Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan by KTUA

Bikeway Master Plan Prepared by

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Adopted per City Council Resolution #2011-013, February 1, 2011 Acknowledgements: This Bikeway Master Plan update was prepared for the City of Chula Vista under the direction of Roberto Sol贸rzano, Associate Engineer, Elizabeth Chopp, Senior Civil Engineer and Frank Rivera, Principal Civil Engineer. Prime consultant was KTU+A Planning + Landscape Architecture of San Diego, California. Project manager was John Eric Holloway, ASLA, LCI. Project planners and GIS analysts were Joe Punsalan, GISP, LCI, and Catrine Machi, LCI. Traffic engineering support was provided by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. This document is intended to fulfill project scope requirements and to maintain City of Chula Vista compliance with California Streets and Highways Code, Section 891.2 requirements for bicycle transportation plans.

3916 Normal Street San Diego, CA 92103 619 294-4477

COVER-2

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Executive Summary

Project Scope Project Study Area Project Approach and Goals Existing Bicycle Facilities Proposed Projects and Funding Significant Findings and Recommendations

Section 891.2 Compliance Introduction

ES-1 ES-1 ES-1 ES-2 ES-2 ES-3 ES-3

BTA-1

1.1 Project Scope 1 1.2 Project Study Area 2 1.3 Methodology 2 1.3.1 Literature Review 2 1.3.2 Field Work 2 1.3.3 Current Bike Use 2 1.3.4 On-line Survey 3 1.3.5 Geographic Information Systems 3

1.4 Project Approach and Goals 3 1.5 Project Definitions 3 1.5.1 Bikeway Facility Types 3 1.5.2 Non-standard Facilities 3 1.5.3 Associated Agencies 3

Coordination

2.1 Existing Plans 9 2.2 State and Regional Bikeway Standards 13 2.2.1 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 13 2.2.2 California Streets and Highways Code, Section 891.2 14

2.3 Surrounding Communities 16 2.3.1 San Diego 17 2.3.2 National City 18 2.3.3 San Diego Unified Port District 18 2.3.4 County of San Diego 18

2.6 Regional Bikeway Projects 18 Final

TOC-1

Table of Contents

Needs Assessment

3.1 Circulation 23

3.1.1 Roadway System 23 3.1.2 Programmed Roadways 23 3.1.3 City Bikeway Standards 24 3.1.4 Existing Bikeway Facilities 24 3.1.5 Planned Bikeway Facilities 29

3.2 Trip Origins 29 3.2.1 Existing Land Use 29 3.2.2 Future Land Use 30 3.2.3 Existing Residential Areas 31 3.2.4 Population and Employment Density 31 3.2.5 Summary of Trip Origins 34

3.3 Trip Destinations 34 3.3.1 Existing Activity Centers 35 3.3.2 Employment Centers 40 3.3.3 Parks/Schools/Civic Centers 40 3.3.4 Trip Destination Summary 40

3.4 Multi-modal Analysis 41 3.4.1 Chula Vista Transit (CVT) 41 3.4.2 Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Trolley 42 3.4.3 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 44 3.4.4 Existing Park and Ride Facilities 44 3.4.5 Existing Transit Centers 44 3.4.6 Multi-Modal Summary 45

3.5 Safety 45 3.5.1 User Types and Capabilities 45 3.5.2 Data Analysis 49 3.5.3 Public Meetings 49 3.5.4 On-line Survey Responses and Analysis 54

3.6 Constraints to Cycling 55 3.6.1 Roadways with High Posted Speed Limits 55 3.6.2 Topography 56 3.6.3 Freeway Crossings 56 3.6.4 Loss or Degradation of Bikeway Facilities 58 3.6.5 Connectivity Issues 58

3.7 Current and Future Ridership Estimates

3.7.1 Means of Transportation 59 3.7.2 Bicycle Commuting in Chula Vista 59 3.7.3 Non-Commute Bicycle Ridership 60 3.7.4 Projected Bicycle Ridership 61

TOC-2

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Recommendations

4.1 Recommended Bikeway Facilities 63 4.2 Class 1 Facilities 65 4.3 Class 2 Facilities 69 4.4 Class 3 Facilities 74 4.5 Other Bicycle Facilities 79 4.5.1 Undesignated Bike Facilities 79 4.5.2 Urban Access Pathways 79 4.5.3 Connections to Urban Centers 79 4.5.4 School Access Paths/Safe Routes to School (SRTS) 78 4.5.5 Intermodal Facilities 80 4.5.6 Bicycle Boulevards 80

4.6 Recommended Bicycle Programs 81 4.6.1 Encouragement Recommendations 82 4.6.2 Education Recommendations 87 4.6.3 Enforcement Recommendations 91 4.6.4 Engineering Recommendations 92 4.6.5 Evaluation and Planning 93

Bikeway Funding

5.1 Bikeway Development Priorities 97 5.2 Typical Unit Construction Costs 98 5.2.1 Class 1 Bikeways 98 5.2.2 Class 2 Bikeways 98 5.2.3 Class 3 Bikeways 98 5.2.4 Bikeway Bridge Improvements 100

5.3 Bikeway Funding Sources 1 00 100 5.3.1 Federal Sources 100 5.3.2 State Sources 108 5.3.3 Local Sources 109 5.3.4 Most Likely Sources 111 5.3.5 Private Sources 111

Final

TOC-3

Table of Contents

Appendices A: Design Guidelines App-1 App-39 B: CIP Cost Analysis App-39 App-83 C: Guidelines for Selecting Safe Routes to School App-83 App-85 D: Suitability Model and Project Prioritization App-85 App-99 E: Agency Publications App-99 F: California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Use of Roadways App-113 App-113 App-118 G: Public Input Summary App-118 H: Existing Facilities Improvement Recommendations App-126 App-126 App-133 I: Bicycle Count Summary App-133 J: Caltrans Highway Design Manual - Chapter 1000 App-137 App-137

Figures 1: Existing Bicycle Facilities 7 2: Planned Bicycle Facilities 28 3: Existing Land Use 32 4: Planned Land Use 33 5: 2000 Population Density 36 6: 2000 Employment Density 37 7: Activity Centers 38 8: Bicycle Related Amenities 39 9: Public Transit Service 43 10: Average Daily Trips (ADTs) 50 11: Speed Limits 51 12: Bicycle Related Collisions 52 13: Recommended Bicycle Facilities 64 14: Recommended Class 1 Bike Paths 66 15: Recommended Class 2 Bike Lanes 70 16: Recommended Class 3 Bike Routes 75

TOC-4

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Tables ES-1: Existing Bicycle Facilities ES-2 ES-2: Recommended Bicycle Facilities ES-3 ES-3: Summary of Costs ES-3 1: Existing Class 1 Bike Paths 24 2: Existing Class 2 Bike Lanes 25 3: Existing Class 3 Bike Routes 27 4: Bikeway User Classification 47 5: Bicycle Related Collisions by Year 53 6: Bicycle Related Collisions by Month 53 7: Bicycle Related Collisions by Time of Day 53 8: Bicycle Related Collisions by Day of Week 53 9: Bicycle Related Citations 53 10: Means of Transportation 60 11: Recommended Class 1 Bike Paths 68 12: Recommeneded Class 2 Bike Lanes 71 13: Recommended Class 3 Bike Routes 76 14: Typical Construction Costs 99 15: Federal Funding Sources 112 16: State Funding Sources 114 17: Local Fuding Sources 116 18: Private Funding Sources 117 19: Summary of Eligible Projects 118

Final

TOC-5

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

TOC-6

2011

Executive Summary Project Scope

The City developed its first bikeway master plan in 1996. It established the types of bikeway facilities that should be implemented within the City and identified the need to integrate with the existing system of regional bikeways in the San Diego metropolitan area. This original master plan was replaced by one prepared by KTU+A Planning + Landscape Architecture, adopted in January 2005. In December 2005 the Chula Vista City Council then approved a General Plan Update that emphasized an Urban Core area with commensurate land use changes, primarily in northwest Chula Vista. This study is an update of the 2005 Bikeway Master Plan intended to fulfill project scope requirements and to maintain City of Chula Vista compliance with California Streets and Highways Code, Section 891.2 requirements for bicycle transportation plans. By law, cities are to adopt their bikeway master plans (termed “Bicycle Transportation Plans” by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)) no earlier than five years prior to July 1 of the fiscal year in which the state’s Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funds are to be granted. (For example: With the 2010/2011 fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2010, cities applying for 2010/2011 BTA funds must have a bikeway master plan adopted January 1, 2005 or later.) This five year cycle is intended to make certain that Chula Vista’s 2005 General Plan changes affecting bicycle transportation will be accommodated in a timely manner. This bikeway master plan’s recommendations are based on the best practices employed by other cities around the country and are in accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This document also satisfies the requirements of the California Bicycle Transportation Act (BTA; 1994) which, upon approval by Caltrans, maintains the City of Chula Vista’s eligibility for state bicycle funding.

Project Study Area

The project study area was the City of Chula Vista and its planning sphere of influence of the surrounding communities and unincorporated County areas. Adjoining areas’ bicycle systems were evaluated for opportunities as connections with Chula Vista’s and to extend the regional network via Chula Vista’s bikeway system. (See Figure 1: Existing Bicycle Facilities.)

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

ES-1

Executive Summary

Project Approach and Goals

The overall approach for this master plan is summarized in the following paragraphs. The approaches listed below also constitute the planning goals for this study. • The bicycle master plan should be integrated into all transportation plans, especially if the proposed bicycle facilities will use general purpose roads shared with other forms of transportation. The planning efforts should include the integration of various modes of transportation including transfers between modes at transit centers and park and ride facilities. • The aim of planning for bicycles should not be focused on any particular facility type so much as it should be focused on the safe and efficient travel of cyclists. This will generally require both the use of the existing transportation infrastructure and the construction of special facilities for cyclists. • The maintenance of bicycle facilities and the monitoring and assessment of their performance are critical for ensuring safe and efficient travel for cyclists. Planning for cyclists is an ongoing process. • The coexistence of cyclists and drivers on roads requires that both are sensitive to and recognize a common set of rules. Training, education and enforcement are as important as physical planning and design. • It is imperative that a “bicycle perspective” guides any planning for cyclists. The bicycle has its own characteristics, constraints and opportunities that the planner must consider. This must be combined with the recognition that cyclists do not form a homogeneous group in terms of age, ability, experience or traffic judgment. • An integration of land use planning and transportation planning is needed to support future projects that are not intensively dependent on the automobile. This study needs to take into account future land use and population projections and provide bicycle facilities to help decrease auto dependence.

Existing Bicycle Facilities

Prior to commencing field work, bicycle-related collision, speed limits and average daily trip (ADT) data were collected and analyzed to highlight roadways and areas that need further attention. Based on this analysis, as well as input from City staff and the public, some streets that do not have existing bicycle facilities were also reviewed as possible facilities and as connections. Table ES-1 shows the extent of existing facilities within the City and how facilities have been added over the past five years since the previous Bikeway Master Plan update. Table ES-1: Existing Bicycle Facilities

Total Existing in 2010 (Miles)

Planned in 2005

Implemented since 2005

% of 2005 Plan Implemented

Class 1 Bike Path

5.9

1.85

0.24

13%

Class 2 Bike Lanes

73.4

9.27

4.83

52%

Class 3 Bike Routes

33.8

2.81

1.19

42%

113.1

13.93

6.26

45%

Facilities

Total

ES-2

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Other analyses included a bicycle suitability model, population and employment density and land use. Detailed existing bicycle facilities maps can be found in Chapter 1 and recommended bicycle facilities can be found in Chapter 4. Other existing conditions maps can be found in Chapter 3.

Proposed Projects and Funding

The proposed system includes a total of approximately 48 miles of new bikeway facilities in addition to the 113 miles currently in place. Table ES-2 shows the number of existing and proposed miles for each bikeway classification. Table ES-2: Recommended Bicycle Facilities

Facilities

Existing

Proposed

Total

Class 1 Bike Path

5.9

6.7

12.6

Class 2 Bike Lanes

73.4

10.5

84.6

Class 3 Bike Routes

33.8

33.4

67.2

113.1

51.4

164.5

Total

A summary of system costs for each bikeway classification is presented in Table ES-3. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix B. Table ES-3: Summary of Costs

Facilities

Cost

Typical Cost/Mile

Class 1 Bike Path

$6,238,353

$900,000

Class 2 Bike Lanes

$2,741,547

$30,000

Class 3 Bike Routes

$266,845

$8,000

Total

$9,246,745

Significant Findings and Recommendations

Chula Vista deserves the distinctions of having implemented a significantly higher percentage of recommended projects from its previous bikeway master plan than any other city in San Diego County (See Table ES-1). Like many updates, the majority of proposed facilities tend to fill gaps in the existing bikeway system. Since this was an update, the intent was to complete facilities so that cyclists can expect more consistent, and therefore safer, conditions. However, this update differs from the previous master plan in recommending many more additional “intangible” improvements, particularly programs and policies related to education, encouragement, enforcement, evaluation and planning. In conjunction with the City’s considerable existing cycling infrastructure, these programs and policies are intended to persuade more people to ride their bikes to get around Chula Vista instead of automatically reaching for their car keys.

Topography and Development Pattern

The older, more level western area of Chula Vista (generally west of Interstate 805) is well served by numerous Class 3 routes, allowing cyclists to access most desired destinations via multiple routes. The traditional grid pattern of relatively narrow streets effectively disperses traffic. Because these streets are relatively narrow based on current standards, Class 2 lanes are generally not recommended. This is due to the costly measures that would be needed to widen existing roadways to allow Class 2 lanes and the ensuing parking and access disruptions for local residents and businesses. The prevalence of Class 3 routes Final

ES-3

Executive Summary

still serves to satisfy cyclist demand in western Chula Vista and is generally in keeping with existing use levels and historic development pattern. If cycling demand increases in the future, the existing bikeway system configuration will need to be reevaluated. On the other hand, the major roadways within newer eastern area of Chula Vista (generally east of Interstate 805) reflect current street standards and, as part of City policy, routinely incorporate Class 2 bike lanes. However, primarily due to this conventional development pattern, these bike lanes are commonly on roadways with much higher levels of motor vehicle traffic and higher posted speed limits than in the western part of Chula Vista. This means that though cyclists have wider, more visible facilities, they share the roadways with more and faster moving motor vehicles. This dilemma is common to recently developed cities laid out in a conventional suburban pattern. Even though this appears to reflect suburban development as commonly employed across the country, in eastern Chula Vista this pattern was not arbitrarily imposed on the land, but was driven by local topography. In eastern Chula Vista’s case, major arterials follow the east-west ridge lines and the connecting side streets were laid out in relation to the local topography, which limits the number of feasible arterial connections. Eastern Chula Vista also has much more significant grades, particularly in the north-south direction. This local topography requires cyclists to ride up and down fairly steep and often long grades. In many cases, these north-south grades are steep enough to discourage casual cyclists and less hilly alternate routes are generally not readily available.

Education

Even though the two distinctive major areas of Chula Vista have their disadvantages for cyclists, the tighter roadway widths in the west and the higher motor vehicle volumes and speeds in the east can be mitigated somewhat with education for all roadway users. Some cyclists feel that motorists are generally not aware of and do not respect cyclists’ rights to use the roadways. Motorists counter that they frequently see cyclists disobeying basic traffic rules, especially riding the wrong way and failing to obey stop signs and traffic signals. Education can alleviate much of this misunderstanding, especially if exposure occurs early in life. However, expanding an educational program may be difficult to accomplish in the near future, considering the low percentage of children who ride bicycles to and from school. Some schools do not even allow students to ride their bicycles to school.

Connectivity Issues

Within Chula Vista, the interstate highways create connectivity problems for cyclists, especially where they must cross at conventional interchanges without bikeway facilities. Few interchanges have Class 2 bike lanes and some are not even designated as Class 3 routes. The roadway within the freeway shadow is often a gap in otherwise consistent bikeway facilities. Without bicycle lane striping and signage, for instance, cyclists feel less secure making the passage under or over a freeway. These important visual cues also serve to remind motorists to be aware of cyclists. These freeway interchanges are where motorists especially need reminding because so many turning and lane changing movements occur there. “Enhanced” fully painted bike lanes may be recommended at such locations because they have been shown to promote safety by heightening motorist awareness of the presence of cyclists through improved bikeway facility visibility. Caltrans Deputy Directive 64-R1 (See Appendix E) outlines state policy for accommodating nonmotorized transportation modes such as bicycles and the City should work with Caltrans to implement Class 2 bike lanes at all freeway crossings. ES-4

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Integration with Greenbelt System

Chula Vista is relatively geographically isolated from adjoining communities due to its location between river valleys to the north and south and San Diego Bay to the west. Completion of the Bayshore Bikeway and future connections to the Sweetwater River Bikeway will improve regional access, but integration of the bikeway system with the proposed greenbelt system deserves further study. Though these trails are intended primarily for recreational use and are unlikely to be paved to the standards of a Class 1 bikeway facility, they will probably receive significant bicycle use. This is because the majority of bicycles in use today are “mountain bikes” designed for off-road use or are derivatives of the mountain bike that retain the elements that made them so popular. This category of bikes has been coined “comfort bikes” and their percentage of bicycle sales continues to increase, even as overall bicycle sales lag from a turn-ofthe-century peak. Not surprisingly, many of these comfort bike buyers are novices who will find riding on wide, relatively flat trails through open space without the constant presence of motor vehicles very attractive. The ability to circumnavigate the entire City without having to ride on streets will draw cyclists of all skill levels and will encourage others to try cycling. In other words, build it and they will come. Even though the proposed greenbelt trail system will be designed as a recreational asset, it should be integrally linked with the bikeway system. Its extent and shallow grades are likely to make it a popular commuting route. Confronted with making the daily commute on high volume, high speed arterials, some with significant grades, these relatively flat non-motorized trails through open space will be an attractive option for experienced commuting cyclists as well.

Applicable Legislation

Reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy efficiency and reduced traffic fatalities and injuries are significant benefits attributable to cycling. It will be especially difficult to reach State of California GHG reduction targets for transportation without increasing the amount of cycling. The future impact of several recent legislative acts may therefore be enhanced by the implementation of effective bikeway master plans.

Replacing one percent of vehicle trips with bicycle trips in San Diego County would reduce vehicle miles traveled by 229,525 miles per year, as well as reduce smog-forming gases by 0.31 tons/day, particulates by 0.06 tons/ day and carbon monoxide by 1.74 tons/day. Source: California Environmental Protection Agency – Air Resources Board

Assembly Bill 32 - Global Warming Solutions Act AB 32 calls for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and sets the 2020 emissions reduction goal into law. This act also directs the California Air Resources Board to develop specific early actions to reduce greenhouse gases while also preparing a scoping plan to identify how best to reach the 2020 limit. Senate Bill 375 - Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gases This bill seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled through land use and planning incentives. Key provisions require the larger regional transportation planning agencies to develop more sophisticated transportation planning models, and to use them for the purpose of creating “preferred growth scenarios” in their regional plans that limit greenhouse gas emissions. The bill also provides incentives for local governments to incorporate these preferred growth scenarios into the transportation elements of their general land use plans.

Final

ES-5

Executive Summary

Assembly Bill 1358 - Complete Streets Act AB 1358 requires the legislative body of a city or county, upon revision of the circulation element of their general plan, to identify how the jurisdiction will provide for the routine accommodation of all users of the roadway including motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, individuals with disabilities, seniors, and users of public transportation. The bill also directs the Office of Planning and Research to amend guidelines for the development of general plan circulation elements so that the building and operation of local transportation facilities safely and conveniently accommodate everyone, regardless of their mode of travel.

The Future of Cycling

Societal attitudes seem to be at least partly to blame for the trend toward children’s inability to get recommended levels of exercise. The number of children riding bikes to school is very low. The Chula Vista Police Department has held bicycle rodeos in the past as a way to educate children about safe and effective cycling, but the program requires grant funding to be resurrected. Some school administrators say this trend toward reduced physical activity is driven primarily by parents’ fear of letting their children out of their sight, even briefly, and a widely held belief that cycling is inherently dangerous. Even after getting home from school, many children play indoors at activities that do not benefit bodily health. The Safe Routes to School Program may offer some answers to encourage more children to ride and more parents to let them (www.4saferoutes.org). The goal of the program is to build a physical environment and encourage a social climate that supports California children’s ability to walk or bicycle safely to school. This is likely to reduce childhood injury, obesity, respiratory illness and the risk of later cardiovascular disease. Getting around under one’s own power is also a way for children to better connect with their communities and their natural environment and to nurture self-reliance. School administrators will benefit from fewer vehicles congesting school pick-up and drop-off points. Encouraging a reduced dependence on motor vehicles early in life should help young people to regain the level of activity that was once common, that today’s adults grew up with and is still considered essential for health. Creating an environment where riding a bike is once again considered normal and safe can only help. That, in a nutshell, is the overall goal of this plan.

ES-6

2011

Code Section 891.2 Compliance California Streets and Highways Code, Section 891.2

The specific locations of items needed for compliance with this code section are shown on the following pages. For reviewer convenience, code text and associated document sections are highlighted below: A city or county may prepare a bicycle transportation plan, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements: (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. See Section 3.7, Page 60. (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. See Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, Pages 29-33. (c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. See Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5, Pages 24-29 and Section 4.1, Pages 63-64. (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. See Section 3.3, Pages 34-41. (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 of ferry vessels. See Section 3.4, Pages 41-45. (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. See Section 3.3, Pages 35-41 and Figures 6-8. (g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included in 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. See Sections 4.6.2 and 4.6.3, Pages 86-90.

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

BTA-1

Code Section 891.2 Compliance

(h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan including, but not be limited to, letters of support. See Sections 3.5.3-3.5.4, Pages 49-55. (i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with the local or regional transportation, air quality or energy conservation plans, including, but not be limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting. See Section 2.1, Page 9. (j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities of implementation. See Sections 4.1-4.4, Page 63-77 and Section 5.1 Page 95 for priorities of implementation information. (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. The following information was provided by the City of Chula Vista: The City is in the design phase of a Smart Growth project to install bike lanes on Industrial Boulevard between Naples and Palomar Streets. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be constructed on the east side of this street segment. Total cost: $429,000. In fiscal year 2008, Chula Vista received a TDA grant to install bike lanes on Bay Boulevard between F and J Streets. Total cost: $138,575. Maintenance such as sweeping and re-striping bike lanes and symbols are part of the duties of the Street Maintenance Group. This division of the City performs these maintenance tasks as part of their daily duties, so costs specific to bike facility maintenance could not be delineated.

BTA-2

2011

Introduction 1.1 Project Scope

The original source for City policies regarding bicycle usage was the Bike Route Element of the 1975 General Plan. This element was adopted “to provide for the safe convenient use of bicycles throughout the community for both recreational use, and as a good alternative to the automobile as a form of local transportation.” This element defined the basis for all later bikeway development efforts. The City developed its first bikeway master plan in 1996. It established the types of facilities that should be implemented within the City and identified the need to integrate with the existing system of regional bikeways in the San Diego metropolitan area: “The rapid expansion of not only the City, but also its surrounding areas necessitated an update of the Bikeway Master Plan to better serve the needs in the future. The Bikeway Master Plan is intended to determine not only the local travel needs, but to serve regional long-distance travel needs as well.”

1 Chapter

This original master plan was replaced by a new one prepared by KTU+A Planning + Landscape Architecture, adopted in January 2005. The project scope was to provide a: “...new Bikeway Master Plan that will identify existing facilities and bicycle deficiencies throughout the City, along with cost estimates to make improvements. The objective of the new Bikeway Master Plan is to review and make recommendations as to how the current bikeway network within the City planning area can be updated to best suit the needs of the City now and in the future.” The project scope therefore included documenting and evaluating Chula Vista’s existing bikeway facility system and its relationship with other systems such as public transit and recommending improvements wherever appropriate. This resulting document incorporated expected General Plan changes that would affect circulation patterns. By law, cities are to adopt their bikeway master plans (termed “Bicycle Transportation Plans” by the California Department of Transportation) no earlier than five years prior to July 1 of the fiscal year in which the state’s Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funds are to be granted. (For example: With the 2010/2011 fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2010, cities applying for 2010/2011 BTA funds must have a bikeway master plan adopted January 1, 2005 or later.) This five year cycle is intended to make certain that Chula Vista’s 2005 General Plan changes affecting bicycle transportation will be accommodated in a timely manner.

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.2 Project Study Area

1.3 Methodology

The project methodology included a review of applicable documents, field work, two public meetings, two local agency meetings, an on-line survey questionnaire and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis of the field work data. Chula Vista’s existing bikeway system was analyzed for a number of factors using both traditional field survey and GIS techniques.

1.3.1 Literature Review

Applicable sections of documents related to Chula Vista’s bikeway system are excerpted in Chapter 2. These include the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan and Bikeway Master Plan, as well as neighboring community, regional and state plans and guidelines.

1.3.2 Field Work

During the initial field work, consultant staff members drove many mapped routes to verify accuracy with respect to the regional GIS bikeway mapping data received from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Consultant staff also rode many of these routes, especially those that did not appear to be consistent with the data. These discrepancies were often discontinuous routes or route extensions that had not yet been incorporated into the SANDAG data base. Overall, the data base was fairly accurate, making development of an initial bikeway system data layer for the City relatively straightforward.

1.3.3 Current Bike Use

During field work, consultant staff witnessed bicycle use across the City of Chula Vista. Commuting cyclists were often seen on the major thoroughfares and adjoining sidewalks. Some recreational cyclists were seen at the bayfront and mountain bikers were often seen riding down into the canyons in the eastern portion of the City. It is possible that more use is evident during the early mornings and late afternoons when commuters and school children would be more likely to be using their bikes for transportation, as indicated by questionnaire results. There is also likely to be a greater weekend distribution of recreational cyclists across the City, but particularly in eastern Chula Vista where the roadways are wider, Class 2 bikeway facilities are more prevalent and arterials readily link singletrack trail segments in many of the canyons.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

1.3.4 On-line Survey

The on-line survey was developed to reveal as much as possible about current user numbers, user types, preferred facility types and times of use. The survey was advertised to San Diego County Bike Coalition members via their regular e-mail newsletter and via the City web site. (See Section 3.5.4 and Appendix G: Public Input Summary.)

1.3.5 Geographic Information Systems

An industry textbook describes geographic information systems (GIS) as “An organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze and display all forms of geographically referenced information.” While this definition is technically accurate, it may be rather perplexing for the layperson. Basically, a GIS is a computerized map with various types of associated information attached to specific places on the map. Using a computer system configured for the purpose, a user can query the GIS about the place in question and selectively call up its associated information. A GIS is much more than just a computer system for making maps. It is an analytical tool that allows the user to identify spatial relationships between map features. SWEETWATE R RESERVOIR

805

Mt M

National City

s Rd

cho D el Rey St EH

No v a

La ke

Av e

2n d

4th

R an

yo n

Ot ay

C an

it a

E St

1st Ave

e o Lad e ra P as

Brandywine Ave

San Diego

Junior College

Railroad

Class1: Bike Path

Elementary School

School District Office

Lakes

Class 2: Bike Lanes

Middle School

Other School

Class 3: Bike Route

Senior High School

Main St

City of Chula Vista Existing Bicycle Facilities* Schools**

dia

Blvd strial

Orange Ave

Imperial Beach

C an

ar St

Palom

Indu

Bay Blvd

s St Naple

e Rd

L St

g ra le

ag Herit

Av e

Coronado

nd er

p Dr

Olea

Hillto

Av e

a Pk

3rd

Freeway Shoulder

Consultant staff re-coded the SANDAG bikeway data to the City’s road centerline data to ensure the SANDAG bikeway data were joined to the most accurate roadway information so the City will have a viable bike facility coverage layer incorporated into its GIS system. In addition, if the City wishes, this information can be used to produce a bikeway map for general distribution.

ad wa

EJ St

J St

d a le na

Bro

H St

Mag

G St

Since both the City and the consultant routinely utilize GIS, the project scope called for the consultant to provide the City with a bikeway GIS coverage layer for incorporation into the City’s overall GIS data base. This allows the City to take advantage of its GIS capabilities to keep accurate records of existing bikeway conditions, to perform analyses and to develop future projects.

Final

B on

C St

Ma rin

A GIS does not store a map in the conventional sense, nor does it store a particular image or view of a geographic area. Instead, a GIS stores the data from which a user can draw a desired view to suit a particular purpose. (The majority of the maps in this report were generated from a single data base compiled specifically for this project.) With a computer system capable of holding and using data describing specific features on a map, a user can overlay a number of related data layers to represent the many interrelated characteristics of the feature in question. The real value of GIS is its ability to overlay information from multiple sources over a map feature, often revealing relationships that would not otherwise have been noticeable. Land use data were acquired from SANDAG and roadway data from the City of Chula Vista.

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.4 Project Approach and Goals

1.5 Project Definitions

To prevent the confusion that can occur when referring to bikeways, bicycle lanes, bicycle routes, bicycle trails or bicycle paths, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standard for referring to bikeway facility types is used throughout this document. (See the bikeway facility graphics and photos in the following Section 1.5.1)

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

1.5.1 Bikeway Facility Types

Class 1 – Paved “Bike Path” within an exclusive right-of-way, physically separated from vehicular roadways and intended specifically for nonmotorized use Class 2 – Signed and striped “Bike Lane” within a street right-of-way Class 3 – “Bike Route” within a street right-of-way generally identified by signage only. In some cases, these routes may also be marked with shared lane markings, or “sharrows” where additional visual cues are appropriate. These are then referred to as “enhanced Class 3 routes.” Undesignated - An additional category defined as locally recommended on-street routes that appear on area bikeway maps only

Note that these facility types are color-coded throughout this document to coincide with mapping depictions. Class 1 is shown as red, Class 2 as blue and Class 3 as green (See Figure 1, Existing Bikeway Facilities).

1.5.2 Non-standard Facilities

For bikeway facilities not yet included in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), the City should consult with Caltrans for locations within Caltrans right-of-way or when utilizing BTA funding. For other locations or funding sources, a FHWA request for experimentation is recommended (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/condexper.htm).

1.5.3 Associated Agencies

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Caltrans is the state’s manager of interregional transportation services. Caltrans is responsible for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of the California State Highway System, as well as that portion of the Interstate Highway System within the state’s boundaries, including promoting the use of alternative modes of transportation. Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) MTS is comprised of the San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI), the light rail transit (LRT) operator, San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC), the major regional bus operators and the San Diego & Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway Company, which owns more than a hundred miles of track and right-of-way. MTS provides transit services consisting of 82 bus routes and three trolley lines within the San Diego region directly or by contract with public or private operators. MTS has planned, designed and constructed three trolley lines in four corridors with other corridor projects in various stages of planning, engineering and construction.

Final

Chapter 1: Introduction

Class 1 - Bike Path

Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow by motorists minimized. Description: Right-of-way separated from motor vehicle traffic. Used where adjacent roadway speeds and the volume of traffic is too high for safe shared use. Also used for connections through open space areas and parks, or where no other facility type is feasible.

2’

8’ - 10’

Design Guidelines: • Eight foot paved with two foot graded edge minimum width for two-way use. Greater width is recommended for high use corridors. • Bike paths adjacent to a highway closer than five feet from the edge of the shoulder shall include a physical barrier (guard rail).

2’

The edge of a bike path that is less than five feet from a road must have a physical barrier such as rails, dense shrubs or trees. (Caltrans Chapter 1000)

Class 2 - Bike Lane

Travel Lane

5’ - 6’ Bike Lane

Parking Lane

Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.

Colored bike lanes enhance the visibility of cyclists on bike lanes the bike lanes themselves. Color can be applied to the entire bike lane or at high-risk locations where motorists are permitted to merge into or cross bike lanes. This application is not yet approved by the CA MUTCD.

Bike Lane Marking Travel Lane

4-5’ Bike Lane

References: Caltrans Chapter 1000, California MUTCD (Revised 2006), MUTCD 2009

Description: Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. Installed along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand, and where there are distinct needs that can be served by them. In streets with on-street parking, bike lanes are located between the parking area and the traffic lanes. Design Guidelines: • Five foot minimum width for bike lanes located between the parking area and the traffic lanes. • Four foot minimum width if no gutter or parking exists. Including a normal 2-foot gutter, the minimum bike lane width shall be 5 feet. References: Caltrans Chapter 1000, California MUTCD (Revised 2006), MUTCD 2009

2’ Curb

5’ minimum

Class 3 - Bike Route

Provides for shared use of the roadway with motor vehicle traffic.

Description: Within vehicular right-of-way, delineated by directional signage. Used where roadway speeds and traffic volume are fairly low and shoulder provides adequate room. Bike Routes indicate to bicyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes as compared with alternative routes. A shared lane marking or ‘Sharrow’ may be added to guide the cyclist in correct lane placement in higher traffic or parking turnover conditions and to warn motorists of bicycle presence.

14’ - 16’ Wide Travel Lane - Shared with Cyclists

Shared Lane Marking

Wide Travel Lane - Shared with Cyclists

Door Zone

“Sharrow” 7’-10’ Parking Lane

11’ minimum

Design Guidelines: • Wider than standard outside lane recommended. • Because bicyclists are permitted on all roadways (except prohibited freeways), bicycle routes should offer a higher degree of service than other streets. • Center of Sharrow marking should be at minimum of 11’ from curb face. • Sharrows are only approved for use in the CA MUTCD on streets that have on-street parking. References: Caltrans Chapter 1000, California MUTCD (Revised 2006), MUTCD 2009

2011

t ES

t CS

L St

ve 1s t A

A 3r d

in a Ma r ve

ay ad w

Pk w

St les

Or an ge Av

N ap

J St

H illt r op D

In du s tr ia

ma r

d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Middle School Senior High School

Class 2: Bike Lanes

Class 3: Bike Route

Lakes

Freeway Shoulder

Elementary School

Class1: Bike Path

Railroad

San Diego

Main St

Palo

it a

No v a ra

Ot a y La ke

EJ St

D el R ey an cho

Other School

School District Office

Junior College

ve rA nd e

City of Chula Vista Existing Bicycle Facilities* Schools**

n Bo

a Ole

sR d

l Te

it a g

Imperial Beach

Coronado

805

Av e

National City

B ro

H er

Brandywi ne

Av e 4th o Lad e ra

Av e 2n d

p ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

dia

se Pa

n yo

Te r

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY R ESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: SANDAG 2008

Figure 1: Existing Bicycle Facilities

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

e Av

La d a le na

al d nR

Mag

Final d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATE R RESERVOIR

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

d eR

Chapter 1: Introduction

The MTS board of directors is made up of members appointed from the city councils of member cities and the County of San Diego. MTS determines the routes, fares, frequency of service and hours of operation for regional services. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) SANDAG is an association of the 18 cities and county government in the San Diego region. SANDAG directors are mayors, council members and a county supervisor representing each of the area’s 19 local governments. This public agency serves as the region’s primary planning and research organization, developing strategic plans, obtaining and allocating resources and providing information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the San Diego region’s quality of life. In coordination with MTS, SANDAG annually prepares and updates the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the region. The plan covers all transit services and facilities in the MTS area, providing policy, planning and programming guidance. SANDAG administers the $3.3 billion TransNet program, the region’s halfcent sales tax dedicated to regional transportation projects. All San Diego County’s 18 cities and county communities benefit from the TransNet program, which has helped fund a variety of highway, transit, local streets and roads and bicycle projects throughout the region. One million dollars a year are set aside for bicycle projects.

2011

Coordination This chapter is a compilation of applicable excerpts of documents pertaining to this bikeway master plan. Documents include the City of Chula Vista’s 2005 General Plan and Bikeway Master Plan, as well as regional and state bikeway references.

2.1 Existing Plans

The following are local and regional plans from which the Bikeway Master Plan looked for guidance in context with its regional setting. Recommendations and alignments planned for bicycle facilities such as connections and amenities in these documents were included in the analysis. General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (2005) The General Plan addresses non-motorized mobility throughout the document, including bicycle facilities. The Land Use Plan discusses in detail the four planning areas of the City as it relates to the different land use types found within them. It discusses Smart Growth Principles, existing and projected population densities and redevelopment and community benefits. In particular, two sections of the Land Use Plan that the Bikeway Master Plan will address are topics on Gateways and Scenic Roadways.

2 Chapter

Chula Vista has several designated Scenic Roadways (Section 3.1), where views of unique natural features and roadway characteristics, including enhanced landscaping, adjoining natural slopes, or special design features make traveling a pleasant visual experience. Chula Vista’s organized system of entryways and gateways (Section 3.2) offers opportunities to improve the City’s appearance, establish a stronger community image and enhance community pride. Special design treatments, which may include themed signage, landscape and architectural design enhancements, will signify the arrival into the City and point towards key destinations. The Transportation Element discusses Chula Vista’s Circulation Plan, traffic measurements, the Urban Core Circulation Element, the Public Transit Plan, the bikeway system, sidewalks, paths and trails, movement of goods and traffic-related noise. The bikeway system section is of course the most relevant to this bikeway plan and discusses both existing and planned bicycle facilities and the future plans for the Bayshore Bikeway. City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan (2005) For this plan update, the current City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan (dated January 2005) was thoroughly reviewed for both content that should remain and changes that should be considered for the update. For example, a portion of the 2005 document included the previous edition of Chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual: Bikeway Planning and Design. Some provisions changed with the newest edition of Chapter 1000 (2006), necessitating changes in the bikeway plan document.

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Chapter 2: Coordination with Existing Plans

The recommendations listed in Chapter 9 of the 2005 Bikeway Master Plan were also particularly closely reviewed and compared to existing conditions. Field investigation revealed that the City of Chula Vista had implemented a significantly higher percentage of the bikeway projects recommended in its previous plan than any other city in San Diego County. Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan (2003) Adopted in 2003, the Greenbelt Master Plan provides guidance and continuity for planning open space and constructing and maintaining trails that travel through the City. Described in the City’s General Plan, the Greenbelt is, “...the backbone of an open space and park system that extends throughout the City.” The Greenbelt is comprised of open space segments that will be connected by a multi-use trail system. Essentially, the Greenbelt creates an open space border around the City. This Greenbelt is comprised of a variety of natural and park-like elements ranging from along the channelized Sweetwater River, along golf courses and banks of the Otay Lakes and following the Otay River Valley to the Chula Vista Bayfront.

