support
facilities. Furthermore, there are also opportunities, such as increasing congestion, climate change,
and oil dependency that bicycling can play a large role in mitigating. The goal of the CBSP is to help
address these many challenges by providing:
• A strategy for improving the regional bikeway network;
• Eligibility for state Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funds;
• Identification of roles and responsibilities for OCTA regarding bikeways; and
• Documentation of existing and planned Orange County bikeways.
The projects described in this plan are a compilation of projects planned by Orange County Cities
and the County of Orange. The CBSP is a long range, financially unconstrained planning document.
Funding for these projects will not be limited to the OCTA Can for Projects. It will be the
responsibility of each implementing agency to identify funding sources for the projects within their
purview.
Mg=.
According to the 2005 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau), less than I percent of
Orange County's population commutes by bicycle. The vast majority of commuters (77,31/0)
commute to work by driving alone. This shows how automobile dependent Orange County
currently is, and why many of the streets and freeways are at, or close to, maximum capacity. The
Orange County Projections, produced by the Center for Demographic Research (out of California
State University, Fullerton), estimates Orange County's 2005 population of 3,059,950 to grow by
nearly 600,000, more than 19 percent, by 2035, which will only put more demand on transportation
infrastructure.
Much of the early suburban development took place in Northern Orange County, and infrastructure
facilities were geared towards commutes into Los Angeles. The Pacific Electric rail cars served much
of this area, until their service was stopped in the early 1960s. It was at that time that Orange County
residents began to be more dependent on automobiles for their commutes.
North Orange County was designed with grid -pattern road networks, much like Los Angeles. The
grid -pattern, along with the relatively level topography, is beneficial to bicycle commuters, as it allows
them to maneuver through short blocks, for more direct routes. Unfortunately, many of these streets
were not designed to support the demand that we see today. They are often narrow, and not
designed to safely accommodate automobiles together with bicycles. However, these roadways,
along with some of the watersheds and abandoned rail rights-of-way, retain opportunities to make
bicycling more viable.
Much of South Orange County was developed as planned communities over the last 30 years. The
roadway networks are generally wider and more circuitous than in North County. The advantage to
these roads is that many of them were designed with bike lanes along the shoulders. However, South
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
County has more elevation changes, and the planned communities tend to be relatively low density
with housing separated from work and shopping centers. This layout often results in longer trips,
and the lower densities consequently result in fewer job opportunities near the residential
communities. Nonetheless, many opportunities still exist, such as providing improved access and
facilities at transit stations.
Applying the strategies discussed in this plan, and implementing the local jurisdictions' projects, will
help to create a regional bikeway network- that will benefit Orange County communities, from the
bicycle dependent, to casual cyclists, and people of all income levels. Furthermore, the build -out of
the bikeway network, along with the favorable climate in the region, could make Orange County an
even more enjoyable place to live and work.
Bicycles share equal rights and responsibilities with other vehicles on the road, according to the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). However, while bicyclists share all the same
rights and responsibilities of motorists, bicycle -specific facilities are often provided in an effort to
enhance safety for both bicyclists and motorists. Bicyclists also need to be conscious of their skill
and comfort levels when choosing their travel routes. The following sections provide a brief
overview of the various classes of bikeways, and some general characteristics of the different skill
levels of bicyclists.
1.3.1. Classes of Bikeways
There are three classes of commuter bikeways:
• Class I — off-street paved bike paths
• Class 11 — on -road striped and signed bicycle lanes
• Class III — on -road shared -lane signed bicycle routes
Off-street paths are facilities on a separate right-of-way from roadways, and are usually shared by
bicyclists and pedestrians. Shared paths should not be used as high-speed bikeways, as the safety of
the other non -motorized users must be considered.
Bicycle lanes are on -street facilities that use painted stripes and stencils to delineate the right of way
assigned to bicyclists and motorists, and to provide for more predictable movements by each.
Bicycle routes are signed on -street facilities that accommodate vehicles and bicycles in the same
travel lane. Bicycles are permitted on most roadways; however, for safety purposes, signed bicycle
routes are often found on streets with lower speeds and traffic volumes.
Bicyclist Skill Levels
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or AASHTO, published
the Guide far the Deijelopment of Bigcle Fajkfies in 1999. This guide provides descriptions for the three
general skill levels of bicyclists, as summarized by the A,B, and C typologies below:
• Advanced or experienced riders are generally using their bicycles as they would a motor
vehicle. They are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to
destinations with a minimum of detour or delay, and they are typically comfortable
riding with motor vehicle traffic.
Basic or more casual adult riders may also be using their bicycles for transportation
purposes, but prefer to avoid roads with fast and busy motor vehicle traffic unless there
is ample roadway width to allow easy overtaking by faster motor vehicles.
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
• Children, who still require access to key destinations in their community, such as
schools, convenience stores and recreational facilities. They prefer residential streets
with low motor vehicle speeds, linked with shared -use paths and busier streets with well-
defined pavement markings between bicycles and motor vehicles, so they can avoid
riding in the travel lane of major arterials.
The "commuter" bicyclists that this plan refers to are generally the type A riders, but the
implementation of the plan will benefit all types.
There are currently more than 1000 miles of bikeways in Orange County, with roughly another 700
miles that have been planned. It is the responsibility of the local jurisdictions to plan, implement,
and maintain the bikeways in Orange County. These local jurisdictions include all of the 34 Orange
County cities, the County of Orange, and Caltrans. All existing and planned bikeway data presented
in this plan was submitted by these local jurisdictions. The commuting habits within Orange County
region can be generally characterized with the following data:
Population: Approximately 3 million residents
Jurisdictions: 34 cities, the County of Orange, and Caltrans
Commuting Characteristics:
• Mode share (2000 U.S. Census):
0 77% drive alone
0 13% carpool
0 3% public transportation
0 2% walk
0 1 % ride a bicycle
0 Average Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (SCAC_i 2008 RTP)
• In 2003, the average daily VHD was 686,000 hours
• By 2035, VHD is projected to increase by 407,000 hours to 1,093,000
0 Average Vehicle Miles Traveled (SCAG 2008 RTP)
• In 2003, the average daily VMT was 70,458,000
• By 2035, VMLT is projected to increase by 14,829,000 to 85,287,000
Bikeways:
• 1037.7 miles built
0 26% Class III bike routes
0 65% Class 11 bike lanes
0 9% Class I off-street paths
Overview of the bikeway planning roles for OCTA:
• Suggest regional priorities for optimal use by local jurisdictions;
• Assist in coordinating plans between jurisdictions;
• Provide planning and design guidelines; and
• Participate in outreach efforts to encourage bicycle commuting.
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3
Tbis Page intentionally lefr blank.
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Ptan
In the development of this Commuter Bike -ways Strategic Plan (CBSP), the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) collected input from committees, stakeholders, and the public, in
order to identify improvements that will provide the greatest benefit to commuters utilizing the
regional bikeways network. This includes identifying bikeway needs, performance criteria, and
general funding and design guidelines. Additionally, the CBSP examined OCTA's role regarding
bikeways, and provides an action plan that outlines the responsibilities OCTA will assume in
implementing this plan.
UEKZ���
To identify the critical needs of the regional bikeway network, OCTA undertook a number of
outreach efforts. The input received was valuable, as it provided insights into the concerns of the
public, local jurisdictions, and the committees within OCTA. Below is a description of the various
outreach efforts, followed by more detailed discussions of critical issues that were identified.
The first committee approached by OCTA staff regarding the development of this plan was the
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). This committee took a large role in guiding the development
of the plan by creating a Bicycle Ad Hoc Committee. The ad hoc committee met about a dozen
times, and provided input and oversight that focused the goals of the plan.
CBSP Advisory Groups
Two advisory groups were formed to provide input on specific items that were produced during the
development of the CBSP. One group was referred to as the Technical Advisory Group (TAG),
made up of planning and public works staff from local jurisdictions. The other group was referred to
as the Public Stakeholders Group (PSG), which included members of the CAC, local bicycle
advocates, and representatives from local riding groups. OCTA staff met with these groups three to
four times each to discuss and receive input on data and strategies used in this plan.
2.1.3. General Public
Survey
A website was developed to help with the public outreach effort, which included the previous CBSP,
as well as an online survey, which received nearly 1,100 responses. The survey collected information
regarding the public's bicycling habits and needs.