Bikeway Master Plan Prepared by:

KAWASAKI THEILACKER UENO + ASSOCIATES Landscape Architecture + Planning 3916 Normal Street San Diego, CA 92103 (619) 294-4477

In association with:

KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering 517 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411

The Plan’s primary purpose is to provide goals and policies, trail design standards and implementation tools to assist in the creation and connectivity of the Greenbelt system. The multi-use trail system is an important piece of the plan since it links the western half of the City with the eastern half. This plan is a comprehensive and long range planning document for identifying and connecting significant open space areas with the Greenbelt and potential multi-use trails. Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan (1997) Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) is located four miles north of the United States/Mexico international border. It runs in an east-west direction from the salt ponds in San Diego Bay, through the Otay River Valley to the land surrounding both Lower and Upper Otay Lakes. Preservation of cultural and biological resources mixed with recreational and educational use are important goals of this plan. The trail corridors are intended to provide a continuous link through the park connecting recreation areas and interpretive centers. The trail corridors are generalized alignments throughout the park and are located on both sides of the river wherever possible, with crossings where appropriate. The concept plan has been divided into five segments. Descriptions of each segment, the elements in each segment and the policies for each segment can be found in Section 3 of the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

The segments are: • South San Diego Bay to Interstate 5 • Interstate 5 to Interstate 805 • Interstate 805 to Heritage Road (Paseo Ranchero) • Heritage Road (Paseo Ranchero) to Otay Lakes Vicinity • Otay Lakes Vicinity SANDAG Regional Bicycle Plan (2010) The development of the City of Chula Vista’s Bikeway Master Plan is consistent with the development of SANDAG’s San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan. Regional corridors within the City must be consistent in both plans to reflect the best possible route through the City. This following excerpt from the plan succinctly describes its intent: “This plan outlines a range of recommendations to facilitate accomplishing the regional goals of increasing the number of people who bike and frequency of bicycle trips for all purposes, encouraging the development of Complete Streets, improving safety for cyclists, and increasing public awareness and support for bicycling in the San Diego region. The recommendations include bicycle infrastructure improvements, bicycle-related programs, implementation strategies, and policy and design guidelines.” Regional corridors through the City include the following: • Bayshore Bikeway - Bay Boulevard, Lagoon Drive and Marina Parkway • Chula Vista Greenbelt - Palomar, Oxford, East Palomar and East Oxford Streets • Bay to Ranch - J Street, East J Street, Paseo Ranchero and East Palomar Street • I-805 Connector - Along I-805 between Telegraph Canyon and Bonita Roads • Mission Valley – Chula Vista Corridor - Second Avenue • Sweetwater River Bikeway • SR-125 Corridor Facilities noted in this regional plan to be implemented in Chula Vista, as well as those nearby that would affect local bicycle access, are addressed in this plan in Chapter 4 - Recommendations. City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update (Draft 2010) The development of the City of Chula Vista’s Bikeway Master Plan will include analysis of bicycle connections between the City of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. This following excerpt describes the City of San Diego’s Bicycle Master Plan Update:

Final

Chapter 2: Coordination with Existing Plans

“...as a policy document to guide the development and maintenance of San Diego’s bicycle network, including all roadways that bicyclists have the legal right to use, support facilities, and non-infrastructure programs over the next 20 years.” This updated plan seeks to build upon the foundation established by the first San Diego bicycle master plan adopted in 2002. The updated plan provides direction for expanding the existing bikeway network, connecting gaps, addressing constrained areas, improving intersections, providing for greater local and regional connectivity and encouraging more residents to bicycle more often. (March 2010 Draft) National City Bikeway Master Plan (Draft 2011) The City of National City is in the process of updating their bikeway master plan. This plan will coordinate the planned bicycle facilities that connect with the City of Chula Vista, such as National City Boulevard, Highland Avenue and Palm Avenue. The two Cities should coordinate bikeway projects to ensure continuity where jurisdictional adjacencies occur. County of San Diego Bicycle Transportation Plan (2003) The development of the City of Chula Vista’s Bikeway Master Plan will analyze bicycle connections between the San Diego County and the City of Chula Vista. The County communities that this plan will coordinate its bicycle facilities with are Sweetwater, Jamul-Dulzura and Otay. This following excerpt describes the County of San Diego Bicycle Transportation Plan: “This Bicycle Transportation Plan serves as a policy document to guide the development and maintenance of a bicycle network, support facilities and other programs for the unincorporated portions of San Diego County. These policies address important issues related to the County’s bikeways such as planning, community involvement, utilization of existing resources, facility design, multi-modal integration, safety education, support facilities, as well as specific programs, implementation, maintenance, and funding.” SANDAG Policy No. 031, Accommodating Bicyclists and Pedestrians Section 4(E)(3) of the TransNet Ordinance reads: “All new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by revenues provided under this Ordinance shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, except where pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited by law from using a given facility or where the cost of including bikeways and walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. Such facilities for pedestrian and bicycle use shall be designed to the best currently available standards and guidelines.”

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

This amendment to the TransNet Ordinance utilizes existing bicycle and pedestrian design standards from the California Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000 regarding bicycle facilities. In addition, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publishes the Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. This document provides reasonable and widely recognized designs standards as the standard under this amendment. The table within the new policy, Appropriate Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Measures, simplifies the bicycle and pedestrian measures for each type of roadway.

2.2 State and Regional Bikeway Standards

Both state and Federal law require transportation planners to accommodate travel by bicycle in the transportation infrastructure. Caltrans is the state agency tasked with administering bikeway funding throughout California via the Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA). For a city to be eligible for state BTA funds to implement the elements of its bikeway master plan, Caltrans requires the plan to conform to an applicable Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and to fulfill a specific set of requirements listed in the California Streets and Highways Code, Section 891.2. (See following Section 2.2.2 for full text of this code section.)

2.2.1 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a set of policies, plans and programs to guide the effective coordination and orderly programming of transportation improvements among local, state and Federal agencies. It was developed through a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative planning process. The document contains major transportation issues, goals, objectives, policies and specific actions. The initial work on the development of the 2050 RTP that will lead to the adoption of an updated RTP in July 2011 is currently under way. SANDAG is the regional agency mandated to prepare and to periodically update the RTP by Section 65080 of the State Government Code. This code section also specifies that actions by transportation agencies, including Caltrans and transit development boards, must be consistent with the RTP. Land use decisions also should consider the RTP, accommodating the facilities and programs specified in the plan wherever possible. There are several new components in this RTP update, including compliance with Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is a new element of the RTP required by SB 375 and will demonstrate how the development patterns and the transportation network, policies and programs can work together to achieve specified greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets.

Final

Chapter 2: Coordination with Existing Plans

The facilities contained in the RTP should be incorporated into the local general plans of the land use agencies within the region. Most local transportation projects must be consistent with the RTP in order to obtain Federal, state or local transportation sales tax funding. The RTP stresses construction of bikeway facilities with an emphasis on major regional bikeways and increased usage of these facilities in improving bicycling as an effective transportation alternative. Objectives of the plan include an increase in bicycle use for short home-based trips, the continued construction of bikeways and the provision of secure bicycle storage at employment sites, transit stations and park-and-ride facilities. It is SANDAG policy that new highway facilities developed with TransNet revenue include provisions for bicycle use. The TransNet Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan states, â&#x20AC;&#x153;All new highway projects funded with revenues as provided in this measure, which also are identified as bikeway facilities in the Regional Transportation Plan, shall be required to include provisions for bicycle use.â&#x20AC;?

2.2.2 California Streets and Highways Code, Section 891.2

This code section defines the standard requirements for acceptable bikeway master plans for the State of California. The text reads as follows: A city or county may prepare a bicycle transportation plan, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements: (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 of ferry vessels.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

(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 in 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 be limited to, letters of support. (i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with the local or regional transportation, air quality or energy conservation plans, including, but not be 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 of 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. To facilitate Caltrans review, the location within this document of each requirement is listed in a BTA Compliance section at the front of this document. Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design (2006) This is the primary standard for bikeway development and design for all bikeway projects throughout the State of California. Since Caltrans administers Federal bikeway funding within California, any project using Federal funds must abide by the standards and regulations in the manual, irrespective of whether the bikeway lies within a state highway right-of-way. The overall standards have remained fairly stable, but there were a few changes in the latest revision. Primarily, dimensions are no longer shown in metric format and bikeway widths were increased. For example, Class 2 routes adjacent to curbs now must be four feet wide, but this dimension must be increased another foot when the route is adjacent to parking. Also, while Class 1 paths retain an eight foot minimum paved width, Caltrans now recommends 12 feet or more where maintenance or patrol vehicles must access the path. Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) Chapter 31 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities This document defines how state and Federal laws require Caltrans to promote and facilitate increased use of non-motorized transportation. This chapter of the PDPM provides detailed procedures for implementing Final

Chapter 2: Coordination with Existing Plans

bikeways as part of state highway projects. The specific purpose of this chapter is to “outline pertinent statutory requirements, planning policies and implementing procedures regarding non-motorized transportation facilities.” Caltrans Deputy Directive 64-R1 This Caltrans directive to division directors indicates that Caltrans demonstrates timely concern for bicycle transportation. The directive designates bicycles and bicycle facilities as priorities in traffic planning and declares that: “The Department fully considers the needs of non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with disabilities) in all programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations and project development activities and products. This includes incorporation of the best available standards in all of the Department’s practices. The Department adopts the best practice concepts in the US DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure.” The full text of the directive can be found in Appendix E, Agency Publications. Assembly Concurrent Resolution 211 On May 16, 2002 (California’s official Bike-to-Work Day), Assembly Member Joe Nation (D-San Rafael) introduced Assembly Concurrent Resolution Number 211, relative to integrating walking and biking into transportation infrastructure. This advisory measure encourages all cities and counties to implement the policies of the Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 and the United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) design guidance document on integrating bicycling and walking when building their transportation infrastructure. The full texts of the resolution and the USDOT’s design guidance can be found in Appendix E, Agency Publications.

2.3 Surrounding Communities

Evaluating the existing and planned bicycle facilities of adjoining jurisdictions that have the potential for linkage between communities is a standard component of bikeway master plans. The City of Chula Vista is bounded by the cities of San Diego and National City and by unincorporated sections of the County of San Diego. In addition, the tidelands of San Diego Bay are under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Unified Port District. Each of these jurisdictions has its own bikeway planning efforts at different levels of detail and stages of implementation. As part of the planning process, contact was made with all the surrounding jurisdictions to ensure the development of concepts and alignments that would be compatible with those of the surrounding areas. A summary of the issues regarding each community potential linkages with Chula Vista is presented below. The City should maintain periodic contact with surrounding jurisdictions to ensure that the linkages necessary to achieve a regionally connecting bikeway system are accomplished. 16

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

In general, regional geomorphology limits bikeway connections between Chula Vista and the neighboring cities to the north and south. The Sweetwater River and its valley create a physical barrier along the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s northern boundary with San Diego and National City. To the south, the Otay River and adjacent steep slopes of Otay Mesa also create a barrier. To the east, bikeway facilities connecting with unincorporated and relatively undeveloped portions of the County are more feasible. Only to the west is there a corridor relatively unimpeded by topography, where the coastal plain provides a relatively level connection between Chula Vista and both of its municipal neighbors. However, even here, there are other impediments like wetlands, river mouths and existing bayfront development. Most of the regional bikeway projects are within this coastal zone and are shared by Chula Vista and at least one neighboring community.

2.3.1 San Diego

Chula Vistaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s southern city limit is shared by the City of San Diego from San Diego Bay to just east of Otay Valley Road. The city limit line roughly follows the Otay River, though the actual line traverses sections of the Otay Valley Regional Park that includes the steep slopes on the north side of Otay Mesa. There are four bikeway connections between the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista within the western half of Chula Vista from San Diego Bay to near I-805, as well as one to the east along SR-125. The westernmost connection is the Class 1 portion of the Bayshore Bikeway running north-south between Main Street in Chula Vista and Saturn Avenue in San Diego and the soon to be constructed segment near Bay Boulevard and Palomar Street. Broadway changes from a suggested route to Class 2 on Beyer Boulevard in San Diego as it crosses the Otay River. Beyer Way is a Class 3 route that changes to a Class 2 in San Diego south of the river. Another connection is I-805 itself, which is designated as a suggested route between Palm Avenue in San Diego and Auto Park Way in Chula Vista. Of the more than 4,000 miles of freeways in California, about 1,000 miles are open to cyclists. Though not common in urban areas, freeways can be legal bicycle routes where there are no nearby alternative routes. In this case, the Otay River creates a barrier and the next closest north-south route is Beyer Way, which is more than a mile to the east. (Due to steep I-805 ramp topography, there is a need to pursue a safer, more suitable permanent route off the freeway. A potential replacement location is immediately to the east of I-805, proceeding south from the Main Court Shopping Center.) The last connection is a similar freeway shoulder route on SR-125. Cyclists are also allowed on the shoulders of SR-125 on an interim basis, between Birch Road and Otay Mesa Road, until another roadway crossing of the Otay River with bikeway facilities becomes available.

Final

Chapter 2: Coordination with Existing Plans

2.3.2 National City

Chula Vista’s northern boundary from San Diego Bay inland to I-805 is formed by the City of National City, but the cities are physically separated by the Sweetwater River and SR-54. National City’s bikeway connections with Chula Vista are limited to four bridges over the Sweetwater River at National City Boulevard/Broadway, Highland Avenue/North Fourth Avenue, North Second Avenue and the Bayshore Bikeway’s Gordy Shields Bridge just west of Interstate 5. These are Class 3 bike routes except for the bridge portion of the North Second Avenue crossing, which is designated a suggested route, and the Bayshore Bikeway bridge, which is a Class 1 facility.

2.3.3 San Diego Unified Port District

The Port District is dedicated to integrating bikeways into the existing transportation network by providing bikeway connections from the bayfront to other areas of the City. However, existing and proposed bikeways on the bayfront and Port tidelands may be relocated as a result of the ongoing Chula Vista Bayfront master planning process. Also, it is anticipated that the Bayshore Bikeway segment between J and H Streets will be constructed in 2011 parallel and immediately west of Bay Boulevard. Due to the likely continued popularity of the bayfront as a cycling destination, the City and Port should maintain in close contact as planning and construction progresses.

2.3.3 County of San Diego

The majority of Chula Vista’s city limits are contiguous with unincorporated County land, especially its northern and eastern boundaries. Corral Canyon Road runs northward into the County’s Sunnyside neighborhood and is also Class 2. Bonita Road runs roughly east-west through western Chula Vista, San Diego and the unincorporated County neighborhood of Bonita, connecting to Sweetwater Road, which then connects with the SR-54 corridor. Willow Street also connects to Sweetwater Road within the County neighborhood of Bonita, across the Sweetwater River via a narrow aging bridge. This bridge is programmed for replacement and the new roadway and bridge design provides for Class 3 bikeway facilities on a wider bridge deck.

2.4 Regional Bikeway Projects

Consultant staff reviewed the status of regional projects including the Bayshore Bikeway and the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Bikeway project. Both of these projects can provide connections to adjacent communities and beyond, benefiting commuting and recreational cyclists alike. The following are detailed descriptions of their current status. Bayshore Bikeway The Bayshore Bikeway is a 26 mile bikeway facility around San Diego Bay. Planning for the Bikeway began in 1975 with a feasibility study conducted by Caltrans that envisioned a combination of Class 1 bicycle paths, Class 2 bike lanes and Class 3 bike routes providing convenient and scenic bicycle transportation around the bay. 18

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

In 1976, National City received a Transportation Development Act (TDA) allocation from SANDAG to widen the Chollas Creek Bridge on Harbor Drive, the first project on the route. The following year, the County of San Diego and the cities of Coronado, Imperial Beach, Chula Vista, National City and San Diego formed the Bay Route Bikeway Steering Committee. As a result of their efforts, the state legislature passed SB 283, providing approximately $1 million for construction of the Bikeway. By 1983, nearly $1.5 million in local TDA and state funds had been expended to construct portions of the Bikeway on old railroad right-of-way along the Silver Strand in Coronado and on Harbor Drive in the City of San Diego. The first connection between Coronado and San Diego was via bike racks attached to transit buses. In 1987, service on the San Diego-Coronado Ferry became available. The next major improvement came when the San Diego Port District constructed a bicycle path from Glorietta Boulevard, under the Coronado Bay Bridge to Tidelands Park in Coronado. The Port District extended this path north to the Coronado Ferry Landing in 1993. In 1989, SANDAG established the Bayshore Bikeway Policy Advisory Committee to promote improvements to the Bikeway. The Committee consists of an elected official from the County of San Diego and each of the five cities around the Bay. The Committee also includes participation by representatives from affected public agencies such as the San Diego Unified Port District and the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), the bicycling community and other interested members of the public. A number of projects have been completed as a result of the committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s efforts. In 1993, the Port District extended the Tidelands Park path section to the ferry landing. In January 1997, the City of Imperial Beach extended the Silver Strand section of bike path eastward along the bayfront from 7th Street east to 13th Street. This 1.2 mile project was constructed primarily within the old Coronado Branch of the San Diego & Arizona Eastern railroad right-of-way and will eventually be part of a bayfront linear park. The project was funded by SANDAG with TransNet bicycle funds. Caltrans completed a connection between the bikeway at Pepper Park in National City and the Sweetwater River Bikeway that passes under I-5 and the San Diego Trolley line at SR-54, allowing cyclists to ride east to Plaza Bonita. The most recent major project was to replace the bikeway routing along Palm Avenue in the City of San Diego with an alignment that connected the path at 13th Street in Imperial Beach with West Frontage Road at Main Street in Chula Vista using a combination of railroad right-of-way and berms through the existing salt extraction operation. From the point of view of the commuting cyclist, this is an optimum alignment because it is the most direct route between the Cities of Imperial Beach and Chula Vista while avoiding the multiple lanes of high traffic speeds and volumes of Palm Avenue. It is also scenic enough to appeal to recreational cyclists.

Final

Chapter 2: Coordination with Existing Plans

Currently, approximately 14 miles of Class 1 bicycle paths are in use on the Bayshore Bikeway. The rest of the facility consists of on-street sections designated as either Class 2 bicycle lanes or Class 3 bicycle routes. The original bikeway plan identified interim facilities on local streets for portions of the route. Completing the interim routing has been the primary focus of the Bayshore Bikeway Committee. SANDAG is completing the design phase for Bayshore Bikeway Segments 7 and 8, which fall between H and Stella Streets. The alignment is generally parallel and immediately west of Bay Boulevard and is expected to be under construction and completed in 2011. Estimated cost is $2 million for a 1.8 mile long Class 1 facility. Sweetwater River Crossing This project provides a much-improved crossing of the Sweetwater River between Chula Vista and National City and eliminated a section of the route where cyclists had to travel east from the bayfront to cross the river on National City Boulevard/Broadway. The former routing required travel on several busy streets that did not adequately accommodate bicycles. The new alignment brings the route back to San Diego Bay within a right-ofway reserved for bicycles and pedestrians and reduced travel distance by more than two miles. Harbor Drive Improvements This project falls outside the City of Chula Vista and within the cities of San Diego and National City, but this Bayshore Bikeway segment is integral to completing the regional connections that would benefit all area cyclists by linking the coastal cities around San Diego Bay. The current Bayshore Bikeway north of National City consists almost exclusively of bike lanes on Harbor Drive. The 32nd Street Naval Station and a variety of bayfront industries prevent construction of a bicycle path along the waterfront. The east side of Harbor Drive is primarily railroad right-ofway used by freight and light rail. Bike lanes can be effective bicycle commuting facilities, but these bike lanes are adversely affected by a number of at-grade railroad crossings, deteriorating pavement and encroachments from parked cars. The City of San Diego has conducted a corridor improvement study from National City to downtown San Diego. The study inventoried needed maintenance and capital improvements to the bike lanes that the City of San Diego will be addressing through its street maintenance and capital improvement program.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Sweetwater River Bikeway This bikeway runs along the north side of the Sweetwater River from just west of Interstate 5 before terminating at the Plaza Bonita Mall. The bikeway runs through several jurisdictions, including the cities of National City, Chula Vista and San Diego, as well as the County of San Diego. Plans are being made to extend the bikeway eastward to Sweetwater Reservoir. Preliminary analysis and alignment studies of the western portion of the extension are ongoing, but no construction schedule has been set. City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Bikeway A regional greenbelt was the subject of a separate planning effort by the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. For the purposes of this master plan update, appropriate consideration will be given to likely connections between the City of Chula Vista’s bikeway system and the greenbelt corridors. A greenbelt bikeway system would provide a comprehensive and appealing route ringing the City, as well as connections to adjacent communities and other bikeway and trail systems.

                        

Final

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

2011

Needs Assessment The following sections address the issues that most affect bikeway facility selection, including aspects of the current and planned physical environment, planned bikeways, land use, bicycle trip origins and destinations, related travel modes and safety issues, including those expressed by citizens through the project’s public outreach efforts.

3.1 Circulation

3.1.1 Roadway System

The City of Chula Vista’s roadway system is in generally good condition and adequately serves the vehicular and bicycle needs of residents within the developed portions of the City. Even though the City’s topography is quite different between the east and west, bicycle facilities tend to occur where population and housing densities are highest and bicycle facilities are generally accessible to the majority of residents.

3 Chapter

The relatively flat terrain in the western portion of Chula Vista drove the development of a traditional historic grid street pattern that allows numerous access points to any given major street. This arrangement tends to disperse traffic. These streets also tend to be narrow by conventional standards and have more intersections, but they also have lower posted speed limits. In the eastern portion of the City, the location of arterials supporting bicycle facilities was driven by the topography. They tend to follow east-west ridge lines or valleys as they connect major housing and population concentrations that developed along these roadways. In plan view, the associated side streets spread out in a relatively amorphous form often seen in conventional suburban roadway system on either sides of these arterials, but the street layout was truly defined by the hilly topography. The number of access points to major streets is therefore reduced, which tends to focus traffic and bicycle facilities on fewer, but wider roadways with higher posted speed limits than seen in traditional grid street development like western Chula Vista. The local topography also tends to limit the number of major north-south routes through the eastern portion of the City.

3.1.2 Programmed Roadways

Programmed arterials in Chula Vista are within the eastern portion of the City, such as the extensions of Main Street/Otay Valley Road eastward and in the vicinity of the La Media Road corridor southward into the City of San Diego. Chula Vista’s roadway system is not complete since the City is not yet built out. This accounts for areas in the southeastern portion of the City not yet accessible by paved roadway.

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

3.1.3 City Bikeway Standards

Like most municipalities, the City of Chula Vista determines bikeway facility installations on a project-specific basis. All streets designated as Class II collectors or larger are required to provide a â&#x20AC;&#x153;parking or bike lane.â&#x20AC;? The actual use of this lane is defined by factors such as whether the roadway is included in the current bikeway master plan, in which case City policy requires the provision of an additional 10 feet of right-of-way. In general, major streets in the more recently developed areas east of I-805 have been required to include bicycle facilities. Class 2 facilities are the norm, but Class 1 facilities can be considered in areas where the roadway width to accommodate Class 2 lanes is not available and where adjacent land can be provided by developers for a parallel Class 1 facility separate from the roadway. Even so, this substitution is likely to be employed on a very limited basis only as needed. Where bicycle facilities are desired on roadways with issues such as congestion, high motor vehicle volumes or numerous curb cuts that would make it difficult to provide adequate bicycle facilities, the City of Chula Vista has designated Class 3 bicycle facilities on alternate parallel roadways. This is an reasonable strategy if the alternate parallel route does not take cyclists too far out of their way, such as by designating a parallel street a block over from the congested roadway, which has been done in the downtown area. However, in eastern Chula Vista, the topography-driven roadway layout will make designating alternate parallel routes difficult.

3.1.4 Existing Bikeway Facilities

There are three bikeway facility types within the City of Chula Vista. Though some existing wide sidewalks may have been noted in previous mapping as Class 1 paths, they do not meet Caltrans Class 1 criteria for width, obstructions or offset from adjacent roadways. Virtually all arterial roadways east of I-805 have Class 2 facilities. There is also a significant amount of Class 3 bikeway facilities, primarily within the western portion of the City west of I-805. (See Figure 1: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Chapter 1 and following tables.)

Table 1

Existing Class 1 Bike Paths Segment

Miles

Limits

Gordy Shields Bike Path

0.72 City limits to E Street

Hilltop Drive Bike Path

0.38 First Avenue to Hilltop Drive

East Palomar Bike Path

2.33

Sweetwater Bike Path

0.69 City limits to North Second Avenue

Telegraph Canyon Road Bike Path

0.60

Heritage Road to Magdalena Avenue east along Palomar Street

East of Hilltop Middle School to Nacion Avenue along Telegraph Canyon Road

Olympic Parkway to end of Olympic Training Center Willow Street Bike Path 0.25 Bonita Road to City limits Total Mileage: 6.23 Wueste Road Bike Path

1.26

Notes Connects Bayshore and Sweetwater Bike Paths Travels within easement park. Needs signs and pavement markings Includes two bike bridges over La Media Road and Olympic Parkway. Rough pavement markings chipping away in some areas Only bike path connection from this path to City is on North Second Avenue Meets requirements, but needs resurfacing and signage. Connects to Hilltop Middle School Connects to Mountain Hawk Park Along west edge of Chula Vista Golf Course 2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Table 2

Existing Class 2 Bike Lanes Roadway Segment

Miles

Limits

Notes

Third Avenue

0.23

Avenida Del Rey

0.30

Bay Boulevard Birch Road

2.60 1.29

Anita Street to Orange Avenue Rancho Del Rey Parkway to Otay Lakes Road E Street to Palomar Street La Media Road to Eastlake Parkway

Bonita Road

1.22

E Street to City limits

Brandywine Avenue

1.40

Buena Vista Way

0.37

C Street

0.49

Clubhouse Drive

1.21

Corral Canyon Road

1.10

Del Rey Boulevard

0.29

East H Street

4.76

East J Street

1.41

East Orange Avenue

1.42

East Palomar Street

2.42

Eastlake Drive Eastlake Parkway

0.85 2.69

East Palomar Street to Main Street Split at East Palomar Street Rancho Del Rey Parkway to East H Street Broadway to Fourth Avenue Eastlake Parkway to North and South Creekside Drive City limit to East H Street East H Street to Rancho Del Rey Parkway Missing bike lanes just east of Bonita Vista High School I-805 to Mt Miguel Road approximately 1/4 mile and between Regulo Place and Buena Vista Way Missing bike lanes between River Ash Drive and Paseo Floyd Avenue to Via Miraleste Ranchero Hilltop Drive to Brandywine Avenue Class 3 between Pecan Place and Oleander Avenue. Nolan Avenue to Magdalena Avenue Continues with bike path/cycle track on East Palomar Street to Santa Rosa Drive Hillside Drive to Lakeshore Drive Lakeshore Drive to Hunte Parkway

Entertainment Center

0.28

Entertainment Circle to Heritage Road Accesses Knotts Soak City and Cricket Amphitheater

G Street

0.08

Sandpiper Way to Lagoon Drive

Heritage Road

0.70

Hilltop Drive

0.22

Hunte Parkway

4.37

Industrial Boulevard

0.14

King Creek Way

0.11

La Media Road

2.31

Otay Lakes Road to Santa Luna Street

Lagoon Drive Lakeshore Drive

0.32 1.22

Lane Avenue

0.86

Main Street

1.67

G Street to Bay Boulevard Eastlake Drive to Eastlake Parkway Proctor Valley Road to Otay Lakes Road Main Court to Heritage Road Bridge

Marina Parkway

0.66

Sandpiper Way to Bay Boulevard

Final

Bike lanes northbound only

Bike lanes through SR-125 Bike lanes continue beneath I-805. Two separate segments. Middle segment within County of San Diego.

Part of interim Bayshore Bikeway alignment, ultimately to be bike path. Interim alignment in Chula Vista is bike lanes

Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway J Street to Telegraph Canyon Road Short segment west of Hilltop Middle School Eastlake Parkway to cul-de-sac at Salt Creek Golf Club Palomar Street to Ada Street Runs along trolley line Hunte Parkway to North Creekside Drive/Noble Canyon Road

Part of interim Bayshore Bikeway alignment Loop around a lake

Part of interim Bayshore Bikeway alignment. Bike lanes narrow to 2 feet wide eastbound near Bay Boulevard. Westbound bike lanes meet requirements.

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

Table 2 (Continued)

Existing Class 2 Bike Lanes Roadway Segment

Miles

Limits

Marina Parkway

0.28

Medical Center Drive

0.75

Mt Miguel Road North Greensview Drive

1.47 0.98

North Rancho Del Rey Parkway

1.89

Northwoods Drive

0.15

Telegraph Canyon Road to East Palomar Street SR-125 to Mackenzie Creek Road Clubhouse Drive to Hunte Parkway Del Rey Boulevard to Buena Vista Way Woods Drive to Proctor Valley Road

Oak Springs Drive

0.12

Hunte Parkway to Silver Springs Drive

Olympic Parkway

6.18

Lake Crest Drive to Olenader Avenue

Olympic Vista Road

0.45

Olympic Parkway to Lake Crest Drive

Orange Avenue

1.56

Palomar Street to Hilltop Drive

Otay Lakes Road

6.07

Bonita Road to eastern City limits

Palomar Street

0.14

Paseo Del Rey

0.28

Paseo Ladera

1.31

Paseo Ranchero

1.11

Proctor Valley Road

1.80

Mt Miguel Road to Northwoods Drive

Proctor Valley Road Rutgers Avenue South Greensview Road

0.54 0.60 1.33

South Rancho Del Rey Parkway

1.62

City limit to Mt Miguel Road East H Street to Otay Lakes Road Clubhouse Drive to Hunte Parkway Del Rey Boulevard to Buena Vista Way

San Miguel Ranch Road

0.72

City limit to SR-125

Sandpiper Way

0.43

G Street to Marina Parkway

Santa Luna Street

0.35

La Media Road to Magdalena Avenue

Santa Venetia Street

0.12

La Media Road to Windchime Drive

Stella Street

0.14

Bay Boulevard to West Frontage Road

Stone Gate Street Sweetwater Road Telegraph Canyon Road Telegraph Canyon Road

0.09 0.20 3.47 0.88

Terra Nova Drive

0.89

Yosemite Drive to Hunte Parkway City limit lines Halecrest Drive to Otay Lakes Road Hilltop Drive to East L Street East H Street to South Rancho Del Rey Parkway Stella Street to Main Street

West Frontage Road 0.47 Total Mileage: 73.38

Lagoon Drive to G Street

Notes Part of interim Bayshore Bikeway alignment. Bike lanes too narrow and very poor road conditions

Missing bike lanes from Rutgers Avenue to approx 800 feet east. Class 3 bike route in front of Southwestern College before continuing bike lanes to Bonita Road

Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard Telegraph Canyon Road to East H Street East J Street to De La Toba Road Rancho Del Rey Parkway to Olympic Parkway

Near Liberty Elementary School

Bike lanes signs exist but striping does not from Proctor Valley Road to SR-125 Part of interim Bayshore Bikeway alignment

Narrow bike lanes and cars parked in bike lanes

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Table 3

Existing Class 3 Bike Routes Roadway Segment

Miles

Limits

Notes

First Avenue Second Avenue

0.19 F Street to Bonita Road 2.57 City limits to L Street

Third Avenue

1.11 Naples Street to Orange Avenue

Fourth Avenue Beyer Way Bonita Road East 30th Street East H Street

4.38 0.15 0.54 0.16 0.39

East J Street

2.35 Hilltop Drive to cul-de-sac

East Naples Street East Orange Avenue East Palomar Street F Street Gotham Street H Street

1.84 0.12 1.11 1.94 0.64 1.00

Hilltop Drive

3.38 F Street to Main Street

Existing bike lanes between J Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. Accesses Castle Park High School and Hilltop Middle School

Industrial Boulevard

1.33 L Street to Main Street

Existing bike lanes between Palomar Street and Ada Street

J Street Magdalena Avenue

1.99 Bay Boulevard to Hilltop Drive 1.55 East Palomar Street to Rock Mountain Road

Main Street

2.90 Industrial Boulevard to Main Court

North Second Avenue North Fourth Avenue Naples Street

0.17 Sweetwater Road to City limits 0.26 Beyer Way to City limit 1.00 Fourth Avenue to Hilltop Drive Elmhurst Street to Miracosta Circle/Apache 0.27 Drive

Central east-west connection Accesses Olympian High School 40 mph speed limit with very little buffer between parked cars and fast moving vehicles Connects to Sweetwater Bike Path

Otay Lakes Road Palomar Street

City limit to Beyer Way Third Avenue to City limit First Street to Bonita Glen Drive L Avenue to North Second Avenue Hilltop Drive to Carvalos Drive

Hilltop Drive to Medical Center Drive Over I-805 Pecan Place to Oletoer Drive Bay Boulevard to Hilltop Drive Otay Lakes Road to Rutgers Avenue Fourth Avenue to Hilltop Drive

1.91 Industrial Boulevard to Hilltop Drive

No bike route sign south of Palomar Street on northbound lanes only Accesses Chula Vista High School

Accesses Hilltop High School Bridge over I-805 without an interchange. Existing bike lanes between Floyd Avenue and River Ash Drive and between Paseo Ranchero and Via Miraleste. Connects with bike lanes Bridge over I-805 without an interchange Bridge over I-805 without an interchange Accesses Southwestern College

Accesses Southwestern College Section between Pecan Place and Nolan Avenue is bike lane

0.52 Telegraph Canyon Road to East H Street Paseo Del Rey Total Mileage: 33.80

Note: One result of field work was the compilation of a series of potential improvements to existing facilities that would likely not otherwise be directly affected by this bikeway master plan update. These recommended improvements are included in Appendix H: Existing Facility Improvement Recommendations.

Final

t ES

t CS Av e 4th

L St

ve 1s t A

B A 3r d

in a Ma r ve

wa y roa d

Pk w

Or an ge Av e

les N ap

J St

H illt r op D

In du s tr ia

ma r

San Diego

Main St

Palo

No v a ra

ve rA nd e

d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Te r

Lakes

Railroad

Trails

Class 2: Bike Lanes Class 3: Bike Route

Class 2: Bike Lanes

Class 3: Bike Route

Freeway Shoulder

Class1: Bike Path

Ot a y La ke

EJ S t

D el R ey an cho

City of Chula Vista Existing Bicycle Facilities* Proposed Bicycle Facilities (2005 BMP)**

it a

a Ole

sR d

l Te

it a g

Imperial Beach

Coronado

Av e

National City

805

H er

Brandywi ne

Av 2n d o Lad e ra

p ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

dia

se Pa

n yo

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY R ESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: 2005 Chula Vista Bicycle Master Plan and CIPs

Figure 2: Planned Bicycle Facilities

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

e Av

La d a le na

al Rd

Mag

28 d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATE R RESERVOIR

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

d eR

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

3.1.5 Planned Bikeway Facilities

City of Chula Vista policy is to include Class 2 bike lanes when constructing new arterial streets. Therefore, the remaining programmed roadways in the eastern portion of Chula Vista will likely be built with Class 2 bike lanes. (See Figure 2: Planned Bicycle Facilities.)

3.2 Trip Origins

Most of the population statistics used to perform this trip origin analysis were derived from regional demographic data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. SANDAG provided much of the land use data needed to produce the maps for this chapter, including the most recent 2030 projections. Additional information came from aerial photography. These data sources were used primarily for defining and evaluating existing and proposed housing and employment densities and trends, land use trend analysis and, from these, determining potential trip origins. In the context of a bikeway master plan analysis, â&#x20AC;&#x153;trip originsâ&#x20AC;? are defined as those areas or specific locations from which the majority of bicycle usage is likely to come. Determining where these trip origins are now or will be in the future is important in guiding the design and implementation of a cost-effective bikeway facility system that will maintain its usefulness over time. This includes tracking projected changes in land use, population and housing density, but defining the trip origins for a particular city is usually not so straightforward. Extracting useful information from some of the data described in the following sections sometimes required evaluating data from other sources and synthesizing the results. Other sources of information were reviewed based on well known principles employed in most bikeway master plan projects. For instance, residential areas are, in general, trip origin points. In all cases, the primary information sought was how and where changes are projected to occur in Chula Vista in the near future. In terms of bikeway facility planning, significant concentrations of housing or employment can better support the costs of bicycle facilities because potential users are clustered. Higher housing or employment densities tend to be the most cost-effective situations for bicycle facilities because they provide the most potential users for a given area.

3.2.1 Existing Land Use

Existing land use in Chula Vista varies considerably between western Chula Vista (west of I-805) and eastern Chula Vista (east of I-805). Western Chula Vista has a conventional urban street grid pattern and consists primarily of moderate to high density residential development, with pockets of commercial, industrial and public facilities. Concentrations of commercial, office and higher density residential land uses occur along the major north-south thoroughfares.

Final

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

Eastern Chula Vista, like the western portion of the City, consists primarily of single-family residential, with concentrations of higher densities near major thoroughfares. The primary distinction between the two portions of the City is that eastern Chula Vista consists of several large master planned communities with curvilinear, suburban configurations, rather than grid streets. There are also more active and passive open space areas, more public facilities and a growing number of activity centers. In addition, there are thousands of acres of former ranch land on the verge of development. (See Figure 3: Existing Land Use.)

3.2.2 Future Land Use

A trend that commonly occurs as a city matures is that undeveloped areas do not remain undeveloped. In Chula Vista, there are plans for most of the undeveloped land, primarily for low density residential, mixed use, education, industrial and park land uses. This trend is particularly noticeable along the SR-125 corridor. In addition, the existing open space will expand as fingers into the planned land uses across the southeast portion of the City. Open space will significantly increase as buffers around individual residential neighborhoods connecting with the existing large areas along the southern and eastern City limits. (See Figure 4: Planned Land Use.) The resulting development pattern in these areas resembles the areas immediately east of I-805, but some of the new neighborhoods will differ from the existing residential areas in having cores of mixed use and moderate residential density, rather than low density residential with strips of other uses along the arterial roadways only. The land use changes noted above indicate a trend toward more concentrated development in general, and more housing in particular, in the eastern portion of the City. This will tend to create new demands for bicycle facilities where less concentrated land uses had existed before. Among the new more concentrated land uses is the proposed university in southeastern Chula Vista and associated mixed use land use along the adjacent SR-125 corridor. This SR-125 corridor will become eastern Chula Vistaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s primary employment and commercial center. Its importance in terms of bicycle planning is based on its centrally located position within the eastern section of the City as a major bicycle commuting destination point. The demand for bicycle facilities can be expected to grow with increases in employment density, especially for amenities favored by commuters, such as secure bicycle parking and showers and locker facilities at their destination points.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Overall, housing and employment will continue to be dispersed across the City as they are now, retaining commercial concentrations along major thoroughfares. However, eastern Chula Vista will have more areas of mixed use that imply a greater mix of housing, services and consumer outlets. Land use changes in western Chula Vista are not expected to be as significant, but some moderate density residential area expansion along major thoroughfares is indicated in the future land use data bases, as well as a notable increase in mixed use development.

3.2.3 Residential Areas

Residential land uses are, by far, the most common origin points for bicycle trips within a community, followed by bicycle trips originating in the residential areas of adjacent communities. Analyzing census housing density data is the primary method to determine what areas of a city will be most likely to generate bicycle trips. Logically, the higher the housing density, the more bicycle trips will be generated. The bicycling trips originating in residential areas typically terminate at schools and employment centers, retail and entertainment centers, parks and open space, as well as at other residential areas. For this reason, the sizes, densities and locations of residential developments and their relationships to other land uses such as schools, employment centers and parks and open space are crucially important to bikeway facility planning. Most bicycle trips are likely to be for transportation (commuting to work or school), recreation and exercise purposes. These categories were very evenly distributed in questionnaire results. All use categories are likely to occur throughout the City, but recreational riding may occur more in the coastal portion of Chula Vista, while riding for exercise is more likely to occur in the eastern portion of the City where streets are wider, have fewer cross streets, but often have steeper grades. Commuter riding may occur anywhere, but commuters are more likely to be seen on the more direct routes utilizing major streets and arterials. Based on the planned land use data, the City of Chula Vista will be built out within two decades and the development to come in eastern Chula Vista will be primarily low density residential with some multiple family and mixed use.

3.2.4 Population and Employment Density

The highest population densities occur in “downtown” Chula Vista, near the city “center” in the west central portion of the City. A few small areas of moderate population density occur in eastern Chula Vista associated with areas of moderate density embedded within large areas of low densities. (See Figures 5 and 6: 2000 Population Density and Employment Density.)

Final

t ES

in a Ma r

Pk w

wa y roa d In du s tr ia d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Lakes

ma r

San Diego

Main St

Palo

No v a ra

Te r

Spaced Rural Residential Industrial Single Family Residential Industrial Multiple Family Mobile Homes

Commercial

La ke

EJ St

D el R ey an cho

Ot a y d

l Te

p ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

Open Space Undeveloped Water Bodies Rights of Way

Undeveloped

Parks Education Institutions Military

Parks and Recreation

Transportation and Utilities

Commercial and Office Public Facilities and Utilities

St les

Or an ge Av

Railroad

ve 1s t A

N ap

J St

r op D

Residential

A 3r d

ve rA nd e

Trails

L St

H illt

d eR

City of Chula Vista Existing Land Use*

i on

a Ole it a g

Imperial Beach

Coronado

805

Av e

National City

Av e 4th

H er

Brandywi ne

e o Lad e ra

Av 2n d

dia

se Pa

n yo

ke La

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Miles

0.5

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: SANDAG 2009

Figure 3: Existing Land Use

Rd B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

e Av

La d a le na

al d nR

Mag

32 d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

2011

t ES

t CS

in a Ma r

Pk w

wa y roa d In du s tr ia d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Lakes

ma r

San Diego

Main St

Palo

it a

No v a ra

Te r

Spaced Rural Residential Single Family Residential Industrial Multiple Family Industrial Mobile Homes

Commercial Mixed Use

La ke

EJ St

D el R ey an cho

Ot a y

Institutions Military

Transportation and Utilities Education

Commercial and Office Public Facilities and Utilities

St les

Or an ge Av

Railroad

ve 1s t A

N ap

J St

r op D

Residential

A 3r d

ve rA nd e

Trails

L St

H illt

l Te

p ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

Undeveloped Water Bodies Rights of Way

Undeveloped

Parks Open Space

Parks and Recreation

d eR

City of Chula Vista Planned Land Use*

n Bo

a Ole it a g

Imperial Beach

Coronado

805

Av e

National City

Av e 4th

H er

Brandywi ne

e o Lad e ra

Av 2n d

dia

se Pa

n yo

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Miles

0.5

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: SANDAG 2009

Figure 4: Planned Land Use

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

e Av

La d a le na

al d nR

Mag

Final d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

According to planned land use data, population densities in Chula Vista will moderately increase. Some areas of eastern Chula Vista not currently shown as populated will be developed into low and moderate density housing. The City of Chula Vista is also planning for higher density residential development in an “Eastern Urban Center” bounded by SR-125 and Birch Road. More than 2,000 housing units with densities of up to 35 units per acre are planned for this development, which will also feature a transit hub.