The following summarizes some of the survey results (the fun results are located in the appendix):
The most popular reason people bicycle is for exercise and health reasons (929%). Other
popular reasons include bicycling for pleasure (841/6) and commuting to work (54%).
0 The majority of survey respondents (53%) bicycle four or more times per week.
The City of Irvine had the most survey respondents (12%) out of Orange County's local
jurisdictions. The next most responsive jurisdiction was the city of Orange (7%)
followed by Huntington Beach (6%).
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
• The most common roundtrip distance traveled by respondents was 11-24 miles (340/,,)).
• The Santa Ana River Trail and Pacific Coast Highway are among the respondent's
favorite places to bike.
• The absence of bike paths, lanes or bike routes was the most reported reason why the
survey respondents are prevented from biking more often (589/0).
• Off-street paved bike paths were ranked as the most preferred bicycle facility (691/0);
while unpaved trails or dirt paths were ranked as the least preferred facility.
• More paved off-street bike paths and more bike lanes are the improvements most likely
to influence people to bike more often.
The CBSP website also provided information on the public workshop that was held at the OCTA
offices. The workshop time and location was posted; and all the information that was presented, as
well as the input received at the event, was posted on the website after the workshop was held. The
public was also notified of the workshop with an OCTA press release to major newspapers, flyers
that were mailed to over 500 Orange County residents, and through the OCTA website. Member's of
the PSG also helped to notify the bicycling community; and thanks in large part to them, the
workshop was successful, drawing over 5O participants.
AM=.
The work -shop was held on July 12, 2008, with the purpose of informing the public of the
development of the CBSP, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the various entities involved in
bikeways, and gathering input from the attendees. The workshop had an open house format, with
various stations where the participants could gather information and provide input. Hardcopies of
the surveys were also available, as well as comment cards that allowed participants to address any
remaining concerns or issues.
2.1.4. OCTA Committees
Additional input and oversight was provided by several OCTA committees, OCTA and Alta
Planning staff presented data to the OCTA Board of Directors, Highways Committee, Transit
Committee, Technical Steering Committee, and Citizens Advisory Committee, throughout the
development of the CBSP. The guidance received from these committees was critical for addressing
many of the policy and technical issues regarding OCTA and its role in regional bikeway planning.
2.1.5. Outreach Results
The following subsections discuss some of the issues that were of the most concern throughout the
outreach effort. There may be other issues of equal importance; however, based on the input
received, the issues below were viewed as priorities for this plan. These issues, along with the other
input received, were used in the identification of priority improvement areas and project priorities,
which are discussed later in this chapter.
Safety Et Education
The safety and education of both bicyclists and drivers is the most commonly raised issue. It is
important for everyone on the roadway to be familiar with the California Vehicle Code, as well as the
California Department of Motor Vehicles' California Driver Handbook,
Bicyclists have all the rights, and are subject to all the provisions, applicable to drivers of vehicles. It
is important to respect the right-of-way of others, especially pedestrians and bicycle riders; and if an
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
automobile must pass a bicyclist, they should be patient when passing, only pass when it is safe, and
pass at a reduced speed. However, it should be noted that a 1996 FHWA study of bicycle and
pedestrian crashes found that about half of bicycle crashes with vehicles are the fault of the bicyclist,
which demonstrates the need to educate both bicyclists and drivers about safety.
Equally important is the quality and maintenance of the bicycle facilities. Bikeway facilities must be
planned, implemented, and maintained at a level that does not put the users at risk. In order to grow
the population of bicycle commuters, the facilities must be safe and inviting.
Ease of Implementation
Identification of projects that can be implemented relatively quickly and/or at a lower cost than most
projects should be given some priority. The difficulty in identifying large amounts of funding, and
obtaining necessary rights-of-way, often slows the development of the regional bikeways network.
By picking the "low -hanging fruit" improvements will be implemented at a more rapid pace, which
will contribute to a more complete and convenient bikeway system.
Multimodal Connections
In order for bicycle commuting to be an option for some Orange County residents, they would need
to utilize transit services for portions of their commutes. According to a study reported in the 2007
Transportation Research Board journal! - people are willing to bicycle about five miles each way of
their commute. Based on this assumption, the use of transit can greatly expand the distance a bicycle
commuter is willing to travel, making bicycle access to transit facilities a priority issue.
Transit facilities are designed to accommodate the flow of automobiles, but they do not always meet
the needs of bicyclists. Measures need to be taken to ensure that Orange County transit stations can
be easily accessed and utilized by bicycle commuters.
Another issue for the regional bikeways network is the need for bicycle parking and amenities. This
is particularly important at regional destinations to encouraging bicycle commuting. Access to
showers and lockers at employment centers allows bicycle commuters to clean up and change for
work. Not having access to these kinds of facilities creates a difficult challenge for commuters who
would like to bicycle to work.
Bicycle parking at transit stations is necessary due to the limited capacity for bicycles on transit
vehicles. These parking facilities should be safe for long-term (all day) parking, and consist of bicycle
lockers and/or monitored parking areas, both of which are described in more detail later in this
chapter. Additionally, adequate bicycle parking is necessary at employment centers, and at colleges
and universities.
L
Opportunity Prioritization
OCTA coordinated a modeling effort to identify regional commuter bikeway priorities. The analysis
identified the following key regional employment centers: Irvine Spectrum, The Irvine Business
Complex, Newport Center, South Coast Metro Area, Downtown Santa Ana, Main Street Area (Santa
Ana/Orange), The Anaheim Resort, Anaheim Canyon Business Center, and the Brea Man.
These regional employment centers were analyzed for their trip generation characteristics. The trip
generation analysis was based on OCTA's 2035 growth forecast model, OCTAM 3.3. Maps were
produced that show the areas with the highest concentration of demand for trips to each of the
I Hagelin, Christopher. Integrating
Bicycles and Tljnoq�y Bike-toBarrStrategy. Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting Paper, 2007. g
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
employment centers (see Appendix B), In general, this data showed the highest concentrations of
trip origins to be within a few miles of the employment centers.
The intent of identifying the regional employment centers, as well as Orange County's transit
stations, colleges and universities, which are also regional commuter destinations, is to improve
bicycle facilities at these locations in order to make bicycle commuting a more viable option.
Therefore, bicycle access and support facility projects within, or connecting to, the regional
destinations identified in Map 2-1 are viewed by OCTA as regional priorities.
Map 2-1 displays the regional commuter destinations. The radii around the employment centers
were determined based on the trip origin analysis, discussed above, as well as by National Personal
Transportation Survey data that shows the average bicycle trip is three miles or less. A study
conducted in 2007 by the Transportation Research Board estimates that the average commuter is
willing to bicycle about five n-ffles to work, which is why projects that connect to the identified
priority zone will be considered priorities as well. The transit stations, colleges and universities do
not have radii since bicycle facilities should be at, or connect directly to, the specified location.
Note that the above prioritization methods are intended as guidelines, and that jurisdictions can use
them to help justify the regional significance of their projects,
10 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
t
t rk
i.. t�
t ,
_ t _
Qg t '
t
t -...1
Ananeirn Canyon
_ I _ Business Center t
40
The
Anaheim
i
11'',`i' r Resort > f
I sin,
I Streett t t•
• � ! t �Area ....,. •• � �' r., t •` ' `'
— ( Dalmtown
Santa Ane • S
South
coast
' Metro
r pp Ir Ane Business�
(l �ICom p -a
'E. ( r > ►
r
(1
,✓ Newport Center
/''�•,t/� " rel. I , t t
Bikeways
r Class I Proposed
Class i Existing
— _ Class If Proposed
Class II Existing
— — — Class III Proposed
Bikeway Priority Zones
Regional Employment Centers
---+— Metrolink Rail
Bikeway Priority Locations
Metrolink Station
Q Bus Station
College / University
Source: OCTA
�0 2 4
Miles
t
� r
t p 01
0•
p y
� } r
i
M t
:\
n
The local jurisdictions of Orange County provided ail of the information for proposed bikeways
presented in this plan. NNIap 2.1 was used to identify the following;bikeways as regional priority
projects.
Table 2. 1: Regional Priority Projects
( , City Street/Path
Anaheim Olive / UPRR
From
BF35a;7vay
TO
Santa Ana River —Trail -7tassl
Class
Mileage
4.00
Anaheim La Palma Ave.
La Reina —St.
Jefferson —St.
Class II
8.34
Brea Birch St.
_GP
Mercury Ln.