3.2.5 Summary of Trip Origins

Based on the foregoing analysis of housing density, population density and land use, most future bicycle activity is likely to originate from within the residential areas. These areas will become large enough in terms of population density and physical size to generate some bicycle traffic that originates and terminates within them, as well as supplying users for the city-wide bicycle system. Questionnaire results also indicated that a substantial number of commuting cyclists currently come from neighboring communities. As employment densities increase, especially along the SR-125 corridor, the number of commuting cyclists from neighboring communities can also be expected to grow as well. The planned development of a university campus in this area is likely to generate significant numbers of commuting cyclists. Redevelopment and land use intensification in western Chula Vista will occur over time and may create more congested areas that could become less hospitable for cyclists. Actual intensification will be gradual, but these redevelopment areas may create relatively immediate impacts in the form of a more “urban” traffic pattern. This is likely to be most problematic where areas of intensification occur along the roadways already designated as Class 3 routes. However, one of the expected benefits of combining increased residential density and mixed use development is some reduction in local motor vehicle trips. This will have a positive effect on the area’s overall impression for bicycle transportation that, in turn, is likely to encourage further increases in bicycle use for local trips.

3.3 Trip Destinations

Trip destination points in terms of bikeway facility planning are generally referred to as a community’s “activity” centers. In the context of a bicycle master plan analysis, the term “activity” specifically refers to bicycling usage generated as a result of the particular trip destination. A list of a community’s activity centers can include its schools, parks, open spaces, athletic facilities, libraries, community centers, retail complexes and employment centers. The types and locations of these activity centers within a community reflect the amount and types of bicycle usage they can be expected to generate. This is especially true in terms of their proximity to residential areas.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

3.3.1 Existing Activity Centers

The SANDAG data defines activity centers as a community’s major employers, office buildings, industrial sites, government sites, retail centers, hospitals, major attractions, colleges, universities, schools or parks and open space. The commercial and retail activity centers can also be regarded as employment centers because, in addition to the customers that constitute the typical activity center users, they also represent significant numbers of employees. Chula Vista’s major retail centers are represented in SANDAG’s data within the highest employment density category. The civic activity centers include Chula Vista’s parks and schools, which are discussed in a following section. Reviewing a map of the existing activity centers (See Figure 7: Activity Centers) confirms that there is an abundance of major employers, office buildings and industrial sites clustered in the area immediately around the main thoroughfares running through downtown Chula Vista. Based solely on this map, it appears to be the commercial and office hub of Chula Vista. However, comparing the activity center information map with the existing employment density map (See Figure 6: 2000 Employment Density) reveals that the employment density is just as high in other areas of Chula Vista. These other areas have few office buildings or major employers, but still have high employment density, which indicates that they encompass large numbers of smaller businesses. Employment density is an indicator of bikeway facility demand in general, but more specifically, it is an indicator for shopping trips to areas with numerous small businesses versus commuting trips to areas with major employers. There are a number of activity centers and destinations in the western coastal portion of the City and many have a long association with the historic community center of downtown Chula Vista. In recent years, a newer cluster of activity centers and destinations have been developed in the eastern portion of the City, centered in EastLake and other Otay Ranch master planned communities, essentially constituting a second city center. Population increases in this area are expected to continue, making this one of the fastest growing urban centers in the region. Overall, activity centers tend to be well served by bicycle facilities. East of I-805, they lie well within an acceptable distance from their nearest adjacent bicycle facilities. This is due to the local topography that drove the pattern of development and roadways, placing major roads and activity centers on east-west ridge lines. West of I-805, the development pattern is a traditional street grid that provides multiple routes to any particular destination. The downtown area has concentrations of retail centers along Broadway and Third Avenue. However, there are relatively limited bicycle facilities in the portion of Chula Vista west of Fourth Avenue.

Final

t ES

t CS

L St

ve 1s t A

B A 3r d

in a Ma r ve

wa y roa d

Pk w

Or an ge Av e

les N ap

J St

H illt

In du s tr ia d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Lakes

Railroad

Trails

<5 5 - 10 10 - 20 > 20

Palo

ma r

San Diego

Main St

r op D

City of Chula Vista 2000 Population Density (People per acre)*

it a

No v a ra

a Ole

La ke

EJ S t

D el R ey an cho

Ot a y sR d

l Te

it a g

Imperial Beach

Coronado

805

Av e

National City

Av e 4th

H er

Brandywi ne

Av e 2n d o Lad e ra

p ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

dia

se Pa

n yo

Te r

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Miles

0.5

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: 2000 Census

Figure 5: 2000 Population Density

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

e Av

La d a le na

al Rd

Mag

36 d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

d eR

ve rA nd e

2011

t ES

t CS

L St

ve 1s t A

B A 3r d

in a Ma r ve

wa y roa d

Pk w

St les

Or an ge Av

N ap

J St

H illt

In du

Palo

s tr ia d l B lv

Bay Blvd

< 20 21 - 40

> 40

Railroad

Lakes

Trails

ma r

it a

San Diego

Main St

r op D

City of Chula Vista 2000 Employment Density (People per acre)*

n Bo

No v a ra

a Ole

La ke

EJ St

D el R ey an cho

Ot a y sR d

l Te

it a g

Imperial Beach

Coronado

805

Av e

National City

Av e 4th

H er

Brandywi ne

Av e 2n d o Lad e ra

p ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

dia

se Pa

n yo

Te r

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Miles

0.5

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: 2000 Census

Figure 6: 2000 Employment Density

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

e Av

La d a le na

al Rd

Mag

Final d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

d eR

ve rA nd e

t ES

in a Ma r

wa y roa d In du

Pk w s tr ia d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Lakes

Olympic Training Center Elementary School

J St

ma r

San Diego

Main St

Palo

Middle School High School Junior College Other School Parks

Or an ge Av

les N ap

ve 1s t A

Railroad

A 3r d r op D

Commercial Public Facilities

L St

H illt

City of Chula Vista Activity Centers*

ta ni

No v a

a Ole

La ke

EJ S t

cho D el R ey R an

Ot a y sR d

l Te

it a g

Trails

Av e 4th

H er

Imperial Beach

Coronado

Brandywi ne Av e

National City

805

Av e 2n d o Lad e ra

ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

dia

se Pa

n yo

Te r

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

e Av

La d a le na

al Rd

Mag

38 d

p ic

y w

Miles

0.5

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Souce: SANDAG 2009

Figure 7: Activity Centers

125

m Oly

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

d eR

ve rA nd e

2011

In du

Pk w s tr ia d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Bike Shops

wa y roa d

Lakes

in a Ma r

les N ap

Or an ge Av

J St

Trolley Stations with Bike Lockers**

BMX Track (Olympic Training Center)

Parks with Public Restrooms**

Palo

ma r

No v a ra

Te r

Freeway Shoulder

Class 3: Bike Route

Class 2: Bike Lanes

Class1: Bike Path

Ot a y La ke

EJ S t

cho D el R ey R an

Existing Bicycle Facilities*

San Diego

Main St

Recreation Centers with Shower Facilities**

L St

ve 1s t A

Railroad

B A 3r d r op D

Park and Rides

H illt

ve rA nd e

Trails

ta ni

a Ole

sR d

l Te

it a g

City of Chula Vista

t ES

t CS Av e 4th

H er

Imperial Beach

Coronado

Brandywi ne Av e

National City

805

Av e 2n d o Lad e ra

p ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

dia

se Pa

n yo

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY R ESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: City of Chula Vista 2010

Figure 8: Bicycle Related Amenities

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

e Av

La d a le na

al Rd

Mag

Final d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATE R RESERVOIR

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

d eR

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

3.3.2 Employment Centers

Employment centers lay primarily along the major north-south thoroughfares in western Chula Vista where concentrations of commercial and office space occur. The south coastal and southwestern boundary areas of Chula Vista also have significant industrial employment centers. The eastern portions of Chula Vista provide some employment in commercial and retail areas, but there is currently little else. Planned land use indicates an increase in commercial development, as well as some areas of mixed use. (See Figure 6: 2000 Employment Density.) Some of the major employment centers and most large government facilities have locker, restroom and shower facilities.

3.3.3 Parks/Schools/Civic Centers

Considering the parks and schools independently of the other activity centers is intended to emphasize the more local, neighborhood and recreational functions of these centers. Like most communities, Chula Vista’s parks and athletic facilities are often associated with the school sites. These centers are used by a much higher percentage of children than the other types of activity centers, which is an important factor in community-wide bikeway facility design. The location of schools, in particular, is a major factor in identifying safe bicycle routes because bicycling has traditionally been an important transportation mode for elementary and middle school age children. (See Figure 7: Activity Centers.) Analysis of the locations of Chula Vista’s schools indicates most are adjacent to residential areas with quiet streets. However, Chula Vista’s schools are no different than any other city’s schools in that many are close to at least one major street. Fortunately, the schools and the residential neighborhoods they serve tend to fall on the same side of the major streets. Therefore, the schools’ primary bicycling access is likely to be from the surrounding residential streets that allow children access to their schools without having to ride on the busier streets and minimizes their having to cross them. (See Appendix C: Guidelines for Selecting Safe Routes To School.)

3.3.4 Trip Destination Summary

In most cities, schools and parks are the most common bicycling destinations, followed by commercial, retail and employment centers. This is likely to hold true in Chula Vista as well. The schools will draw users from the immediate residential area of up to approximately a mile, which is the typical maximum distance that most children can be expected to want to ride. The major commercial centers like downtown Chula Vista and the areas along the major thoroughfares can also be expected to be popular destinations and will typically draw users from farther away than the schools. (See Figure 8: Bicycle Related Amenities.) Some of the major employment centers, government facilities, schools and athletic facilities can be expected to have locker, restroom and shower facilities.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

There are always special destinations characteristic of a particular community. In Chula Vista these special destinations include the coastal portions of Chula Vista where cycling is easier due to the relatively gentle grades, making them desirable destinations for visitors, as well as residents. Typically, the coastal strip has higher levels of bicycle use than any other part of the City, especially for recreational cycling. Because of its attractiveness for cycling of various types, the coastal portion of Chula Vista should be considered a destination in itself. In addition, the hilly inland south San Diego County area with its rural character and relatively lightly traveled roadways is well known as a hub for competitive athletic training, especially for road cyclists and triathletes. Finally, the singletrack trails within the canyons in eastern Chula Vista draw a number of mountain bikers who can easily access these trails from numerous locations where arterials cross the canyons.

3.4 Multi-modal Analysis

Linking the bikeway facility system with other transportation modes enhances the efficiency of bicycle transportation, especially for commuting. Cyclists can use their bicycles to get to or from a multi-modal transfer point as part of their regular commute. Where transit modes allow bicycles on board, multi-modal transit becomes a very useful transportation option. Whether the other modes allow bicycles to be brought on board or not, they allow for much greater flexibility for persons choosing to commute by modes other than the private automobile. In the case of Chula Vista, all buses have bicycle racks except those on one short specialized route (708) exclusively serving the Chula Vista Nature Center. All other bus routes employ outside bicycle racks and the San Diego Trolley provides interior space for bicycles. (See Figure 9: Public Transit Service.)

3.4.1 Chula Vista Transit (CVT)

The Chula Vista Transit System (CVT) is part of the greater San Diego regional Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). MTS coordinates fares, transfers, routes and information services for the region. Being part of MTS enables CVT passengers to transfer from one transit system to another in a seamless fashion. CVT interfaces with the San Diego Trolley’s Blue Line at the Bayfront/E Street, H Street and Palomar Street Stations. CVT also provides connections to MTS’s regional bus route 932 that connects downtown San Diego and San Ysidro. In general, CVT bus routes run on major thoroughfares that closely correspond with existing bicycle facilities, allowing cyclists to board at a preferred bus stop and putting their bicycle on the bus rack. All but one of CVT’s bus routes link with at least one of the three trolley stations and all but one route have bike racks, Route 708, which is a very short loop serving the Chula Vista Nature Center where bicycle and pedestrian access is prohibited.

Final

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

3.4.2 Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Trolley

The location of existing transfer points such as trolley stations and bus stops in relation to bikeway facilities was reviewed to determine how well the systems serve the purposes of multi-modal travel. MTS operates three trolley routes within the greater San Diego region, of which the “Blue Route” serves Chula Vista and the South Bay. There are three MTS trolley stations in Chula Vista within the coastal strip in the westernmost portion of the City. Besides the coastal strip served by the trolley, buses provide public transit services throughout the remainder of the City. Bike commuters must enter at the front or rear of each trolley car and stand with their bicycle for the duration of the ride. The trolley system limits the number of bicycles per trolley car to two and only one during rush hours (6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM). With two or three cars per train, cyclists can usually find space. Otherwise, they are required to wait for the next train. Going back to Chula Vista’s 1996 Bikeway Master Plan, the provision of secure bicycle parking is considered an important element in making the connection between commuter cycling and transit use. Bike lockers are the most secure way for cyclists to store their bicycles when they need to leave them unattended when switching to another travel mode such as the trolley or car-pooling since the bicycles are fully enclosed and inaccessible to would-be thieves. Lockers are available at all three of Chula Vista’s trolley stations under a program administered by SANDAG. There are 18 locker spaces at Bayfront/E Street, 22 at H Street and 12 at Palomar. Bicycle locker use is free with a $25 key deposit. SANDAG has experienced problems with lockers at its stations including lockers being used for general storage instead of for bicycles and bicycles being stored for long periods without being used. Planned new locker installations will employ units with mesh sides to allow for periodic inspection. Throughout coastal San Diego County, painted finishes have been difficult to maintain and plain steel lockers routinely corrode. An option that has been successfully tested is installing units constructed of corrosion-free composite or stainless steel. Not only do they not rust, these units employ materials that allow relatively easy graffiti removal. SANDAG is also planning to replace four to eight existing lockers at each of its three Chula Vista stations with “eLockers,” new electronic, on-demand bicycle lockers. Instead of traditional lock and key mechanisms, eLockers use an electronic “smartcard” with a touch-sensitive imbedded computer

2011

t ES

t CS

wa roa d

in a Ma r

Pk w

ve 1s t A

In du

Palo

s tr ia

ma r

Bay Blvd

Middle School

Railroad

Lakes

Other School

Elementary School

d l B lv

Senior High School

No v a ra

Te r

La ke

EJ S t

D el R ey an cho

Ot a y sR d

l Te

p ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

Chula Vista Transit ***

San Diego Transit

1,00 - 10,000 > 10,000

San Diego Trolley - Blue Line

< 1,000

Boarding and Alightings* Public Transit Service**

San Diego

Main St

r op D

Junior College

Or an ge Av

les N ap

J St

ve rA nd e

Trails

L St

A 3r d

School District Office

H illt

d eR

City of Chula Vista Schools**

Av e 4th

it a

a Ole it a g

Imperial Beach

Coronado

Av e

National City

805

Av e 2n d

H er

Brandywi ne

o Lad e ra

se Pa

n yo

dia

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY R ESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* SANDAG 2005 ** SANDAG 2008 *** City of Chula Vista

Figure 9: Public Transit Service

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

e Av

Me d a le na

al La Mag

Final d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATE R RESERVOIR

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

chip. Unlike conventional lockers assigned to a single user, eLockers are available any time they are not in use to anyone participating in the eLocker program. The user pays a $25 deposit for the electronic key, puts their bicycle into an eLocker, shuts the door and it will only open using that user’s key. When the user returns, removes the bicycle and key and closes the eLocker, it is then available to any subsequent eLocker participant. These on-demand eLockers allow commuters the flexibility to use their bicycles for some of their commute trips on a daily, first-come, first-served basis. When not in use, the on-demand lockers are available to other program participants because cyclists have the flexibility of using a bike locker when they need it, without tying up a locker when they do not. SANDAG’s long range plan is to make the lockers compatible with their Compass Card transit pass technology to better integrate the bicycle lockers with overall transit system management.

3.4.3 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Additional regional planning is underway for a bus rapid transit (BRT) system to serve the South Bay area, generally on East Palomar Street east of I-805. At this time, it is unknown whether bicycles will be accommodated on BRT vehicles. If not, it is likely bicycle lockers will be needed at some BRT stops, particularly if the stop is also a transit center serving multiple transit modes such as regular buses and trolleys. Depending on eventual route and stop selection, BRT stops could also be coordinated with new or proposed park-and-ride lots equipped with bicycle lockers.

3.4.4 Existing Park and Ride Facilities

There are two park and ride lots in Chula Vista. (See Figure 8: Bicycle Related Amenities.) Note that neither is equipped with bicycle lockers. Park and Ride Lot 50: This lot is located in east-central Chula Vista at the corner of Paseo del Rey and Telegraph Canyon Road at the Chula Vista Alliance Church. According to SANDAG, nearby services include bus service and child care. Park and Ride Lot 56: This lot is located in south-central Chula Vista at the northeast corner of Buena Vista Way and East H Street at the Joy Lutheran Church. According to SANDAG, nearby services include bus service.

3.4.5 Existing Transit Centers

Chula Vista’s three trolley stations, Palomar Street, Bayfront/E Street and H Street, are not designated as transit centers, but they are all served by at least three local (CVT) bus routes. The H Street Station is a stop on seven CVT routes, for example.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

3.4.6 Multi-Modal Summary

Though light rail trolley service is confined to the far western coastal portion of Chula Vista, the MTS Blue Line does stop at three stations equipped with bike lockers. Cyclists are allowed to bring bicycles on the trolley cars themselves, though on a limited basis. The remainder of the City is served by bus routes on virtually all major thoroughfares and extending well out into the eastern portion of the City. The location of bus routes appears to correlate with population density because there are considerably more routes west of I-805 than east of it. However, route location probably also correlates with the location of available arterial roadways, which are fewer and farther apart in the eastern part of the City than in the older portion west of I-805 with its traditional grid street system. Having busses equipped with bike racks serves multi-modal travel at the most fundamental level. The CVT routes do appear to serve the areas of highest employment density, which are generally situated along the major arterials.

3.5 Safety

Safety is a primary concern in evaluating an existing bikeway facility system or in proposing new facilities or extensions. The primary lesson learned from the literature reviewed for this and other bicycle master plans is that installation of bicycle facilities without careful consideration of their specific attributes and drawbacks can actually exacerbate already problematic safety situations. This is particularly true for facilities likely to be used by other types of users such as walkers, runners and skaters, in addition to cyclists. Well-designed, attractive, off-street bicycle facilities tend to become mixed use facilities and the other user types do not move with the relative predictability of vehicles or cyclists. On the other hand, even though they move with more predictability, cyclists using on-street facilities must contend with motorists. Safety concerns therefore vary considerably depending on the type of bicycle facility. Safety is reviewed in the following sections through mapping data analysis, field experience, applicable literature, examination of user types and capabilities and user questionnaires responses.

Final

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

3.5.1 User Types and Capabilities

Users can be classified using a number of criteria such as their ages, their cycling experience and physical condition, for examples, to come up with a profile of the types of users expected to make use of a particular bikeway system. Such a user classification is helpful for bikeway planning purposes. User Classification The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities contains a cyclist classification system to assist in the selection of appropriate facilities. The classification system is as follows: • Group A - Advanced Cyclists (Experienced): Group A cyclists fall into two categories, commuting/utility and sports /touring. • Group B - Basic Cyclists (casual, novice, occasional, recreational) • Group C - Children (preteen) AASHTO estimates that only about five percent of the cycling population is experienced cyclists. Though there are no data to support this estimate, this is probably accurate enough for general use in the United States. (See Table 4: Bikeway User Classification.) AASHTO states that, in most circumstances, Group B and Group C cyclists can be combined. However, Group C cyclists are much more likely to ride almost daily, and especially to ride bicycles to and from schools during mornings and afternoons most of the year. This would also include Group B teens. The majority of Group B adult cyclists are more likely to ride on weekends and some evenings during favorable weather since they are more likely to be riding for recreation rather than for commuting. More importantly, the groups also tend to ride on different types of roadways. Group C cyclists tend to stay in residential areas, while Group B cyclists will tend to ride on busier streets if there is sufficient width and bike facilities. Parents will usually not allow their young children to ride on busy streets, even ones with bike facilities. Group A cyclists are accustomed to riding on busy streets, with or without bike facilities. Experience level tends to determine whether an adult is a Group A or Group B cyclist. Perhaps one way to distinguish between Group A and Group B cyclists is to observe where they wait for a signal to change at intersections. Experienced, Group A cyclists tend to stay far enough to the left of the curb lane to allow right turning motor vehicles to safely pass them on their right. When the light changes, they steer toward the right side of the curb lane across the intersection. This keeps them in direct view of motorists who are also proceeding straight through the intersection and gets them out of

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Preferred Facility

Typical Usage

Days per Week

Speed Range

Average Distance

Typical Origins and Destinations

6-16

Sidewalks, trails, quiet streets, flat terrain (Class 1)

Early weekday mornings and afternoons, weekends

5-6

4-8 mph

1-2 miles

Residences, schools, parks, open space, retail centers

Family Recreational

6-70+

Quiet streets, scenic trails, flat terrain (Class 1)

Weekends, occasional early evenings

5-10 mph

2-4 miles

Residences, parks, open space

25-70+

Quiet streets, scenic trails, flat terrain (Class 1 & 2)

Weekends, occasional early evenings

1-2

8-15 mph

5-20 miles

Residences, parks, open space

18-55+

Streets, bike lanes, direct arterial routes (Class 2 & 3)

Early weekday mornings and late afternoons

4-6

10-20 mph

3-20 miles

Residences, employment centers, retail centers

18-55+

Arterials, flat or hilly circuitous routes (Class 2 & 3)

Weekday mornings and late afternoons, weekends

2-5

12-25 mph

20+ miles

Residences (Rides typically originate or extend outside city)

8-45

Quiet streets, Weekends, paved trails, flat occasional early terrain, (Class 1) evenings

1-2

5-15 mph

2-5 miles

18-55

Early weekday Sidewalks, scenic mornings and late trails, flat terrain afternoons, (Class 1) weekends

3-6

5-9 mph

3-5 miles

Residences, parks, open space

2-5

2-4 mph

1-2 miles

Residences, parks, retail centers

2-5

3-7 mph

2-4 miles

Residences, parks, open space

Exercise Walkers

Recreational Walkers

Joggers

Skaters Skateboarders

Serious Cyclists

Commuters

Kids

Typical Ages

Adult Exercise

Table 4: Bikeway User Classification

Final

12-70+

16-70+

Sidewalks, Scenic trails, flat terrain (Class 1)

Weekday mornings and late afternoons, weekends

Weekday Sidewalks, scenic trails, flat mornings and late afternoons, terrain (Class 1) weekends

Residences, schools, parks

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

these motoristsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; path as quickly as possible. Since the motorists are starting forward from a standstill, the risk of injury is minimal. Less experienced Group B cyclists tend to hug the curb, even in right turn only lanes, putting them at risk of vehicles turning right across their paths. Typical bikeway facility system users tend to reflect the AASHTO group categories, though individuals of different groups may choose to ride together, such as when adult parents (Group B) ride with their children (Group C). This combination probably occurs frequently, especially on weekends, but as the AASHTO study author said, these two groups could be combined, making them functionally one group. For this study, cyclists are classified by AASHTO group. However, since it is likely that any Class 1 bikeway facility will attract users other than cyclists, this study tends to regard bicycle paths as multi-use that will also be used by skaters, joggers, recreational and exercise walkers. Experience has shown this to be the case, and unless the numbers of users become excessive, this mixed use is acceptable. This mixing of uses tends to occur primarily on paths with relatively benign grades. Experienced cyclists who prefer to travel at higher speeds tend to avoid Class 1 facilities that attract other types of slower users in favor of less traveled, more challenging routes, including those with significant hills, with or without Class 2 or 3 facilities. User Capabilities Typical user capabilities vary considerably depending on age, experience and physical conditioning. Figure 4: Bikeway User Classification, summarizes the average speeds and distances of which specific user types are generally capable. Note that these averages vary widely within the cyclist groups and within the non-cyclist user types. Many skatersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; speeds closely approximate cyclist speeds, for instance, but recreational walkers move considerably slower than most cyclists. Also, it should be noted that speed and maneuverability tend to be inversely proportional. Another crucial aspect of user capability is experience, which can also be defined as knowledge of appropriate traffic behavior or roadway aptitude. This factor is not as tangibly measured as physical capabilities, but it is no less important. It can probably be assumed that Group A cyclists are far more knowledgeable about appropriate traffic conduct than other cyclists and are likely to be the most attentive users due to long-term roadway experience. However, bikeway facility design and planning must also take into account the other end of the spectrum, meaning not only the much larger numbers of Group B and Group C cyclists, but also the skaters, joggers and walkers likely to use a Class 1 bikeway facility. These users can represent all levels of experience and, therefore, all levels of roadway aptitude.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

3.5.2 Data Analysis

Cyclists tend to prefer roadways with relatively low motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds. Regular bicycle commuters are probably the least likely to be deterred from using more heavily traveled routes, especially if they are the most direct. However, even most experienced cyclists are likely to choose quieter, less traveled routes when given the choice. For this reason, average daily trips (ADTs) and posted speed limits were mapped and analyzed in relation to reported bicycle collisions in Chula Vista over the last five years. (See Figures 10-12: Average Daily Trips, Speed Limits and Bicycle Related Collisions.) The number of collisions has been relatively stable over the last five years with no particular pattern in the time of year. There was an increase in collisions in 2007 and 2008, but the number decreased in 2009. There have been no fatalities in that period. Showing collisions as a statistic per rider more accurately illustrates safety increases or decreases. In addition, noting the miles of additional bicycle facilities being added each year and comparing those to the metric of collisions per rider can also illustrate any correlation between increased safety and increased bicycle facilities. Note that while these numbers may correlate, total causation can not be assumed. There are many other important factors affecting bicycle and roadway safety. Broadway, for example, the roadway with the most reported collisions, does not have a bicycle facility. There appears to be an increase in collisions on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, which is interesting to note since there is likely to be a division of types of cyclists especially between recreational riders on weekends and commuting cyclists on weekdays. It is possible that, for some reason, commuting cyclists in Chula Vista are at more risk of collision. Reviewing the crash and citation data revealed an apparent need for cyclist education. Of special note was that more than half of the cyclist citations (22 of 38) were written for wrong-way riding, which is a significant cause of motor vehicle-bicycle collisions. Facility design can mitigate some of the more common crash types. For example, typical bicycle lane design includes an arrow pointing in the correct direction of travel and a bicycle box can increase a cyclistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s visibility at intersections, which can help to prevent conflicts with turning motor vehicles.

3.5.3 Public Meetings

Two public meetings were held at locations in the eastern and western sides of the City. All the analysis graphics used in this plan were displayed on boards around the room and very large aerial maps of the City were placed on tables. The consultant gave a short orientation presentation addressing why the City was conducting the workshops and master plan update and the results of their initial analysis. Attendees were then asked to put written comments on any of the graphics, but to pay particular attention to the Final

t ES

t CS

in a Ma r

Pk w

wa y roa d

Or an ge Av

In du s tr ia d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Lakes

ve 1s t A

les N ap

J St

Palo

ma r

San Diego

Main St

r op D

< 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 > 20,000

H illt

Railroad

L St

it a

No v a ra

a Ole

La ke

EJ S t

D el R ey an cho

Ot a y sR d

l Te

it a g

City of Chula Vista Traffic Volumes*

A 3r d

p ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

Te r

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Miles

0.5

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: City of Chula Vista 2010

Figure 10: Average Daily Trips (ADT)

Trails

Av e 4th

H er

Imperial Beach

Coronado

Brandywi ne Av e

National City

805

Av e 2n d o Lad e ra

dia

se Pa

n yo

Me Av

La d a le na

al Rd

Mag

50 d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

d eR

ve rA nd e

2011

t ES

t CS

in a Ma r

wa y roa d In du

Pk w s tr ia

Bay Blvd

Lakes

> 45 MPH

Or an ge Av e

les N ap

ve 1s t A

< 25 MPH 25-45 MPH

A 3r d

J St

Palo

ma r

San Diego

Main St

r op D

Railroad

L St

H illt

Trails

it a

No v a ra

a Ole

La ke

EJ S t

D el R ey an cho

Ot a y sR d

l Te

it a g

City of Chula Vista Speed Limits*

Av e 4th

H er

Imperial Beach

Coronado

Brandywi ne Av e

National City

805

Av e 2n d o Lad e ra

p ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

dia

se Pa

n yo

Te r

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

e Av

La d a le na

al Rd

Mag

Final d

125

p ic

y w

Miles

0.5

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: City of Chula Vista 2010

Figure 11: Speed Limits

m Oly

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

d eR

ve rA nd e

d l B lv

t ES

t CS

L St

A 3r d

in a Ma r

Pk w

ve 1s t A

ay ad w

St les

H illt

Or an ge Av

N ap

J St

r op D

In du s tr ia

ma r

San Diego

Main St

Palo

it a

No v a ra

La ke

EJ St

D el R ey an cho

Ot a y sR d

l Te

p ra eg

ny Ca

S EH

ve rA nd e

d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Te r

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Miles

0.5

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: City of Chula Vista 2010

Figure 12: Bicycle Related Collisions

City of Chula Vista Bicycle Related Collisions (2005-2009)** Existing Bicycle Facilities* Class1: Bike Path Number of Collisions Trails Class 2: Bike Lanes Railroad 1 Class 3: Bike Route 2 Lakes Freeway Shoulder 3

n Bo

a Ole it a g

Imperial Beach

Coronado

805

Av e

National City

B ro

H er

Brandywi ne

Av e 4th o Lad e ra

Av e 2n d

dia

se Pa

n yo

Me Av

La d a le na

al d nR

Mag

52 d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

d eR

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Table 5: Bicycle Related Collisions by Year

Year Number of Collisions Number of injuries Number of fatalities

2005 36 35 0

2006 32 30 0

2007 44 43 0

2008 57 52 0

2009 37 37 0

Totals 206 197 0

Source: City of Chula Vista Bicycle Collisions Data (2005-2009)

Table 6: Bicycle Related Collisions by Month Months

Jan 18 18 0

Total collisions Number of injuries Number of fatalities

Feb 18 18 0

Mar 9 9 0

Apr 16 15 0

May 12 11 0

June 23 21 0

July 17 16 0

Aug 20 18 0

Sept 20 19 0

Oct 19 18 0

Nov 18 17 0

Dec 16 17 0

Totals 206 197 0

Source: City of Chula Vista Bicycle Collisions Data (2005-2009)

Table 7: Bicycle Related Collisions by Time of Day Time of Day Number of Collisions Number of injuries Number of fatalities

5-7am 2 2 0

7-9am 21 19 0

9-11am 13 14 0

11-1pm 25 22 0

1-3pm 40 38 0

3-5pm 48 47 0

Wed 42 41 0

Thu 22 20 0

Fri 29 27 0

5-7pm 40 39 0

7-9pm 15 14 0

9-11pm 2 2 0

Totals 206 197 0

Source: City of Chula Vista Bicycle Collisions Data (2005-2009)

Table 8: Bicycle Related Collisions by Day of Week

Day of the Week Total Collisions Number of injuries Number of fatalities

Mon 23 23 0

Tue 38 38 0

Sat 30 26 0

Sun 22 22 0

Totals 206 197 0

Source: City of Chula Vista Bicycle Collisions Data (2005-2009)

Table 9: Bicycle Related Citations

At Fault Violation Bicycle going wrong way Bicycle violation Failure to yield to pedestrians in crosswalk Follow too closely Misc. non-hazardous violation Pedestrian disobey signal/sign Private property/or late report Red light violation Riding bike while intoxicated Right of way violation Stop Sign Stopping, standing, parking violation Traffic sign, signal, marking violation Turning, stopping, turn signal violation Unsafe Speed Wrong side of roadway Totals

Total Violations

Driver

20 21 7 1 9 3 13 17 3 53 7 6 2 30 12 2 206

Bicycle 20 2

Both

1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 13

Unknown 0 19

1 2 1 2 6

1 2 2 38

1 7 3 10 15 1 44 7 4 1 25 9 0 152

Source: City of Chula Vista Bicycle Collisions Data (2005-2009)

Final

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

large table maps. These maps were purposely plotted at such a large scale that attendees could visually locate on them anything in the City one foot across or greater. In addition to comments about specific location issues, attendees were also asked to mark directly on the maps where they currently ride, where they would like to ride and where they would like to see new bicycle facilities. The comments placed on the aerial photo maps included policy requests such as better enforcement of cell and text messaging laws while driving and obeying posted speed limits, education for both motorists and cyclists, ordinances requiring provision of bicycle parking, performing bike and walk audits around schools, and control of service vehicle parking in bike lanes. Some site-specific requests included improved freeway crossings including LED warning lights to alert motorists to the presence of cyclists, a shared use path or “greenway” on East Palomar Street, traffic calming measures on hilly streets, reduced speed limits on H Street, “road diets” on H Street and Broadway, sequencing traffic signals on Broadway at 12 mph to benefit cyclists, and adding more bike parking, especially downtown.

City of Chula Vista

In addition to the two public meetings, meetings were also held with the City of Chula Vista’s Safety Commission and the downtown business district association known as the Third Avenue Village Association (TAVA).

Bikeway Master Plan

On July 16, 2010, TAVA was presented with the proposed Bikeway Master Plan and shown how it is consistent with the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan adopted by Council in late 2005. The focus of the meeting was on Third Avenue, which is shown as a Class 3 bike route. TAVA supported a Class 3 bike route facility at this time due to impending street improvements expected in 2011 between F an H Streets. TAVA also made a recommendation to support a Class 3 bike route on Third Avenue between C and J Streets.

The City of Chula Vista is updating its Bikeway Master Plan and needs the input of local cyclists of all ages and abilities. Your unique perspective is important in crafting a viable bikeway system for the City. Two public workshops will be held. Consultants and City staff will be on hand to answer your questions and record your comments:

Wednesday, Sept. 9th from 5:30-7:30pm

Thursday, Sept. 9th Club Wednesday, 22nd at the Women’s - 357 G Sept. Street from 5:30-7:30pm from 5:30-7:30pm at the Women’sSept. Club 22nd at Heritage Elem. School Wednesday, from 5:30-7:30pm 357 G Street 1450 Santa Lucia Road at Heritage Elementary School (Multipurpose Room)

1450 Santa Lucia Road

Please fill out an on-line survey about bicycling in Chula Vista at:

http://www.ktuaprojects.com/chulavista For more information, please contact Roberto Solorzano of the City of Chula Vista at 619 409-5420. Thank you for contributing to this plan.

Regarding future changes to bike facilities and on-street parking, TAVA first wanted to see how the proposed street improvement project would impact the central business district. Therefore, potential additional improvements such as the addition of Class 2 bike lanes and reverse angle parking to make it easier for exiting motorists to see oncoming cyclists and vehicles, could be considered as part of the next Bikeway Master Plan update in 2015/2016. On October 6, 2010, City staff presented the draft Bikeway Master Plan Update to the Safety Commission. The Safety Commission voted to accept the staff report and recommend adoption of the Bikeway Master Plan Update by City Council.

3.5.4 On-line Survey Responses and Analysis

An on-line questionnaire was developed based on previous bikeway project experience, but was also customized for this project with the help of City staff. It included informational and attitudinal questions intended to reveal as 54

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

much as possible about current user numbers, user types, preferred facility types and times of use. Respondents were also asked to note any specific concerns in a concluding comment section. As hoped, the response rate spiked after the first public meeting and the survey continued to garner responses for weeks afterward. By the time the master plan was in draft form, 136 people had taken the survey and all found the survey via the City website. There were no responses to the Spanish language version. More than half of the respondents (62 percent) reported riding for transportation, a relatively high level. Most of them biked two to three days a week on weekday mornings and evenings. When asked about commuting to work, half said they did, but less than five percent did so daily. However of those that did commute, more than half rode more than 10 miles. Not surprisingly, almost all respondents rode their bikes for recreation and most did so two to three days a week on weekends. Almost 70 percent said they rode with their family, primarily on weekends. When asked what factors discouraged them from cycling, the three most frequently chosen issues were “motorists that do not follow the rules of the road,” “aggressive motorists that make riding unsafe” and “bicycle unfriendly roadways.” When asked how certain improvements would affect their decision to cycling more, the improvements that garnered more than 70 percent in high level responses were “bike paths separated from the road and from busy traffic,” “provide more bike lanes painted on safe streets,” “increase maintenance along routes, removing potholes and debris,” and “fix bike unfriendly intersections that have high speed merge lanes.” Finally, a series of questions addressing children getting to and from school showed that 20 percent of respondents had children who walked or biked to school, and they were exactly split by mode. The two highest responses when asked what prevented their children from walking or biking to school were “concern over safety at street crossings” at 54 percent and “concern over criminal activities” at 35 percent. In the comments section, many survey respondents reported that while they may ride for recreation and occasional commuting, some would prefer more separated bike paths and many asked for increased street maintenance including surfacing and debris sweeping. Some said they had actually stopped commuting due to roadway conditions. The most common concerns mentioned in the comments were about bicycle unfriendly intersections, unsafe freeway crossings and aggressive and inattentive motorists. Full survey results and comments text from both the surveys and public workshop maps are included in Appendix G. Final

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

3.6 Constraints to Cycling

The most unique feature of Chula Vistaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing bikeway system is the distinct dichotomy of facility types between the eastern and western sections of the City. The eastern portion of the system is heavily weighted toward Class 2 facilities to take advantage of the wide arterial roadways, while the western portion is dominated by Class 3 routes on the narrower grid street system. The prevalence of specific bikeway facility types has been driven by street patterns and localized topography, and because of these factors, any additional facilities are likely to match the existing ones in the respective areas of the City.

3.6.1 Roadways with High Posted Speed Limits

Most of Chula Vistaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing Class 2 bikeway facilities are on arterial roadways with relatively high posted motor vehicle speeds. This is likely to continue as roadways are completed. Like roadway width, high posted speed limits alone may not be a deterrent to designating a bikeway facility on a particular roadway. For example, many of the facilities in the eastern portion of Chula Vista are on roadways with posted speed limits of up to 50 mph. Experienced cyclists are generally not concerned with adjacent motor vehicle speeds, especially when they can rely on the relative safety of their own Class 2 lane or a wide curb lane. However, less experienced cyclists are more likely to find such conditions uncomfortable and may be less likely to use these high speed roadways. They may instead ride on adjacent sidewalks.

3.6.2 Topography

Currently there are no grade limitations for on-street bicycle facilities such as Class 2 bike lanes and Class 3 bike routes. Most arterial roadway segments in the eastern part of the City have gentle grades, especially in the east-west direction, because they generally follow natural ridge lines. However, many of the north-south arterials cut across the ridges and dividing canyons, making some of their grades long and steep. The undulating topography means that some on-street routes have grades exceeding five percent. Though a small percentage of cyclists may actually seek out such routes, most would rather avoid them. Little can be done to alleviate this problem except to provide alternative routes to circumvent steep areas wherever possible. These north-south hilly routes may be the only connection between destinations that can accommodate cyclists. Even finding nearby parallel routing may be difficult, since parallel routes are also likely to be north-south. For Class 1 bike paths, the proper design speed is dependent on the type of use and terrain. Caltrans Highway Design Manual - Chapter 1000 states that the design speed for bike paths shall be a minimum of 25 mph. Bike paths with grades steeper than four percent and longer than 500 feet should have a design speed of 30 mph.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

In general, bike path grades should be kept to a minimum, especially on long inclines. Grades greater than five percent are less desirable because ascents are difficult for the average cyclist to climb and downhill speeds can exceed the design speed of the bike paths. On shared use bike paths where terrain may dictate the design, it is possible to have grades that exceed five percent for short sections, up to 500 feet. Grades steeper than two percent may not be practical for unpaved bike paths or composed of crushed stone or granite. This is recommended because of bike handing issues, potential pedestrian conflicts and erosion control.