State College Blvd
Class l I
1.18
Brea _RR
— --
Palm —St.
-Valencia —Ave
_Ctassl
—4.50
Costa Mesa
Santa Ana Ave.
23rd SE_
_Mesa —Dr
ClassIl-
1.00
Cypress
Katetta, Ave.
—Pacific
-Walker —St.
Stanton City Limit
_Zt—assl I
1.-49
Dana Point—
Coast Hwy.
_-Monarch Bay Dr.
Street of the Blue
Lantern
Class l 1
1_.97
Dana Point
Pacific Coast Hwy.
Street of the Copper
Lantern
Coast Hwy.
_Class l 1
0.53
Dana Point
§t0nehitt —Dr.
-San Juan Capistrano
riti, Limit
iiiguet 'Rd.
_Ctass If
2.13
Fullerton
BNSF RR
commonweattF—Ave
Metrolink —RR
-E—tassl
.32
Fullerton
UP RR
5NSF RR
La Habra CityLimit--Class
—I
_4.8_3
Fullerton
Rosecrans Euclid Path
--Euclid
EuclidSt.
_
Rosecrans Ave.
Class Ii
2.31
Garden Grove
St.
Orangewood Ave.
Westminster —Ave
Class 11
.14
Garden Grove
Westminster Ave-
--6ushard St.
Brack Ln.
7—tassil
_3
.22
Huntington
Beach
Pacific Coast Hwy
Segment 1
County Limit
8th St.—
Class
lass 11
4E.61
Huntington
Beach
Pacific Coast Hwy
Se meat 2
Huntington St.
County Limit
C lass 11
2.63
Irvine
Jeffrey Rd. Path
Trabuco Rd.
North of Alton Pkwy._
Class 112.23
. 2
Irvine
OCTA Metrolink Path
Sand Canyon Ave.
Great Park
Southeastern Path
Ctassl
1.96
La Habra
GPRR —Bikeway
WesternCityLimit
Palm St.
C_tassl
-To—o
La Habra
La Habra Blvd -
;�attey Home Ave. -Vallejo
St.
ClassIl2
77
Laguna Beach
Pacific Coast Hwy.
City Limit ( S El Moro
Rdo- )
Broadway
Class114.83
Laguna Hills
Cabot Rd
-
La Paz Rd.
Oso Pkwy.
Class —I I _1T1
_9
Laguna Niguel
Laguna
Woods
Forbes Path
Ifi, Toro —Rd.
Mission Viejo City —Limit _San
Moulton Pkwy.
Juan —Capistrano -Et—assI
City Limit
Laguna Hills City Lim—it _C
-ta s s 1-1 --6.-74
2_.03
Lake Forest
_Mission
OCTA —Metrolink RR -Irvine
City —Limit
—El Toro —Rd. -E-lass
—1
1.93
Viejo
-d—range _Utassett
Camino Capistrano
5SO —Pkwy.
LagunaNiguel—City
Limit
7t—assl
0.82
_St._Ftetcher
St.
Katetla Ave. —
Class If
1.39
Orange
assett St.
La Veta Ave.
Santa Ana City Limit
(SR -22 E Exit 16)
Class
Class 11
0.40
0-40
12 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
Orange
Orange
Pat
Path
Glass;etf St.
From
Woodvate Ave.
Mil
Fletcher �t. Class 11 0.12
Orange
Gtassett St.
7
City Limit
Riverdale —Ave.
Class li
0.08
Orange
Walnut Ave.
Hewes St.
Rancho Santiago Btv
Class 111
0.25
Orange
w.,�
Walnut Ave.
Walnut Ave. _Tustin St.
Eartham St.
Class 111
0.77
Placentia
Orangethorpe Ave.
--Bikeway
Chapman Ave. —
Anaheim City L
Lakeview Ave.)
Class ll
2_.92
San Clemente
Avenida Vista Hermosa
Avenida La Pata
Avenida Pico
_Cfassl
1.01
San Juan
Capistrano
Las Rambtas / PCH
San Clemente City
Limit
San Diego Fwy.
Class It
2.00
Santa Ana
Raitt St. —
Mc Fadden Ave—.
Sunf tower Ave-.
Class —1
2.72
Santa Ana
Birstot St.—/ La —Veta
Ave.
-Orange City —Limit
(Santa Ana Fwy.)
Sunf tower Ave.
Class 11
5.88
Santa Ana
—
Grand Ave.
Orange City Limit
JS 22E exit 16)
Dyer Rd.
Class 11
4.64
Santa Ana
Seat Beach
Westminster Ave.
Westminster Ave.
Garden Grove City
-Limit (W Newhope St)
Seat Beach Blvd.—
_Garden GroveCityC_tassll
Limit (W Clinton St)
Zlit-y—Limit Westminster
Classit_1._98
1.36
Stanton
Magnolia Ave.
Anaheim City Limit
UP RR
Class 1
0.62
Stanton
Katetta Ave.
Cypress City Limit
—dagnotia —St
Class ll
-1.-94
Tustin
Red Hitt Ave.
_Red
—Ave
Barranca —Pkwy.
Warner Ave.
Class 11
-6.-51
Tustin
Hitt
-Warner —Ave
—Parkway —Loop
Class1!0.7_8
Tustin
Red Hitt Ave.
Edinger Ave.
7S -
Nilson Rd.
Class 11
1.00
Tustin tin
_Red
Hitt Ave,
Camino Real
First —St.
Class !I
0.57
Tustin
Red Hitt Ave
First St.
Melvin Way
-Class l 1
-6:_78
Tustin
Red Hitt Ave.
_Metvin —Way
North of Irvine Blvd.
Class 11
Mass
0.18
Westminster_601sa
Chica —Rd.
Valley View St.
Garde i Grove —City
Limit
�estmins�terAve.�
11
1,09
Westminster
Mc Fadden Ave.
Van Buren St. —
_[5atewood _Ln
Class11--1—.83
Westminster
--i7orba —Linda
Westminster Ave.
Seat Beach City Limit
Atlantis Wy.
Class 1 1
4.59
Ba_stanchuryRd.
—Placentia —City Limit
—Nillitage, —Center Dr.
_C_tassll _-4.-02
f0TAL
116.13
Table 2.2: Regional Priority Project Cost Estimates
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Ptan 13
The input received through the outreach process also served to identify project performance criteria
that can be used by local jurisdictions to prioritize their projects listed in this plan, as well as future
projects. The following criteria should be considered in the order of the Tiers in which they are
listed:
Tier 1:
.'afeo — Projects that reduce conflicts between motorists and cyclists, and address other safety
concerns.
Ease of implementadon — Projects with an anticipated low difficulty for implementation, based on
available rights-of-way, existing traffic operations, and other similar factors.
Continuity — Projects that improve continuity within the route, or between routes.
Tier 2:
Regional significance — Projects that will benefit the overall region by addressing regional priorities
identified within this plan.
Accessibility — Projects that provide one or more points of access to regional destinations.
3'10portfadlifies andprograms — Projects that include any of the following support facilities or programs
• bicycle parking (including lockers)
• signage/street markings
• signal detection (buttons and/or in -ground)
• lighting
• bicycle sharing programs
• restrooms /drinking fountains
• other similar facilities
Tier 3:
Directness — Projects that provide the most direct route between origins and destinations.
Ronte aesthetics — Projects that provide for visual aesthetics, increased comfort, a sense of personal
safety, and/or other similar factors along the facility,
Public,Vi!pport — Projects that appear to be supported by the public input received in the development
of this plan, through letters of support, or other means of public input.