3.6.3 Freeway Crossings

Like many cities, the interstate highways through Chula Vista present significant problems in terms of connectivity. The distances between freeway crossing points forces cyclists to plan east-west trips based on their locations. Even then, where underpasses and overpasses do provide access, the roadway is often narrow and cyclists using it are confronted with motor vehicles making their way to and from high speed vehicular on- and offramps, often multi-lane. Not all of Chula Vistaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interstate crossings have bikeway facilities. Like other issues, this was originally brought to light in questionnaire respondent comments and reviewed during field work. Caltrans District 11 (San Diego County area) policy is to no longer allow high speed free right turns at interchanges. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual also generally discourages such turns because their primary purpose, high motor vehicle capacity, is usually defeated by additional controls required to enhance safety such as yield signs, stop signs or signal controls. Any proposed free right turns should be redesigned as 90 degree turns. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Share the Roadâ&#x20AC;? signs are strongly recommended at freeway interchanges with or without bicycle facilities to warn motorists that they should expect to encounter cyclists. Freeway crossings without on- and off-ramps are undoubtedly preferred crossing locations for all cyclists, experienced or not. They provide safer crossings than typical interchanges because there are usually fewer motor vehicle turning movements and far less motor vehicle traffic overall than at typical interchanges. However, though they provide an opportunity to avoid typical interchange conditions, they can take cyclists well away from their intended route of travel. They fall far enough apart that they are not always convenient to cyclists. The City of Chula Vista has 18 freeway crossings that run east-west under and over I-5, I-805 and SR-125. SR-125 and I-805 are six lane freeways with a center median, which makes their underpasses quite long. Few of these underpasses have lighting and only a few have an open center median gap through which light can pass. The underpasses that do not have any natural light through the freeway above limit visibility to the far side and may make it more difficult for motorists to see cyclists, even in daylight conditions. Final

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

Lighting through a tunnel enhances the perception of personal safety. The lack of lighting may be intimidating to some cyclists and pedestrians who may therefore avoid the underpass altogether. When the underpass is long, such as when traversing a multi-lane roadway, wider or flared openings are recommended to improve natural lighting and visibility. Generally, the longer the structure, the greater the need for illumination. In certain cases, lighting may be required on a daily, 24 hour basis. All lighting should be recessed and vandal-resistant. Currently, none of the existing underpasses have adequate lighting. The following are the freeway crossings and their bicycle facility characteristics. Freeway crossings without bicycle facilities: • E Street at I-5 • Bay/Industrial Boulevards at I-5 • Orange Avenue at I-5 • Main Street at I-5 • H Street at I-805 • Telegraph Canyon Road at I-805 Freeway crossings with bicycle facilities at on/off ramps: • Bonita Road at I-805 • Orange Avenue at I-805 • Mt. Miguel Road at SR-125 • Otay Lakes Road at SR-125 • Olympic Parkway at SR-125 • Birch Road at SR-125 Freeway crossings with bicycle facilities without on/off ramps: • J Street at I-805 • Naples Street at I-805 • Palomar Street at I-805 • EastLake Parkway at SR-125 Freeway crossings with bicycle facilities are predominantly found at I-805 and SR-125. Bike facilities were incorporated into the design of SR-125, which gives the easternmost part of the City safer accessible crossings. Bike facilities on Orange Avenue have been installed since the adoption of the 2005 Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan. Main Street at I-805 is planned for improvements, but not yet funded. Bicycle facilities exist on most of the east-west routes that cross I-5, which are all overpasses. However, they do not continue over the crossings themselves within Caltrans right-of-way.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

3.6.4 Loss or Degradation of Bikeway Facilities

It should be any cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s policy to maintain existing bicycle facilities, both in terms of continuity and pavement quality. Class 2 bikeways can be inadvertently lost or degraded in two ways. First, this can happen when lanes are restriped. This usually occurs at intersections when additional motor vehicle turn lanes are added and the additional space needed is taken partly from the former bike lane. In the second case, bike lanes may be degraded and effectively lost if bikeways are not carefully resurfaced and restriped following roadway and utility repairs. The result can be rough, piecemeal or even, over time, the complete loss of bike lanes. In both cases, planning and traffic engineering officials should make certain that roadway alterations are well thought out and that comprehensive resurfacing requirements are fulfilled and bikeway facilities retained or restored before projects are considered complete and contractorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; bonds released.

3.6.5 Connectivity Issues

The main issues that affect cycling connectivity in Chula Vista are physical, especially the geomorphology of eastern Chula Vista and the freeways. While western Chula Vista is relatively level, eastern Chula Vista lies on a series of east-west ridge lines separated by canyons. Especially in the north-south direction, many cyclists will find some of these grades to be too strenuous for routine use. The two interstate highways running north-south through Chula Vista and SR-125 affect non-motorized connectivity. Traversing the typical interchanges when crossing under or over the freeways can be a disagreeable experience as the cyclist is forced to deal with a frequent lack of bikeway facility striping and motor vehicles making lane changes onto multiple onand off-ramps at speeds considerably higher than a cyclistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s normal speed. Even experienced cyclists find this unnerving

Final

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

3.7 Current and Future Ridership Estimates

Knowing how many people cycle, and for what purposes, can help the City to develop projects and programs to better serve current and future cyclists.

3.7.1 Means of Transportation

Table 10 shows the means of transportation used by workers 16 years and older in Chula Vista to commute from home to work, according to the latest U.S. Census (2000). Table 10: Means of Transportation (Percent of Total Commute Trips)

Chula Vista

San Diego County

California

U.S.

Drive-alone

76.1

73.9

71.8

75.7

Carpool

14.0

13.0

14.5

12.2

Transit

4.2

3.4

5.1

4.7

Bicycle

0.3

0.6

0.8

0.4

Walk

1.5

3.4

2.9

Other*

3.9

5.8

4.8

4.1

Source: 2000 Census Data (*Work-at-home, motorcycle and taxi)

For purposes of context and comparison, the table also shows this information for San Diego County, California and the United States. Note that bicycling accounts for only 0.3 percent of commute trips among Chula Vista workers. This is a lower share than for the remainder of the county, the state and the nation. Drive-alone is the predominant means of commuting in Chula Vista and commands a higher share than at the county, state and national levels. Conversely, carpooling and public transportation are more common ways to commute in Chula Vista than in the county as a whole.

3.7.2 Bicycle Commuting in Chula Vista

Of the 74,756 workers in Chula Vista counted in the 2000 Census, 223 represent the 0.3 percent of the total that used bicycles to get to work. Since this information is 10 years old, it is possible that the figure has changed. In addition, the current census information on bicycle commuters does not include people who bike to school and those who bike to transit before continuing to work. This following text refines the 2000 bicycle commuting rate for Chula Vista by adding an estimated number of students who bike to school and workers who bike to transit for their work trip. Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) portion of the 2000 Census were used to develop these refined estimates.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Students biking to school According to the 2009 ACS, there were 62,240 enrolled students from first grade to graduate school in Chula Vista. If approximately one percent of these students bicycled to school, this would translate into an additional 622 cyclists. Workers biking to transit The 2009 ACS estimated that 3,156 Chula Vista workers commuted to work by transit. If approximately one percent of transit commuters used their bike to access transit before continuing on their way, this would translate to an additional 32 bicycle commuters. The revised estimate of 877 daily cyclists in Chula Vista would therefore include 223 workers, 622 students and 32 bike-to-transit riders.

3.7.3 Non-Commute Bicycle Ridership

Commute trips represent a minority of bicycle trips. To get a fuller sense of bicycling in a community, it is essential to account for the other reasons that people use bicycles. The National Bicycling & Walking Study, published by the Federal Highway Administration in 1995, estimated that for every commute trip made by bicycle there were 1.74 trips made for shopping, social and other utilitarian purposes. Using that figure, we can estimate the number of these other bicycle trips in Chula Vista as follows: • Number of daily bicycle commuters: 877 • Number of daily trips per commuter: Two (Assuming one trip from home to work and one trip back) • Number of daily bicycle commute trips: 1,754 (877 x 2) • Daily bicycle trips for non-commute purposes: 3,051 (1,754 x 1.74) Finally, many people ride bicycles primarily for recreation. While the bikeway master plan is intended to focus on bicycling for transportation, it is important to keep recreational riders in mind in the formulation of projects and programs. With enough encouragement, including supportive infrastructure, some recreational riders can be expected to make the transition to bicycle commuters. While reliable figures are not readily available, Chula Vista likely has a substantial number of recreational cyclists. The City is well poised to support increased cycling given its mild weather, generally flat terrain, large expanses of open space and park lands, and a significant shoreline along the San Diego Bay with access to the Bayshore Bikeway. In addition, the City has implemented a large portion of the bikeway projects proposed in the 2005 plan, more than any other city in San Diego County.

Final

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment

3.7.4 Projected Bicycle Ridership

If other communities are any indication, implementation of this plan will result in a sizable increase, at least in relative terms, in bicycle ridership and daily trips. Not surprisingly, bicycling studies from around the country have found a correlation between bikeway miles per capita in a given community and its percentage of cyclists. In a case study of three cities (Portland, San Francisco and Seattle) that implemented bicycle improvements, “after” bicycle ridership on improved corridors was between double and triple the “before” numbers. This is consistent with an observation in the National Bicycling & Walking Study that there are “…three times more commuter cyclists in cities with higher proportions of bike lanes.” Implementation of an interconnected network of facilities, as opposed to a system of improved, but not necessarily linked corridors, would likely have an even more pronounced effect. Assuming a potential tripling in ridership, such as that found in the National Bicycling & Walking Study, the implementation of the bikeway master plan could result in approximately 2,631 daily bicycle commuters throughout the City (877 multiplied by 3). Similarly, daily bicycle trips for shopping, social and other utilitarian purposes would increase to 9,153 (3,051 multiplied by 3). Thought these are order-of-magnitude estimates based on limited data and informed suppositions, it is reasonable to expect that implementation of the bikeway master plan would yield substantive environmental and quality-of-life dividends associated with more bicycling and less driving.

2011

Recommendations Based on the previous chapters of this master plan, this chapter describes the general bikeway system improvements recommended for the City of Chula Vista. These include physical improvements, as well as policy and program recommendations. The following recommendations are intended to take advantage of existing and programmed roadways and existing bicycle facilities to resolve cyclists’ concerns for safety and connectivity. The City of Chula Vista has an almost complete system of Class 2 bikeways along its major roadways in the eastern portion of the City, and expects to have Class 2 facilities installed on the future portions of those roadways, as well. Full implementation of the programmed Class 2 facilities would provide a complete Class 2 system. Class 3 routes crisscross Chula Vista’s older western section, whose configuration best fits the traditional grid street pattern with its frequently limited rights-of-way. There are currently a few Class 3 routes east of I-805 and several additional Class 3 route are proposed, primarily to provide safe routes to schools.

4 Chapter

Chula Vista already has an extensive system of Class 2 lanes and 3 routes, seven Class 1 facilities and a substantial amount of open space. The Bayshore Bikeway will be substantially Class 1 and the potential exists for creating a Class 1 path along a planned transit corridor. The proposed greenbelt system should also take advantage of the opportunities presented by available open space. The final sections of this chapter address a number of policy and program recommendations. These were based on the League of American Bicyclists’ guidelines for bicycle friendly communities and additional recommendations tailored to the City of Chula Vista. These “intangible” improvements, in tandem with physical facilities, can have a profound effect in encouraging more people to ride their bicycles instead of automatically reaching for their car keys.

4.1 Recommended Bikeway Facilities

The recommended bikeway system was derived from SANDAG’s planned regional bikeway system, the 2005 City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan, City and public input, field work, state-of-the-art literature review and extensive GIS analysis. (See Figure 13: Recommended Bicycle Facilities.) To illustrate the overall system in its city-wide context, Figure 13 shows all of the recommended and existing bikeway facilities. For clarity, three additional figures are included that show one facility class only with each segment keyed to an associated spreadsheet. The following sections describe these bikeway types in general terms. See the spreadsheets for more detail and the remarks in the last column of the spreadsheets for selection rationale. Detailed cost analyses for each segment are provided in Appendix C. Prioritization and selection methodology is described in Appendix D.

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

t ES

t CS Av e 4th

B ro

L St

A 3r d

in a Ma r

Pk w

ve 1s t A

ay ad w

St les

H illt

Or an ge Av

N ap

J St

r op D

In du s tr ia

ma r

San Diego

Main St

Palo

it a

No v a ra

ve rA nd e

d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Lakes

Railroad

Class 3: Bike Route Freeway Shoulder

Class1: Bike Path Class 2: Bike Lanes

Te r

Class 1: H Street Extension: Funded by SDUPD Class 1: Need further coordination with County

Future Projects

Class 3: Bike Routes

Class 2: Bike Lanes

Class 1: Bike Path

EJ S

sR d

l Te

p ra eg

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY R ESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

Figure 13: Recommended Bicycle Facilities

ny Ca

S EH

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: 2005 Chula Vista Bicycle Master Plan and CIPs

Facility Upgrades (From Class 3 to Class 2)**

Trails

La ke

D el R ey an cho

Ot a y

City of Chula Vista Existing Bicycle Facilities* Recommended Bicycle Facilities* **

n Bo

a Ole ge

Imperial Beach

Coronado

Av e

National City

805

Av e 2n d

it a H er

Brandywi ne

o Lad e ra

se Pa

n yo

dia Av

Me d a le na

al La Mag

64 d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATE R RESERVOIR

Chapter 4: Recommendations

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

4.2 Class 1 Facilities

Class 1 bikeways (frequently referred to as bike paths) are facilities with exclusive right-of-way for bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows by motor vehicles kept to a minimum. They are physically separated from motor vehicle routes. A physical separation of at least five feet is recommended where a Class 1 facility parallels a motor vehicle route. Any separation of less than five feet from the pavement edge of a motor vehicle route requires a physical barrier to prevent cyclists from encroaching onto the roadway. A barrier should be provided anywhere there is the potential for motor vehicles to encroach onto a Class 1 bicycle facility. Class 1 paths immediately adjacent to streets with numerous cross streets are not recommended because they can create safety problems. Unlike on-street facilities that already have defined minimum design speeds, the minimum design speed of Class 1 facilities is a factor to consider. In general, the minimum design speed should be 25 mph.

Class 1 - Bike Path

2’

8’ - 10’

2’

The edge of a bike path that is less than five feet from a road must have a physical barrier such as rails, dense shrubs or trees. (Caltrans Chapter 1000)

Final

Av e 2n d

Av e 4th

in a Ma r A 3r d

Pk w

a Ole

H illt

wa y roa d

ve rA nd e

r op D

ve 1s t A

In du s tr ia d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Lakes

Railroad

Class 1: H Street Extension: Funded by SDUPD Class 1: Need further coordination with County

Future Projects

Class 3: Bike Routes

Class 2: Bike Lanes

125

t un

y w

wy Pk ic W Y

INpA Rm MA Oly

C lu bh o u se D r

Chula Vista Bayfront

IVA TE

I ST

UPPER OTAY R ESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

F ST

J ST

STELLA

Otay

L ST

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: 2005 Chula Vista Bicycle Master Plan and CIPs

Facility Upgrades (From Class 3 to Class 2)**

d eR

Class 1: Bike Path

it a g

Figure 14: Recommended Class 1 Bike Paths

Class1: Bike Path Class 2: Bike Lanes Class 3: Bike Route Freeway Shoulder

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Trails

H er

I-5 NB

San Diego

dia

Main St

p ra eg

ar S

l Te

Or an ge Av

m Palo

o ny Ca

S EH

St les N ap

EJ S

OON

Proctor Valley Rd

LA G

City of Chula Vista Existing Bicycle Facilities* Recommended Bicycle Facilities* **

L St

No v a

D el R ey

J St

cho R an

sR n

IDE

YS BA

n yo

PER

t GS

D PI

La ke

SAN

t ES

Ot a y

Mt M i g ue

IN MAR

RA B OF F

ON I- 5 SB

Imperial Beach

Coronado

National City

805

Te r

Sweetwater

Brandywi ne Av e

E ST

B I- 5 S

o Lad e ra

BAY

I- 5 S

I- 5 N RA B O FF

se Pa

F RA

AV AV S ON FE R JEF N AV W A L OA K

66 B OF I- 5 N LA W N AV

d a le na

OD WO

IS MAD

Mag

AV CH BEE AY H AV AD W V AS A H BR O AS

la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATE R RESERVOIR

Chapter 4: Recommendations

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Opportunities exist for the installation of Class 1 facilities that would not only provide the relaxed recreational atmosphere associated with an off-street facility, but could also improve commuter connections. Normally, Class 2 facilities are preferred for transportation or commuting purposes. However, if no available roadways exist through an area, these Class 1 facilities can be useful to commuters. Together, these facilities could fill in any gaps in the current system where topography and lack of facilities may currently limit access. The Class 1 routes proposed in the following pages would be designed for multipurpose use and be paved with asphalt or concrete. The paths should be wide enough (eight feet minimum) to accommodate multiple user types and should include unpaved clear zones (two feet minimum) on each side that can be wider if needed to provide for users who prefer a softer trail. Though not all within the Chula Vista city limits, completion of the Class 1 portions of the Bayshore Bikeway would be a boon to local and regional cyclists. The Bayshore Bikeway will circumnavigate San Diego Bay within the rights-of-way of the existing rail line and on roadways where the rail line does not exist. The facility will be a paved, multi-use, regional route connecting the coastal cities around San Diego Bay. The remaining portion within Chula Vista is a segment between E and Main Streets. This has been broken into three segments for easier phasing. The fourth Class 1 facility segment would be within the bus rapid transit (BRT) corridor planned to run parallel with on the east side of I-805 north of Telegraph Canyon Road. This bikeway facility would likely be built in conjunction with the future BRT/managed lanes improvements. At a minimum, the bike path should be accommodated in the design by grading a terrace at least 14 feet in width along the east side of the freeway corridor so that the bike path is not precluded if it has to be constructed separately later. Future Project A, the H Street Expansion, has already been designed and is funded by the San Diego Unified Port District with completion slated for 2012. The alignment and bicycle facility type for Project B, Proctor Valley Road Bike Path, requires further coordination between the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. The alignment and facility type will be determined based on the allowance of motor vehicles when the connection is made. These alignments were included to show near-term and future bicycle facilities in the overall City bicycle network. Due to economies of scale and the need for the contractor to perform work on the widened freeway footprint to accommodate the managed lanes, extensive regrading of the freeway shoulders is expected. It is likely that the contractor will require a construction access pathway off the freeway. This terrace along the east side of the freeway could be used initially for construction equipment logistics to minimize freeway traffic impacts. It is therefore strongly recommended that the bike path be included as part of the overall project and to clear it through the managed lanes environmental document. (See Figure 14: Recommended Class 1 Bike Paths and Table 11.) Final

Chapter 4: Recommendations

Table 11

Recommended Class 1 Bike Paths Segment Number

Segment Location

Miles

Notes

• Continues existing bike path to Goodrich Aerostructures property • Part of Bayshore Bikeway and SANDAG Regional Bikeway Corridor Network • Coordination with San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway needed to acquire right-of-way 0.25 • Adequate width available to install 10-12’ wide bike path. Existing ~41' right-of-way • Install pedestrian signal crossing at Lagoon Drive to allow bike path users to travel through intersection and to improve visibility. If warranted, bicycle signal is also recommended • All ramps must meet ADA requirements • Part of SANDAG Regional Bikeway Corridor Network and South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project (Phase Two) • Phase Two to include managed lanes on I-805 and bike path design could be developed simultaneously. Grading to be done in Phase 1 with completion in Phase 2 • Consistent with Needs and Purpose statement of Environmental Document • Should be included in Phase Two design to ensure connection from downtown Chula Vista to National City and provide economy of scale savings 1.68 • Provides north-south corridor dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian travel • Connects to proposed bike route on East J Street overpass over I-805 where there are no onor off-ramps • Access ramps to Chula Vista street network should meet ADA requirements and provide safety measures at intersections. Whenever possible, connections to existing intersections should be planned to utilize pedestrian signals for crossing streets. If warranted, separate bicycle signals and crossing may be implemented • Part of Bayshore Bikeway and SANDAG Regional Bikeway Corridor Network • Coordination with San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway and Goodrich Aerostructures needed to acquire right-of-way • Adequate width to install 10-12’ wide bike path. Existing ~41' right-of-way 0.51 • Install pedestrian signal crossing at H Street to allow bike path users to travel through intersection and to improve visibility. If warranted, bicycle signal also recommended • Alternative for this segment may go along the west wide of Bay Boulevard • All ramps must meet ADA requirements

Bay Blvd E Street to F Street

I-805 Corridor between Telegraph Canyon Road and City limit

Bay Blvd F Street to H Street

Bay Blvd H Street to Bayshore Bikeway/ Palomar Street

1.71

• Part of Bayshore Bikeway and SANDAG Regional Bikeway Corridor Network • Coordination with San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway and San Diego Port District needed to acquire right-of-way • Adequate width available to install 10-12’ wide bike path. Existing ~41' right-of-way • Utilize existing controlled crossing at Marina Pkwy/J Street and Bay Boulevard to allow bike path users to travel through intersection • All ramps must meet ADA requirements

Bayfront Project: E to H Streets

1.22

• To be developed in phases along with Project 6 as part of the proposed Bayfront Project • Provides coastal route along Chula Vista bayfront

Bayfront Project: H Street to Bay Boulevard

1.40

• To be developed in phases along with Project 5 as part of the proposed Bayfront Project • Provides coastal route along Chula Vista bayfront • Development dependent on status of South Bay Power Plant south of Marina Parkway

Total Mileage:

6.77

Future Projects*

A B

H Street Expansion

0.26

• Part of H Street Expansion Project funded by San Diego Unified Port District • To be developed in Phase 1, Marina Parkway to east of railroad tracks

Proctor Valley Road Bike Path

1.37

• Bike path would travel between San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road along San Miguel Ranch Subdivision and beneath SR-125 within County • Route partly in County. Coordination needed to make connection into Chula Vista. • Class 1 path if Proctor Valley Road from San Miguel Ranch Road closed to vehicular traffic • If roadway is open to vehicular traffic, Class 2 bike lanes will connect to County

Total Mileage:

1.63 * Projects either underway or in need of further coordination. No cost estimates associated.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

4.3 Class 2 Facilities

Class 2 bikeways (often called bike lanes) are one-way facilities within roadways placed next to the curb or parking lane for the preferential use of bicycles within the paved area of streets. They are designated by striping, pavement markings and signage. Class 2 facilities must be at least four feet wide where no parking occurs and five feet wide where parking does occur. Class 2 facilities are already in place primarily throughout the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista and are to be included on all programmed major roadways. A number of Class 2 lane segments are recommended in the eastern portion of Chula Vista to fill gaps in existing facilities along arterials. With the implementation of these segments, the City will have a substantially complete Class 2 system east of I-805. West of I-805, the two longest Class 2 recommendations are on Main Street and on Industrial Boulevard. (See Figure 15: Recommended Class 2 Bike Lanes and Table 12.)

Class 2 - Bike Lane

Travel Lane

5’ - 6’ Bike Lane

Parking Lane

Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.

Bike Lane Marking Travel Lane

4-5’ Bike Lane

2’ Curb

5’ minimum

Final

t ES

wa y roa d

Bay Blvd

in a Ma r

A 3r d

Pk w

ve 1s t A

In du s tr ia d l B lv

ma r

San Diego

Main St

Palo

No v a ra

ve rA nd e

Lakes

Railroad

Trails

Class 3: Bike Route Freeway Shoulder

Class1: Bike Path Class 2: Bike Lanes

Te r

EJ St

Class 1: H Street Extension: Funded by SDUPD Class 1: Need further coordination with County

Future Projects

Class 3: Bike Routes

Class 2: Bike Lanes

Class 1: Bike Path

La ke

D el R ey an cho

Ot a y sR d

l Te

Rd B ir ch

ke La

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY R ESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

Figure 15: Recommended Class 2 Bike Lanes

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: 2005 Chula Vista Bicycle Master Plan and CIPs

Facility Upgrades (From Class 3 to Class 2)**

ny Ca

p ra eg

12t

S EH

City of Chula Vista Existing Bicycle Facilities* Recommended Bicycle Facilities* **

St les

Or an ge Av

N ap

J St

r op D

13 1

L St

H illt

d eR

i on

a Ole it a g

Av e 4th

H er

Imperial Beach

Coronado

Brandywi ne Av e

National City

805

Av e 2n d o Lad e ra

dia

se Pa

n yo

Me Av

La d a le na

al Rd

Mag

70 d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATE R RESERVOIR

Chapter 4: Recommendations

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Table 12

Recommended Class 2 Bike Lanes Segment Number

4 5

Roadway Segment

Miles

Main Street

Otay Lakes Road

East H Street

Fourth Avenue

Otay Lakes Road

Limits

Notes

2.89

• Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Existing Class 3 bike route upgrade to Class 2 bike lane • Existing curb-to-curb width: 60’-81’ • Proposed alignment varies from 64’ and 5 travel lanes: Four 10’ travel lanes, one 12’ TWLT and two 6’ bike lanes. On-street parking removed • Lane diet traffic calming along narrow section to reduce speeds and wider bike lane to accommodate cyclists I-5 to Main Court • For wider sections, 6’ bike lanes and/or 2’ buffers recommended to give cyclists buffer between travel lanes and/or on-street parking • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage throughout route. Install directional signage informing cyclists that I-805 is bike route to Palm Avenue in City of San Diego • Colored bike lanes recommended at I-5 and I-805 on-off ramps for greater visibility crossing these intersections • Coordinate with the Main Street Master Plan

0.30

• Fills westbound gap on Otay Lakes Road. Eastbound bike lane exists • Existing curb-to-curb width: 84’ with 3 lanes each way • Reduce left turn pocket buffer to accommodate bike lanes through Rutgers Avenue Rutgers Avenue to end of existing • RTOL at Otay Ranch Mobile Home Park utilizes space needed for bike westbound bike lane. Narrow travel lanes and install bike lanes. lanes • Colored bike lanes recommended at high conflict areas around mobile home park entrance and merging out of right-turn only lane approaching Rutgers Avenue • Increase bicycle awareness signage throughout this segment

0.57

• Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Fills gap in Class 2 connection to Southwestern College • Existing curb-to-curb width: 80’ End of bike lanes • Lacks existing curb-to-curb width to allow 5’ bike lanes to Otay Lakes • Road diet needed from 3 lanes to 2 lanes each way to accommodate Road bike lanes and reduction of raised center median • Proposed alignment: Four 13’ travel lanes, one 14’ raised median/TWLT, two 5’ bike lanes with 2’ buffers. Buffers recommended due to high speed and high traffic volumes

0.51

0.27

Main Street to City Limit

• Connects existing bike lanes on Beyer Rd to Bike Route on Fourth Ave • Existing curb-to-curb width: 73’ • Proposed alignment: Four 12’ travel lanes, one 9' parking lane, two 6’ bike lanes with 2' buffers

• Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Connects existing bike lanes on Beyer Rd to Bike Route on Fourth Ave • Existing curb-to-curb width: 73’ Elmhurst Street • Proposed alignment: Five 12’ travel lanes and two 5’ bike lanes to Apache Drive • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage to and from college • Future construction phase of CIP Project STM-355

*TWLT = Two-Way Left Turn Lane, RTOL = Right Turn Only Lane, RTOF = Right Turn onto Freeway

Final

Chapter 4: Recommendations

Table 12 (Continued)

Recommended Class 2 Bike Lanes Segment Number

Roadway Segment

Heritage Road

Industrial Boulevard and L Street

Telegraph Canyon Road

East H Street

Broadway

Miles

Limits

0.27

Main Street to Entertainment Circle

0.94

Notes • Fills Class 2 gap to Cricket Amphitheater and Knotts Soak City • Existing curb-to-curb width: 60’ • Proposed alignment: Four 12’ travel lanes and two 6’ bike lanes. • Increase bicycle awareness and directional signage throughout

• Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Connects to existing bike lanes on Industrial Boulevard south of Palomar Street • L Street existing curb-to-curb width: 74’ • Proposed alignment: Two 11’ inside travel lanes, two 13’ outer travel lanes, one 12’ center turn lanes and two 5’ bike lanes with 2’ buffers Bay Boulevard to • Industrial Boulevard existing curb-to-curb width: 34’ Palomar Street • Industrial Boulevard proposed alignment: Two 11’ travel lanes and two 5’ bike lanes • Colored bike lanes recommended at I-5 on-off ramps on both L Street and Industrial Boulevard for greater visibility crossing through intersection • Increase bicycle awareness signage

0.25

• Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Fills gap in Class 2 facility between Telegraph Canyon Road and Oleander Avenue • Existing curb-to-curb width: 84-104’ Nacion Avenue • Proposed alignment at minimum width (84'): Six 10.5’ travel lanes, to Halecrest one 11' TWLT and two 5’ bike lanes. Due to high ADTs, road diet not Drive recommended, but bike lanes are • Increase bicycle awareness and directional signage throughout • Colored bike lanes recommended at I-805 on-off ramps for greater visibility crossing these intersections

0.37

• Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Fills gap in Class 2 facility at I-805 I-805 • Existing curb-to-curb width: 80-92’ southbound on- • Proposed alignment at minimum width (80'): Five 11’ travel lanes, one ramp to existing 11' TWLT/RTOF and two 5’ bike lanes with 2’ buffers bike lanes • Increase bicycle awareness and directional signage throughout • Colored bike lanes recommended at I-805 on-off ramps for greater visibility crossing these intersections

0.28

• Fills gap in Class 2 facility • Existing curb-to-curb width: 56’-68' • Road needs resurfacing and some 90-degree parking switched to parallel parking • Proposed alignment: Two 12’ travel lanes, two 8’ parking lanes, two 6’ bike lanes with 2' buffers

Main Street to City Limit

*TWLT = Two-Way Left Turn Lane, RTOL = Right Turn Only Lane, RTOF = Right Turn onto Freeway

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Table 12 (Continued)

Recommended Class 2 Bike Lanes Segment Number

Roadway Segment

East J Street

East H Street

Miles

Limits

Notes

0.70

• Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Existing Class 3 bike route upgrade to Class 2 bike lane • Fills gap in Class 2 facility • Existing curb-to-curb width: 48’ • Proposed alignment #1: Two 11’ travel lanes, two 8’ parking lanes and River Ash Drive two 5’ bike lanes. TWLT will need to be removed to Paseo • Proposed alignment #2: Two 12’ travel lanes, one 12’ TWLT and two 6’ Ranchero bike lanes. Requires removal of on-street parking • Proposed alignment #3: Two 11’ travel lanes, one 11’ TWLT, one 8’ parking lane and two 5’ bike lanes. On-street parking will need to be removed on one side of street • Provide additional directional signage throughout J Street

0.25

• Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Fills gap in Class 2 connection to Southwestern College • Existing curb-to-curb width: 64’ • Lacks existing curb-to-curb width to accommodate 5’ bike lanes East of Otay • Proposed alignment to accommodate existing on-street parking: Two Lakes Road to 10’ travel lanes, two 7’ parking lanes and two 5’ bike lanes. Removal of east of Auburn raised median necessary to accommodate bike lanes. Includes left turn Avenue pockets at Auburn Avenue • Proposed alignment with removal of on-street parking: Two 12’ travel lanes, one 14’ raised center median, two 6’ bike lanes with 2’ buffers • Buffers recommended due to high speed and high traffic volumes • Increase bicycle awareness and directional signage throughout • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Connects to existing lanes on Industrial Boulevard north of Ada Street • Industrial Boulevard existing curb-to-curb width: 32’-51’ • Industrial Boulevard proposed alignment for 32’ width: Two 11’ travel lanes and two 5’ bike lanes • Proposed alignment for 51’ width: Two 12’ travel lanes, one 11’ TWTL, two 6’ bike lanes with 2’ buffers. Buffers can be removed and outer lanes expanded to 14’ travel lanes due to heavy truck traffic • Increase bicycle awareness signage

Industrial Boulevard

0.50

Santa Victoria Road

1.84

Olympic • Under construction Parkway to Santa • Provides alternative route to Otay Ranch High School Venetia Street

Heritage Road

0.43

Olympic • Under construction Parkway to Santa • Continues Class 2 bike lanes to Santa Victoria Road Victoria Road

0.88

• Fills gap between Class 2 facilities • Connects Olympic Training Center to Otay Lakes Road and Mountain Hawk Park • Existing curb-to-curb width: 38’-44’ • Proposed alignment (44’): Two 12’ travel lanes, one 8’ parking lane Otay Lakes Road and two 6’ bike lanes to Wueste Road • Low volume residential street with infrequent on-street parking • Designating one side of street for on-street parking provides space for installation of bike lanes • Increase directional signage throughout Lake Crest Drive to Otay Lakes Road, Mountain Hawk Park and Olympic Training Center

Lake Crest Drive

Total Mileage: Final

Ada Street to Main Street

11.25 73

Chapter 4: Recommendations

4.4 Class 3 Facilities

Class 3 routes are generally recommended where motor vehicle traffic volumes and posted speed limits are relatively low. However, they are also used where a bikeway facility is desired, but the roadway lacks the space for a Class 2 lane. In these cases, the Class 3 route can be enhanced with shared lane markings and signage to help alert motorists to expect the presence of cyclists. The shared lane pavement markings also help cyclists position themselves on the roadway so that they can avoid vehicle doors suddenly opened into their path by inattentive motorists. (See Figure 16: Recommended Class 3 Bike Routes and Table 13.)

Class 3 - Bike Route

Provides for shared use of the roadway with motor vehicle traffic.

14’ - 16’ Wide Travel Lane - Shared with Cyclists

Shared Lane Marking

Wide Travel Lane - Shared with Cyclists

Door Zone

“Sharrow” 7’-10’ Parking Lane

11’ minimum

2011

in a Ma r

t ES

2 5

Pk w ve

wa y

Or an ge Av e

St les

r op D

In du s tr ia

ma r

San Diego

Main St

Palo

Te r

No v a

ve rA nd e

N ap

H illt

ve 1s t A

J St

a Ole

d l B lv

Bay Blvd

Lakes

Railroad

Class1: Bike Path Class 2: Bike Lanes Class 3: Bike Route Freeway Shoulder

Class 1: H Street Extension: Funded by SDUPD Class 1: Need further coordination with County

Future Projects

Class 3: Bike Routes

Class 2: Bike Lanes

Class 1: Bike Path

EJ S

cho D el R ey

La ke sR d

l Te

p ra eg

o ny Ca

S EH

ke La

B ir ch

ay Ot

Mt M i g ue

Sweetwater

125

m Oly

p ic

y w

C lu bh o u se D r

Proctor Valley Rd

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY R ESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: 2005 Chula Vista Bicycle Master Plan and CIPs

Facility Upgrades (From Class 3 to Class 2)**

Figure 16: Recommended Class 3 Bike Routes

d eR

Trails

R an

Ot a y

it a g

City of Chula Vista Existing Bicycle Facilities* Recommended Bicycle Facilities* **

L St

ta ni

H er

Imperial Beach

Coronado

805

Av e

National City

ad B ro A 3r d

Brandywi ne

Av e 4th o Lad e ra

Av e 2n d

dia

se Pa

n yo

Me Av

La d a le na

al d nR

Mag

Final d la Ea st ke Pk wy

SWEETWATE R RESERVOIR

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Chapter 4: Recommendations

Table 13

Segment Number

Roadway Segment

Miles

Limits

Broadway

4.16

C Street to City limit

I Street

2.17

Colorado Avenue to Robert Avenue

Naples Street

0.86

Industrial Boulevard to Fourth Avenue

Third Avenue

1.00

East J Street to Naples Street

Fifth Avenue

3.53

City limit to Orange Avenue

Oxford Street and East Oxford Street

2.44

Industrial Boulevard to Melrose Avenue

Third Avenue

1.50

D Street to East J Street

Third Avenue

0.39

C Street to D Street

Install Sharrows

Recommended Class 3 Bike Routes Notes

• Connects to core commercial district • If warranted, investigate alternatives such as shared lane markings on green bicycle lane similar to Second Street in Long Yes Beach, CA • Increase bicycle parking along this route • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage • Connects to Mueller Elementary School, Chula Vista Center Mall and Hilltop High School • Fills gap between existing bike route on Naples Street to Industrial Boulevard • Connects to Harborside Elementary School • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage • Fills gap between proposed enhanced bike route on Third Yes Avenue to bike route south of Naples Street • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage • Alternative north-south connection to Broadway • Connects to Chula Vista High School, Vista Square Elementary School, Chula Vista Middle School and other private schools • Chula Vista Center Mall creates gap in facility. Route through mall property could include staining/painting shared use path to Yes connect H and I Streets. Directional signage shared lane markings through parking lot another option • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage • This will involve negotiations with mall owner since this is private property • Provides an alternative route to Palomar and Naples Streets • Connects to Castle Park Elementary Yes • Candidate for a Bicycle Boulevard • Part of SANDAG Regional Bicycle Plan network • Incorporate into Third Avenue Streetscape Project • Increase bicycle parking along this route • If warranted, investigate alternatives such as shared lane Yes markings on green bicycle lane similar to Second Street in Long Beach, CA • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage • Fills gap between proposed enhanced bike route on Third Yes Avenue to bike lanes on C Street • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Table 13 (Continued)

Segment Number

Roadway Segment

Install Sharrows

Recommended Class 3 Bike Routes Miles

Limits

Notes

2.59

Telegraph Canyon Road to Main Street

• Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • North-south route to connect Kellogg, Palomar and Rohr Yes Elementary Schools • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage • Provides north-south connection paralleling I-805 • Connects to Rogers, Parkview and Valle Lindo Elementary Schools Yes • Provides connection to Naples Street and Palomar Street crossings of I-805 where there are no on- and off-ramps • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Melrose Avenue

Oleander Avenue, Lori Lane and Crest Drive

3.07

East J Street and Main Street

Flower Street and First Avenue

0.79

First Street Street to Bonita Road

1.35

Mt. Miguel Road to Lane Avenue

• Fills gap between Mt. Miguel Road and Lane Avenue • Connects to Marshall Elementary School

2.00

Proctor Valley Road and Hunte Parkway to Otay Lakes Road

• Connects to Eastlake Middle School, Salt Creek Elementary Yes School, Montevalle Park and local trail system • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

12 13

Mackenzie Creek Woods Drive, Stone Gate Street, Northwoods Drive, Adirondack Place and Duncan Ranch Road

Santa Venetia Street

0.70

Olympic Parkway to Magdalena Avenue

Albany Avenue

0.46

East Orange Avenue to Main Street

East San Miguel Drive, Cuyamaca Avenue and Guatay Avenue

0.98

Vista Way to Hilltop Drive

Final

• Connects to Rosebank Elementary School

• Fills Class 2 gap between La Media Road and Windchime Drive • Connects to Otay Ranch High School • Roadway too narrow to accommodate Class 2 bike lanes • Shared lane markings recommended between Olympic Parkway and La Media Road to access high school and pedestrian bridge • Connects to Otay Elementary School • Provides bike route between Main Street and Orange Ave

• Residential loop connects to Cook Elementary School

Chapter 4: Recommendations

Table 13 (Continued)

Install Sharrows

Recommended Class 3 Bike Routes Segment Number

Roadway Segment

Miles

Limits

Max Avenue, Malta Avenue and Slate Street

0.81

East Orange Avenue to Melrose Avenue

Gotham Street, Creekwood Way and Chateau Court

0.53

Rutgers Avenue, Creekwood Way and Chateau Court

East Rienstra Street and Nacion Avenue

1.69

East L Street/Telegraph Canyon Road to Melrose Avenue

Allen School Lane

0.32

Otay Lakes Road to Allen Elementary School

Oak Springs Drive

0.22

Silver Springs Drive to South Creekside Drive

Hidden Vista Drive, Smoky Circle and Bayleaf Drive

0.65

Terra Nova to City Limits

Santa Rosa and Santa Paula Drives

1.04

Otay Lakes Road to East Palomar Street

• North-south connection between H and East Palomar Streets • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

State Street

0.19

Santa Victoria Road to La Media Road

• Fills gap between Birch Road and Santa Victoria Road • Add additional signage for roundabout

Notes

• Residential loop connects to Rohr Elementary School • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Connects to Southwestern College • Access needed through wall barrier at Chateau Court. Pedestrian and bicycle width cut-through recommended if entire wall not removed • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage • If cutting through the wall is not feasible, then study a route using the easement just north of the homes on Chateau Court between Lehigh Avenue and Creekwood Way • Provides alternative to Melrose Avenue as north-south connection paralleling I-805 Yes • Provides connection to Naples Street and Palomar Street crossings of I-805 where there are no on- and off-ramps • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage • Connects to Allen Elementary School • Fills gap to South Creekside Drive • Connects to Salt Creek Park, Arroyo Vista Elementary and local clubhouse • Provides connection to Swetwater community and then to Bonita Road • Utilizes existing access path to connect to Vista Coronado Drive in Sweetwater • Connects to Clearview Elementary School

Total Mileage: 33.43

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

4.5 Other Bicycle Facilities 4.5.1 Undesignated Bike Facilities

These routes are typically indicated on bikeway system maps only, without physical signage or striping. No undesignated bike facilities are proposed in this bikeway master plan update. Typically, undesignated routes are most useful in more densely populated urban areas, but western Chula Vista’s typical block size and the number of Class 3 facilities should allow the City’s bikeway system to function without the need for this type of facility. However, any bikeway system planning should strive to make as many streets bicycle-friendly as possible.

4.5.2 Urban Access Pathways

In some cases, opportunities to increase intermodal transit use may be available simply by providing convenient access between transit centers and bikeways where none yet exists. Where these urban access paths may prove useful, they would require development of multi-use pathways for non-motorized use because they would naturally attract pedestrian use as well. Therefore, multi-use standards should be implemented in the design of these access paths.

4.5.3 Connections to Urban Centers

Among the criteria used in the selection of routes for this bikeway master plan was the definition of activity and employment centers, as well as GIS evaluation of population and employment densities. These types of data probably best represent what could be called “urban centers.” Using this data, new bikeway routes were evaluated to provide the most direct connections possible between these urban centers and the existing transit centers. In many cases, existing bikeways already ran adjacent to transit centers, or an adjacent undesignated roadway was determined to be adequate.

4.5.4 School Access Paths/Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

In most cases, some students at any particular school will get there by bicycle. Many of these children are not experienced, knowledgeable or comfortable with riding on streets in the midst of motor vehicle traffic. For them, alternate routes should be designated to access schools from the surrounding neighborhoods they serve. These routes would utilize lightly traveled streets where riding would be unlikely to pose safety problems for themselves or other users. These routes should also be designed to cross arterials or other high volume streets, when necessary, at specific points with sufficient sight distances, crosswalks, pedestrian signals and, where appropriate, crossing guards. The students for whom these routes are designated should be encouraged to use them. (See Appendix C: Guidelines for Selecting Safe Routes to School.)

Final

Chapter 4: Recommendations

The low percentage of children getting to school by bike may simply be symptomatic of the overall decrease in physical activity, widespread dietary changes and more dispersed land use configurations over the last few decades. Some parents also apparently no longer feel safe allowing their school age children to travel to and from school alone. A solution to this problem is beyond the scope of this update, but the situation does not bode well for the percentage of older children and adults who can be expected to use bicycles in the near future. A Safe Routes to School program with parental involvement may help to encourage more bicycle use. An additional concern is ensuring that school design actually provides safe access from the surrounding community. The City will need to coordinate with the school districts early in the design phase to work to ensure consideration of safe routes to school at the destinations themselves.

4.5.5 Intermodal Facilities

For this bikeway master plan, intermodal facilities included bus stops, trolley stations and park and ride lots. These park and ride facilities need to be accessible to cyclists and should be equipped with bicycle lockers. The three trolley stations could also be improved by installing additional bicycle lockers, as demand requires. The existing intermodal facility system provides a reasonable level of connection between cycling and public transit. However, only one bicycle is allowed per train during rush hours and two at all other times. New facilities should continue to provide the capability to take bicycles on buses using exterior racks and to continue to provide cyclists the choice to store them at transit centers, such as in lockers. Lockers are highly preferred due to user concerns about theft and vandalism. Also, additional bicycle capacity on trolleys is desirable above the current one or two per train. This should apply to any extension of the existing trolley system and should also be included for the planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.

4.5.6 Bicycle Boulevards

Bicycle boulevards provide a primary bicycle-friendly route to improve the safety and convenience of bicycling on local streets. Bicycle boulevards are typically installed on residential roadways parallel to nearby arterial roads on routes that have high or potentially high bicycle traffic. Bicycle boulevards are available to motorists, but prioritize bicycle traffic through the use of various treatments. Motor vehicle traffic volume is reduced by periodically diverting vehicles off the street and the remaining traffic is slowed to the same speed as bicycles. Bicycle boulevards are most effective when several treatments are used in combination.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

The design features associated with a bicycle boulevard can help to: • Increase feelings of comfort and safety for pedestrians, cyclists and the community as a whole • Increase bicycling and walking • Improve wayfinding • Discourage neighborhood cut-through motor vehicle traffic • Calm and reduce neighborhood traffic • Provide shade for pedestrians and cyclists • Create a pleasant corridor through the center of the City The two roadways proposed as bicycle boulevards in this bikeway master plan are Oxford Street and J Street. Both are also noted as candidate routes in SANDAG’s Regional Bicycle Plan.

4.6 Recommended Bicycle Programs

The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) has developed a set of guidelines called the “Five Es” to assist cities in becoming bicycle-friendly communities: Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation and Planning. These so-called “intangible” improvements can truly enhance the physical improvements discussed in the previous sections. These criteria are a good reference for any community seeking to improve its bicycle environment. • Engineering develops a safe, convenient and continuous network of bikeways and walkways that serves the needs of all types of cyclists and pedestrians. Maintain and reconstruct existing bicycle facilities and walkways in a manner that promotes safety, increases convenience and minimizes lifetime costs. • Education programs teach motorists, pedestrians and cyclists about their responsibilities and about traffic rules. • Encouragement includes developing awareness and building enthusiasm for walking and biking. • Enforcement includes enforcing current traffic laws to educate motorists and cyclists for the purpose of maximizing the safety of vulnerable road users. • Evaluation and Planning compiles data from surveys and site audits to make sure the program is effectively responding to community needs and parent concerns. Based on the LAB guidelines, the following recommendations are proposed to begin the process of enhancing Chula Vista’s bicycle-friendly environment.

Final

Chapter 4: Recommendations

4.6.1 Encouragement Recommendations

A. Expand encouragement efforts during Bike Month. Have the Mayor and/or the City Council proclaim May as Bike Month and participate in Bike to Work Week events. Host pit stops during Bike to Work Weeks and Days. To increase encouragement, host Bike to Work days more often, such as monthly. Coordinate with other agencies on bicycle events such as “Bike to School Day,” a “ciclovia” (See Item E), and bicycle safety courses. B. Improve bicycle route wayfinding markers. Signage needs to be improved. Installing standards-compliant signs and markings convey clear bicycle facility information. Directional signage helps new cyclists and tourists alike to find their way to their destination or nearby landmark via a recommended route. The purpose of signage is to direct people and provide information about destinations, directions and/or distances. It increases comfort, assists navigation, warns of approaching roadway crossings and guides users through diverse environments. In the unfortunate event of an emergency, directional signage provides important location information to a potentially uninformed visitor. When applied on a regional level, wayfinding can link communities and provide consistent visual indicators to direct cyclists to their destinations along the route of their choice. Wayfinding signage can achieve public objectives, such as promotion of a community’s attractions, education, mile marking and directional guidance. A good wayfinding system functions to achieve the following purposes: • Help people find destinations from all travel modes • Establish clear pathways through the use of signs, maps and other landmarks • Carry user-friendly and understandable messages People are the single most important component in developing a wayfinding strategy. By identifying user patterns and destinations, wayfinding users understand how the bicycle facility system operates and how to move through spaces and be directed to their destinations. In designing a wayfinding strategy or system, the following questions need to be considered: • Who is going to use the wayfinding system? • Where are the facility users going? • What do the users or visitors want to see and hear? • Is the goal navigation, directional information, orientation, location information, or interpretation? • Is a clear message being sent by the signage? There are three general objectives in a wayfinding signage system. When determining sign locations and messages, achieving these objectives should guide the wayfinding plan.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

1. Get people to the bicycle facilities. Promote the bicycle network by linking people from the community to the neighborhoods. This promotes the bicycle facilities as both destinations to enjoy and as transportation routes. 2. Warn motorists that there may be cyclists sharing the roadway with them. Use cautionary and safety messages to increase motorists’ awareness of cyclists. Bicycling is an important component of the transportation system and should be respected by other modes of transportation. However, since cyclists are more vulnerable to injury in a collision with an automobile, motorists should pay particular attention to their presence and safety. 3. Inform people how to get around the network. Guide cyclists through the bicycle facility network, assisting their decisionmaking ability at intersections and decision points. Show a bike route or lane’s role in the larger network visually through maps. Utilizing a sign hierarchy can emphasize certain types of messages. Information on the latest standards on wayfinding signage can be found in sections 9B.19 - 9B.21 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition. C. Regularly update the City-wide bicycle map. Regularly updating the city-wide bicycle map will allow residents to plan their routes when using their bicycles. Many residents and visitors are unaware of the existing facilities within the City and may therefore be less encouraged to travel by bicycle. The City’s cleverly designed map folds into a small package easily stowed in a pocket or seat bag. It shows facilities, recreation centers, libraries and bike shops, and the shop locations are keyed to associated advertising on the flip side, where users will also find advice on the rules of the road and safety tips. It is critical to update the map as new bicycle facilities are implemented or current facilities are changed. Annual updating and printing results in a more reliable map. D. Implement the Boltage Program at schools. This program’s goal is to increase the number of children regularly riding their bikes to school using advanced technology to count and provide incentives. The ridership numbers are automatically counted and sent to a web site by a Zap machine. Put simply, the Zap machine automatically counts riders and uploads the data securely to this site. For the more technically inclined, the Zap is a solar-powered, eco-friendly radio frequency identification (RFID) tag reader that registers riders’ RFID tags placed on their backpacks or helmets. The Zap counts the number of times a child rides or walks to school, then wirelessly uploads the data to the Boltage web site so children can see how close they are to earning a prize. The Boltage program is not a competition between children, classes, or schools. As of October 2010, 34 programs are in place, including in the cities of Santa Cruz and San Francisco. For more information on this program, go to www.boltage.org. Final

Chapter 4: Recommendations

E. Host a Ciclovia event. Ciclovias are an event where a street is temporarily closed to motorized traffic and open for non-motorized transportation. It becomes a celebration of livable streets and communities, encouraging citizens and businesses to get out in the street and enjoy their city through active participation. A ciclovía (also ciclovia or cyclovia in English) is a Spanish word that translates as “bike path” and is used to describe either a permanently designated bicycle route or a temporary event, such as the closing of a street to automobiles for use by self-propelled transportation. Bogotá, Colombia, is often credited with starting ciclovias. These events, sometimes referred to as “Sunday Parkways,” occur across the United States, including League Bicycle Friendly Communities such as Madison, Wisconsin, Portland, Oregon and Washington, D.C. The events typically occur on Saturday or Sunday on a city’s main streets. The selected streets become car-free and only open to pedestrians, cyclists and skaters. Often the closed streets form a circuitous route and are adjacent to a park. In some cities the event occurs once or twice a year, while others occur every Saturday or Sunday throughout the entire summer. The Portland and Chicago events have different locations around the city each weekend. Los Angeles held its first ciclovía in October 2010, which attracted an estimated 100,000 cyclists, runners, walkers and skaters. Musicians and groups promoting free, healthy activities are often stationed along the route. These elements are a unique mix in each city. The theme is often centered on health, exercise and active transportation. F. Support business and employer incentive programs. The City and local businesses can support bicycling and the development of a comprehensive bicycle transportation system as a viable alternative to the automobile. Developing a bicycle system that meets the needs of both commuter and recreational users is only a small part to improve the cycling culture in the City. The City can promote the LAB’s Bicycle Friendly Business program to encourage and facilitate use of alternative modes of transportation by employees and customers. Local business can give discounts, prizes and other incentives to those who frequent their business by bicycle. Similar incentives can be given to their employees who commute by bicycle. The City and local businesses can provide secured bicycle parking, shower and locker facilities to employees to encourage bicycle commuting. Encourage fringe benefits such as the Bicycle Commuter Benefit Act, which allows employees to reimburse bicycle commuters who regularly use their bicycles for a substantial portion of travel between home and work. Under this program, companies can reimburse their employees on a tax-free basis for reasonable expenses incurred as a bicycle commuter. This can include the actual purchase of a bicycle and almost any type of accompanying equipment and accessories such as lights, racks and clothing, up to the annual limit of $240, or however much the company chooses to offer. 84

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

G. Implement a Bike Sharing Program. Bike sharing is an innovative approach to increase bicycle usage throughout an urban area. Bicycles are becoming the popular choice as an alternative mode of transportation as gas prices, obesity rates and concerns over the environment increase. Providing a bicycle share program, combined with other transportation systems, permits a more diverse, flexible and costeffective method of alternative transportations. This program can reduce the number of overall vehicle trips and travel time between residences and transit stops, schools and shopping centers. Successful bicycle sharing programs have been implemented in Canada, Europe and cities like Washington, D.C. and Chicago. Many more cities, colleges and universities are considering or planning to implement these bicycle sharing programs, such as nearby San Diego State University. These systems are highly advanced, using key cards, online advanced purchase, GPS and RFID technologies, making it possible for bike sharing to be smart and simple for all users. Bike fleets can also be implemented by local businesses and cities. Such programs have been successful in cities such as Austin, Long Beach, Tucson and East Lansing, Michigan. Bike sharing programs such as B-Cycle can even track riders by their associated membership numbers. Data such as distance, duration, calories burned and carbon offset are captured and uploaded to personal web pages at Bcycle.com. This data can also be helpful for those commuting and exercising at the same time. Providing a pool of bicycles may encourage employees to drive less during the day, such as when running errands. One way to encourage bike sharing programs is to provide incentives to employers to supply bicycles at the work place or by funding through a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) like SANDAG. For example, a city-wide bike sharing program in Long Beach starting in early 2011 will be funded by a grant from the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. H. Develop a series of short loop rides around Chula Vista. Southern California is one of the best locations in the United States for bicycle riding. The mild year-round weather attracts many professionals and recreational cyclists throughout the year. Bicycle racing (both mountain bike and road racing) and cycling clubs are great ways to get new cyclists into the sport, which then carries on to daily life such as bicycle commuting. Local cities such as San Diego, Encinitas and San Marcos participate in bicycle racing during the spring. The City can promote the weekly rides organized by local bike clubs such as the Cyclo-Vets, South Bay Wheel Krankers and shops like Pulse Endurance and Trek. The City can start local races that showcase Chula Vistaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s landmarks. Local races can draw attention to the City and, at the same time, encourage cycling as a fun and healthy sport.

Final

Chapter 4: Recommendations

I. Work with the Olympic Training Center. The Olympic Training Center is a unique asset for the City of Chula Vista. Within it is a BMX park open to the public that the City can promote to encourage cycling. BMX parks are popular among youth, encourage kids to ride bikes and promote bikes as a means of transportation. The Olympic Training Center hosts road racing, triathlon, BMX and Paralympic Cycling, which includes blind cyclists riding tandem. They also host the Grand Fondo and assist with Cycle EastLake events. Additionally, a BMX Cycling Club meets Tuesdays and Saturdays at the Olympic Training Center BMX track. The City can coordinate its efforts with those of the Olympic Training Center to encourage cycling throughout the City, year-round. J. Participate in Walk and Bike to School Day. Now in its 13th year, this one-day event is a part of an international effort in more than 40 countries to celebrate the many benefits of safely walking and bicycling to school and to encourage more families to consider getting out of the car and onto their feet on the way to school in October. Walking and rolling to school also embodies the two main goals of First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign: to increase kids’ physical activity and to empower parents to make these kinds of healthy choices. The National Center for Safe Routes to School, which serves as the clearinghouse for the Federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program, coordinates online registration efforts and provides technical support and resources for Walk to School Day. Safe Routes to School programs are sustained efforts by parents, schools, community leaders and local, state and Federal governments to improve the health and well-being of children by enabling and encouraging them to walk and bicycle to school. Safe Routes to School activities range from building sidewalks, to getting motorists to slow down in school zones, to encouraging students to take active trips to school with school-wide competitions. On average, at least 50 percent of Walk to School Day events are part of an ongoing SRTS program each year. For more information, go to www.walktoschool.org. K. Promote the Walking School Bus and Bicycle Train These programs are volunteer-based, in which children are assisted by adults to walk or bike to school. This program can be as informal as two families taking turns walking or riding their bikes to school or a more structured route with meeting points, a timetable and a regularly rotated schedule for trained volunteers. Parents often cite safety issues as one of the primary reasons they are reluctant to allow their children to walk to school. Providing adult supervision may help reduce those worries for families who live within walking or bicycling distance of schools.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

The City can start with one school as a pilot program and expand to other schools if there is demand. Success with a simple walking school bus or a bicycle train may inspire the community to build a more structured program. This may include additional routes, more days of walking and bicycling involving more children. Alternating days between walking and biking to school can provide variety to a structured program. These programs and volunteer efforts require coordination and potential attention to other issues, such as safety training and liability. These efforts can coincide with other educational programs such as “bike rodeos” at the schools. The participating school principal and administration, law enforcement and other community leaders should be involved to help promote an alternative to automobile travel. For more information, visit www.walkingschoolbus.org. L. Encourage bicycle businesses to support cycling improvements. Bicycle retailers have a vested interest in helping make the streets friendlier for cycling. Encourage their participation in many of these events.

4.6.2 Education Recommendations

A. Expand motorist education efforts. Install additional “Share the Road” signage and include the “Share the Road” message in local driver’s education classes. Educating motorists and cyclists alike is an important tool for the safety of those using the roads. The more knowledgeable all users are about the rights and rules each party has, the less potential there will be for conflict and incidents. B. Have bicycling and motorist education messages added to routine local activities. Increased education for motorists and cyclists is needed. Increase public awareness of the benefits of bicycling and of available resources and facilities. Getting more people on bikes will also help modify motorists’ behavior. In other cities, the primary method of education being used to reach both motorists and cyclists is the LAB’s BikeEd Road 1 course. More educational opportunities such as bike rodeos, public service announcements and increased education at schools are opportunities to be investigated to increase awareness within the City and to demonstrate to more people that bicycling to work or for recreation is easy, safe and fun. A guide to developing a bicycle rodeo created by Cornell University can be found at http://www.bike.cornell.edu/pdfs/Bike_Rodeo_404.2.pdf. The San Diego County Bicycle Coalition (SDCBC) is another local resource to utilize for information and assistance.

Final

Chapter 4: Recommendations

C. Create a public education campaign aimed at the behavior of cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. Develop a traffic calming program designed to makes streets a more pleasant and safer place, which ultimately can reduce the number of traffic-related accidents, injuries and deaths. This program can address traffic problems through the eyes of motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. The intent is to raise public awareness and discussion about peoples’ attitudes and actions on the streets. It can offer new ways of thinking and reinforce that laws are to be followed. The City of San Jose has developed a program and strategic objectives for this type of campaign. Information can be found at http:// www.getstreetsmarts.org. Locally, the City of San Diego in partnership with SANDAG and SDCBC has created a public education campaign entitled “Lose the Roaditude.” More information can be found at http://losetheroaditude.com. D. Continue to expand the Safe Routes to School program and encourage all schools to get involved. Encouraging schools to participate in the Safe Routes to School program may increase the number of children that ride their bikes or walk to school. Inactivity among children is a health issue, one that must be taken seriously. In the age of computers, the Internet and virtual reality gaming, outdoor activity has taken a back seat to indoor entertainment. Bicycling to school is a way to get children active and to introduce exercise into their daily routine. Many parents feel that riding a bike on the street is unsafe and do not allow their children to ride to school. Bicycle safety education is important and can be incorporated into after school activities for both children and parents. The City should assist with “bike rodeos” and other bicycle education programs for City schools. Funding is available at both the Federal and state level for a Safe Routes to School program. This funding can be used for a variety of activities including site specific evaluation and planning, infrastructure costs and education programs. Assistance with funding applications and program facilitation is available from local non-profits WalkSanDiego and SDCBC. More information can be found at: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org. The following are steps to begin the development of a Safe Routes to School Program: • Include youth perspectives in the development of the Safe Routes to School improvement plan. • Determine areas of the improvement planning process that student perspectives will be most useful. • Have students make field observations and conduct assessments on their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs around Safe Routes to School concepts.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

• Integrate student assessments into the planning process. • Identify a youth Safe Routes to School liaison at the participating school district and/or school. • Use the SafeRoutes toolkit for in-depth descriptions of classroom activities to educate students during the assessment step: http://www. saferoutesinfo.org/resources/index.cfm. Step 1: Form a Safe Routes to School Task Force that involves parents, school administrators and teachers, neighbors and community organizations, City officials and staff members, and students. Step 2: Evaluate existing conditions through parent surveys, student surveys, traffic counts, injury data, speed checks, safe routes checklists and policies relevant to school travel modes and physical activity (e.g., P.E. requirements, recess time and after-school activities). Step 3: Expand the circle of knowledge by presenting findings to the community, holding a design workshop, having an open house and convening a strategy meeting. Step 4: Develop a project list and accompanying map by identifying problem areas, setting priorities, grouping projects by geographic area, identifying short-term and long-term solutions, costing out the program and using the whole toolbox of solutions (education, encouragement, enforcement and engineering). Step 5: Make the plan official by going through the regular planning process and having the plan adopted by the City. Step 6: Get improvements funded by developing a funding program, identifying funding opportunities and applying for grants. E. Institute a bicycling education program through the City schools or through the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. Teaching students how to safely ride their bicycle on the streets of Chula Vista is an important element in making the City a safer place to ride a bike. It is critical to educate children on the proper rules of the road when riding their bikes to school and other activities. There are numerous examples of successful programs throughout the country. Education programs will need support from the school administration, teachers, parents and community. Education should be considered as essential, if not more essential, than new bicycle facilities.

Final

Chapter 4: Recommendations

Among existing programs, the Texas SafeCyclist curriculum is nationally recognized as a comprehensive bicycle safety education course. It is directed at fourth and fifth grade elementary school physical education teachers and their students. In an attempt to institutionalize bicycle safety and physical fitness standards in Texas schools, the Texas Bicycle Coalition Education Fund (TBCEF) sends field instructors to school districts across the state to train and certify P.E. teachers in the program so that they may, in turn, train their students in bicycle and pedestrian safety education. Teachers report that the SafeCyclist curriculum is easy to implement in the classroom and that students enjoy the materials. Currently, with the financial support of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), the U.S. Department of Education and committed private and member donors, TBCEF is able to offer the certification training and all curriculum materials to each participating teacher for free. The Texas SafeCyclist Program has gained both national and international recognition and is considered the model for youth bicycle safety education. In 2003, the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted an evaluation of the program and concluded that the program positively influenced childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s behavior, essential skills and knowledge. The SDCBC can be the liaison to start a program similar to the Texas SafeCyclist. With local certified League Cycling Instructors (LCIs) and a strong bicycle advocacy stance, the SDCBC would be the most qualified organization to produce such a program for the City. If it is not possible to fit in the current curriculum or budget, this program can be a successful after school or summer school program. Seeking financial support from a local private source, such as a health care provider, is also an option. F. Implement a program to encourage proper helmet use. There are many resources available for assistance with curriculum, materials and information about bicycle safety and specifically helmet usage, fitting and safety statistics. The California Department of Public Health lists California-specific resources for teachers and parents: http://www.cdph. ca.gov/HEALTHINFO/INJVIOSAF/Pages/BicycleSafety.aspx. The Brain Injury Law Center has conducted CPSC-certified helmet giveaways for persons 19 years old or younger, anywhere in the United States. For more information visit: http://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/about-us/ helmets-for-kids.html. The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute is another resource with a wealth of information, links and free toolkits. It is a small, active, non-profit consumerfunded program providing bicycle helmet information at http://www.bhsi.org.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

4.6.3 Enforcement Recommendations

A. Encourage the Police Department to use targeted enforcement to educate motorists and cyclists of traffic laws and to share the road. This could be in the form of a brochure or tip card explaining each user’s rights and responsibilities. Encourage the Police Department to warn and educate cyclists and pedestrians about breaking the laws, the rules of the road and safety procedures. This will help educate law enforcement, motorists, pedestrians and cyclists alike. Possible traffic safety problems where enforcement is part of the solution include the following: • Speeding in school zones • Illegal passing of school buses • Failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks • Parking violations – bus zone, crosswalks, residential driveways, time zones • Risks to pedestrians and cyclists during drop-off and pick-up times • Lack of safety patrol/crossing guard operations • Unsafe pedestrian and bicycle practices • Other traffic law violations in school zones • Crisis management/incident response B. Designate a Police Department liaison for the cycling community. This liaison would be the main contact for residents concerning bicyclerelated incidents. A liaison that serves the cycling community is an integral piece of communication between law enforcement and the cycling community. The liaison would be in charge of educating fellow police officers about bicycling rules, etiquette and behavior to better serve both motorists and cyclists alike. Allocate funding for the training and support of this duty, as well as for necessary bicycle equipment. C. Establish a process for referrals to law enforcement. Design a communication process that encourages students and parents to notify the school and police of the occurrence of a crash or near miss during school commute trips involving auto, bus, pedestrian, or bicycle transportation. Include the Chula Vista Police Department and Public Works in this reporting system to help produce more valuable data. D. Enlist the help of law enforcement with a number of traffic safety duties: • Enforce traffic laws and parking controls through citations and warnings. • Target enforcement of problem areas through an intensive, focused effort during the first two weeks of school and as a strategy for the rest of the year. • Participate in a School Safety Committees and Safe Routes to School task force to help identify safety problems and solutions.

Final

Chapter 4: Recommendations

4.6.4 Engineering Recommendations

A. Consider adopting a “Complete Streets” policy. Every street should accommodate cyclists, pedestrians, motorists and transit users. A complete streets policy will enhance the effectiveness of bicycle use throughout the City by having facilities that accommodate bicycle travel, as well as pedestrians and motorists. (This has now been codified in California as AB 1358, the Complete Streets Act of 2008.) B. Continue to expand and maintain the bicycle network. Expand bicycle access to all parts of the City through a signed network of on- and off-street facilities, low-speed streets and secure parking. Assist cyclists to cross barriers (including Interstates 5 and 805) and to reach their desired destinations in a convenient, timely and comfortable manner on a bicycle route network. Consider bicycle-friendly design using new technologies and innovative treatments at intersections and on roadways and bikeways. Install bicycle stencils and bicycle-sensitive loop detectors (or other detector type) on bikeways as part of new signals, signal upgrades and resurfacing/re-striping projects conforming to the latest MUTCD guidelines (See Section 1.5.2). More facilities within the bicycle network will encourage bicycle use as a transportation and recreation mode. Motorists will note increased bicycle use throughout the City, which acts as a recurring reminder to safely share the road. Implement the facilities recommended in the bikeway master plan through prioritized increments or available funding. Local cyclists should be involved in identifying maintenance needs and ongoing improvements and the City can encourage this vigilance with a reporting form on a City web site. Develop a maintenance schedule for bicycle facilities. This includes regular sweeping and removal of debris. When the City or other agencies such as utilities do any roadwork repairs, the road shall be restored to satisfactory quality, with particular attention to surface smoothness and restriping suitable for cycling. C. Provide training opportunities for engineering, planning staff and law enforcement on how to accommodate cyclists. Provide training opportunities for engineering, planning staff and law enforcement on how to best accommodate cyclists. Help City staff to better understand cyclists’ needs and behavior, their right to use City streets, as well as multi-use paths for transportation. For example, in California a source for outside evaluation is the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, one of the world’s leading centers for transportation research, education and scholarship. Its mission is to conduct research and provide instruction to transportation professionals. Additionally, the City can contact the SDCBC for staff training available on a fee-for-service basis.

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

D. Increase the amount of secure bicycle parking. Provide plentiful, high quality bicycle parking facilities to complement the bicycle route network consistent with SANDAG Regional Bicycle Plan. Increasing bike parking, especially in areas of high bicycle traffic, will encourage bicycle use and give cyclists a safe place to park their bikes. Provide short- and long-term bicycle parking in employment centers and multifamily developments, at schools, special events, recreational areas and transit facilities. If there is a safe, weather-proof place to park their bicycles, employees may be more inclined to commute by bicycle to work. Bicycle racks should be monitored for rust and disrepair. See Appendix A for more information on how to select and install bike racks. E. Promote intermodal travel. The City can do this by increasing connections between public transport and bicycles and by improving access and bicycle parking at the bus stops and other public transport vehicles. This can be enhanced by distributing information on cyclists’ ability to put their bikes on a bus rack, trolley and travel around and outside the City without the use of a motor vehicle. More bicycle spaces on trolleys are recommended, for example. F. Identify opportunities to make engineering improvements. The City has done a good job of identifying pedestrian needs with improvements near schools, such as curb extensions, truncated domes and median refuges. The City can do the same for cycling by continuing the effort to engage the public and school officials to improve facilities at all the schools. It is important to promote walking and biking to schools, transit stops and shopping centers. Examples of items to address are: • Traffic control signs in school zone – legible, visible and placed properly • Curb and pavement markings – crosswalks, parking controls and bike lanes • Signal timing adjustments – especially during morning and afternoon peak times, to allow more time for children to cross the street • Vegetation trimming and object removal from sidewalks and paths • Drop-off/pick-up operations – safe, efficient, monitored and enforced • Off-street lots for drop-off/pick-up • Parking controls – bus zone, ADA spaces, truck loading, no parking and time zones • Traffic safety monitoring, supervised crossings and school zone enforcement

4.6.5 Evaluation and Planning

Recommended Planning Actions: A. Integrate development of the cycling network into larger land use planning and development projects. Future business, park and residential developments need to take into account bicycles as a mode of transportation and to incorporate appropriate facilities to meet cyclists’ needs. Secured bike parking such as racks or lockers, as well as showers and changing rooms, are a few examples of

Final

Chapter 4: Recommendations

incorporating facilities within new developments, along with bike paths and bike lanes. As a condition of project approval, require development projects to construct adjacent bicycle facilities included in the proposed bicycle system and provide adequate bicycle parking. Coordinate bikeway improvements to coincide with already scheduled and funded projects to minimize any overlapping costs or work. For example, include bikeway and pedestrian improvements in the City’s capital improvement program (CIP) to coincide with pavement repairs and resurfacing projects. B. Establish a Bicycle Advisory Committee or Working Group. Establish a Bicycle Advisory Committee or Working Group to assist the City with implementation of this plan’s projects, policies and programs. The creation of a working group allows city staff, volunteers and bicycle advocates to continue efforts to improve cycling throughout the City. A focused group can act as community liaisons and can quickly address local cyclists’ issues and concerns. The group can monitor implementation and regularly evaluate the bikeway master plan. City support for budgeting time and resources for City staff to attend and support these meetings is also recommended. C. Promote consistency and cooperation. Strive for intra-agency coordination within the City to ensure the City’s bikeway master plan is incorporated at every level of transportation planning, engineering and design. Ensure all City policies, plans, codes and programs are updated and implemented to take advantage of every opportunity to create a more bicycle-friendly community. An integrative approach results in creative funding opportunities, synergistic teamwork and successful projects. An example is a Portland, Oregon program integrating traffic calming measures and stormwater retention. Intersection curb extensions were installed to serve as a traffic calming measure, but their design also served as stormwater catch basins. This ingenious program is called Portland’s “Greenstreets Program” and allowed the city to utilize stormwater retention funding to install otherwise costly traffic calming infrastructure that also improved the local urban visual environment. Cooperation should also extend beyond city limits. Coordinate with adjacent military, local and regional agencies to ensure strong bicycle connections and inclusion of the City’s bikeway master plan in other planning efforts. D. Create a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator city staff position. The position of a bicycle coordinator or program manager can help coordinate between different city departments to ensure consistency and cooperation in planning projects. A Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator would run programs and implement projects in the community’s bicycle and pedestrian plans. The coordinator would be responsible for implementing Chula Vista’s bikeway master plan in a timely manner and maintaining a prioritized list of improvements, updated cost estimates and appropriate 94

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

funding sources. Coordinators are critical to integrating bicycling into a city’s plans and projects and the investment in a city staff position shows that the city is committed to a complete streets transportation system. This investment is also often returned since this position usually is responsible for securing state and Federal funding for bicycle projects. In many cases, a part-time coordinator is sufficient, depending on the size of the city. E. Recommended evaluation actions. 1. Develop a Bicycle Report Card. The City could develop a bicycle report card, a checklist used to measure the success of bikeway master plan implementation and actions within the City of Chula Vista. The report card could be used to identify the magnitude of accomplishments in the previous year, since inception and any general trends. The following list represents a wide menu of factors that the City could present in a report card including, but not limited to, the following categories: • System completion • Travel by bicycle (counts) • Safety • Funding As opposed to focusing on the actual annual change in a given category, the City could establish the report card to track trends. For example, an upward trend in travel by bicycle would be viewed as a success, regardless of the specific increase in the number of cyclists. Safety should be considered relative to the increase in cyclists. Sometimes crashes increase simply because ridership increases, at least initially. Instead measure crashes as a percentage of an estimated overall mode share count. A major portion of the bicycle report card could be an evaluation of system completion. An upward trend would indicate that the City is progressing in its efforts to complete the bicycle network identified in this document. The report card could be updated annually and could be expanded to include elements of other transportation modes in the City, such as public transit. The report card could be developed to utilize information collected as part of annual and on-going evaluations. The report card is not intended to be an exhaustive effort for City staff, but rather a straightforward means of conveying the results of the City’s recent efforts to the public. If a committee is appointed to help implement the bikeway master plan and guide future progress as it relates to bicycling in the city, it can be a task of the committee to review the progress of the report cards and to make recommendations to adjust future plans and goals accordingly.

Final

Chapter 4: Recommendations

2. Review cyclist/motorist collisions. Continue to collect and track bicycle collision data. Traffic collisions involving cyclists could be reviewed and analyzed regularly to develop plans to reduce their frequency and severity. Any such plans should include Police Department involvement and should be monitored to determine their effectiveness. Results of the number of bicycle-related traffic collisions should also be recorded for inclusion in the bicycle report card. 3. Conduct annual and/or seasonal bicycle counts throughout the City. Conduct regular bicycle counts throughout the City to determine mode share baseline and changes. Gathering bicycle counts would allow the City to collect information on where the highest bicycle activity occurs. This assists in justifying and prioritizing projects when funding is sought or acquired. Bicycle counts can be advantageous in collecting data to study cycling trends throughout the City. Analyses that could be conducted includes: • Trends in volume • Changes in volumes before and after projects have been implemented • Determining needs for non-motorized facilities • Trip generation rates • Prioritization of local and regional projects • Air quality changes with increased bicycle use • Traffic impacts Future bicycle counts should be conducted annually at the locations employed for the initial set of counts conducted for this bikeway master plan update. In addition, in the interests of continuity, the counts should occur at the same relative times as the initial counts were taken (See Appendix I). In addition, bicycle counts should be collected as part of any existing traffic counts. Results of the number of cyclists should be regularly recorded for inclusion in the bicycle report card. 4. Quantify Encouragement Efforts As part of education and encouragement goals (See Sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.2), the City should strive to conduct at least three bicycle-related encouragement events per year and tally participation. Examples of encouragement events include bike-to-work day events, bicycle rodeos, ciclovias, etc. The annual tally of events could be completed in conjunction with completion of the bicycle report card.

2011

Bikeway Funding The following sections define the recommended bikeway system improvements as CIP projects and provide construction costs. See Figures 13 to 16 and their associated tables in the previous chapter for an overview of the proposed bikeway segments. For detailed cost analysis of each segment, see the specific CIP segment cost analyses spreadsheets in Appendix B. The remaining sections describe the funding sources available for bikeway projects, followed by a summary in Tables 17-21 at the end of the chapter.

5.1 Bikeway Development Priorities

The factors used in prioritizing the implementation of potential bikeway projects included probable demand, likely funding, regional significance and transportation efficiency. These criteria and more are described in Appendix D: Suitability Model and Project Prioritization. Note that projects are numbered by recommended prioritization within facility classes only, not as an overall prioritization of all recommended bikeway facility segments. This is the recommended method due to how variable the costs can be between facility types and how difficult this makes prioritizing all of the proposed bikeway facilities across the facility classes. For example, a number of Class 3 routes could be implemented at far less cost than a single Class 2 lane. Therefore, it is recommended that the Class 1, 2 and 3 facilities be regarded as parallel lists and be implemented as appropriate funds become available for each type of facility.

5 Chapter

The cost of each project will always be a consideration. For example, if two projects with a high cost differential score very similarly based on priority criteria, it may make sense to implement the lower cost project ahead of the higher cost project. Bikeway facility implementation has no specific time line, since the availability of funds for implementation is variable and tied to the priority of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capital projects. Proposed projects should be rated periodically at whatever interval best fits funding cycles or to take into consideration the availability of new information, new funding sources, updated crash statistics, etc. Bikeway facility prioritization and implementation should be fine-tuned and adjusted accordingly based on future circumstances. Facility prioritization criteria can also be used to help identify which bikeways are likely to provide the most benefit to the bikeway system user.

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Chapter 5: CIPs and Bikeway Funding

5.2 Typical Unit Construction Costs

The cost of bikeway facility construction varies widely depending on the type of facility concerned. A list of typical unit construction costs is shown in Table 14. These figures can be used for preliminary cost estimates, but they do not reflect special circumstances that may occur in specific situations, such as the long bridges that would be needed to span lagoons, for instance. The following sections provide generalized costs per mile for each class of bicycle facility, as well as what these costs cover, and just as importantly, what they do not.

5.2.1 Class 1 Bikeways (Bike Paths)

Because they are constructed independently of existing or programmed motor vehicle facilities, Class 1 paths are by far the most expensive of all bicycle facilities. Typical costs are difficult to estimate due to potential rightof-way acquisitions, bridges and other major expenses, such as necessary grading due to hilly topography. For example, a Class 1 facility being converted from an abandoned railroad bed will require very little grading, as well as far less grubbing and structural enhancements, than a facility being constructed through an undeveloped area in hilly terrain. An example is a portion of the Coastal Rail Trail through the City of Encinitas. Class 1 facility costs worked out to just over two million dollars per mile, but it should be noted that this section would require significant bridging and earthwork.

5.2.2 Class 2 Bikeways (Bike Lanes)

Class 2 facility costs are approximately $30,000 per mile. This includes all necessary lane striping and signage, but does not include widening of roadways. Where such curb and gutter improvements are needed, an additional $32 per linear foot is needed. Because each situation is unique, specific improvements will vary by project. However, basic bike lane amenities (striping, signage, pavement markings) are all part of the $30,000 per mile cost. This cost will be higher where substantial restriping is needed, such as where multiple motor vehicle lanes require restriping.

5.2.3 Class 3 Bikeways (Bike Routes)

Class 3 routes costs are the lowest of all facility types because the only physical improvement required to be installed is route signage. The cost range of $1,500 to $5,000 per mile is due to the distance between signs, which can vary considerably depending upon factors such as horizontal and vertical curvature, the number the intersections and curb cuts, and how often the route changes direction onto different roadways. In some cases, an additional enhancement may be included in the form of shared lane markings, or â&#x20AC;&#x153;sharrows,â&#x20AC;? recommended additions where traffic volumes and parking turnover tends to be high, but where posted speed limits are no higher than 40 mph.