14 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
Input received during the outreach process indicated that OCTA needed to clearly establish its roles
and responsibilities regarding bikeway planning in Orange County. The following Action Plan
identifies the tasks OCTA will undertake to ensure the implementation of the CBSP, as well as
OCTA's support for bicycle commuting:
Improve the regional bikeways network
• Provide funding, when feasible, for
competitive call -for -projects
• Support efforts by local jurisdictions
Transportation Account funds
capital bikeway improvements through a
to seek funding, such as state Bicycle
0 Promote that local jurisdictions to emphasize their consideration of bicyclists within
environmental and planning documents
External coordination
0 Designate an OCTA bicycle coordinator
• Maintain the countywide bicycle transportation plan, ensure it remains compliant with
the Bicycle Transportation Account requirements, and make it available for adoption by
local jurisdictions
• Facilitate bikeway planning coordination efforts between jurisdictions and other
involved entities
• Encourage local jurisdictions to coordinate local planning efforts with the CBSP
• Encourage each local jurisdiction to designate a bicycle coordinator
• Update and work with bicycle coordinators, Employee Transportation Coordinators,
and other stakeholders, on issues relating to bicycling, such as funding opportunities
• Provide technical support to local jurisdictions
Internal coordination
• Ensure that the needs for bicyclists and bikeways are considered in the development of
projects and programs within OCTA
• Plan and participate in events that promote bicycling, such as
Bike -to -Work Week and Rideshare Week
• Provide bikeway outreach and support through internet resources, including a
countywide commuter bikeways map
• Communicate with OCTA committees as necessary
Address the regional
• Lead the implementation efforts of projects within OCTA owned
rights-of-way
• Review development plans and environmental documents and provide comments, 1) to
ensure that developers and local jurisdictions are complying with the CBSP, and 2) to
encourage these entities to add local supplemental routes that may not be on the
regional bikeways plan, but would enhance the overall connectivity of the bikeway
system.
• Advise local jurisdictions to submit projects that address the regional priorities when
state or federal funds become available
• Provide incentives to local jurisdictions for submitting projects that address the regional
priorities during calls -for -projects for funds controlled by OCTA
OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic plan 15
There are a variety of potential funding sources that can be used for bicycle projects, programs and
plans from all levels of government. This section covers traditional federal, state, regional and local
sources of funding, as well as some non-traditional funding sources that may be used for bicycle
projects. In addition, local jurisdictions are encouraged to have bicycle projects prioritized and ready
to move forward on short notice in the case that new funding sources become available.
2.5.1. Federal Funding Sources
The primary federal source of surface transportation funding—including bicycle and pedestrian
facilities—is the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-1,U). This Federal bill is the third iteration of the transportation vision established
by Congress in 1991 with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and renewed in 1998
and extended in 2003 through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003. Also known' as the Federal
Transportation Bill, the $286.5 billion bill was passed' in 2005 and authorizes federal surface
transportation programs for the five-year period between 2005 and 2009.
Federal funding is administered through the state (Caltrans and the State Resources Agency) and
regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these funding programs are oriented toward
transportation versus recreation, with an emphasis on reducing vehicle trips and providing inter-
modal connections. Many Federal programs require a local match of between 10-20%. Federal
funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education programs and projects must
relate to the surface transportation system.
Specific funding programs under the federal transportation bill for bicycle facilities that might be
potential funding sources for the CBSP may include:
Federal Laiids fligbirqy Funds—Approximately $1 billion dollars are available nationally
through 2009 for planning, and construction of bicycle projects built in conjunction
with roadways
Dvnsponali'on, Corn winjo, and,System Preservation Programa—$270 million nationally through
2009 for projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the
impact on the environment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services and trade
centers
Recreational Trails Fragrant 3370 million nationally through 2009 for non -motorized trail
projects.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quali4, Ilipmelvent Pro
�;-a/v--About $1.7 billion available
nationwide per year, Estimated annual program level for California is $360 million,
Ilighn�alr Safes 1rnPivivlvenl Pi-ograily (If _Vlp}--Thc annual program funding is approximately
954 million for Federal Fiscal Year 2008/2009 at which time the HSIP program will
end, unless it is extended or reauthorized. The maximum funding amount for a project
is $1 million, and the federal reimbursement rate is 90%.
Re
gional SInface Ti-ansportation Progra/,i—Estimated annual program level is $330 million
which is eligible for State Match and Exchange Program funding,
,Vafe Routes to School—This is a 100% federal reimbursement program. California will
receive $68 million over the five year life of SAFETEA-LU. There is no local match
required.
Transportation ]--,,iibaiii-ellleiits—California will receive approximately $75 million per year for
five years, starting in 2006,
Federal Lands Highway Funds
Federal Lands highway Funds may be used to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities in conjunction
with roads and parkways at the discretion of the department charged with administration of the
funds. The projects must be transportation -related and tied to a plan adopted by the State and
Metropolitan Planning Organization, Federal Lands Highway Funds may be used for planning and
I
construction and is managed by the United States Department of Transportation.
Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program
The Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program provides federal funding for
transit oriented development, traffic calming and other projects that improve the efficiency of the
transportation system, reduce the impact on the environment, and provide efficient access to jobs,
services and trade centers. The program is intended to provide communities with the resources to
explore the integration of their transportation system with community Preservation and
environmental activities. The Program funds require a 20% match and can be applied to planning,
design and construction and is administered through the Federal Highway Administration.
Recreational Trails Program
The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds annually for recreational trails and trails -
related projects. The RTP is administered at the federal level by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). It is administered at the state le -vel by the California Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR). The maximum amount of RTP funds allowed for each project is 88% of the total project
cost. The applicant is responsible for obtaining a match amount that is at least 120/o of the total
project cost. The application deadline is in October. Funds may be used for:
Maintenance and restoration of existing trails;
Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment;
Construction of new trails; including unpaved trails
Acquisition of casements or property for trails;
State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a State's
funds); and
Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection
related to trails (limited to five percent of a State's funds).
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a federallv funded program that provides grants for
planning and acquiring outdoor recreation areas and 'facilities. The Fund is administered by the
National Parks Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation and has been
reauthorized until 2015.
Cities, counties and districts authorized to acquire, develop, operate and maintain park and recreation
facilities are eligible to apply. The application deadline is in May, and applicants must fund the entire
project, and will be reimbursed for 50% of costs. Property acquired or developed under the program
must be retained in perpetuity for public recreational use.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
CTNIAQ Funds are directed to transportation projects and programs which contribute to the
attainment or maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards in non attainment or air
quality maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter under provisions in the
Federal Clean Air Act. Eligible projects include bicycle facilities.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program is managed locally by Caltrans. For a project to be
eligible for HSIP funds, the project must be on any public road and/or publicly owned bicycle,
pedestrian pathway, or trail. Projects must identify a specific safety problem that can be corrected or
be improved substantially.
Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)
Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funding is distributed based on population, among
the urbanized and non -urbanized areas of the State through Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs). Bicycle facilities are eligible for
funding through this federally administered program.
Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Eligible projects fall under the category of infrastructure (capital improvements), or non -
infrastructure (education, encouragement, enforcement). Infrastructure projects must be located
within a two mile radius of a grade school or middle school. Local Caltrans representatives serve as
the administrative authority on SRTS projects.
Transportation Enhancements (TE)
Federal Transportation Enhancement funds are to be used for transportation -related capital
improvement projects that enhance quality -of -life, in or around transportation facilities. Facilities
that qualify for TE hinds include bicycle safety, education and facility projects. Transportation
Enhancements projects are managed locally by Caltrans.
2.5.2. Statewide Funding Sources
The State of California uses both federal sources and its own budget to fund bicycle projects and
programs.
Bicycle Transportation Account
The Bicycle Transportation Account provides state funding for local projects that improve the safety
and convenience of bicycling for transportation. Because of its focus on transportation, Bicycle
Transportation Account projects must provide a demonstrable level of utility for transportation
Purposes. I'„r c1..1111hk_ .JI in t„\vn (m >Itcel mid lm\ed vvmild Inc };nud c�tndiilutCS for
funding. Funds are available for both planning and construction. Bicycle Transportation Account
funding is administered by Caltrans and citic'� ,uxi c011116c�; mini h,n( an ;ulo,fted Bic)cic
Traut,h,mati,m 1'I:in in „rd�r 1() l,c eligible. The maximum amount available through the Bicycle
Transportation Account is $1.2 million dollars, cities and counties are eligible to apply. All projects
must be designed to the standards outlined in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual. The
application deadline is in December.
Community Based Transportation Planning Demonstration Grant Program
This fund, administered by Caltrans, provides funding for projects that exemplify livable community
concepts including bicycle improvement projects. Eligible applicants include local governments,
metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies. A 20% local
match is required and projects must demonstrate a transportation component or objective. There is
$3 million available annually statewide. The application deadline is in October.
Safe Routes to School (SR2S)
To be eligible for SR2S funds, the project must be located on any state highway or on any local road.
Projects must correct an identified safety hazard or problem on a route that students use for trips to
and from school. lip to 10 percent of the project's cost can fund a non infrastructure component
that supports the infrastructure project. Only cities and counties are eligible to compete for funds.