2011

Table 14: Typical Unit Costs

Description

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Units

Cost

Grading and Drainage 6" Concrete Curb & Gutter

$40

Subgrade Prep/Exec

$16.50

Demolition Asphalt

Curb & Gutter

$32

Concrete Pavement

Removing Traffic Stripes

$1.50

Removing Parking Stripes

$25

Clear and Grub

$1.00

Removing Parking Stripes

$25

Decomposed Granite (3" Depth, Stabilized)

$2.10

Concrete Maintenance Strip (6")

Vehicular Concrete (6" Thick)

Paving

Asphalt (3" thickness)

$3.50

Curb Ramps

$2,000

Curb Ramps on Existing Sidewalks

$3,000

Drainage

$5.50

Pedestrian/Bike Bridge

$500

$35

Trash Receptacle

$800

Recycle Receptacle

$800

Kiosk - Prefabricated

$2,500

Street Light

$7,300

Benches (6' long)

$1,200

Bike Route Signing

$1,650

Bike Route & Bike Lane Signs (with core drilling)

$350

Bike Lane Markings, Paint ($1.25 LF)

$80

Sharrows, Paint ($1.25 LF)

$80

Bike Lane Markings, Thermoplastic

$125

Sharrows, Thermoplastic

$125

Bike Detector Loop

$700

Bike Lane Paint

Bike Buffer Paint

Bike Lane Striping (one way, two stripes)

$3,300

Centerline Striping

Centerline Striping with reflectors

$2.25

Parking Stripes, Paint

$15

Parking Stripes, Thermoplastic

$20

Rapid Flashing Beacon/Pedestrian Signal

$5,000

High Visibility Pedestrian Beacon (HAWK)

$45,000

Fences and Gates 5' Chainlink Fence Site Furnishings and Shade Structures

Bike Signs

Road Striping

Safety Measures

Final

Chapter 5: CIPs and Bikeway Funding

5.2.4 Bikeway Bridge Improvements

The following information concerns bridges designed to serve bicycle facilities in locations other than planned or programmed roadway bridges. Typical roadway bridges are generally constructed of reinforced concrete to withstand the enormous stresses of motor vehicle traffic and seismic activity. Bridges intended for non-motorized uses do not need to be nearly as robust or as costly as bridges designed for regular motor vehicle use. Bridges costs depend on design load and foundation, and to a lesser extent, length, width and materials. Bridges must be designed to carry the same loads as the bikeway facility they serve. On Class 1 facilities, for example, where patrol, emergency or maintenance vehicles are expected to use the bridge, it must be able to support at least the gross weight of the heaviest anticipated vehicle. Bridges intended to support motor vehicles will require much sturdier construction and increased width, both of which will substantially increase costs. Unstable soil conditions will require any bridge to be built with more expensive foundations in the form of larger footings or piers. Wooden bridges tend to be less expensive than metal bridges, though their useful life may be shorter. Bridge costs increase almost exponentially as their height increases due to increased structural complexity. Finally, prefabricated bridges are generally cheaper and less environmentally damaging to install than constructed-in-place bridges. For bridge preliminary cost estimates, $1,200 to $1,600 per linear foot is adequate.

5.3 Bikeway Funding Sources

Federal, state and local government agencies invest billions of dollars every year in the nation’s transportation system. Only a fraction of that funding is used in development projects, policy development and planning to improve conditions for cyclists. Even though appropriate funds are limited, they are available, but desirable projects sometimes go unfunded because communities may be unaware of a fund’s existence, or may apply for the wrong type of grants. Also, the competition between municipalities for the available bikeway funding is often fierce. Whenever Federal funds are used for bicycle projects, a certain level of state and/or local matching funding is generally required. State funds are often available to local governments on similar terms. Almost every implemented bicycle program and facility in the United States has had more than one funding source and it often takes a good deal of coordination to pull the various sources together. According to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) publication, “An Analysis of Current Funding Mechanisms for Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs at the Federal, State and Local Levels,” where successful local bike facility programs exist, there is usually a full time bicycle coordinator with extensive understanding of funding sources. Cities such as Seattle, Washington, 100

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Portland, Oregon and Tucson are prime examples. Bicycle coordinators are often in a position to develop a competitive project and detailed proposal that can be used to improve conditions for cyclists within their jurisdictions. Much of the following information on Federal and state funding sources was derived from the previously mentioned FHWA publication.

5.3.1 Federal Sources

A. U.S. Department of Transportation Enhancement Funds SAFETEALU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users) In 1991, Congress reauthorized the collection and distribution of the Federal gasoline tax and related transportation spending programs. The legislation, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA), was seen as particularly significant because the focus of 30 years of Federal transportation investment, the Interstate Highway System, was nearing completion. The legislation provided the opportunity to rethink transportation priorities and philosophies. This act was reauthorized in 1997 as the Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21) and again in 2005 as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). It is planned for reauthorization once again under a new name. SAFETEA-LU funding is currently managed through state and regional agencies, in this case the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Most, but not all, of the funding programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with the emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing intermodal connections. Funding criteria include completion and adoption of a bicycle master plan, quantification of the costs and benefits of the system (including saved vehicle trips, reduced air pollution), proof of public involvement and support, National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) compliance and the commitment of local resources. In most cases, SAFETEA-LU provides matching grants of 80 to 90 percent. The amount of money available through SAFETEA-LU is substantial, but there is always strong competition to obtain those funds. Federal funding through the SAFETEA-LU program provides the bulk of outside funding. SAFETEA-LU is comprised of two major programs, Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), along with other programs such as the National Recreational Trails Fund, Section 402 (Safety) funds, Scenic Byways funds and Federal Lands Highways funds, though municipalities are unlikely to be eligible for funding from all of these sources. Among the new concepts in the original legislation were intermodalism, transportation efficiency, funding flexibility and planning, all of which had direct benefits for cycling. The legislation also created a wide range of funding opportunities for bicyclerelated activities, including the following that may represent opportunities for the City of Chula Vista:

Final

101

Chapter 5: CIPs and Bikeway Funding

B. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Section 1007 (a)(I)(b)(3) allows states to spend their allocation of Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds on a range of activities similar to those of the National Highway System. Bicycle facilities are specifically listed as eligible items. STP funds can also be used for “non-construction bicycle projects related to safe bicycle use.” Section 1007 (b)(2)(C)(c) created a new category of transportation enhancement activities (TEA) on which states were required to spend at least 10 percent of their Surface Transportation Program funds. TEAs are very broadly defined as: “...with respect to any project or the area to be served by the project, provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, scenic or historic highway programs, landscaping and other scenic beautification, historic preservation, rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities including historic railroad facilities and canals, preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails), control and removal of outdoor advertising, archaeological planning and research and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff.” Surface Transportation Program funds are allocated to Caltrans and 75 percent of STP funds are programmed by regional agencies such as the SANDAG under current state law. The Federal government does not allocate funds to specific projects. Therefore, for a bicycle project to be funded, it must appear on the list of potential projects under consideration at the state, regional, or city level, whichever is appropriate. C. Transportation Enhancements Activities Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities offer funding opportunities to help expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience through 12 eligible TE activities related to surface transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety programs, scenic and historic highway programs, landscaping and scenic beautification, historic preservation and environmental mitigation. TE projects must relate to surface transportation and must qualify under one or more of the 12 eligible categories. Eligible Activities • Provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Provision of pedestrian and bicycle safety and education activities • Acquisition of scenic or historic easements and sites • Scenic or historic highway programs including tourist and welcome centers • Landscaping and scenic beautification • Historic preservation • Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities • Conversion of abandoned railway corridors to trails 102

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

• Control and removal of outdoor advertising • Archaeological planning and research • Environmental mitigation of highway runoff pollution, reduce vehiclecaused wildlife mortality, maintain habitat connectivity • Establishment of transportation museums D. Safe Routes to School Programs There are two separate Safe Routes to School Programs administered by Caltrans. There is the state-legislated program referred to as SR2S and there is the Federal Program referred to as SRTS. Both programs are intended to achieve the same basic goal of increasing the number of children walking and bicycling to school by making it safer for them to do so. The differences between the two programs are as follows: Legislative Authority SR2S - Streets & Highways Code Section 2330-2334 SRTS - Section 1404 in SAFETEA-LU Expires SR2S - AB 57 extended program indefinitely SRTS - Pending SAFETEA-LU reauthorization. Extensions have been granted through December 31, 2010 Eligible Applicants SR2S - Cities and counties SRTS - State, local and regional agencies experienced in meeting Federal transportation requirements. Non-profit organizations, school districts, public health departments and Native American Tribes must partner with a city, county, MPO, or RTPA to serve as the responsible agency for their project. Eligible Projects SR2S - Infrastructure projects, public outreach/education/enforcement SRTS - Stand-alone infrastructure or non-infrastructure projects Local Match SR2S - 10 percent minimum required SRTS – None Project Completion Deadline SR2S - Within 4 ½ years after project funds are allocated to the agency SRTS - Within 4 ½ years after project is amended into FTIP Restriction on Infrastructure Projects SR2S - Must be located in the vicinity of a school SRTS - Infrastructure projects must be within two miles of a grade school or middle school

Final

103

Chapter 5: CIPs and Bikeway Funding

Targeted Beneficiaries SR2S - Children in grades K-12 SRTS - Children in grades K-8 Funding SR2S - $24.25M annual funding SRTS - $23M annual funding The Safe Routes to School Program funds non-motorized facilities in conjunction with improving access to schools through the Caltrans Safe Routes to School Coordinator. For more information visit: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ hq/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/saferoutes.htm E. Local Planning Requirements Section 1024 (a) requires each metropolitan area (with a population greater than 200,000) to develop an annual or biannual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that “shall provide for the development of transportation facilities (including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) which will function as an intermodal transportation system.” These TIPs must be based on available funding for projects in the program and they must be coordinated with transportation control measures to be implemented in accordance with Clean Air Act provisions. Final project selection rests with the California Transportation Commission (CTC), with technical input from Caltrans. F. State Planning Requirements Two sections of SAFETEA-LU explicitly require the state to develop a TIP to “consider strategies for incorporating bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways in projects, throughout the State,” (Section 1025 (c) (3)), and to “develop a long range plan for bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways for appropriate areas of the State, which shall be incorporated into the long range transportation plan,” (Section 1025 (e)). These provisions are important on a municipal level because they are crucial for getting incidental bicycle projects funded. The intent behind these sections is to ensure that if bicycle facilities are identified in a TIP or long range plan as being necessary in a corridor and construction or reconstruction work in those corridors is planned, then the relevant bicycle improvements called for in the planning must be included and implemented. Opportunities for incorporating bicycle projects are not limited to large transportation projects and not even to actual construction projects. Independent bicycle and pedestrian projects, such as trails away from highway corridors and non construction projects, such as mapping, also need to be incorporated into state and city planning documents if they are to be funded. Section 1033 states that the Federal share under SAFETEA-LU of bicycle transportation facilities is to be 80 percent. The remaining 20 percent of the funds must be matched by the state or local government agency imple104

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

menting the project. The section also states that, to be funded, a bicycle transportation facility must be principally for transportation rather than recreation purposes. This has been defined by the FHWA to mean: “Where Federal aid highway funds are used, these projects should serve a transportation function. A circular recreation path, for example, would not be eligible. However, any type of facility which does serve a valid transportation need while also fulfilling recreation purposes would be eligible.” The section goes on to describe a bicycle transportation facility as: “new or improved lanes, paths or shoulders for the use of cyclists, traffic control devices, shelters and parking facilities for cyclists.” G. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) Section 1008 is referred to as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ). This part of the legislation is intended to fund programs and projects likely to contribute to the attainment of national ambient air quality standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Five areas of eligibility have been defined: Transportation activities in an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) developed under the Clean Air Act Transportation Control Measures listed in Section 108 (b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, which include: (ix) Programs to limit portions of roadway surfaces or certain sections of the metropolitan area to the use of non-motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time and place; (x) Programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and protection of cyclists in both public and private areas; and (xv) Programs for new construction and major reconstruction of paths, tracks, or areas solely for the use by pedestrians or other non-motorized means of transportation, when economically feasible and in the public interest. “Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, non construction projects related to safe bicycle use and state bicycle/ pedestrian coordinator positions as established in the TEA-21, for promoting and facilitating the increased use of non-motorized modes of transportation. This includes public education, promotional and safety programs for using such facilities.” To be funded under this program, projects and programs must come from a transportation plan (or State (STIP) or Regional (RTIP) Transportation Improvement Program) that conforms to the SIP and must be consistent with the conformity provisions of Section 176 of the Clean Air Act.

Final

105

Chapter 5: CIPs and Bikeway Funding

H. Section 402 (Safety) Funds Section 402 funds address state and community highway safety grant programs. Priority status of safety programs for cyclists expedites the approval process for these safety efforts. I. Symms National Recreational Trails Act The Symms National Recreational Trails Act created a trust fund for the construction and maintenance of trails. At least 30 percent of the funds must be spent on trails for non-motorized users and at least 30 percent for trails for motorized users. The remainder is to be allocated to projects as determined by the State Recreational Trails Advisory Board of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, which the state must have to be eligible for the funds. J. Federal Transit Act Section 25 of the 1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act states that: â&#x20AC;&#x153;For the purposes of this Act a project to provide access for bicycles to mass transportation facilities, to provide shelters and parking facilities for bicycles in and around mass transportation facilities, or to install racks or other equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles shall be deemed to be a construction project eligible for assistance under sections 3, 9 and 18 of this Act.â&#x20AC;? The Federal share for such projects is 90 percent and the remaining 10 percent must come from sources other than Federal funds or fare box revenues. Typical funded projects have included bike lockers at transit stations and bike parking near major bus stops. To date, no projects to provide bikeways for quicker, safer or easier access to transit stations have been requested or funded. K. Department of the Interior - Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) The U.S. Recreation and Heritage Conservation Service and the State Department of Parks and Recreation administer this funding source. Any project for which LWCF funds are desired must meet two specific criteria. The first is that projects acquired or developed under the program must be primarily for recreational use and not transportation purposes and the second is that the lead agency must guarantee to maintain the facility in perpetuity for public recreation. The application will be considered using criteria such as priority status within the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The State Department of Parks and Recreation will select which projects to submit to the National Park Service (NPS) for approval. Final approval is based on the amount of funds available that year, which is determined by a population based formula. Trails are the most commonly approved project.

106

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

L. National Recreational Trail Fund This funding source is intended to pay for a variety of recreational trails programs to benefit cyclists, pedestrians and other non-motorized users. Projects must be consistent with the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan required by the Land and Water Conservation Act. M. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 The $789 billion economic stimulus package provided $27.5 billion to modernize roads and bridges and includes a three percent set aside of each state’s share of the $27.5 billion for the Transportation Enhancements Program. At least half of the funds must be obligated by states within 120 days, or the U.S. Secretary of Transportation can recall up to 50 percent of the unobligated funds. Also included is $8.4 billion to increase public transportation and improve transit facilities; $8 billion for investment in high speed rail and $1.5 billion for a discretionary surface transportation grant program to be awarded competitively by the Secretary of Transportation. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration have issued guidance to assist state and local agencies in preparing for implementation of the stimulus bill. The guidance includes Q&As and actions that can be taken to expedite economic recovery projects. N. Other Bicycle Pedestrian Infrastructure Funding Options Additionally, states are receiving $53.6 billion in state fiscal stabilization funding. States must use 18.2 percent of their funding – or $9.7 billion – for public safety and government services. An eligible activity under this section is to provide funding to K-12 schools and institutions of higher education to make repairs, modernize and make renovations to meet green building standards. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), addresses green standards for schools that include bicycle and pedestrian facilities and access to schools. Another $5 billion is provided for the Energy Efficiency and Block Grant Program. This provides formula funding to cities, counties and states to undertake a range of energy efficiency activities. One eligible use of funding is for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Final

107

Chapter 5: CIPs and Bikeway Funding

5.3.2 State Sources

A. Streets and Highways Code – Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funds non-motorized facilities and access to cities and counties that have adopted bikeway master plans. Section 2106 (b) of the Streets and Highways Code transfers funds annually to the BTA from the revenue derived from the excise tax on motor vehicle fuel. The Caltrans Office of Bicycle Facilities administers the BTA. It is locally administered through SANDAG to counties and cities. Approximately $8.2 million is available annually to projects in San Diego County. For a project to be funded from the BTA, the project shall: i) Be approximately parallel to a state, county, or city roadways, where the separation of bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic will increase the traffic capacity of the roadway; and ii) Serve the functional needs of commuting cyclists; and iii) Include but not be limited to: • New bikeways serving major transportation corridors • New bikeways removing travel barriers to potential bicycle commuters; • Secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots and transit terminals • Bicycle carrying facilities on public transit vehicles • Installation of traffic control devices to improve the safety and efficiency of bicycle travel • Elimination of hazardous conditions on existing bikeways serving a utility purpose • Planning • Safety and education Maintenance is specifically excluded from funding and allocation takes into consideration the relative cost-effectiveness of the proposed project. B. State Highway Account Section 157.4 of the Streets and Highways Code requires Caltrans to set aside $360,000 for the construction of non-motorized facilities that will be used in conjunction with the state highway system. The Office of Bicycle Facilities also administers the State Highway Account fund. Funding is divided into different project categories. Minor B projects (less than $42,000) are funded by a lump sum allocation by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and are used at the discretion of each Caltrans District office. Minor A projects (estimated to cost between $42,000 and $300,000) must be approved by the CTC. Major projects (more than $300,000) must be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program and approved by the CTC. Funded projects have included fencing and bicycle warning signs related to rail corridors.

108

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

C. Transportation Development Act Article III (Senate Bill 821) TDA funds are based on a quarter percent state sales tax, with revenues made available primarily for transit operating and capital purposes. By law, the San Diego County Auditor’s office estimates the apportionment for the upcoming fiscal year. SANDAG prepares forecasts of TDA funds using the apportionment as the base level. The forecasts are based on a forecast of sales tax revenues estimated for the San Diego County using SANDAG’s Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model (DEFM), an econometric forecasting model which takes into consideration numerous variables, including population growth, inflation and real income growth. Certain TDA funds are included in the local revenue sources and in the operating costs. D. Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) In FY 2001, the Governor of California initiated a new funding program (TCRP) in an effort to relieve congestion statewide. The TCRP was created as a result of a budget surplus. However, with the continuing budget deficit, TCRP allocations haven been sporadic. TCRP funds are based on the priority list of TCRP allocations. E. Governor’s Energy Office (Oil Overcharge Funds) The Federal government forced oil companies to repay the excess profits many of them made when they violated price regulations enacted in response to the energy crisis of the early 1970s. Few states have taken advantage of this fund, but some have received grants for bike coordinators and bicycle facilities. The types of projects eligible for funding vary by state, as does the level of allocation available.

5.3.3 Local Sources

A. TransNet Sales Tax Funds San Diego County voters passed a local tax ordinance authorizing the creation of the TransNet Sales Tax, imposing a 1/2 cent “transaction and use tax” solely to fund transportation improvements. About one million dollars are allocated annually for improved bicycle routes throughout the region. The ordinance describes bicycle facilities and requirements for facilities as: “All purposes necessary and convenient to the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of facilities intended for the use of bicycles. Bicycle facilities shall also mean facilities and programs that help to encourage the use of bicycles, such as secure bicycle parking facilities, bicycle promotion programs and bicycle safety education programs.” “All new highway projects funded with revenues as provided in this measure, which are also identified as bikeway facilities in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), shall be required to include provision for bicycle use.”

Final

109

Chapter 5: CIPs and Bikeway Funding

In November 2004, 67 percent of voters approved a 40 year extension of TransNet, which will generate an additional $14 billion for public transit, highway, and local street and road improvements. SANDAG leverages these funds with state and Federal resources to improve the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation infrastructure and tackle growing traffic congestion head-on. B. Local Privatization/Toll Revenues The 2006 RTIP includes a local privatization/toll revenue funding from the SR-125 private toll road project from SR-905 to SR-54 (authorized by AB 680). The project and the privatization funding programmed are based upon the most recent information provided by California Transportation Ventures (CTV) and Caltrans. C. Proposition A This is a funding source administered by SANDAG with an annual availability of approximately $1 million per year. D. Assembly Bill 2766/434 This bill funds air pollution reduction projects related to alternate modes of transportation. The Air Pollution Control Board (APCB) administers this fund and approximately $3 million is available annually. E. RideLink This program is operated by SANDAG and covers a variety of transportation management activities including projects such as bicycle lockers and security devices. These will be provided, installed and maintained for public agencies at no cost to the requesting agency. RideLink also offers a bicycle locker loan program to private sector entities. F. Developer Impact Fees As a condition for development approval, municipalities can require developers to provide certain infrastructure improvements, which can include bikeway projects. These projects have commonly provided Class 2 facilities for portions of on-street, previously planned routes. They can also be used to provide bicycle parking or shower and locker facilities. The type of facility that should be required to be built by developers should reflect the greatest need for the particular project and its local area. Legal challenges to these types of fees have resulted in the requirement to illustrate a clear nexus between the particular project and the mandated improvement and cost. G. New Construction Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing on-street bicycle facilities. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide bike lanes where needed, it is important that the review process includes input pertaining to consistency with the proposed system. Future development in the City of Chula Vista will contribute only if the projects are conditioned.

110

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

H. Restoration Cable TV and telephone companies sometimes need new cable routes within public rights of way. This has most commonly occurred during expansion of fiber optic networks. Since these projects require a significant amount of advance planning and disruption of curb lanes, it may be possible to request reimbursement for affected bicycle facilities to mitigate construction impacts. In cases where cable routes cross undeveloped areas, it may be possible to provide for new bikeway facilities following completion of the cable trenching, such as shared use of maintenance roads. I. Other Sources Local sales taxes, fees and permits may be implemented as new funding sources for bicycle projects. However, any of these potential sources would require a local election. Volunteer programs may be developed to substantially reduce the cost of implementing some routes, particularly multi-use paths. For example, a local college design class may use such a multi-use route as a student project, working with a local landscape architectural or engineering firm. Work parties could be formed to help clear the right-ofway for the route. A local construction company or service organization may donate or discount services beyond what the volunteers can do. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, through which businesses can â&#x20AC;&#x153;adoptâ&#x20AC;? a route or segment of one to help construct and maintain it.

5.3.4 Most Likely Sources

According to City of Chula Vista sources, the most likely local sources of bikeway funding are the following: 1) TDA/CIP (Transportation Development Act, Capital Improvement Projects) 2) BTA (Bicycle Transportation Account) 3) TransNet 4) Developer Impact Fees 5) Toll Revenues 6) APCB (Air Pollution Control Board) 7) City General Fund

5.3.5 Private Sources

Private funding sources may be acquired by applying through advocacy groups such as the League of American Bicyclists and the Bikes Belong Coalition, as well as through public health foundations. Most of the private funding from foundations is intended to enhance and improve bicycle facilities and advocacy or improve general public health by providing active transportation links. Grant applications will typically be through the advocacy groups as they leverage funding from Federal, state and private sources.

Final

111

Chapter 5: CIPs and Bikeway Funding

Table 15: Federal Funding Sources

Federal Sources

Grant Source

Annual Total

Agency California Department of Parks and Recreation

Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965

Funding Cycle December

Match Required

Remarks

50%

Funding subject to North-south split. Funds for outdoor recreation projects

SAFETEA-LU Surface Transportation Program (STP)

$639 million in 2009*

FHWA / Caltrans / SANDAG

June 1

20%

STP funds may be exchanged for local funds for non-federally certified local agencies. No match required if project improves safety

SAFETEA-LU Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA)

$80 million in 2010*

FHWA / Caltrans / SANDAG

STIP cycle

20%

Contact State TE Coordinator

SAFETEA-LU Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (BRP)

$386 million in 2009*

FHWA / Caltrans

Jan/list of projects

20%

Contact Caltrans Division of Structures, Office of Local Programs, Program Manager

SAFETEA-LU National Highway System

$587 million in 2009*

FHWA / Caltrans

20%

Bike projects must provide a high degree of safety

SAFETEA-LU Scenic Byways Program

$740,000 in 2009

FHWA / Caltrans

20%

Should apply first for TEA funds until TEA runs out

SAFETEA-LU Public Lands Highway

Varies - averages $7 million/ yr. statewide

FHWA / Caltrans

20%

For roads and bikeways leading to and serving National Forests

SAFETEA-LU Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

$23 million in 2009*

FHWA / Caltrans

20%

For pedestrian facilities and bikeways leading to schools. Five E's must be incorporated

SAFETEA-LU Highway Safety Improvement Program

$98 million in 2009*

FHWA / Caltrans

20%

Bike projects must provide a high degree of safety

Forest Highway Program

$19 million in 2009*

FHWA / Caltrans

20%

For roads and bikeways leading to and serving National Forests

June 7

Oct. 30

Source: Summary of FY 2009 Apportionments for RTA-000-1664A, *California Only 112

2011

Table 15: Federal Funding Sources (Continued)

Federal Sources

Grant Source

Annual Total

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Plan (CMAQ)

$370 million in 2009*

Regional Trails Program (RTP)

$5 million in 2010*

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) $3 million

Transportation Enhancement Program

$74 million in 2009

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)

$2 bilActive Communi- lion over ty Transportation 5 years. Set aside Act of 2010 from STP. Final

FHWA / Caltrans

20%

California Department of Parks and Recreation

October

20%

Funds are for both motorized and non-motorized categories Expenditures include bikeway plans, corridor studies and trails assistance

August

Provided formula funding for cities, counties and states to take part in energy efficient activities

FHWA

San Diego Nutrition Network

$3 million in 2009

Remarks The amount of CMAQ Funds depends on the state's population share and on the degree of air pollution

Council Districts

FDA Nutrition Network Mini Grants

Match Required

Annually to Multi-Year. Depends on MPO

National Park Service

Energy Efficiency and Block Grant Program

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)

Agency

Funding Cycle

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

California Department of Parks and Recreation

FHWA / Caltrans

Every 2 years, proposals due in 2011

At least half of the funds must be STIP obligated by states within 120 days, 11.47%, or the U.S. Secretary of Transportalocal tion can recall up to 50 percent of 25% the unobligated funds.

Annual Budget

Available for low-income neighborhoods to improve land use and transportation infrastructure. Can be used for accessibility improvements citywide.

6 years or longer

Federal block grant program for projects in Clean Air Act non-attainment areas that will help attain the national ambient air quality standards stated in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.

Annual (May)

50%

LWCF grants may be used for statewide outdoor recreational planning and for acquiring and developing recreational parks and facilities, especially in urban areas.

50%

H.R. 4722 would enable communities to compete for targeted funds to complete active transportation networks to enable Americans to walk or bike safely and conveniently. Not yet passed as of 2010.

Annually

113

Chapter 5: CIPs and Bikeway Funding

Table 16: State Funding Sources

State Sources Grant Source

Annual Total

State Highway Account (SHA): Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA)

$7,200,000/ yr. state-wide

Agency Caltrans

Transportation Development Act (TDA) Section 99234 AB 2766 Vehicle Registration Funds Vehicle Registration Surcharge Fee (AB 434) RCF Vehicle Registration Surcharge Fee (AB 434) PMF

40% from grant source

Funding Cycle

Match Required

Consult Local Assistance Office

10%

Available for planning grants

Annually

None

2% of TDA total

Remarks

Caltrans

Competitive program for projects that benefit air quality

APCB

None

Competitive program for projects that benefit air quality

None

Funds distributed to county communities based on population

APCB

July

April

Projectspecific

Cities

Ongoing

None

Mitigation required during land use approval process

Caltrans Minor Capital Program

Varies (Est. $4 million/ yr. for District 11)

Caltrans

Ongoing after July 1

None

Projects must be on state highways; such as upgraded bike facilities

Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEM)

$10 million/ yr. state-wide

State Resources Agency

Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA)

Varies

Caltrans, CA Community Services and Development, Air Resources Board

Community Based Transportation Planning Demonstration Grant Program

$3 million annually

Developer Fees or Exactions

114

Caltrans

None Projects that enhance October an- required, or mitigate existing or nually but fa- future transportation vored projects

March

November

None

Projects must save energy, provide restitution to the public and be approved by CA Energy Commission and US DOE

20%

Projects must have a transportation component or objective

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Table 16: State Funding Sources (Continued)

State Sources Grant Source Habitat Conservation Fund Grant Program (HCF)

Annual Total $2 million

Agency CA Dept of Park and Recreation

Funding Cycle

Match Required

October

50%

Will only be available until July 1, 2020

Remarks

Office of Traffic Safety Program (OTS)

Varies

Office of Traffic Safety

January

None

Program objective is to reduce motor vehicle fatalities and injuries through a national highway safety program. Program to include: education, enforcement and engineering

Safe Routes to School Program (SR2S)

$24 million in 2009*

Caltrans

April

10%

Eligible for projects in the vicinity of a school and grades K-12

Varies

Regional Transportation Planning Agency

Every 4 years

None

Gives metropolitan regions more control over how state transportation funds are invested

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

California Conservation Corps (CCC)

Environmental Justice (EJ) Planning Grants

$9 million in 2010

California Conservation Corps

The CCC provides emergency assistance & public service conservation work. In San Diego County, the CCC has installed bike lockers for Caltrans.

Caltrans

EJ planning grants help engage low-income and minority communities in transportation projects early in the planning process to ensure equity and positive social, economic and environmental impacts occur.

Annually

10%

* California Only

Final

115

Chapter 5: CIPs and Bikeway Funding

Table 17: Local Funding Sources

Local Sources Grant Source

Annual Total

Smart Growth Incentive Program

$7.2 million /yr. state-wide

Transportation Development Act (TDA)

Transportation Sales Tax (TRANSNET) Regional Share

Parking Meter Districts

Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)

116

$105 million in 2010 in the San Diego region

$4.8 million in 2009

Agency SANDAG

SANDAG

City

Funding Cycle 6 year or longer

Annual (March)

Biennial started in '08

Annual Budget

Match Required

Remarks

None

Regional funds dedicated to Smart Growth projects, which include pedestrian facilities.

None

TDA funds originate from a statewide sales tax of one quarter cent for transportation projects, which includes two percent for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

None

In 2004, voters approved Prop. A, a 40 year extension of TransNet. The proposition will generate $14 billion for transportation projects. Several new programs will fund pedestrian facilities, smart growth development & neighborhood traffic safety projects.

N/A

Parking Meter Districts can use parking meter revenues for streetscape improvements such as pedestrian facilities, landscaping and lighting.

None

TIFs apply to redevelopment areas where bonds are issued based on expected increased tax revenues. Used for improved infrastructure, including pedestrian facilities.

None

Addresses improvements related to tourism. May be appropriate in areas where tourism exists such as along the waterfront, major parks and historic neighborhoods. 2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Table 18: Private Funding Sources

Private Sources Grant Source SRAM Cycling Fund

Annual Total

Agency

Funding Cycle

$400,000+/yr

SRAM

Ongoing

Match Required

Remarks

None

www.sramcyclingfund.org

None

The Surdna Foundation makes grants to nonprofit organizations in the areas of environment, community revitalization, effective citizenry, the arts, and the nonprofit sector.

None

Supports LAB's Bicycle Friendly Community Program and IMBA trails

Surdna Foundation

Project-specific

1 World 2 Wheels

$1.6 million in the next 3 years

Trek Bicycles

Bikes Belong

$1.6 million annually

Bikes Belong Coalition

Ongoing

None

Leverages Federal, state and private funding for bicycle projects

Kaiser Permanente Community Health Initiatives

$54 million annually

Kaiser Permanente

Ongoing

None

Numerous programs to help with Healthy Initiatives

Health Foundations

Surdna Foundation

Various foundations

Ongoing

Focus on pedestrian improvements for obesity prevention. Examples include California Wellness Foundation, Kaiser and California Endowment.

Rails to Trails Conservancy

Provides technical assistance for converting abandoned rail corridors to use as multi-use trails.

Donations

Depends on nature of project

Ongoing

Corporate or individual donations, sponsorships, merchandising or special events.

Ongoing

Donated labor and materials for facility construction or maintenance such as tree planting programs or trail construction.

In-kind Services

Final

Depends on nature of project

117

Chapter 5: CIPs and Bikeway Funding

SANDAG

California Safe Routes to School

TransNet

Caltrans BTA

Highway Bridge Program

Federal Lands Highway Program

Scenic Byways

National Highway System

State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program (Section 402)

Highway Safety Improvement Program

•

Recreational Trails Program

•

Federal Safe Routes to Schools

Surface Transportation Program

Bicycle and pedestrian plans

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement

Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Opportunities

Transportation Enhancements

Table 19: Summary of Eligible Projects

•

Bicycle lanes on roadways

•

Paved shoulders

•

Signed bike routes

•

Shared use paths/trails

•

Single track hike/bike trails Spot improvement programs

•

• •

Maps

•

• •

•

Bike racks on buses

•

Bicycle parking facilities

•

Trail/highway intersections

•

Bicycle storage/service centers

•

New or retrofit sidewalks

•

New or retrofit crosswalks

•

Signal improvements

•

Curb cuts and ramps

•

Traffic calming

• •

•

• •

• • •

•

Coordinator positions

•

Safety/education positions

•

Police patrols

•

Helmet promotions

•

Safety brochures/books

•

Training

•

118

2011

Appendices Appendix A: Design Guidelines These facility guidelines are intended to guide development of all bikeway facility types. The first section considers the necessary planning aspects of bikeway system design in general. The following section discusses general physical design guidelines. Subsequent sections provide physical design information for Class 1 bikeway facilities. Within this master plan, facility design guidelines have been tailored to local conditions, but are also consistent with national guidelines, such as the AASHTO Guide to Development of Bicycle Facilities. State guidelines are also referenced, specifically, Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design and the Caltrans Traffic Manual. Elements of these guidelines without relevance to the region have been excluded. Other documents referenced for specific guidelines and requirements can be found in the following links. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD, 2003 and revised in 2006) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca_mutcd.htm Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, 2009), http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009.htm Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/chp1000.pdf AASHTO Guide to Development of Bicycle Facilities, http://www.sccrtc.org/bikes/AASHTO_1999_BikeBook.pdf Innovative Bicycle Treatments: An Informational Report. Jumana Nabti and Matthew Ridgeway. ITE, Washington DC, 2002. Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Ed. Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals www.apbp.org

Bikeway Planning

Successfully implementing a bikeway system involves careful planning that considers a number of issues, including setting up appropriate mechanisms to take advantage of bikeway opportunities as they become available. Author and bicycle planning expert Susan Pinsof has perhaps described the process most succinctly: “A comprehensive, affordable approach to bicycle planning involves maximizing the usefulness of existing infrastructure by improving the safety of shared roadway space; using opportunities, such as available open space corridors for trails; creating more ‘bicycle-friendly’ communities through planning, design and regulation; and addressing the need for bicycle safety education and encouragement.”

Local Emphasis

Cycling is primarily a local activity since most trips do not exceed five miles. Experienced cyclists routinely ride further than this and their cross-community travel should be accommodated. However, if it is a community goal to make localized cycling a viable option for personal transportation, then cyclist mobility must be improved and enhanced throughout the community, especially to important local destinations. Even though State or Federal policies may influence or even dictate some design and implementation decisions, it is local decisions that will most significantly affect the potential for cycling within a community. City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Appendix-1

Appendices

Master Plan Process

The basis for a bicycle-friendly community can be established by instituting appropriate policies through the development and adoption of this bicycle master plan. A program of physical improvements and workable implementation strategies that reflects local needs was developed as part of this master plan. A bicycle master plan will be of little value if it is not part of an active and ongoing planning process that continually seeks to integrate cycling considerations into all areas of local planning. Within this master plan, facility design guidelines have been tailored to local conditions, but are also consistent with national guidelines, such as the AASHTO Guide to Development of Bicycle Facilities. State guidelines are also referenced, specifically, Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design and the Caltrans Traffic Manual. Elements of these guidelines without relevance to the region have been excluded.

“Institutionalizing” Bicycle Planning

Achieving implementation of this master plan will be greatly expedited by “institutionalizing” bicycle planning, a concept first developed by Peter Lagerway of the city of Seattle, Washington as part of his efforts as the city’s pedestrian and bicycle coordinator. The term refers to coordinating local planning and regulatory functions in the development of a program of improvements.

Bicycle Advisory Committee

Public involvement can be promoted through the formation of a bicycle advisory committee as a new city committee, or as a subcommittee of an appropriate existing committee. Its primary benefit would be in providing an avenue for public participation and support.

Bicycle Coordinator

City government involvement can occur through the designation of a bicycle coordinator. For a city the size of Chula Vista, this may be a part-time position or integrated with an existing position, but this does not diminish its importance. Since a truly comprehensive bicycle planning effort will involve many city departments including Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Planning and Traffic Engineering, as well as local school boards and the Police Department, the bicycle coordinator would be in a position to organize interdepartmental efforts and make certain that bicycle concerns are integrated into other city activities in the planning stages, as well as coordinated with adjacent communities and jurisdictions.

Public Officials

The institutionalization of bicycle planning involves obtaining the commitment of public officials. Leadership for bicycle improvements may already come from public officials, but even if it does not, officials will be more likely to be supportive if they can be certain their constituency wants a more bicyclefriendly community.

Primary Planning Considerations

The safety, efficiency and enjoyment of the bike facility by expected users should be the primary considerations employed in the planning of new bicycle facilities. More specifically, such considerations should include the following: • Direct and convenient alignment to serve trip origins and destinations • Access to and from existing and planned bicycle facilities • Avoiding abrupt facility discontinuity App-2

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

• Avoiding steep grades whenever possible • Adequate lighting and sight lines • Convenient secure bicycle parking at destinations • Adequate commitment to maintenance

Integration with Other City Plans and Programs

Bikeway facility planning requires a high level of coordination because it is directly affected by the planning decisions of other City departments, as well as those of adjacent communities, the county, regional, state and sometimes even Federal agencies. Land use, zoning, street design, open space and park planning all affect how bicycle-friendly a community can be. For examples, land use patterns affect cycling by determining the locations of trip origins and destinations by such means as creating areas of employment and housing densities sufficient to sustain bicycle facilities, or by providing a balance of housing and jobs by encouraging multi-use development. Access or bicycle parking facilities can often be included in developments at a low cost. Also, the provision of better access and connections between developments for cyclists and pedestrians may be more easily provided if the need is understood and articulated as early as possible in the planning process. Effective bicycle planning requires review of regional transportation plans, local street plans, park and open space plans and even site plan review. Transportation plans provide opportunities for low cost improvements to be designed into subsequent projects. Local street plans provide opportunities to implement changes that make streets more conducive to cycling using techniques such as traffic calming to reduce motor vehicle speeds. Park and open space planning may provide opportunities to acquire greenways and to build multi-use trails. Site plan review provides opportunities to ensure that project design accommodates cyclists through the provision of improvements such as access or parking facilities and that the project’s vehicular traffic does not decrease cyclists’ safety on adjacent facilities.

Education and Encouragement

Education and encouragement of cycling are important elements of any bicycle planning effort and can occur through instructional venues such as school curricula and through the efforts of large employerbased transportation programs. There is no shortage of educational materials available through a number of private and government organizations such as the League of American Bicyclists. The dissemination of meaningful information can also be augmented by the participation of local businesses such as bike shops, especially since they have a vested interest in promoting safe cycling in the City. Education and encouragement rarely receive the attention they deserve, even when included in bikeway master plans, and this is where a bicycle coordinator can be of help in developing appropriate programs.

Regulating Land Use and Community Design to Benefit Cycling

Land use and design options are largely determined by regulatory functions that, in turn, help to define community character and functionality. These regulatory functions such as subdivision regulations, zoning requirements and developer exactions are also often used to set requirements for amenities in new development projects. These same regulations can be used to help define development patterns more conducive to cycling such as incorporating more mixed use, higher densities and connections between communities and land uses. Street patterns and hierarchy can greatly affect average daily (motor vehicle) trips (ADTs), connectivity and motor vehicle speeds which, in turn, positively or negatively affects cycling. Street design can be modified to discourage high motor vehicle speeds and to provide width for a bike lane. Linear open space can become land for greenway routes that benefit all non-motorized users, not just cyclists.

Final

App-3

Appendices

Though prioritization of bikeway projects is defined by state and local decisions, it is Federal funding and policies that currently encourage the use of transportation funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects. However, Federal funding should not be counted upon as a reliable source for the foreseeable future since it depends on the political nature of legislative action. Bicycle planning cannot sustain itself on the occasional Federal grant. Future local implementation will more likely depend on instituting bicycle improvements as part of infrastructural projects, which is when they are most cost-effective. Similarly, the most economical way to include bicycle facilities in private development is through initial project planning and design, not as an afterthought. Ordinances can be written that bikeway systems be included as part of new developments. An effort should be made to show developers that such requirements are worthwhile because they create well established marketing advantages gained from providing pedestrian and bicycle amenities. Ordinances can also require bicycle amenities such as bicycle parking, showers and lockers at employment sites. In all cases, a bicycle master plan is important for establishing priorities for such public/private projects. Review of developments for transportation impacts should address how on-site bicycle facilities are planned. Bicycle storage racks should be provided at commercial facilities at locations convenient to building entrances and covered from the elements. This is especially important at retail and service establishments. At employment sites, secure bicycle racks and/or lockers should be provided. For outdoor parking, lockers are preferred because they completely secure the bicycle from theft of the entire bicycle or its parts and are weather-proof. Requiring developments near commuter rail stations to provide access pathways to these transit centers as part of urban in-fill may improve multi-modal connections for pedestrians and cyclists alike. Other developers should contribute to bicycle master plan implementation projects in newly developing areas. Park land dedication or fees in lieu of dedication is another possible component of strategies to acquire local trail and bicycle path rights-of-way.