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
All STIP projects must be capital projects (including project development costs) needed to improve
transportation. Eligible projects include bicycle facility improvements and improved access to transit
and are administered by Caltrans.
2.5.3. Local and Regional Funding Sources
Developer Impact Fees
Fees placed on new development local government could be used as local matching funds to attract
other grant sources.
2.5.4. Non -Traditional Funding Sources
Community Development Block Grants
The Community Development Block Grant program provides money for streetscape revitalization,
which may be largely comprised of pedestrian improvements. Federal Community Development
Block Grant grantees may "use [these] funds for activities that include (but are not limited to):
acquiring real prc)perty; reconstructing or rehabilitating housing and other property; building public
facilities and improvements, such as streets, sidewalks, community and senior citizen centers and
recreational facilities, paying for planning and administrative expenses, such as costs related to
developing a consolidated plan and managing Community Development Block Grant funds; provide
public services for youffis, seniors, or the disabled; and initiatives such as neighborhood watch
programs."
American Greenways Program
Administered by The Conservation Fund, the American Greenways Program provides funding for
the planning and design of greenways. Applications for funds can be made by local regional or
statewide non-profit organizations and public agencies. The maximum award is $2,500, but most
range from $500 to $1,500. American Greenways Program monies may be used to fund unpaved
trail development. The application deadline is June 1.
This section provides bikeway planning and design guidelines for use in developing the OCTA
bikeway systcrii and support facilities. Guidelines are presented based on their regulatory agencies
and documents. Olie set of guidelines involve design elements required by the State of California for
compliance with Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000 "Bikcwav Planning and Design"
guidelines. Another set of guidelines follow the California Manual of Liniform Traffic Control
Devices (CAMUTCD). Finally, the last set of guidelines cover experimental or nonstandard best
practices with information about optional innovative bikeways and support facilities that have not
been adopted by Caltrans or the CAMUTCD.
Although this information meets Caltrans requirements it is not intended to state a minimum or
maximum accommodation or to replace any existing adopted roadway design guidelines. All facility
designs are subject to engineering design review.
2.6.1. Caltrans Guidelines
According to Caltrans, the term "bikeway" encompasses all facilities that provide primarily for
bicycle travel- Caltrans defines three major types of bikeways in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design
Manual: Class 1, Gass 11, and Class 111, For each type of facility the document provides design
requirements and recommendations, including details for gradation, surfacing, intersection
considerations, lane -widths and lighting.
Figure 2-1: Bicycle Facility Types provides an illustration of these three types of bicycle facilities.
04 �
Provides a completely separated
right of way for the exclusive use of
bicycles and pedestrians with
cross ow minimized.
RED
use PATH
NTO
di
4
OR
VE141CLES
OR
MOTORIZED I
ode YCL5S
i
_J
KUTP "11
I
one-way bike travel on a
street or highway.
BIK
LANE i
CLASS III
194ke Route
2' GRAVEL SHOULDERS RECOMMENDED
t2' MIN TOTAL V\hDTH RECOMMENDED
6"- 8" Solid White Stripe
Parking Bike
Lane
Provides for shared use with
pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic,
4' MIN VIATH NO GUTTER
5'ViN, WfTH GUTTER
Optional Shared A
Roadway Marking
Shared Roadway can incorporate 14' WIDTH PREFERRED
the Shared lane markino,
Figure 2.1: Bicycle Facility Types
In conjunction with the Caltrans guidelines for facility design, part 9 of the CATMUTCD provides
guidelines for signage, pavcri-ient markings, and highwav traffic signals specifically related to bicycle
operation on both roadways and shared -use paths. These guidelines include details regarding traffic
control device placement, maintenance, and application. Fig -tire 2-2 shows some of the signs
regulated by the CA-MUTCD.
[OHN4 1 1AMM
CYCLES
MUST
EXIT
R44A (CA) R44B(CA)
I
BIKE LANE
R81 (CA"
44C-1 C-1 (C A) R62C (CA)
VVI 1-1
Figure 2.2: Examples of Regulatory and Warning Signs
2.6.3. Guidelines for innovative Treatments
The following Set Of guidelines present treatments that go beyond the Caltrans and CANIUTCD
standards. These Primarily consist of facilities that help bicyclists negotiate particularly challenging
roadways and it-nprove the convenience of bicycle travel. ' Almost every city in Orange County
features locations where these innovative treatments can make conditions easier, more convenient',
and safer for bicycle commuters. These treatments may be hey= in determining a Level of
Service J,OS) standard for the region's bikeways. If develop(, -d, this LOS can give bicyclists an at -a -
glance idea of the level Of convenience that will be provided when choosing a route.
Freeway Ramps
Freeway on- and off -ramp crossings present a potential conflict zone for bicyclists and motorists, as
bicycle lanes are typically dropped and bicyclists must merge across travel lanes where vehicles are
accelerating or decelerating from freeway speeds. The appropriate bicyclist behavior is to merge left
away so as to be positioned in the through lane well before the mouth of the on-ramp, and to remain
out away from the curb until past the off -ramp. Implementation of interchange improvements
requires coordination with Caltrans District 12 regarding placement of signage and striping because
these areas are in Caltrans' right-of-way. Two guidelines for these improvements are:
The bicycle merge should begin 250 feet in advance of the freeway on-ramp.
Appropriate signage and striping should be used to warn bicyclists and motorists of
the merge.
Bicycle improvements to freeway ramps are shown in .
Figure 2.3: Bike Crossing of Freeway Ramps
The City of Portland has addressed this issue with striping or physical elements that encourage
bicyclists to cross ramps at Or close to a right angle. The treatment, shortens the vehicle/bicycle
Conflict zone while also improving sight distance for bicyclists. Some bicyclists may choose to ignore
this treatment however, as this creates a less -direct route through the interchange area and forces
them to relinquish right-o�- Nva.- U) exiting motorists,
Figure 2A Signage and pavement markings encouraging bicyclists to cross ramp
Figure 2.5 shows a dashed bike lane through the conflict zone of a freeway interchange in
Jacksonville, Florida, cicarlv demarcating the cyclist's route and lane positioning. Treating the
pavement with color enhances the visibility of the conflict area,
7
Figure 2.5: Dashed bike lane through conflict zone {optional painted lane)
Ideally, freeway nqmp-, sliould reproach surface streets at a right angic,, ,,,nd be signalized. This
provides both b',,- :+ vers with the greatest 6sibility, and it ,.voids conflicts between
bicyclists and mc, "T"
Figure 2.6: Lemon St. at Truslow Ave, Fullerton
Bicycle Signals ri Detectors at Intersections
At -grade undercrossing, facilities for
pedestrians and bicyclists can be beneficial to
a region's bikeway network. Because then
require less excavation than roads, they
provide time and financial savings.
At -grade undercrossings do not require the
same amount of elevation change as adjacent
roadways because they do not have the same
height clearance requirements. As Figure 2.6
demonstrates, the shorter the elevation
change (and closer to Perfectly flat) the more
convenient the path will be.
Many traffic signals are not programmed or sensitive enough to
detect a bicyclist waiting at an intersection. When this happens,
bicyclists can become frustrated and attempt to cross an
intersection before the light changes.
Two innovative methods for addressing this problem are
bicyclist -oriented push butwns or loop detectors. Push buttons
work in the same way a pedestrian actuated cross signal does, but
it is placed conveniently next to the curb where bicyclists can
activate it (without having to dismount their bike) and contains
signage that promotes its use (Figure 2.7).
Another facility designed to hc1p bicyclists at intersections are
conductor loops. As Figure 2.8 , demonstrates, pavement
markings can be used in conjunction with the detector loop to
instruct bicyclists where to wait while at an intersection.
These innovative trcam)cms are effectively address the concerns
of bicyclists waiting at tr-affic signals, while also promoting safe
and courteous bicycle riding
Bicyclists
I&VIC Z-0. 111-Pd4e111e1JL LOOP
•-
Bicycle Boulevard,, have bcen implemented in numerous
California locations including Berkeley, Davis, and
Pasadena. A Bicycle Boulevard, also known as 'bicycle
priority road, is a roadway that allows all types of vehicles,
but which has been modified to enhance bicycle safety
to be places where
and security. Roadways are designedI
e
cars and bicycles can equally share right-of-way. Bicycle
Boulevards tend to be residential streets with lower traffic
volumes, typically between 3000 to 5000 average daily
vehicles, but can include secondary commercial streets.