Integrating Bicycle Facilities into the Roadway Planning Process

Planning for bicycle facilities on roadways should begin at the very earliest stage of project development on all sizes and types of roadway projects. Even the smallest roadway reconstruction project could result in a missed opportunity if cyclists are not taken into consideration at the initiation of the project. At the municipal level, planners should address these roadway planning issues in the comprehensive context of the Circulation Element in the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s General Plan. The bikeway master plan is a planning tool for the development of bikeway facilities. It is intended to complement the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s adopted roadway standards and the General Planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Circulation Element. The roadway standards rely on the bikeway master plan to provide guidance on the location, type and recommended design of bikeway facilities. The following procedure offers the planner and designer general guidance in determining the need for bikeways during the usual phases of project development.

Preliminary Engineering

Roadway facilities that have been determined through needs assessment to be potentially appropriate for bikeways should be analyzed to determine whether any physical constraints exist that may limit the facility type that could be provided. The following factors should be considered:

App-4

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

• Sufficient right-of-way exists, or additional right-of-way can be acquired to allocate the required space for a bikeway. • Physical impediments or restrictions exist, but they can be avoided or removed to allow for the required pavement width to provide a bikeway. • Bridges allow for bicycle access in accordance with bikeway standards. • Travel or parking lanes can be reduced in width or eliminated to allow space for bikeways. If these factors occur, a bikeway should be recommended at the completion of the preliminary engineering phase for the following situations: • Transportation facilities or segments that connect bicycle traffic generators within five miles of each other • Segments of transportation facilities that provide continuity with existing bicycle facilities If physical constraint factors that preclude allocation of space and designation of bikeways exist along a particular roadway and cannot be avoided or remedied, these factors should be reported to the project manager in the final design phase and alternative design treatments should be generated. Planning and engineering should consider more than roadway cross sections. Often, the most difficult potential areas of conflict are at intersections. In general, high speed interchanges, merge lanes and wide radius curbs are less safe or desirable for cyclists and should be avoided.

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines

The following sections address physical design guidelines applicable to all bikeway facility types.

Class 1 Multi-use Path Guidelines

Class 1 facilities are generally paved multi-use paths separated from motor vehicle traffic. Off-street routes are rarely constructed for the exclusive use of cyclists since other non-motorized user types will also find such facilities attractive. For that reason, the facilities recommended in this bikeway master plan should be considered multi-use routes that cyclists will share with other users. Recommended Class 1 paths are intended to provide commuting and recreational routes unimpeded by motor vehicle traffic. No matter what their primary focus, most cyclists will find bicycle paths inviting routes to ride, especially if travel efficiency is secondary to enjoyment of cycling. Since these paths can augment the existing roadway system, they can extend circulation options for cyclists, making trips feasible that would not otherwise be possible if the cyclists had to depend exclusively on roadways, especially in areas where usable roads are limited. Casual riders and children would likely also appreciate the relative freedom from conflicts with motor vehicles compared to riding on typical roadways. By law, the presence of a Class 1 route near an existing roadway does not justify prohibiting bicycles on the parallel or nearly parallel roadway. Where a bikeway master plan calls for Class 1 routes parallel to the alignments of planned roadways, these roadways should still be designed to be compatible with bicycle use. Two reasons to retain parallel facilities are that an experienced cyclist may find Class 1 paths inappropriate because of intensive use by a number of user types, or the route may not be direct enough. By the same token, the Class 1 path will likely be much more attractive to less experienced cyclists than a parallel facility on an adjacent street.

Final

App-5

Appendices

The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities suggests the following grade restrictions and grade lengths for Class 1 facilities: • 5-6 percent up to 800 feet • 9 percent up to 200 feet

• 7 percent up to 400 feet • 10 percent up to 100 feet

• 8 percent up to 300 feet • 11+ percent up to 50 feet

In general, Class 1 facilities should not be placed immediately adjacent to roadways. Where such conditions exist, Class 1 facilities should be offset from the street as much as possible and separated from it by a physical barrier. These measures are intended to promote safety for both cyclists and motorists by preventing unintended movement between the street and the Class 1 facility. (See Section 1003.1 (5) of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.)

Shared Use Issues of Class 1 Facilities

Since off-street paths (Class 1) are generally regarded as multi-use and not for the exclusive use of cyclists, they must be designed for the safety of both cyclists and other expected user types. Heavy use of multi-use trails can create conflicts between different types of users. These conflicts can include speed differentials between inexperienced and experienced cyclists, as well as between pedestrians, joggers and in-line skaters, differences in the movements typical of particular user types and even the kinds of groupings common to the different user types as they casually move down the pathway.

Class 1 bike path (National City, CA)

As long as volumes are low, the level of conflict between different user types can be managed without enforcement. However, even moderate increases in user volume can create substantial deterioration in level of service and safety. Conflicts between different user types are especially likely to occur on regionally significant recreational trails that attract a broad diversity of users. In general, paths expected to receive heavy use should be a minimum of 14 feet wide, paths expected to experience moderate use should be at least 12 feet wide and low volume paths can be 10 feet wide. Caltrans Class 1 requirements call for eight feet minimum paved width with a two foot clear zone on each side. Methods used to reduce trail conflicts have included providing separate facilities for different groups, prohibiting certain user types, restricting certain uses to specific hours, widening existing facilities or marking lanes to regulate traffic flow. Examples of all of these types of actions occur along southern California’s coastal trails where conflicts between different user types can be especially severe during peak periods.

Compatibility of Multiple Use of Paths

Class 1 bike path and adjacent soft surface trail along SR-56 (San Diego, CA)

App-6

Joint use of paths by cyclists and equestrians can pose problems due to the ease with which horses can be startled. Also, the requirements of a Class 1 bikeway facility include a solid surface, which is not desirable for equestrian use. Therefore, where either equestrian or cycling activity 2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

is expected to be high, separate trails are recommended. On facilities where Class 1 designation is not needed and the facility will be unpaved, mountain bikes and horses can share the trail if adequate passing zones are provided, the expected volume of traffic by both groups is low and available sight distances allow equestrians and cyclists to see and anticipate each other. Education of all path users in “trail etiquette” has also proven to be successful on shared paths.

Roadside Obstacles

To make certain that as much of the paved surface as possible is usable, obstructions such as sign posts, light standards, utility poles and other similar appurtenances should be set back with at least a two foot minimum “shy distance” from the curb or pavement edge with exceptions for guard rail placement in certain instances. Three feet or more is desirable. Where there is currently insufficient width of paved surface to accommodate bicycle traffic, any placement of equipment should be set back far enough to allow room for future projects (widening, resurfacing) to bring the pavement width into conformance with these guidelines. Vertical clearance to obstructions should be a minimum of eight feet. Where practical, a vertical clearance of ten feet is desirable (See Section 1003.1 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.)

CA MUTCD Figure 9B-1: Sign placement on shared-use paths

2009 MUTCD Figure 9B-1: Sign placement on shared-use paths to include overhead signage

Final

App-7

Appendices

Class 2 Bike Lane Guidelines

The following are typical guidelines, as well as enhanced treatments for installing bike lanes. Other treatCalifornia MUTCD Page 9C-14 (FHWA’s MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California) ments not listed in these guidelines can be considered on a case-by-case basis when warranted.

Bike Lanes

Description: Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. Installed along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand and where there are distinct needs that can be served by them. In streets with on-street parking, bike lanes are located between the parking area and the traffic lanes.

Figure 9C-6(CA): Bicycle Lane Markings (CA MUTCD)

Design Guidelines: • Five foot minimum width for bike lanes located between the parking area and the traffic lanes. • Four foot minimum width if no gutter exists. With a normal two foot gutter, the minimum bike lane width is five feet. Recommendations: • Bike lanes are not advisable on long, steep downgrades, where bicycle speeds greater than 30 miles per hour are expected. If bike lanes are to be marked, additional width should be provided to accommodate higher bicycle speeds. Chapter 9C – Markings Part 9 - Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities

September 26, 2006

• If parking volume is substantial or turnover high, an additional one to two feet of width is desirable. Sign R81 (CA MUTCD)

Sign R81-A (CA MUTCD)

Sign R81-B (CA MUTCD)

References: Caltrans Chapter 1000, California MUTCD (Revised 2006), MUTCD 2009

Colored Bike Lanes

Description: Color is applied to bike lanes to enhance the visibility of cyclists on the bike lanes themselves. Color can be applied to the entire bike lane or at high-risk locations where motorists are permitted to merge into or cross bike lanes. (Note: This design treatment is not currently present in California state design standards.) Colored bicycle lane at location with high potential for conflict with motor vehicles App-8

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Design Guidelines: • Signage and dimensional guidelines are the same as for standard Class 2 bike lanes • Avoid using blue, which is commonly designated for disabled facilities. Green is becoming the standard color for colored bike lanes. Recommendations: • Provide additional signage with matching color. • Use color and markings consistently. • Consider different coloring materials based on the location of the bike lanes, amount of traffic, road and weather conditions. References: Innovative Bicycle Treatments: An Informational Report ITE Pedestrian and Bicycle Council Portland’s Blue Bike Lanes: Improved Safety through Enhanced Visibility – City of Portland, 1999

Buffered Bike Lanes

Description: Space between the bike lane and traffic lane, parking lane or both. Provides a more protected and comfortable space for cyclists than a conventional bike lane.

Buffered bike lane (San Diego, CA)

Design Guidelines: • Signage and dimensional guidelines are the same as for Class 2 bike lanes. • Provide an additional two to four foot buffer or “shy zone” between the bike lane and traffic or parking lane. Recommendations: • Add diagonal striping on the outer buffer adjacent to the traffic lanes every six feet. • On-street parking remains adjacent to the curb. • A travel lane may need to be eliminated or narrowed to accommodate the buffers. References: City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan Update, City of Los Angeles

Back-in/Head-out Diagonal Parking

Description: Back-in/head-out parking is considered safer than conventional head-in/back-out parking due to better visibility when leaving. This is particularly important on busy streets or where drivers may find their views blocked by large vehicles or the tinted windows of adjacent vehicles when trying to perform head-in/back-out angled parking. Design Guidelines: Based on existing dimensions from test sites and permanent facilities: 16 feet from curb edge to inner bike lane stripe and a five foot bike lane. Back-in/head-out angled parking with bike lane Final

App-9

Appendices

Recommendations: Test the facility on streets with existing head-in angled parking and moderate to high bicycle traffic. Additional signs to inform motorist how the back-in angled parking works are recommended. (Note: This design treatment is not currently present in any state or Federal design standard, but it is now a standard configuration in Seattle, WA.) References: Back-in/Head-out Angle Parking, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, 2005 City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan Update, City of Los Angeles

Class 3 Bike Route Guidelines

The following are typical guidelines for installing bike routes, including enhanced treatments. Other treatments not listed in these guidelines can be considered on a case-by-case basis when warranted.

Class 3 Bike Route

Signing When designating a bicycle route, the placement and spacing of signs should be based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 9: Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities. For bike route signs to be functional, supplemental plaques can be placed beneath them when located along routes leading to high demand destinations (e.g. “To Downtown,” “To Transit Center”). Since bicycle route continuity is important, directional changes should be signed with appropriate arrow sub plaques. Signing should not end at a barrier. Instead, information directing the cyclist around the barrier should be provided. If used, route signs and directional signs should be used frequently because they promote reasonably safe and efficient operations by keeping facility users informed of their location. “BIKE ROUTE” - This sign is intended for use where no unique designation of routes is desired. However, when used alone, this sign conveys very little information. It can be used in connection with supplemental plaques giving destinations and distances. (See Section 1003-3 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and Part 9B-20 of the MUTCD for specific information on sub-plaque options.) Roadways not undesignated for bicycle use usually do not require regulatory, guide or informational signing in excess of what is normally required for motorists. However, in certain situations additional signing may be advisable to advise both motorists and cyclists of the roadway’s shared use status. “SHARE THE ROAD” - This sign is recommended where the following roadway conditions occur: • Shared lanes (especially if lane widths do not comply with Table 1 on Page App-22) with relatively high posted travel speeds of 40 mph or greater • Shared lanes (conforming with Table 1) in areas of limited sight distance • Situations where shared lanes or demarcated shoulders or marked bike lanes are dropped or end and bicycle and motor vehicle traffic must begin to share the travel lane • Steep descending grades where bicycle traffic may be operating at higher speeds and requires additional maneuvering room to shy away from pavement edge conditions • Steep ascending grades, especially where there is no paved shoulder, or the shared lane is not adequately wide and bicycle traffic may require additional maneuvering room to maintain balance at slow operating speeds • High volume urban conditions, especially those with travel lanes less than the recommended width for lane sharing • Other situations where it is determined to be advisable to alert motorists of the likely presence of bicycle traffic and to alert all traffic of the need to share available roadway space App-10

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Typical Class 3 Route Signage (CA MUTCD)

Sign D11-1

Sign W16-1 and W11-1

Sign D1-1b (R)

Sign SG45

Enhanced Class 3 Bike Route

Shared Lane Marking or “Sharrow” Design Criteria The shared lane marking is an additional component of Class 3 routes, but not required. When used, it shall be as shown on the following page and in the photo below. At locations where parking is allowed adjacent to the travel lane, the center of the marking should be located a minimum of 11 feet from the curb face or edge of the road. Design Considerations: Shared lane markings may be considered in the following situations: • On roadways with posted speed limits of 40 mph or less (CA MUTCD) • On constrained roadways too narrow to stripe bicycle lanes • To delineate space within a wide outside lane where cyclists can be expected to ride • On multi-lane roadways where cyclists can be expected to travel within the outside lane and motorists should be prepared to change lanes to pass cyclists • On roadways where it is important to increase Shared lane marking (Oceanside, CA) motorist awareness of cyclists • On roadways where cyclists frequently ride the wrong way • On roadways where cyclists tend to ride too close to parked cars A further Class 3 enhancement is a solid green lane used in conjunction with the shared lane marking. This enhancement is currently being used by the cities of Long Beach and Salt Lake City. (Note: This design treatment is not currently present in any state or Federal design standard.)

Green stripe with shared lane marking Final

App-11

Appendices

Shared Lane Marking Guidelines

The following is the suggested pavement marking for Class 3 bike routes from the California MUTCD.

Figure 9C-104(CA): Shared roadway bicycle marking (CA MUTCD)

App-12

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Cycle Track

Description: A combination between a bike lane and shared use bike path. This facility can be both twoway or one way, depending on existing road conditions, intersections and adjacent land use. The cycle track is a separate facility adjacent to a pedestrian sidewalk and physically protected from an adjacent travel lane. This treatment reduces the risk of conflicts between cyclist and parked vehicles. Design Guidelines: • One way cycle track is typically seven feet minimum. • Two-way cycle track is typically 12 feet minimum. • This facility separates cyclists from the roadway using parked cars, planting strips, bollards, raised medians or a combination of these elements. • Cycle tracks can be placed on slower urban streets or streets with high volumes and speed, but they should be streets with long blocks with little or no driveways or midblock vehicle access points. Recommendations: • Additional signage, traffic control treatments and pavement markings is needed to direct cyclists through the cycle track and intersections. • Priority needs to be on cyclist safety through intersections. References: City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan Update, City of Los Angeles Innovative Bicycle Treatments: An Informational Report - ITE Pedestrian and Bicycle Council

Cycle track (Montreal, Canada)

Final

Cycle track intersection improvements (Montreal, Canada)

App-13

Appendices

Bicycle Boulevard

Bicycle boulevards provide a primary bicycle-friendly route to improve safety and cycling convenience on local streets. Bicycle boulevards are typically used on residential streets parallel to nearby arterial roads on routes with high or potentially high bicycle traffic. A bicycle boulevard roadway is available to motorists, but prioritizes bicycles traffic through the use of various treatments. Motor vehicle traffic volume is reduced by periodically diverting vehicles off the street and the remaining traffic is slowed to the same speed as bicycles. Bicycle boulevards are most effective when several treatments are used in combination. The design features associated with a bicycle boulevard can help to: • Increase feelings of comfort and safety for pedestrians, cyclists and the community as a whole • Increase bicycling and walking • Improve wayfinding • Discourage neighborhood cut-through motor vehicle traffic • Calm and reduce neighborhood traffic • Provide shade for pedestrians and cyclists • Create a pleasant urban corridor through the city Recommendations for bicycle boulevard enhancements include: • Increased directional signage and/or special street sign design at all intersections • Continuous “Bike Boulevard” signage along the street • Increased pavement markings and/or unique pavement markings such as colored bike lanes, Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”) or “Bike Boulevard” pavement legends • Periodically re-routing vehicular traffic off of the street without affecting emergency vehicle response • Limiting stop signs and signals to the greatest extent possible except where they help the cyclist through busy intersections • Altering major intersections with bicycle sensors, crossing actuators, directional signage. Other treatments for intersections can include traffic circles, bulb-outs and high visibility crosswalks • Adding street trees and landscaping • Consistency of route design, amenities and signage throughout the entire bicycle boulevard • Bicycle parking at specific locations along the route The figure on the facing page conceptually depicts how a Bicycle Boulevard can be delineated with a “Bicycle Boulevard” pavement marking. Some optional Class 2 Bike Lane enhancements for a bicycle boulevard include: • Colored bike lanes • Distinct and unique directional signage • Traffic calming (e.g. curb extensions and speed tables) to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety • Traffic control devices for bicycles at major intersections • Street trees and landscaping Some optional Class 3 Bike Route enhancements for a bicycle boulevard include: • Sharrows or “Bike Boulevard” pavement markings • Traffic calming (e.g. curb extensions and speed tables) to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety • Distinct and unique directional signage • Traffic control devices for bicycles at major intersections • Street trees and landscaping App-14

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Bike Boulevard Concept

General guidelines for Bicycle Boulevard signs: • Signs with a distinctive color to distinguish them from other traffic and road signs • Signs made with retro-reflective material for improved visibility • Sign lettering no less than two inches high • Maps of the City’s bicycle system at hubs and near bicycle boulevard intersections • Destination and distance signs placed every quarter mile, prior to signalized intersections and in the block prior to junctions with other bicycle facilities • Bike boulevard identification signs placed at least at every other corner • No obscuring vegetation or other visual impediments Pavement markings If bike lanes are the preferred alternative, they should be installed to meet Caltrans requirements. For further enhancements to the bike lanes, the inside of the lane can be painted green for further visibility. Some cities have used blue bike lanes, but this has since come under scrutiny because the ADA color designation is also blue. As a result, green appears to be becoming the new bikeway color standard.

Final

Bicycle boulevard pavement marking (City of Berkeley, CA.)

App-15

Appendices

Bicycle boulevard pavement markings are car-sized white pavement markings that depict a bicycle, the abbreviation of “BLVD” and a directional arrow. These markings are to be applied directly to the road surface, in the center of the drive lane with a four to six inch wide white paint. Markings should be placed in each direction of traffic following every intersection, near high volume driveways or other potential conflict points and at no more than 200 foot intervals. Where the bicycle boulevard turns or jogs, the arrow should be turned 45 or 90 degrees in the appropriate direction to help aid in wayfinding. Bicycle boulevard pavement markings can also inform motorists and cyclists of the end of the route. When needed, these should be located in the same location as standard pavement markings to provide sufficient advance warning for cyclists to make appropriate decisions prior to the change. Advance warning of the end of a bicycle boulevard can be indicated on the pavement surface with “END” replacing the arrow and a count in feet until the end of the path. These should be placed 500 and 200 feet prior to the end of a bicycle boulevard. The Bicycle Boulevard symbol is not a standard symbol in the California MUTCD. The diagram shown on the previous page is the measurement based on the symbol used for bicycle boulevards in the City of Berkeley, California. These symbols are to be used where bike lanes do not exist. Where on-street parking exists, place the symbol twelve feet from curb face (measured to center of legend). Without on-street parking, place in the center of the travel lane.

Final Design and Facility Selection

Class 2 facilities are usually more suitable in urban settings on roads with high traffic volumes and speeds. Class 3 facilities are often used in urban settings to guide cyclists along alternate or parallel routes that avoid major obstacles, or have more desirable traffic operational factors. In rural settings, Class 2 facilities are not usually necessary to designate preferential use. On higher volume roadways, wide shoulders offer cyclists a safe and comfortable riding area. On low volume roadways, most cyclists prefer the appearance of a narrow, low speed country road. Table 1 (Page App-22) recommends the type of bikeway and pavement width for various traffic conditions. For locations where pavement widths do not meet the criteria listed in the table, the local municipal bicycle authority should be consulted to assist in the decision making process. Where physical obstructions exist that can be removed in the future, the roadway facility should be designed to meet bikeway space allocation requirements and upgraded and designated when the physical constraint is remedied (e.g., bridge is replaced and improved to allow designated facility). The final design should be coordinated with the bicycle coordinator for review and approval prior to construction. The following factors should be considered: • Existing and projected traffic volumes and speeds • Existence of parking (Can parking be restricted or removed to allow better sight distances? Although parallel parking is considered acceptable along streets with bike routes or adjacent to bike lanes, back-out angled parking has been found to conflict with bicycle traffic and should be avoided when planning bike facilities on a roadway. Angled parking next to bike lanes should be coordinated and further studied. Angled back-out parking means that vehicles park with their rear ends into the roadway and is impossible to determine where the parking lane ends and the bike lane would begin. Ad-

App-16

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

ditionally, back-out diagonal parking requires a person leaving a parking space to back out into traffic, often without a good view of oncoming cyclists and vehicles. Back-in angled parking can be an option where vehicles back into the angled parking. Back-in angled parking provides better visibility when leaving and is particularly important on busy streets where drivers find their views block by large vehicles, or tinted windows on adjacent parked vehicle. See Page App-9.) • Excessive intersection conflict points (Can intersection conflict points be reduced along roadways?) • Turn lanes at intersections that can be designed to allow space for cyclists • Sections with insufficient sight distance or roadway geometrics • Traffic operations changed or “calmed” to allow space and increased safety for cyclists

Traffic Control Devices

As legitimate users of California’s roadways, cyclists are subject to essentially the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. In order for cyclists to properly obey traffic control devices, those devices must be selected and installed to take their needs into account. All traffic control devices should be placed so cyclists properly positioned on the road can observe them. This includes programmed visibility signal heads.

Traffic Signals and Detectors

Traffic-actuated signals should accommodate bicycle traffic. Detectors for traffic-activated signals should be sensitive to bicycles, should be located in the cyclist’s expected path and stenciling should direct the cyclist to the point where the bicycle will be detected. Since detectors can fail, added redundancy in the event of failure is recommended in the form of pedestrian push buttons at all signalized intersections. These buttons should be mounted in a location that permits their activation by a cyclist without having to dismount. It is common for bicycles to be made of so little ferrous metals that they may not be easily detectable by some currently installed types of loop detectors. As a convenience for cyclists, the strongest loop detection point should be marked with a standard symbol. Where left turn lanes are provided and only protected left turns are allowed, bicycle-sensitive loop detectors should be installed in the left turn lane. Where moderate or heavy volumes of bicycle traffic exist, or are anticipated, bicycles should be considered in the timing of the traffic signal cycle, as well as in the selection and placement of the traffic detector device. In such cases, short clearance intervals should not be used where cyclists must cross multi lane streets. According to the 1991 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, a bicycle speed of 10 mph and a perception/reaction time of 2.5 seconds can be used to check the clearance interval. Where necessary, such as for particularly wide roadways, an all red clearance interval can be used. Protected left turns are preferred over unprotected left turns. In addition, traffic signal-controlled left turns are much safer for cyclists than left turns at which motorists and cyclists must simply yield. This is because motor vehicle drivers, when approaching an unprotected left turn situation or planning to turn left at a yield sign, tend to watch for other motor vehicles and may not see an approaching cyclist. More positive control of left turns gives cyclists an added margin of safety where they need it most.

Final

App-17

Appendices

Quadrupole Loop • Detects most strongly in center • Sharp cut-off of sensitivity • Used in bike lanes Diagonal Quadrupole Loop • Sensitive over whole area • Sharp cut-off of sensitivity • Used in shared lanes Standard Loop • Detects strongest over wires • Gradual cut-off • Used in advanced detection Figure 9C-7 (CA MUTCD) Bicycle Detector Symbol

Video Detection

Video detection can pick up a cyclist’s presence at an intersection over a larger area. A video detection setup consists of a video detector, usually mounted on a riser or mainline pole and a computer with video image processing capability. Existing video detectors have a flexible detector layout allowing for fairly easy reprogramming of detection zones. Video detection technology has advanced to detect bikes with the same accuracy as loop detectors. Some advantages to video detection include adjusting signal timing, once activated, to allow cyclists sufficient time to cross the intersection. This treatment enhances safety for this mode of transportation. Cameras can detect bicycles that do not contain iron, unlike some loop detectors, and in some cases can detect pedestrians fairly well. Video detection is also not affected by street repair work and can be used to help direct traffic during construction. Bicycle Signals Bicycle signals are typically used at intersections with heavy bicycle traffic in conjunction with high peak vehicle traffic volumes, high conflict intersections or at the connections of shared use bike lanes and busy roads. These signals separate conflicting movements between pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists. Bicycle signals also provide priority movement for cyclists at intersections and alternates rights of way between the different road users. A bicycle signal is an electrically powered traffic control device that may only be used in combination with an existing traffic signal. Bicycle signals direct cyclists to take specific actions and may be used to improve an identified safety or operational problem involving bicycles. Only green, yellow and red lighted bicycle symbols are to be used to implement bicycle movement at a signalized intersection. The application of bicycle signals shall be implemented only at locations that meet Department of Transportation Bicycle signal warrants. Bicycle movement have its own signal phase.

App-18

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Recommended loop detector locations (CA MUTCD)

Final

App-19

Appendices

Guidance: Alternative means of handling conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles should be considered first. Two alternatives that should be considered are: 1. Striping to direct cyclists to a lane adjacent to a traffic lane, such as a bike lane to the left of a rightturn-only lane 2. Redesigning the intersection to direct cyclists from an off-street path to a bicycle lane at a point removed from the signalized intersection A bicycle signal must meet specified warrants before being considered for installation according to the following formula or either of the other two criteria below: 1. Volume: When W = B x V and W > 50,000 and B < 50. Where:

W is the volume warrant B is the number of bicycles at the peak hour entering the intersection V is the number of vehicles at the peak hour entering the intersection (B and V shall use the same peak hour.)

2. Collision: When two or more bicycle/vehicle collisions of types susceptible to correction by a bicycle signal have occurred over a 12 month period and the responsible public works official determines that a bicycle signal will reduce the number of collisions. 3. Geometric: (a) Where a separate bicycle/multi-use path intersects a roadway. (b) At other locations to facilitate a bicycle movement not permitted for a motor vehicle.

Bicycle signals (Tucson, AZ)

App-20

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Design Considerations Locating Bicycle Facilities on Roadways

The appropriateness of a bicycle facility is influenced by a number of factors classified into the following categories: Land Use and Location Factors These factors represent the most significant category affecting compatibility. Since bicycle trips are generally shorter than motor vehicle or public transit trips, there must be a manageable distance between origins and destinations, such as between residential areas and places of employment. There are certain key land uses especially likely to generate bicycle traffic if good bicycle facilities are available. These consist of, but are not limited to, transit centers, schools, employment centers with nearby residential areas, recreation areas and mixed use areas. Physical Constraint Factors These consist of roadway geometric or physical obstacles to bicycling difficult or costly to remedy. For example, a roadway may be appropriate because of location factors, but not appropriate because of the existence of physical constraints to bicycling such as a narrow bridge, insufficient right-of-way or intersections with restricted lane widths resulting from lane channelization. The feasibility of correcting these physical constraints must be weighed in designating bikeways. Traffic Operations Factors These include traffic volume, speed, the number of curb cuts or conflict points along the roadway, sight distance and bicycle-sensitive traffic control devices. Experienced cyclists will use roadways even if they have limiting traffic operational factors, but less confident cyclists will perceive such roadways as unsafe and intimidating. These roadway facilities should be designed or improved to accommodate cyclists. However, they are likely to be inappropriate for full designation as bikeways. Other safety issues such as maintenance and pavement repair are also important considerations in the designation of bikeways, but do not directly affect the planning aspects of appropriate facilities.

Class 3 Pavement Width

At a minimum, all roadway projects shall provide sufficient width of smoothly paved surface to permit the shared use of the roadway by bicycles and motor vehicles. Table 1 on the following page is based on the FHWA publication, Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles. Pavement widths represent minimum design treatments for accommodating bicycle traffic. These widths are based on providing sufficient pavement for shared use by bicycle and motor vehicle traffic and should be used on roadway projects as minimum guidelines for bicycle compatible roads. Note that these recommendations do not supersede current City roadway standards and they apply to Class 3 routes only. Considerations in the selection of pavement width include traffic volume, speed, sight distance, number of large vehicles (such as trucks) and grade. The dimensions given in Table 1 for shared lanes are exclusive of the added width for parking, which is assumed to be eight feet. On shared lanes with parking, the lane width can be reduced if parking occurs only intermittently. On travel lanes where curbs are present, an additional one foot is necessary. Final

App-21

Appendices

Table 1: Recommended Lane Widths

On very low volume roadways with average daily trips (ADTs) of less than 1,200, even relatively high speed roads pose little risk for cyclists since there will be high probability that an overtaking motor vehicle will be able to widely pass a bicycle. When an overtaking car is unable to immediately pass a bicycle, only a small delay for the motorist is likely. Both cyclists and motorists jointly use these types of roadways in a safe manner and widening of these roads is not usually recommended. Costs of providing widening of these roads can seldom be justified based on either capacity or safety. Similarly, moderately low volume roadways with ADTs between 1,200 and 2,000 generally are compatible for bicycle use and will have little need for widening. However, since there is a greater chance of two opposing cars meeting at the same time as they must pass a cyclist, providing some room at the outside of the outer travel lane is desirable on higher speed roadways. On low speed roadways, motorists should be willing to accept some minimal delay. With ADTs from 2,000 to 10,000, the probability becomes substantially greater that a vehicle overtaking a bicycle may also meet another oncoming vehicle. As a result, on these roads, some room at the edge of the roadway should be provided for cyclists. This additional width should be two to three feet added to a typical 10 foot outer travel lane. At low speeds, such as below 25 mph, little separation is needed for both a cyclist and a motorist to feel comfortable during a passing maneuver. With higher speeds, more room is needed.

App-22

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

At volumes greater than 10,000 ADTs, vehicle traffic in the curb lane becomes almost continuous, especially during peak periods. As a result, cyclists on these roadways require separate space to safely ride, such as a Class 2 facility. In addition, improvements to the roadway edge and the shoulder area will be valuable for motorists as well. Caltrans guidelines for highways recommend that a full eight foot paved shoulder be provided for state highways. On highways having ADTs greater than 20,000 vehicles per day, or on which more than five percent of the traffic volume consists of trucks, every effort should be made to provide such a shoulder for the benefit of cyclists, to enhance the safety of motor vehicle movements and to provide â&#x20AC;&#x153;break downâ&#x20AC;? space, as well as a Class 2 facility. Otherwise, the highway should probably not be designated as a bicycle facility.

Sight Distance

Roadways with adequate sight distance will allow a motorist to see, recognize, decide on the proper maneuver and initiate actions to avoid a cyclist. Adequate decision sight distance is most important on high speed highways and narrow roadways where a motorist would have to maneuver out of the travel lane to pass a cyclist. The pavement widths given in Table 1 are based on the assumption that adequate sight distance is available. In situations where there is not adequate sight distance, provision of additional width may be necessary.

Truck Traffic

Roadways with high volumes of trucks and large vehicles, such as recreational vehicles, need additional space to minimize cyclist/motorist conflicts on roadways. Additional width allows trucks to overtake cyclists with less maneuvering and the cyclists will experience less lateral force from passing truck drafts. This additional width will also provide greater sight distance for following vehicles. Although there is no established threshold, additional space should be considered when truck volumes exceed five percent of the traffic mix, or on roadways that serve campgrounds, or where a high level of tourist travel is expected using large recreational vehicles. Where truck volumes exceed 15 percent of the total traffic mix, widths shown on Table 1 should be increased by one foot minimum.

Steep Grades

Steep grades influence overtaking of cyclists by motorists. Inexperienced cyclists climbing steep grades are often unsteady (wobbly) and may need additional width. Also, the difference in speed between a slow, climbing cyclist and a motor vehicle results in less time for the driver to react and maneuver around a cyclist. Motor vehicle slowing on a steep grade to pass a cyclist can result in a diminished level of service.

Unavoidable Obstacles

Short segments of roadways with multiple unavoidable obstacles that result in inadequate roadway width are acceptable on bicycle compatible roadways if mitigated with signing or striping. Typical examples include bridges with narrow widths and sections of roadway that cannot be widened without removing significant street trees. These conditions preferably should not exist for more than a quarter of a mile, or on high speed highways. Warning striping should be installed to shift traffic away from the obstacle and allow for a protected buffer for bicycle travel.

Final

App-23

Appendices

In situations where a specific obstacle such as a bridge abutment cannot be avoided, a pavement marking consisting of a single six inch white line starting 20 feet before and offset from the obstacle can also be used to alert cyclists that the travel lane width will soon narrow ahead. (See Section 1003.6 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual for specific instructions.) In either situation, where bicycle traffic is anticipated, a “SHARE THE ROAD” sign should be used to supplement the warning striping. On longer irrevocably narrow sections of roadway, edge striping should be employed to narrow the travel lane and apportion pavement space for a partial shoulder. In situations where even these measures may not provide adequate roadway space for cyclists, it is recommended that an alternate route be designated.

Pavement Design

Though wider tires are now very common and bicycle suspension systems are becoming increasingly prevalent, bicycles still require a riding surface without significant obstacles or pavement defects because they are much more susceptible to surface irregularities than are motor vehicles. Asphalt is preferred over concrete where shoulders are employed. The outside pavement area where bicycles normally operate should be free of longitudinal seams. Where transverse expansion joints are necessary on concrete, they should be saw cut to ensure a smooth transition. In areas where asphalt shoulders are added to existing pavement, or where pavement is widened, pavement should be saw cut to produce a tight longitudinal joint to minimize wear and expansion of the joint.

Raised Roadway Markers

Raised roadway markers such as reflectors or rumble strips should not be used on roadway edges where bicycles are most likely to operate because they create a surface irregularity that can be hazardous to bicycle stability. Painted stripes or flexible reflective tabs are preferred. In no case should strips of raised reflectors intended to warn motorists to reduce vehicle speeds prior to intersections be allowed to cross through the bicycle travel lane.

Pavement Painting and Striping

Although adding pavement legends to indicate a bike lane or path is recommended, the colorization of the bike lane pavement with paint to indicate non vehicular use is recommended in certain situations to further delineate bicycle facilities from the vehicular lane. Certain paint materials have greater degrees of glossiness that can contribute to the slippery nature of their surface. As an alternative to painting, dye treated colored asphalt or stained concrete overlays have equivalent friction levels and can be used if the selected colors do not interfere with the pavement striping legibility or conflict with MUTCD intentions.

Utilities

Because bicycles are much more sensitive to pavement irregularities than motor vehicles, utility covers should be adjusted as a normal function of any pavement resurfacing or construction operations. Failure to do so can result in the utility cover being sunken below the paving surface level, which creates a hazard experienced cyclists refer to as “black holes.” Also, it is common practice to excavate trenches for new utilities at road edges, the same location as bicycle facilities. When such trenching is completed, care should be given to replacing the full surface of the bicycle lane from the road edge to the vehicle travel lane instead of narrow strips that tend to settle or bubble, causing longitudinal obstructions. Replacement of the bike lane striping should also be required.

App-24

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Drainage Facilities

Storm water drainage facilities and structures are usually located along the edge of roadways where they can create hazards for cyclists. Careful consideration should be given to the location and design of drainage facilities on roadways with bicycle facilities. All drainage grate inlets pose some hazard to bicycle traffic. The greatest hazard comes from stream flow drainage grates that can trap the front wheel of a bicycle and cause the cyclist to lose steering control, or allow narrow bicycle wheels to drop into the grate. Another type of hazard may be caused by cyclists swerving into the lane of traffic to avoid a grate or cover. Riding across any wet metal surface increases the chances of a sudden slip and fall. Only a “bicycle safe” drainage grate with acceptable hydraulic characteristics should be used. The inlet grate should be used in all normal applications and should be installed flush with the final pavement. Where additional drainage inlet capacity is required because of excessive gutter flow or grade (greater than two percent), double inlets should be considered. Depressed grates and stream flow grates should not be used except in unique or unusual situations that require their use and only outside the lane sharing area. Where necessary, depressed grates should only be installed on shoulders six feet wide or greater. Where projects offer the possibility for replacement of stream flow grates located in the lane sharing area, these grates should be replaced with the “bicycle safe” grate. When roads or intersections are widened, new bicycle safe drainage grates should be installed at a proper location at the outside of the roadway. Existing grates and inlet boxes should be removed and the roadway reconstructed. Drainage grate extensions, the installation of steel or iron cover plates or other “quick fix” methods that allow for the retention of the subsurface drain inlet are unacceptable measures since they will create a safety hazard in the portion of the roadway where cyclists operate. Manholes and covers should be located outside of the lane sharing area wherever possible. Utility fixtures located within the lane sharing area, or any travel lane used by bicycle traffic, should be eliminated or relocated. Where these fixtures cannot be avoided, the utility fixture cover should be made flush with the pavement surface.

Combination Curb and Gutter

These types of curbs reduce space available for cyclists. The width of the gutter pan should not be used when calculating the width of pavement necessary for shared use by cyclist. Caltrans includes the gutter as part of its calculations of bike lane widths and uses a larger minimum width when adjacent to vertical curbs and parking. See Figure 1003.2A of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000. Although acceptable, this is not ideal. On steep grades, the gutter should be set back an additional one foot to allow space to avoid crashes caused by the longitudinal joint between the gutter pan and pavement. Where the combination curb and gutter is used, pavement width should be calculated by adding one foot from the curbed gutter.

Bridges

Bridges provide essential crossings over obstacles such as rivers, rail lines and high speed roadways, but they have been almost universally constructed for the expedience of motor vehicle traffic and often have features not desirable for cycling. Among these features are widths narrower than the approach roadways (which are especially troublesome when combined with relatively steep approach grades), low railings or parapets, high curbs and expansion joints that can cause steering problems.

Final

App-25

Appendices

Though sidewalks are generally not recommended for cycling, there are limited situations such as on long or narrow bridges where designation of the sidewalk as an alternate bikeway facility can be beneficial to cycling, especially when compared to riding in the narrow bridge roadway. This is only recommended where the appropriate curb cuts, ramps and signage can also be included. Using the bridge sidewalk as a bikeway facility is especially useful where pedestrian use is expected to be minimal. Appropriate signage directed to all potential users should be installed so that they will be aware of the shared use situation. Bridge railings or barrier curb parapets where bicycle use is anticipated should be a minimum of 4.5 feet high. Short of wholesale replacement of existing narrow bridges over rail lines and highways, there are a few measures to substantially improve safety for cyclists. Signage warning motorists of both the presence of cyclists and the minimal bridge width should be installed at the bridge approaches. Warning stripe areas should be painted along high curbs to deter cyclists from riding too close to them, which can result in a pedal striking these high curbs, causing a crash. This situation is of particular concern since less experienced cyclists will probably want to stay as far to the right as possible to avoid passing motor vehicles traffic, even though riding far to the right increases the chances of hitting the high curb. Though the first alternative mentioned above, bridge replacement, is the preferred alternative for bridges that are too narrow, it is the least likely to occur due to cost. A second alternative is to direct cyclists to alternate, safer routes, but this will not always be practical since highway and rail crossing points are usually limited in number and considerable distances apart. In any case, these other crossing points may well have similar width restrictions. A third alternative is to build separate bridges for cyclist and pedestrian use. Where access warrants a workable solution, this could be a cost-effective long-term solution compared to rebuilding a motor vehicle bridge. This additional bridges could be built adjacent to the motor vehicle bridge, or be installed well away from it, depending upon where best to conveniently accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. An advantage to constructing the bridges away from motor vehicle bridges is that only one bridge would be needed since building bicycle/pedestrian bridges immediately adjacent to existing motor vehicle bridges would require constructing two spans, one on each side of the roadway, for optimum user safety. If sidewalk widths are sufficient, directing cyclists to use the sidewalks and installing ramps at the bridge ends is a possible solution. In general, sidewalks are not recommended as a cycling venue, but in cases where narrow bridges are not expected to be rebuilt for an extended period of time, this may be a reasonable alternative. If possible, a railing should be installed between the roadway and the sidewalk. Finally, it should be noted that all the other alternatives are inherently inferior to the first alternative of rebuilding narrow bridges in terms of safety and should only be considered where the first alternative cannot be implemented.