Figure 2.9 shows the typical design features of bicycle
boulevards, these include:
Traffic calming devices such as traffic circles
and curb bull) outs
Bicycle destination sigliage
Pavement stencils indicating status as a
BjcN,-cIc Boulevard
Crossing improvements at major arterials
Such as traffic signals with bicycle -detection,
four-way stops and high -visibility crosswalks
Bicycle -friendly sign-,,] preemption at high-
volume signalized intersections.
Stop signs on streets crossing the Bicycle Boulevard
Figure 2.9: Bicycle Boulevard Signage
in Berkeley, CA
Bicycle Boulevards can be designed to accommodate the p--: and
businesses along the routes, and may be as simple as pavement
complex as streets xvith traffic diverters and bicycle signals !Z,Oc —j- Bic16&
Boulevards may benefit most from signage and public educat, 1-1. b -'D -d caoi-c-al
may not be necessary.
To further identify a street as a preferred bicycle route, lower volurn: roadways may be modified to
function as a through street for bicycles, while maintaining only local access for automobiles. Traffic
calming devices can lower traffic speeds and through trips, limiting conflicts between motorists and
bicyclists and providing priority to through bicycle movement.
C39 -
Raised median prevents motor
vehicles from cutting through
BE)
finsignaiized Intersec-doj
Median opening allows
bicyclists to cross arterial
Traffic Circles and/or Speed Bumps
act as traffic calming devices
Stop signs on, cross streets favor
through bicycle movement
x
Cyclist activates signal
by push-button
Traffic signal allows
hikes to cross arterial
M
One-VAy chocker prohibits
nrotor vehicle traffic from
entering Bike Boulevard
Figure 2.10: Bicycle Boulevard Lane Configuration
Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking
Recently, Shared Lane Nfarking stencils have been introduced for use in Califc)rnja as an additional
treatment for Class III facilities. The stencil can serve a number of purposes, such as making
motorists aware of bicycles potentially in their lane, showing bicyc!ists the direction of travel, anti,
with proper placement, reminding bicyclists to bike further from parked cars to prevent "flooring"
collisions.
Figure 2.11 illustrates recommended placement of the stencil in the roadway and the "Chevron"
marking design recommended by Caltrans. Caltrans adopted the following pavement markings for
official use in 2005 as part of the California MUTCD.
Figure 2.11: Shared Lane Marking Placement and Shared Roadway 3icycle -Marfk-"ig
Local jurisdictions should work together to create a sign �vsts 1.
cni for the class 11/rnulti-use pat],
network. It is an expanding network- that could fink with marc destinations countywide. Signs could
show destinations as well as proper traffic control.
These signs could be coordinated with other on -street bicycle route signa, c. This system should
encourage use of trails for recreational as well as functional bicycling trip -purposes. Helping bicyclists
of all ages reach destinations casilN%
Figure 2.12: Multi -Use Path Signs
For mane nears Oranl)c,�ounty has used brown and white ""Grail Courtesy" sings ,,,long class It
bikeways. These are , typically located at entrances to a class I bikewa\,particularly articularly at into ections
and other bikeway access points. The sign depicts the three main user groups as all users ire allowed
on regional class I bikev ays in Orange County. Optional signage can he included bencati-, the triangle
to provide wayfinding or the name of the path.
For aesthetic purposes, � ignage along class I bikeways should be kept to a minimum and should
include only those sings that arc absolutely necessary to identify a mute or provide sa.fety direction.
When paths are locatec' parallel and adjacent to roadways, vehicles
turning into and out of streets And drivcwa�,,s must cross the path.Conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians, and turning motorists
are common at these types of intersections. Turning motor vehicles
do not expect to see bicyclists or pedestrians coming in the opposite
direction of traffic.
Starting in the carp= 199o's, the City of Denver, Colorado began using
experimental warning �,gnagc at Its parallel paths. The signage is
modified from the standard N1 `TCD railroad warning signage.
Experimental signage, sirnilpr to the Denver parallel path warning
signs, could help ','let-, motorists to the presence of bicyclists and
pedestrians on parallel
Figure 2.13: Denver's parallel
pattrnirg signage
USME=_
As more bikeways are constructed and bicycle usage grows, the need for bike parking will increase.
Short-term parking at shopping centers and similar land uses can Support bicyciing ,,is v, -ell as long-
term bicycle parking at transit stations and work sites. The Association for B'-1cvcic and. Pedestrian
Professionals published Bicycle Parking Guidelines to help with bicycle parking facility, design,
placement and installation.
Short Term Bicycle Parking
Short term bicycle parking facilities are best used to accommodate visitors, customers, messengers
and others expected to depart within two hours. Bicycle racks provide support for the bicycle but do
not have locking mechanisms. Racks are relativcll, low-cost devices that typically hold b�twccit two
and eight bicycles, allow bicyclists to securely lock their frames and wheels, are secured to the
ground, and are located in highly visible areas. They are usually located at schools, commercial
locations, and activity centers such as parks, libraries, retail locations, and civic centers. Bicycle racks
should be installed with the following, guidelines in mind:
Tne rack element (part of the rack that supports the bike) should keep the bike upright,
supporting the -frame in two places and allowing one or both wheels to be secured.
Install racks so there is enough room between adjacent parked bicycles. If it becomes
too difficult, for a bicyclist to easily lock their bicycle, they may park elsewhere. A row of
inverted "U" racks should be installed with 15 inches minimum between racks.
Empty racks should not pose a tripping hazard for visually impaired pedestrians.
Position racks out of the walkway's clear zone.
Install racks outside the 2 -foot clearance area of a class I bikeway
Bicycle racks should be installed on concrete or asphalt to ensuresccur;t%7/stabi1;tV
When possible, racks should be in a covered area protected from the elements. Long-term parking
should always be protected.
Generally, 'U type racks bolted into the sidewalk are preferred and should bc located intermittently
or in front of key destinations. Bicycle racks should be installed to mcci ADA standards and not
block pedestrian throu,,gh traffic. provides recommendations for placement of -inverted L= type racks.
Local jurisdictions may want to consider custom
racks that can serve not on;�, as Bicycle racks, but
also public artwork, or Els advertising for a specific
business. Figure 2.15: Recommended Short -
Term Bicycle Parking Facilities provides
examples of various racks. The "post and ring"
style rack is in attractive alternative to the standard
inverted -U, which requires only ,, single mounting
point and can be custornizcd to have a cite or
region name or cinblenn stamped into the rings.
These racks can also be casilly retrofitted onto
existing street posts, such as parking meter posts.
While custom racks can �,�Clld a decorative eleincru
and relate to a neighborhood theme, the rack
function should not be overlooked: All racks
should adhere to the basic functional requirement
of supporting the bicycle by the frame (not only
the wheel} and accepting a U -lock.
...... . ......
-- - - --------
FigureRecommended bicycle parking spacirrg
dimeiisions
TT H E R A CI PC E L E tyl E IN T
Def itUcn, Me re lk element is the pea of we ble r that s£( pmh aw QqK
The rack elernentshouid:
* SUPPort thP blcYcle U'Pright by its frame in two places
11 Prevent the wheel of the bicycle from tjpipjjsg ower
8 Enable the fr,mlp and one or both wheels to be wcured
* SUPPOrt bicycl&without a diarnond-shved frame wah a horizontal top tubc a rnfxt!' frame)
* AM fraMon parking: a U -lock should be able to lock the frord wheel and the down tube of an
upWAbQW!c;
III
Allow back-ir
parking: a U-Iock
shwdd be abT to
lock the rear wheal
and srat I&e of sp
biqCie
Corntt' toast, Chooi-
yamt and trier u'' we
racks thw
provide no suppat for
the bicy& frame aie
140T recommended,
The rack element
should resist being
cut or detached usmg
common hand too!5,
espechily those that
can be coneaWd in
abackiacs SM
tools irockNe b
MAW Pbe cdom,
wrenches, and pry Liars.
P4000,* N�
N
JI
\1
I�MIIII �
INVERTED"U"
One tack element suDpuils jvjc: lekes.
POST AND LOOP
One rwh Me= svpmh Wo b&&
"A"
dunent',uppolls Mo bikes,
come
Me MA In0a a a yonal
whmeal of Me imt
WAVE
Ne Ma ase ts..tt ii a nowl myraw of Me rwk
TOAST
One md ManO hAk me Mad da hAe
Figure 2.15: Recommended Short -Term Bicycle Parking Facilities
For long-tertn parking, the local jurisdictions
may want to consider bicycle lockers.
Bicyclists are usual!\- more comfortable
storing bicycles in lockers for long periods
because they offer incrcased security and
protection from natural cicmcrts. Although
they may be more expensive to install, they
can make the difference for commuters
deciding whether or not to bicycle.
Lockers can be controlied with traditional key
systems or through more elaborate
subscription systems. Subscription locker
programs, like c -lockers, or park -by -phone
systems allow even more flexibility within
locker use. Instead of restricting access for
each patron to a single locker, subscribers can
gain access to all lockers within a system,
controlled by magnetic access cards, or caller
ID. These programs typically have fewer
administrative costs because they simplify or
eliminate key rnamwerncrit and locker
assignment.
Long-term bicycle parking facilities
accommodate employees, students, residents,
commuters, and others expected to park more
than MN,() hours. These parking facilities
should be provided in a secure, weather -
protected manner and location.
Innovative High Volume bicycle Parking
In many locations, individual U -racks located
on the sidewalk can be Sufficient to meet
bicycle parking demand. Where biqTcle
parking demand is higher, more formal
structures and larger facilities need to be
provided. Several options for high-volume
bicycle parking are outlined below.
NNIMMEMMUMT-1
A relativclN- inexpensive Solution to
providing higi-i-volurne bicycle parking
is to convert one or two on -street
motor vehicle parking spaces into on -
street bicycle parking. Bike racks are
installed in the street and protected
from motor vehicles with removable
curbs and bollards. These Bike Parking
Corrals move bicycles off the sidewalks,
and leave space for sidewalk caf6 tables
or pedestrians. Bicycle parking does not
block sightfines, like motor N,chicles do,
so it may be possible m locate bicycle
parking in no -parking zones near
intersections and crosswalks.
Photo: Bill Stiles
Figure 2.17: aike Cowryi
In 2008, the City of Portland, Oregona
began installation of scvc--F!
"Bike Oases" in commercial districts. These signature bicycle
parking facilities are installed on curb extensions an_' zonsist
attractive coN-cred NIX parking and on inform l')Tj rano.
Portland's Bike Oases provide parking space for ten bikes. Bike
and walking maps are installed on the information panel.
I
Bicycle Commuting Centers (BCC) are a type of mass smrage
facility for bicycles. They are sometimes kn`ov�-n as BikeStati
BikeStation is a non profit organization that operates NcN--"e
Commuting Centers. Bicycle Commuting Centers \ary in size a°rd
structure, but zypically provide secure, monitored storage space for
bicycles and commuting equipment. So,, -I,(: flciji-,�es ijjtc'g,-ate
bicycle storage 1,a3itb repair and maintenance seri-ices operated by
hired staff.
Typically, BCGs provide free parking during
business hours on wcckdays. Other centers
include enhanced services [hat come with
membership. In e-,changc for a monthly fee, BCC
members have unlimited access to the parking
facilities and may rcccik,c discounts on other
services Provide at the facilitY. BCCs may also
feature showers locker room space, equipment
for sale and refreshments. These facilities tend to
be located in a highly visible space so as to attract
patronage and also promote bicycle commuting in
general.
Figure 2
ME=
Bike sharing is an innovative approach to urban mobilia.
of a private vehicle with the accessibility and reltial:,)i1l3ty of pu')!;C -s J,
I," ' t t Ics are
nN
available on demand - fast and easy access for atrip. n,.
!I—Xillg a
private car or waiting on a transit timetable. When us,�-,d in c-O�-"I.-O"
V --
systems, a shared bike program can reduce the travel -cinic between p' �.,,t..k..a "!-!G easily
overcome the distance between residence and shopping center.
Benefits of Bike Sharing Programs
* Fast, flexible and convenient
persona' transportation for the
urban environment,
* A relatively safe and worry free
introduction to cycling for people
wishing to change their commute
mode.
--
Introduces 1 11
11 (M cost, low
commitment transportation Figure 2.20: Bike Sharing Programs
alternative that enables and
encoura,ges Multi -modal commutes
I
when cornbince, with mass transit.
Quiet, clean use of urban space when sul-,.itu .-J fi;'
CHAPTER 3. Bikeway Information bjj
Jurisdiction
A summary of the existing bikeways, related facilities, and programs under the, jurisdiction of Orange
County cities, the County, and the State of California are provided below. Bikeways information
provided by each city partially satisfies requirements for state Bicycle Transportation I on Account (BTA)
funding eligibility. As required in the Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2, this section provides
the following existing conditions and plans for each jurisdiction:
Land use and settlement patterns
Population
Estimated number of bicycle commuters
Collisions involving bicyclists
End -of -trip facilities
End -of -trip facilities are available to bicyclists at the end of their commutes. Important
end -of -trip facilities include storage such as bicycle parking and lockers, as well as
showers and places to change clothes.
Multi -nodal facilities
Multi -modal facilities allow bicyclists to connect to other modes of travel. Multi -modal
facilities include park-and-ride locations and public transportation with facilities that
allow for bicycles on board.
* Descriptions of bicycle safety and education programs
* Descriptions of past expenditures for bicycle facilities
Existence of Bicycle Transportation Plan
Bikeways
Most individual city population figures come from the 2006/2007 totals reported by the US Census
Bureau, In some instances, more updated figures have been provided by individual city departments.
The estimated numbers of bicycle commuters for each city is extrapolated from a number of studies
and the U.S. Census 2000, Total estimated bicycle commuters include bike -to -work, transit, school,
college and utilitarian bicycle commuters; it does not include recreational trips. See appendices for
description of number extrapolation.
r
k'�Lt1, pq pp �i i•
Am
O �
(O
a) J
10
IL
ad
-
Q � r
m t7 •sr �'16� 1p',_py
OO
O
• _� P
Z u15 30bfJbld ..--.........d• I �V
& ° ; 3AV 110H
Z IS IDUSOdd
^�•• A Q � .a Z t" � ® i
Q ,•'•. 1S V9UOA d o• a n
L J4
1SV9UOA
s
1-0 �7b
Q3AV ON"!) pd, 0,>
u 3AV011VaNV15 as <
w e £ Q
Z
OVON9
15 AVO 1SNIVW w r
r x AA
_ 4 ts
2 V
Q is lO1SIN9
_ S w IS111VU isWV39
O
3.3 1. Tustin
Tustin is primarily an urban area. Historic old buildings, some daring back to the 1880s, are
maintained in "Old Town" on Main Street and El Camino Real, The downtown area of the City is
well established, but the eastern Tustin Ranch area has been developed primarily over the past
decade. Tustin Marketplace in Tustin Ranch is a major regional shopping and entertainment
destination in the County.
The former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station was closed in 1999. In 2003, the City adopted the
Specific Plan establishing the zoning designation, development standards, and entitlement framework
for future development of the facility, now named Tustin Legacy. The site is currently being
developed and will ultimately include 4,600 homes, over 10 million square feet of non-residential
space including major office, retail, entertainment, business park, educational, and support facilities.
Over 275 acres are dedicated to park land and recreational open space and will feature a two-mile
linear park with walking spaces, playgrounds, natural areas, and sports facilities.
74,218
Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters
Estimated Bicycle Commuters
Number
I Estimated Total Number of Bicycle
Commuters and UtiliIIItarian Riders
■���_,®
Estimated Current Bicycle Trips
Total Daily Bicycle Trips
Reduced Vehicle Trips per W ekday
Future Potential Bicycle Commuters
Total Future Daity Bicycte Commuters
Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips
Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
I
Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
1,694,273
Future Air Quality Benefits
Reduced HC (metric tons/year)
Reduced NOX (metric tons/year)
2
I
Reduced CO2 (metric tons/yea
Emissions rates from iEPA; report 420-F-00-013
"Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and
Fuel Consumption for assehger Cars and Light
Trucks." 2000.
Parameter
Total ff of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years
Collision Rate
103
Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year
20.6
Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000/year'
0.30
Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2
0.91
1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.
2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one
0.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average.
End -of -Trip Facilities
Information on existing and proposed end -of trip facilities is not available.
Multimodal Facilities
Active
Yes
# Of Years Conducted
25
# Of Times a Year Conducted
Administered by
Police Department
Location
Schools
Program, Curriculum, and Activities
Presentation /assembly at schools, bicycle safety
coloring book
Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs
Bicycle registration and bicycle helmet
Total # of Children Reached
-.replacements
Approximately 1,750 per year
Age of Children Reached
4th grade classes in all schools
Other Program Notes
The Police Department also funds adult crossing
.guards at a cost of over $400,000 per year
Expenditures
Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available.
Tustin has uMaster Plan as part /fthe CircolatiooElement nfits General Plan.
Street/Path
Barranca Pkwy.'
From
Tustin Ranch Rd.
TO
Jamboree Rd.
Class
Class 1-
Mileag
0.49
Como Channel Bikeway
Peters Canyon Channel
Harvard Ave,
Class 1
0.22
Et Camino Real
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Myford Ave.
Class 1
0.32
Irvine Blvd.2
Browning Ave.
East of Ranchwood Rd.
Class 1
0.13
Myford Rd.
Et Camino Reat
Bryan Ave.
Class 1
0.15
Newport Ave.
Et Camino Real.
Irvine Blvd.
Class 1
0.90
Orange County Regional
Trail
Jamboree Rd. (s/o Champion
WAVI
Peters Canyon Regional Park
Ctassl
1.93
Park Ave.
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Warner Ave.
Class 1
0.63
Armstrong Ave.
Valencia Ave.
Warner Ave.
Class 11
0.58
Barranca Pkwy.3
Red Hitt Ave.
Jamboree Rd.
Class 11
0.75
Browning Ave.
Bryan Ave.
Red Mitt Cit.
Class if
0.07
Browning Ave.2
Red Mitt Cir.
Irvine Blvd.
Class 11
0.43
Bryan Ave.
Red Hitt Ave.
Jamboree Rd.
Class If
1.50
Det Amo Ave.
Newport Ave.
Edinger Ave.
Class 11
0.27
Edinger Ave.
Newport Ave.
Harvard Ave.
Class 11
2.50
Harvard Ave.'
OCTA/SCRRA Railway
North of Columbus Grove Dr.
Class 11
0.76
Irvine Blvd.
East of Ranchwood Rd.
Jamboree Rd.
Class 11
0.77
Jamboree Rd.
Et Camino Real
Northern City Limit
Class It
4.13
Kensington Park Dr. -.---Valencia
Ave.
Edinger Ave.
Class If
0.28
Moffett Ave.
Peters Canyon Channel
Harvard Ave.
Class 11
0.27
Newport Ave.
Irvine Blvd,
Wass Street
Ctassll
0.22
Newport Ave.
Valencia Ave.
Edinger Ave.
Ctassll
0.45
Newport Ave.'
Wass Street
South of La Colina Drive
Class 11
0.34
Parkcenter Ln.
Ave.
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Class 11
0.31
Patriot Way
Pioneer Rd.
Jamboree Rd.
Classil
0.15
Pioneer Rd.
Pioneer Way
Jamboree Rd.
Classli
1.55
Pioneer Way
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Pioneer Rd.
CtassIl
0.13
Portota Pkwy.
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Jamboree Rd.
Class 11
0.29
Red Hill Ave.
Nisson Rd.
El Camino Real.
Class 11
0.14
Red Hitt Ave.
Parkway Loop
Edinger Ave.
Class 11
0.15
Robinson Dr.
Irvine Blvd.
Jamboree Rd.
Class 11
0.56
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Walnut Ave.
Jamboree Rd.
Ctassll
3.36
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Barranca Pkwy.
Warner Ave.
Ctassll
0.71
Valencia Ave.
Red Hitt Ave.
Kensington Park Dr.
Class 11
0.88
Walnut Ave.
Browning Ave.
Myford Ave.
Class 11
0.95
Warner Ave.
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Park Ave.
Classil 1
0.11
` Northside of8arnancaPkwy.
zShared Jurisdiction ' City of Tustin Et County of Orange
'Shared Jurisdiction 'City of Tustin 6City of Irvine
Street/Path
Red Hitt Ave.'
From
Barranca Pkwy.
TO
Warner Ave.
Class
Class If
it, a
0.51
Red Hitt Ave.
Warner Ave.
Parkway Loop
Class 11
0.78
Red Hitt Ave.4
Edinger Ave.
Nisson Rd.
Class If
1.00
Red Hitt Ave.
Et Camino Real
First St.
Class 11
0.57
Red Hitt Ave .4
First St.
Melvin Way
Class 11
0.78
Red Hill Ave.',4
Melvin Way
North of Irvine Blvd.
Class 11
0.18
Tustin Proposed Bikeways
Street/Path
South Loop Rd."
From
Armstrong Ave.
To
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Class
Class 1
Mileage -
0.48
Armstrong Ave.
Warner Ave.
Barranca Pkwy.
Class 11
0.53
17th St.
Prospect Ave.
N. Prospect Ave.
Class ll
0.11
Prospect Ave.
17th St.
North of Arbolada Way
Class 11
0.11
Prospect Ave.'
North of Arbotada Way
Sherbrook Dr.
Class 11
0.40
Prospect Ave.
Sherbrook Dr.
First St.
Class 11
0.45
First St.
Prospect Ave.
Red Hill Ave.
Class If
0.95
Barranca Pkwy.'
Red Hitt Ave.
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Class 1
0.75
Valencia Ave.
Newport Ave.
Red Hitt Ave.
Class 11
0.33
Newport Ave.4
Edinger Ave.
Et Camino Real
Class 11
1.09
Walnut Ave.4
Red Hitt Ave.
Browning Ave.
Class If
0.50
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Warner Ave.
Walnut Ave.
Class ll
1.41
Heritage Way
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Bryan Ave.
Class 11
0.67
Parkcenter Ln. t
Et Camino Real
Bryan Ave,
Class If
0.38
Warner Ave.
Red Hitt Ave.
Armstrong Ave.
Ctassll
0.35
Warner Ave. 4
Armstrong Ave.
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Class 11
0.55
East Connector 4
North Loop Rd.
Edinger Ave.
Class 11
0.27
Moffett Ave .4
North Loop Rd.
Peters Canyon Channel
Class 11
0.37
North Loop Rd.4
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Warner Ave.
Ctassll
0.89
Valencia Ave,
Kensington Park Dr.
Tustin Ranch Rd.
Class ll
0.16
Orange County Regional
Trait
OCTA/SCRRA Railway
Warner Ave,
Class 1
1.02
TOTAI
11 77
Shared jurisdiction - City of Tustin Et County of Orange
Shared Jurisdiction - City of Tustin Et City of Santa Ana
3 North side of Barranca Pkwy. only
4 Potential Route
Tustin Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates
Improvements
ilf�' 'uld
The Local hair Share program will provide flexible funding to help cities and the county of Orange pay for the escalating
cost of restoring the aging street system. In addition, cities can use these funds for other local transportation needs such as
residential street projects, traffic and pedestrian safety near schools, signal priority for emergency vehicles, etc.
City Requirements to Receive Funds
'Ibis program is intended to augment, rather than replace, existing transportation expenditures and therefore cities must
meet the following requirement., to receive the funds:
1. Continue to invest general fund funds (or other local discretionary fund,-,) for transportation and annually increase
this commitment to keep pace with inflation
2. Ai,
grec to use N12 funds for transportation purposes only, subject to full repayment and a loss of funding eligibility
for five years for any misuse
I Agree to separate accounting for N12 funds and annual reporting on actual expenditures
4. Develop and maintain a pavement management prograrn to ensure timely street maintenance and submit regular
public report,, on the condition of streets
5. Annually Submit a six-year capital improvement program and commit to spend N42 funds within three years of
receipt
6. Agree to assess traffic impacts of new development and require that new development pay a fair share of any
necessary transportation improvement,,,
7. Agree to plan, build and operate major streets consistent with the countywide Master Plan of Arterial I lighways
to ensure efficient traffic flow across city boundaries
8, participate in traffic forums with neighboring jurisdictions to facilitate the implementation and maintenance of
traffic signal synchronization programs and projects. This requires cities to balance local traffic policies with
neighboring cities — for selected streets — to promote more efficient traffic circulation overall
9. Agree to consider land use planning strategies that are transit -friendly, including bike and pedestrian access and
reduce reliance on the automobile
Distribution of Funds Based on Formula
'I'lic funds under this program are distributed to cities and the County of Orange by formula once the agencies have
fulfilled the above requirements. The formula will account for population, street mileage and amount of sales tax collected
in each jurisdiction.
Cost:
lbe estimated cost for this thirty-year program is $2 billion.