Intersections and Driveways

High speed, wide radius intersection designs with free rights turns, multiple right turn lanes and wide radius turns increase traffic throughput for motor vehicles by minimizing speed differentials between entering and exiting vehicles and through vehicles. However, these designs are dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians) by design since they exacerbate speed differential problems faced by cyclists traveling along the right side of a roadway and encourage drivers to fail to yield the right-of-way to cyclists. As a result, Caltrans District 11 (San Diego County area) no longer allows such wide radius free right turns at interchanges.

App-26

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Where they already exist, specific measures should be employed to ensure that the movement of cyclists along the roadway will be visible to motorists and to provide cyclists with a safe area to operate to the left of these wide radius right turn lanes. One method to accomplish this is to stripe a bicycle lane through the intersection, or even to paint a solid bike lane (See Page App-8). Also, “SHARE THE ROAD” signs should be posted in advance of the intersection to alert existing traffic. In general, however, curb radii should be limited to short distances, which helps to communicate to the motorist that he or she must yield the right-of-way to cyclists and to pedestrians walking along the sidewalk or roadway edge approaching the intersection. Even so, wherever possible, such intersection conditions should be eliminated. Reconstruction of intersections to accomplish this is a legitimate use of bicycle program funds. Sand, gravel and other debris in the cyclist’s path present potential hazards. To minimize the possibility of debris from being drawn onto the pavement surface from unpaved intersecting streets and driveways, during new construction, reconstruction and resurfacing, all unimproved intersecting streets and driveways should be paved back to the right-of-way line or a distance of 10 feet. Where curb cuts permit access to roadways from abutting unpaved parking lots, a paved apron should be paved back to the right-of-way line, preferably 10 feet from the curb line. These practices will decrease the need for maintenance debris removal. The placement of the paved apron should be the responsibility of those requesting permits for access via curb cuts from driveways and parking lots onto the roadway system.

Railroad Crossings

As with other surface irregularities, railroad grade crossings are a potential hazard to bicycle traffic. To minimize this hazard, railroad grade crossings should, ideally, be at a right angle to the rails. This minimizes the possibility of a cyclist’s wheels being trapped in the rail flangeway, causing loss of control. Where this is not feasible, the shoulder (or wide outside lane) should be widened, or “bumped out” to permit cyclists to cross at right angles. (See Section 1003.6 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.) It is important that the railroad grade crossing be as smooth as possible and that pavement surfaces adjacent to the rail be at the same elevation as the rail. Pavement should be maintained so that ridge buildup does not occur next to the rails. Options to provide a smooth grade crossing include removal of abandoned tracks, use of compressible flangeway fillers, timber plank crossings or rubber grade crossing systems. These improvements should be included in any applicable project.

Access Control

Frequent access driveways, especially commercial access driveways, tend to convert the right lane of a roadway and its shoulder area into an extended auxiliary acceleration and deceleration lane. Frequent turning movements, merging movements and vehicle occupancy of the shoulder can severely limit the ability of cyclists to utilize the roadway and are the primary causes of motor vehicle-bicycle collisions. As a result, access control measures should be employed to minimize the number of entrances and exits onto roadways. For driveways having a wide curb radius, consideration should be given to marking a bicycle lane through the driveway intersection areas. As with other types of street intersections, driveways should be designed with sufficiently tight curb radii to clearly communicate to motorists that they must fully stop and then yield the right-of-way to cyclists and pedestrians on the roadway.

Final

App-27

Appendices

Traffic Calming

There exist roadway conditions in practically all communities where controlling traffic movements and reducing motor vehicle speeds is a worthwhile way to create a safer and less stressful environment for the benefit of non-motorized users such as pedestrians and cyclists. These controlling measures are referred to as traffic calming. These measures are also intended to mitigate vehicular traffic impacts such as noise, crashes and air pollution, but the primary link between traffic calming and bicycle planning is the relationship between motor vehicle speed and the severity of crashes. Studies have shown that instituting traffic calming techniques significantly decreases the number of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in crashes involving motor vehicles, as well as the level of injuries and air pollution, without decreasing traffic volume.

Stop Signs/Yield Signs

The installation of stop signs is a common traffic calming device intended to discourage vehicular through traffic by making the route slower for motorists. However, stop signs are not speed control devices, but rather right-of-way control devices. They do not slow the moving speed of motor vehicles and compliance by cyclists is very low. Requiring motor vehicles to stop excessively also contributes to air pollution. Cyclists are even more inconvenienced by stop signs than motorists because unnecessary stopping requires them to repeatedly re-establish forward momentum. The use of stop signs as a traffic management tool is not generally recommended unless a bicycle route must intersect streets with high motor vehicle traffic volumes. Controlled intersections generally facilitate bicycle use and improve safety while stop signs tend to facilitate bicycle movement across streets with heavy motor vehicular traffic. An alternative to stop signs may be to use yield signs or other traffic calming devices as methods to increase motorist awareness of crossing cyclists.

Speed Bumps and Tables

Though many cities are no longer installing speed bumps, they have been shown to slow motor vehicle traffic speeds and reduce volume. If speed bumps are employed as a traffic management tool, a sufficiently wide gap must be provided to allow unimpeded bicycle travel around the end of the bump to prevent safety hazards for cyclists. Standard advance warning signs and markers must be installed as well.

Partial Traffic Diverters

These traffic calming devices include roundabouts and chicanes, both of which force traffic to follow a curved path that had formerly been straight. They are usually employed in areas of traditional grid street configuration. These devices can actually increase traffic hazards if they are not substantial enough to decrease motor vehicle speeds, or if appropriate side street access points are not controlled.

Urban Access Pathways

Conflicts between different user types on multiple use routes occur primarily on heavily used recreational paths, or near major pedestrian trip generators. Lightly used neighborhood pathways and community trails can be safely shared by a variety of user types. Construction of urban access pathways between adjoining residential developments, schools, neighborhoods and surrounding streets can substantially expand the circulation opportunities for both pedestrians and cyclists. However, bicycle use of urban access pathways should not include sidewalks adjacent to streets for a number of reasons. First, sidewalks are designed for pedestrian speeds and maneuverability. Second, they are usually encumbered by parking meters, utility poles, benches, trees, etc. Third, other types of users

App-28

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

and their specific types of maneuverability can also pose a safety issue for cyclists. Finally, intersections and crosswalks pose increased risk of bicycle/car collisions, especially when cyclists on sidewalks are on the wrong side of the roadway (facing motorists). Though sidewalks are, in general, not conducive to safe cycling, an exception is young children. This type of bicycle use is generally acceptable because it provides young children who do not yet have the judgment or skill to ride in the street an opportunity to develop their riding skills. Sidewalks in residential areas generally have low pedestrian volumes and are usually accepted as play areas for children. Finally, one other exception to sidewalk use by cyclists should be allowed. This is where the walkway is at least eight feet wide and well away from streets, such as within parks. In such cases, bicycle use on walkways can occur safely.

Permeable Pavement for Class 1 Bike Paths

Traditional impervious surfaces such as asphalt and concrete can be damaging to the local environment. Stormwater runoff collects dirt and debris and even oil from the asphalt itself and washes them into the streams, lakes and oceans. Stormwater runoff is the leading source of non point-source pollutants entering our waterways. This stormwater runoff does not get treated, but instead is directly transported into the local water system. An alternative to an impervious surface for bike paths is a porous pavement such as pervious concrete or asphalt. Pervious pavement assists water filtration into the soil by capturing rainwater in a network of voids and allowing it to percolate into the underlying soil. This material is a carefully controlled mix of water and cementing material used to create a paste that forms a thick coating around aggregate particles. A pervious pavement mixture contains little or no sand that would otherwise fill voids. Using this paste to coat and bind the aggregate particles together creates a system of highly permeable, interconnected voids that drains quickly by allowing rainwater to seep into the ground. Porous pavement is instrumental in recharging groundwater, reducing stormwater runoff and meeting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stormwater regulations. By capturing the first flow of rainfall and allowing it to percolate into the ground, soil chemistry and biology can then filter the polluted water naturally, allowing stormwater retention areas to be reduced or eliminated. In some cases, pervious pavements can double as water retention structures, reducing or eliminating the need for traditional stormwater management systems such as retention ponds and sewer tie-ins. Furthermore, by collecting rainfall and allowing it to infiltrate, groundwater and aquifer recharge is increased, peak water flow through drainage channels is reduced and flooding is minimized. In fact, EPA named pervious pavements as a best management practice (BMP) for stormwater pollution prevention because they allow surface runoff to percolate into the soil. Porous pavement is especially ideal for sections of path that cannot be drained or are subject to stream or river erosion because it has a unique surface texture. It is made up primarily of angular aggregates such as gravel and crushed stone and the exposed coarse aggregates provide enhanced traction for maintenance vehicles and bicycles that can prevent hazards such as hydroplaning. The textured surface is especially beneficial during the most difficult and dangerous of riding conditions, such as during rain events, since water is not allowed to remain on the surface and flood. However, some cyclists may find such pavement to be unacceptably rough. If desired, these surfaces can be honed smooth.

Final

App-29

Appendices

Additional Recommendations Maintenance Priorities

Bikeway maintenance is easily overlooked. The paving and surface maintenance schedule of bicycle facilities should be increased to the levels of arterial roads to ensure a safe, comfortable surface for bicycling. The “sweeping” effect of passing motor vehicle traffic readily pushes debris such as litter and broken glass toward the roadway edges where it can accumulate within an adjoining bicycle facility. Since the potential for loss of control can exist due to a blowout caused by broken glass, or through swerving to avoid other debris, proper maintenance is directly related to safety. For this reason, street sweeping must be a priority on roadways with bike facilities, especially in the curb lanes and along the curbs themselves. The police department could assist by requiring towing companies to fully clean up crash scene debris, or face a fine. This would prevent glass and debris from being left in place after a motor vehicle crash, or simply swept to the curb or shoulder area. A suggested minimum monthly sweeping schedule is recommended for heavily used Class 1 and 2 facilities and twice a year where use is light. Class 3 facilities should be swept at least twice a year.

Bikeway Reconstruction after Construction

Since roadways with designated bicycle facilities carry the largest volumes of users, their reconstruction should be of particular concern. Unfortunately, bicycle facilities are often installed piecemeal and users can find themselves facing construction detours and poor integration of facilities where facilities begin and end. Bicycles facilities also sometimes seem to “disappear” after roadway construction occurs. This can happen incrementally as paving repairs are made over time and are not followed by proper bikeway restriping. When combined with poor surface reconstruction following long periods out of service due to road work, this can result in the eventual loss of affected bikeway facilities and decrease the number of cyclists regularly using the facilities. Adjacent construction projects that require the demolition and rebuilding of roadway surfaces can cause problems in maintaining and restoring bikeway function. Construction activities controlled through the issuance of permits, especially driveway, drainage, utility, or street opening permits, can have an important effect on the quality of a roadway surface where cyclists operate. Such construction can create hazards such as mismatched pavement heights, rough surfaces or longitudinal gaps in adjoining pavements. Permit conditions should ensure that pavement foundation and surface treatments are restored to their pre-construction conditions, that no vertical irregularities will result and that no longitudinal cracks will develop. Stricter specifications, standards and inspections designed to prevent these problems should be developed, as well as more effective control of construction activities wherever bikeways must be temporarily demolished. A five year bond should be held to assure correction of any deterioration that may occur as a result of faulty roadway surface reconstruction. Spot widening associated with new access driveways frequently results in the relocation of drainage grates. Any such relocation should be designed to permanently close the old drainage structure and restore the roadway surface. New drainage structures should be selected and located to comply with drainage provisions established in these guidelines. App-30

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Marginal Improvements and Retrofitting Existing Roadways

There may be instances or locations where it is not feasible to fully implement guidelines pertaining to the provision of adequate pavement space for shared use due to environmental constraints or unavoidable obstacles. In such cases, warning signs and/or pavement striping must be employed to alert cyclists and motorists of the obstruction, alert motorists and cyclist of the need to share available pavement space, identify alternate routes (if they exist), or otherwise mitigate the obstruction. On stretches of roadway where it is not possible to provide recommended shoulder or lane widths to accommodate shared use, bicycle traffic conditions can be improved by: • Striping wider outside lanes and narrower interior lanes • Providing a limited paved shoulder area by striping a narrow travel lane. This tends to slow motor vehicle operating speeds and establish a space (with attendant psychological benefits) for cyclists. Where narrow bridges create a constriction, striping should be used to shift traffic away from the parapet and provide space for bicycle traffic. Other possible strategies include: • Elimination of parking or restricting it to one side of the roadway • Reduction of travel lanes from two in each direction to one in each direction, plus a center turn lane and shoulders • Reduction of the number of travel lanes in each direction and the inclusion or establishment of paved shoulders

Final

App-31

Appendices

Bicycle Parking Facilities

Whenever possible, the racks should be placed within 50 feet of building entrances where cyclists would naturally transition to pedestrian mode. The rack placement would ideally allow for visual monitoring by people within the building and/or people entering the building. The placement of the racks should minimize conflicts with both pedestrians and motorized traffic. All bicycle parking should be on paving and located a minimum of two feet from a parallel wall, and four feet from a perpendicular wall (as measured to the closest center of the rack). Like most American municipalities, no real facility inventory is available for the City. However, there are bicycle parking facilities at the larger retail centers, community centers and some parks and other City facilities, as well as the bike lockers at the transit centers. To help achieve parity with drivers, the City could codify by ordinance or develop a program to provide bike racks in existing commercial areas and in new or existing multi-family development designed without private garages. These programs should include bike rack design and installation standards such as those in the following sections. The Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recently enacted green building code includes bike parking provisions: 5.106.4 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. 5.106.4.1 Short-Term bicycle parking. If the project is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 100 feet of the visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack. 5.106.4.2 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:

1. Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; 2. Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; and 3. Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers.

Typical bike rack dimensions

App-32

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Bicycle rack dimensions for installations parallel to curb

Bicycle rack dimensions for installations perpendicular to curb

Final

App-33

Appendices

The City could give these guidelines the status of a full ordinance or implement a minimum bicycle parking ordinance like that of the City of Encinitas (EMC 30.54.030.C) that defines bicycle parking facilities as “...stationary racks or devices designed to secure the frame and wheel of the bicycle.” The ordinance lists the following provisions: • Buildings housing administrative/professional office space, shopping centers and other commercial uses of less than 20,000 square feet of floor area must provide a minimum of three bicycle parking spaces. Facilities with more than 20,000 square feet must supply a minimum of five spaces. • Shopping centers with over 50,000 square feet of gross floor area must supply one bicycle parking space for every 33 required automobile spaces. • Restaurants of less than 6,000 square feet of floor area must provide two spaces and restaurants with more than 6,000 square feet must provide five spaces. • Recreation facilities must provide one bicycle space per 33 required automobile parking spaces. • Hospitals and churches must provide eight bicycle spaces.

Bicycle rack dimensions for installations adjacent to walls

Custom bicycle rack (Oceanside, CA) App-34

Custom bicycle rack (San Diego, CA)

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

The City should continue to encourage the use of alternate forms of transportation by also requiring, along with parking, the provision of shower facilities for employers with greater than a specified number of employees. The following paragraphs and graphics focus on outdoor installations using racks intended to accommodate conventional, upright, single-rider bicycles and a solid, U-shaped lock, or a cable lock, or both.

Rack Element

The rack element is the part of the bike rack that supports one bicycle. It should support the bicycle by its frame in two places, prevent the front wheel from tipping over, allow the frame and one or both wheels to be secured and support bicycles with unconventional frames. “Inverted U” type racks are most recommended because each element can support two bicycles. Commonly used “wave” type racks are not recommended because they support the bicycle at only one point. Also, cyclists often park their bikes parallel with such racks, instead of perpendicular as intended, which reduces the rack capacity by half. The rack element must resist being cut or detached using common hand tools, especially those that can be concealed in a backpack. Such tools include bolt cutters, pipe cutters, wrenches and pry bars. Square tubing is highly recommended.

Bicycle rack dimensions for installations to serve large areas

Final

App-35

Appendices

Rack

The rack itself is one or more rack elements joined on a common base or arranged in a regular array and fastened to a common mounting surface. The rack elements may be attached to a single framework or remain single elements mounted in close proximity. They should not be easily detachable from the rack framework or easily removed from the mounting surface. The rack should be anchored so that it cannot be stolen with the bikes attached, such as with vandal-resistant fasteners. The rack should provide easy, independent bike access. Typical inverted â&#x20AC;&#x153;Uâ&#x20AC;? rack elements mounted in a row should be placed on 30â&#x20AC;? centers. Normally, the handlebar and seat heights will allow two bicycles to line up side by side in opposite directions. If it is too inconvenient and time-consuming to squeeze the bicycles into the space and attach a lock, cyclists will look for alternative places to park or use one rack element per bicycle and reduce the projected parking capacity by half.

Rack Area

The rack area is a bicycle parking lot where multiple racks are separated by aisles. The distance between aisles is measured from tip to tip of bicycle tires across the space between racks. The minimum separation between aisles should be 48 inches, which provides enough space for one person to walk one bicycle. In high traffic areas where many users park or retrieve bicycles at the same time, such as at college campuses, the recommended aisle width is 72 inches. The depth of each row of parked bicycles should also be 72 inches. Large rack areas in high turnover areas should have more than one entrance. If possible, the rack area should be protected from the elements. Even though cyclists are exposed to sun, rain and snow while en route, covering the rack area keeps cyclists more comfortable while parking, locking their bicycles and loading or unloading cargo. A covering will also help keep bicycles dry, especially the saddles.

Rack Area Site

The rack area site is the relationship of a rack area to the building entrance or approach. In general, smaller, conveniently located rack areas should serve multiple buildings, rather than a larger combined, distant one. Racks far from the entrance or perceived to be where bicycles will be vulnerable to vandalism will not receive much use. Rack area location in relationship to the building it serves is very important. The best location is immediately adjacent to the entrance it serves, but racks should not be placed where they can block the entrance or inhibit pedestrian flow. The rack area should be located along a major building approach line and clearly visible from the approach. The rack area should be no more than a 30 second walk (120 feet) from the entrance it serves and should preferably be within 50 feet. A rack area should be as close or closer than the nearest car parking space, be clearly visible from the entrance it serves and be near each actively used entrance. In some cases, an appropriate location may be within the adjacent right-of-way, as shown in the graphics on the facing page.

App-36

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Creative Design

There are many creative, three dimensional bicycle parking racks that function very well. Creative designs should carefully balance form with function. Whatever the rack configuration, the critical issue is that the rack element supports the bicycle in two places and allows it to be securely locked. All racks must be carefully manufactured and maintained to prevent weaknesses at the joints that might compromise bicycle security.

Bike corral dimensions - Converts one car parking space into for 8-10 bike spaces

Bike corral (Fort Collins, CO)

Final

App-37

Appendices

Long-term Parking

Bicycle parking facilities intended for long-term parking must protect against theft of the entire bicycle and its components and accessories. Three common ways of providing secure long-term bicycle parking are: 1. Fully enclosed lockers accessible only by the user, either coin-operated, or by electronic, on-demand locks operated by â&#x20AC;&#x153;smartcardsâ&#x20AC;? equipped with touch-sensitive imbedded computer chips (See Section 3.4.2). 2. A continuously monitored facility that provides at least medium-term type bicycle parking facilities generally available at no charge 3. Restricted access facilities in which short-term type bicycle racks are provided and access is restricted only to the owners of the bicycles stored therein. Perhaps the easiest retrofit is the bicycle locker. Generally, they are as strong as the locks on their doors and can secure individual bikes with their panniers, computers, lights, etc., left in place. Some bike locker designs can be stacked to double the parking density. Weather protection is another benefit. Bike lockers tend to be used most for long-term bicycle commuter parking in areas without continuous oversight. On the downside, if lockers have coin-operated locks, they can be a target of theft and may attract various unintended uses. This can be mitigated by installing lockers with mesh sides to allow periodic inspection.

Bike locker dimensions

App-38

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Appendix B: CIP Cost Analysis Forms The following tables are detailed cost analysis summaries for each of the recommended bikeway facility segments shown in Chapter 4. Note that right-of-way acquisition is not included.

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 1 Bayshore Bikeway - E Street to F Street • Continues existing bike path to Goodrich Aerostructures property • Part of Bayshore Bikeway and SANDAG Regional Bikeway Corridor Network • Coordination with San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway needed to acquire right-of-way • Adequate width available to install 10-12’ wide bike path. Existing ~41' right-of-way • Install pedestrian signal crossing at Lagoon Drive to allow bike path users to travel through intersection and to improve visibility. If warranted, bicycle signal is also recommended • All ramps must meet ADA requirements

Length: Primary Costs

1,320 Feet Unit

0.25 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 1 Bicycle Path: Bike Path Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.25

144" (12') AC Path (3" thickness) w/Agg. Base (3/16")

$3.50

10,560

$36,960

2-24" Parallel DG Side Paths (3") Clear and Grub Subgrade Prep/Exec Drainage (PVC drainage system) Fencing or Guardrail

SF SF CY LF LF

$2.10 $1.00 $16.50 $5.50 $35.00

10,560 10,560 587 1,320 1,320

$22,176

Pedestrian Signal Crossing including ADA ramps

$150,000.00

$150,000

Subtotal:

$283,666

$825

$10,560 $9,685 $7,260 $46,200

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%): Administration (5%): Construction Management (7%): Total Construction Costs:

Final

$56,733 $340,399 $34,040 $17,020 $23,828 $415,287

App-39

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 2 I-805 Corridor b/w Telegraph Canyon Road to Bonita Road/Sweetwater River - North City Limit • Part of SANDAG Regional Bikeway Corridor Network and South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Phase Two (Phase Two to include managed lanes on I-805) • Provides north-south bicycle and pedestrian corridor and ensures connection between downtown Chula Vista and National City • Bike path should be included as part of overall project and cleared through managed lanes environmental document. Accommodate in Phase Two design by grading terrace 14 feet in width along east side of freeway corridor so that bike path is not precluded if it must be constructed separately later. Terrace along east side of the freeway could be used initially for construction equipment logistics without impacting freeway traffic. • Connects to proposed bike route on East J Street overpass over I-805 where there are no on- or off-ramps • Access ramps to Chula Vista street network should meet ADA requirements and provide safety measures at intersections. Whenever possible, connections to existing intersections should be planned to utilize pedestrian signals for crossing streets. If warranted, separate bicycle signals and crossing may be implemented.

Length: Primary Costs

8,870 Feet Unit

1.68 Miles Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 1 Bicycle Path: Bike Path Striping/Signing 96" AC Path (3" thickness) w/Agg. Base (3/16") 2-24" Parallel DG Side Paths (3") Clear and Grub Subgrade Prep/Exec Drainage (PVC drainage system) Evironmental clearance Regional agency coordination

1.68

$5,544

$3,300.00

$3.50

70,963

$248,371

SF SF CY LF LS LS

$2.10 $1.00 $16.50 $5.50 $250,000.00 $200,000.00

70,963 70,963 3,942 8,870 1 1

$149,023 $70,963 $65,043 $48,787 $250,000 $200,000

Subtotal:

$1,037,731

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%): Administration (5%): Construction Management (7%): Total Construction Costs:

App-40

$207,546 $1,245,278 $124,528 $62,264 $87,169 $1,519,239

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 3 Bayshore Bikeway - F Street to H Street • Part of Bayshore Bikeway and SANDAG Regional Bikeway Corridor Network • Coordination with San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway and Goodrich Aerostructures needed to acquire right-of-way • Adequate width to install 10-12’ wide bike path. Existing ~41' right-of-way • Install pedestrian signal crossing at H Street to allow bike path users to travel through intersection and to improve visibility. If warranted, bicycle signal also recommended • All ramps must meet ADA requirements

Length: Primary Costs

2,693 Feet Unit

0.51 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 1 Bicycle Path: Bike Path Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.51

$1,683

144" (12') AC Path (3" thickness) w/Agg. Base (3/16")

$3.50

21,542

$75,398

2-24" Parallel DG Side Paths (3")

$2.10

21,542

$45,239

Clear and Grub

$1.00

21,542

$21,542

Subgrade Prep/Exec

$16.50

1,197

$19,751

Drainage (PVC drainage system)

$5.50

2,693

$14,810

Fencing or Guardrail

$35.00

2,693

$94,255

Pedestrian Signal Crossing

$150,000.00

$150,000

Subtotal:

$422,679

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$84,536 $507,215

Engineering and Design (10%):

$50,722

Administration (5%):

$25,361

Construction Management (7%):

$35,505

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$618,802

App-41

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 4 Bayshore Bikeway - H Street to Bayshore Bikeway / Palomar Street • Part of Bayshore Bikeway and SANDAG Regional Bikeway Corridor Network • Coordination with San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway and San Diego Port District needed to acquire right-of-way • Adequate width available to install 10-12’ wide bike path. Existing ~41' right-of-way • Utilize existing controlled crossing at Marina Pkwy/J Street and Bay Boulevard to allow bike path users to travel through intersection • All ramps must meet ADA requirements

Length: Primary Costs

9,029 Feet Unit

1.71 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 1 Bicycle Path: Bike Path Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

1.71

144" (12') AC Path (3" thickness) w/Agg. Base (3/16")

$3.50

72,230

$252,806

2-24" Parallel DG Side Paths (3")

$2.10

72,230

$151,684

Clear and Grub

$1.00

72,230

$72,230

Subgrade Prep/Exec

$16.50

4,013

$66,215

Drainage (PVC drainage system)

$5.50

9,029

$49,660

Fencing or Guardrail

$35.00

9,029

$316,015

Subtotal:

$914,254

$5,643

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%):

$182,851 $1,097,104 $109,710

Administration (5%):

$54,855

Construction Management (7%):

$76,797

Total Construction Costs:

App-42

$1,338,467

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 1 Main Street - I-5 to Main Court • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Existing Class 3 bike route upgrade to Class 2 bike lane • Existing curb-to-curb width: 60’-81’ • Proposed alignment at minimum width (64’ and 5 travel lanes): Four 10’ travel lanes, one 12’ TWLT and two 6’ bike lanes. On-street parking removed • Lane diet traffic calming along narrow section to reduce speeds and wider bike lane to accommodate cyclists • For wider sections, 6’ bike lanes and/or 2’ buffers recommended to give cyclists buffer between travel lanes and/or on-street parking • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage throughout route. Install directional signage informing cyclists that I-805 is bike route to Palm Avenue in City of San Diego • Colored bike lanes recommended at I-5 and I-805 on-off ramps for greater visibility crossing these intersections

Length: Primary Costs

15,259 Feet Unit

2.89 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

2.89

$9,537

Stripe Removal

$1.50

15,259

$22,889

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

15,259

$34,333

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$15,259

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

15,259

$488,294

Subtotal:

$570,313

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%):

$114,063

Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$684,375

Engineering and Design (10%):

$68,438

Administration (5%):

$34,219

Construction Management (7%):

$47,906

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$834,938

App-43

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 2 Otay Lakes Road - Rutgers Avenue to end of existing WB bike lanes • Fills westbound Class 2 gap on Otay Lakes Road. Eastbound bike lane exists • Existing curb-to-curb width: 84’ with 3 travel lanes each way • Reduce left turn pocket buffer to accommodate bike lanes through Rutgers Avenue • Right turn only lane into and from Otay Ranch Mobile Home Park utilizes space needed for bike lane. Narrow travel lanes and install bike lanes. • Colored bike lanes recommended at high conflict areas around mobile home park entrance and merging out of right-turn only lane approaching Rutgers Avenue • Increase bicycle awareness signage throughout this segment

Length: Primary Costs

1,584 Feet Unit

0.30 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.30

$990

Stripe Removal

$1.50

1,584

$2,376

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

1,584

$3,564

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$1,584

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

1,584

$50,688

Subtotal:

$59,202

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%):

$11,840

Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$71,042

Engineering and Design (10%):

$7,104

Administration (5%):

$3,552

Construction Management (7%):

$4,973

Total Construction Costs:

App-44

$86,672

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 3 East H Street - End of bike lane to Otay Lakes Rd • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Fills gap in Class 2 connection to Southwestern College • Existing curb-to-curb width: 80’ • Lacks existing curb-to-curb width to accommodate 5’ bike lanes • Road diet needed from 3 lanes to 2 lanes each way to accommodate bike lanes and reduction of raised center median • Proposed alignment: Four 13’ travel lanes, one 14’ raised median/TWLT, two 5’ bike lanes with 2’ buffers. Buffers recommended due to high speed and high traffic volumes

Length: Primary Costs

3,010 Feet Unit

0.57 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.57

$1,881

Stripe Removal

$1.50

3,010

$4,514

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

3,010

$6,772

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$3,010

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

3,010

$96,307

Subtotal:

$112,484

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%):

$22,497 $134,981 $13,498

Administration (5%):

$6,749

Construction Management (7%):

$9,449

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$164,676

App-45

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 4 Fourth Avenue - Main Street to City Limit • Connects existing bike lanes on Beyer Rd to Bike Route on Fourth Ave • Existing curb-to-curb width: 73’ • Proposed alignment: Four 12’ travel lanes, one 9' parking lane, two 6’ bike lanes with 2' buffers

Length: Primary Costs

2,693 Feet Unit

0.51 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.51

$1,683

Stripe Removal

$1.50

2,693

$4,039

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

2,693

$6,059

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$2,693

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

2,693

$86,170

Subtotal:

$100,643

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%):

$20,129 $120,772 $12,077

Administration (5%):

$6,039

Construction Management (7%):

$8,454

Total Construction Costs:

App-46

$147,342

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 5 Otay Lakes Road - Elmhurst Street to Apache Drive • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Connects existing bike lanes on Otay Lakes Road to Southwestern College • Existing curb-to-curb width: 70’ • Proposed alignment: Five 12’ travel lanes and two 5’ bike lanes • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage to and from college

Length: Primary Costs

1,426 Feet Unit

0.27 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.27

$891

Stripe Removal

$1.50

1,426

$2,138

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

1,426

$3,208

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$1,426

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

1,426

$45,619

Subtotal:

$53,282

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%):

$10,656

Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$63,938

Engineering and Design (10%):

$6,394

Administration (5%):

$3,197

Construction Management (7%):

$4,476

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$78,005

App-47

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 6 Heritage Road - Main Street to Entertainment Circle • Fills gap in Class 2 connection to Cricket Amphitheater and Knotts Soak City • Existing curb-to-curb width: 60’ • Proposed alignment: Four 12’ travel lanes and two 6’ bike lanes. • Increase bicycle awareness and directional signage throughout this segment

Length: Primary Costs

1,426 Feet Unit

0.27 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.27

$891

Stripe Removal

$1.50

1,426

$2,138

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

1,426

$3,208

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$1,426

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

1,426

$45,619

Subtotal:

$53,282

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%):

$10,656

Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$63,938

Engineering and Design (10%):

$6,394

Administration (5%):

$3,197

Construction Management (7%):

$4,476

Total Construction Costs:

App-48

$78,005

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 7 Industrial Boulevard - Bay Boulevard to Palomar Street • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Connects to existing bike lanes on Industrial Boulevard south of Palomar Street • L Street existing curb-to-curb width: 74’ • L Street proposed alignment: Two 11’ inside travel lanes, two 13’ outer travel lanes, one 12’ center turn lanes and two 5’ bike lanes with 2’ buffers • Industrial Boulevard existing curb-to-curb width: 34’ • Industrial Boulevard proposed alignment: Two 11’ travel lanes and two 5’ bike lanes • Colored bike lanes recommended at I-5 on-off ramps on both L Street and Industrial Boulevard for greater visibility crossing through intersection • Increase bicycle awareness signage

Length: Primary Costs

4,963 Feet Unit

0.94 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.94

$3,102

Stripe Removal

$1.50

4,963

$7,445

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

4,963

$11,167

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$4,963

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

4,963

$158,822

Subtotal:

$185,500

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$37,100 $222,600

Engineering and Design (10%):

$22,260

Administration (5%):

$11,130

Construction Management (7%):

$15,582

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$271,571

App-49

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 8 Telegraph Canyon Road - Nacion Avenue to Halecrest Drive • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Fills gap in Class 2 facility between Telegraph Canyon Road and Oleander Avenue • Existing curb-to-curb width: 84-104’ • Proposed alignment at minimum width (84'): Six 10.5’ travel lanes, one 11' TWLT and two 5’ bike lanes. Due to high ADTs, road diet not recommended, but bike lanes are • Increase bicycle awareness and directional signage throughout this segment • Colored bike lanes recommended at I-805 on-off ramps for greater visibility crossing these intersections

Length: Primary Costs

1,320 Feet Unit

0.25 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.25

$825

Stripe Removal

$1.50

1,320

$1,980

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

1,320

$2,970

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$1,320

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

1,320

$42,240

Subtotal:

$49,335

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$9,867 $59,202

Engineering and Design (10%):

$5,920

Administration (5%):

$2,960

Construction Management (7%):

$4,144

Total Construction Costs:

App-50

$72,226

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 9 East H Street - I 805 SB on-ramp to existing bike lanes • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Fills gap in Class 2 facility at I-805 • Existing curb-to-curb width: 80-92’ • Proposed alignment at minimum width (80'): Five 11’ travel lanes, one 11' TWLT/RTOF and two 5’ bike lanes with 2’ buffers • Increase bicycle awareness and directional signage throughout this segment • Colored bike lanes recommended at I-805 on-off ramps for greater visibility crossing these intersections

Length: Primary Costs

1,954 Feet Unit

0.37 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.37

$1,221

Stripe Removal

$1.50

1,954

$2,930

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

1,954

$4,396

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$1,954

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

1,954

$62,515

Subtotal:

$73,016

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%):

$14,603

Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$87,619

Engineering and Design (10%):

$8,762

Administration (5%):

$4,381

Construction Management (7%):

$6,133

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$106,895

App-51

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 10 Broadway - Main Street to City Limit • Fills gap in Class 2 facility • Existing curb-to-curb width: 56’-68' • Road needs resurfacing and some 90-degree parking switched to parallel parking • Proposed alignment: Two 12’ travel lanes, two 8’ parking lanes, two 6’ bike lanes with 2' buffers

Length: Primary Costs

1,478 Feet Unit

0.28 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.28

$924

Stripe Removal

$1.50

1,478

$2,218

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

1,478

$3,326

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$1,478

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

1,478

$47,309

Subtotal:

$55,255

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%):

$11,051

Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$66,306

Engineering and Design (10%):

$6,631

Administration (5%):

$3,315

Construction Management (7%):

$4,641

Total Construction Costs:

App-52

$80,894

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 11 East J Street - River Ash Drive to Paseo Ranchero • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Existing Class 3 bike route upgrade to Class 2 bike lane • Fills gap in Class 2 facility • Existing curb-to-curb width: 48’ • Proposed alignment #1: Two 11’ travel lanes, two 8’ parking lanes and two 5’ bike lanes. TWLT will need to be removed • Proposed alignment #2: Two 12’ travel lanes, one 12’ TWLT and two 6’ bike lanes. Requires removal of on-street parking • Proposed alignment #3: Two 11’ travel lanes, one 11’ TWLT, one 8’ parking lane and two 5’ bike lanes. On-street parking will need to be removed on one side of street • Provide additional directional signage throughout J Street

Length: Primary Costs

3,696 Feet Unit

0.70 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.70

$2,310

Stripe Removal

$1.50

3,696

$5,544

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

3,696

$8,316

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$3,696

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

3,696

$118,272

Subtotal:

$138,138

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%): Administration (5%): Construction Management (7%): Total Construction Costs:

Final

$27,628 $165,766 $16,577 $8,288 $11,604 $202,234

App-53

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 12 East H Street - East of Otay Lakes Road to east of Auburn Avenue • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Fills gap in Class 2 connection to Southwestern College • Existing curb-to-curb width: 64’ • Lacks existing curb-to-curb width to accommodate 5’ bike lanes • Proposed alignment to accommodate existing on-street parking: Two 10’ travel lanes, two 7’ parking lanes and two 5’ bike lanes. Removal of raised median necessary to accommodate bike lanes. Includes left turn pockets at Auburn Avenue • Proposed alignment with removal of on-street parking: Two 12’ travel lanes, one 14’ raised center median, two 6’ bike lanes with 2’ buffers. Buffers recommended due to high speed and high traffic volumes • Increase bicycle awareness and directional signage throughout this segment

Length: Primary Costs

1,320 Feet Unit

0.25 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.25

$825

Stripe Removal

$1.50

1,320

$1,980

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

1,320

$2,970

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$1,320

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

1,320

$42,240

Subtotal:

$49,335

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$9,867 $59,202

Engineering and Design (10%):

$5,920

Administration (5%):

$2,960

Construction Management (7%):

$4,144

Total Construction Costs:

App-54

$72,226

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 13 Industrial Boulevard - Ada Street to Main Street • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Connects to existing bike lanes on Industrial Boulevard north of Ada Street • Industrial Boulevard existing curb-to-curb width: 32’-51’ • Industrial Boulevard proposed alignment for 32’ width: Two 11’ travel lanes and two 5’ bike lanes • Industrial Boulevard proposed alignment for 51’ width: Two 12’ travel lanes, one 11’ TWTL, two 6’ bike lanes with 2’ buffers. Buffers can be removed and outer lanes expanded to 14’ travel lanes due to heavy truck traffic • Increase bicycle awareness signage

Length: Primary Costs

2,640 Feet Unit

0.50 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.50

$1,650

Stripe Removal

$1.50

2,640

$3,960

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

2,640

$5,940

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$2,640

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

2,640

$84,480

Subtotal:

$98,670

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%):

$19,734 $118,404 $11,840

Administration (5%):

$5,920

Construction Management (7%):

$8,288

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$144,453

App-55

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 14 Santa Victoria Road - Olympic Parkway to Santa Venetia Street â&#x20AC;˘ Under construction â&#x20AC;˘ Provides alternative route to Otay Ranch High School

Length: Primary Costs

9,739 Feet Unit

1.84 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

Pavement Markings

$300.00

1.84

$6,072

$9,600

Subtotal:

$15,672

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%): Administration (5%): Construction Management (7%): Total Construction Costs:

App-56

$3,134 $18,806 $1,881 $940 $1,316 $22,944

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 15 Heritage Road - Olympic Parkway to Santa Victoria Road â&#x20AC;˘ Under construction â&#x20AC;˘ Continues Class 2 bike lanes to Santa Victoria Road

Length: Primary Costs

2,270 Feet Unit

0.43 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.43

$1,419

Stripe Removal

$1.50

2,270

$3,406

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

2,270

$5,108

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$2,270

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

2,270

$72,653

Subtotal:

$84,856

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%):

$16,971 $101,827 $10,183

Administration (5%):

$5,091

Construction Management (7%):

$7,128

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$124,229

App-57

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 16 Lake Crest Drive - Otay Lakes Road to Wueste Road • Fills gap between Class 2 facilities • Connects Olympic Training Center to Otay Lakes Road and Mountain Hawk Park • Existing curb-to-curb width: 38’-44’ • Proposed alignment (44’): Two 12’ travel lanes, one 8’ parking lane and two 6’ bike lanes • Low volume residential street with infrequent on-street parking. Designating one side of street for onstreet parking provides space for installation of bike lanes • Increase directional signage throughout Lake Crest Drive to Otay Lakes Road, Mountain Hawk Park and Olympic Training Center

Length: Primary Costs

4,646 Feet Unit

0.88 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 2 Bicycle Lane: Bike Lane Striping/Signing

$3,300.00

0.88

$2,904

Stripe Removal

$1.50

4,646

$6,970

Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors

$2.25

4,646

$10,454

Pavement Markings

$300.00

$4,646

Curb and Gutter (east side only)

$32.00

4,646

$148,685

Subtotal:

$173,659

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$34,732 $208,391

Engineering and Design (10%):

$20,839

Administration (5%):

$10,420

Construction Management (7%):

$14,587

Total Construction Costs:

App-58

$254,237

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 1 Broadway - C Street to City Limit • Connects to core commercial district • If warranted, investigate alternatives such as shared lane markings on green bicycle lane similar to Second Street in Long Beach, CA • Increase bicycle parking along this route • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

21,965 Feet Unit

4.16 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

4.16

$6,864

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

176

$21,965

Additional Bike Parking (bike corral striping consideration)

$2.25

2,196

$4,942

Subtotal:

$33,771

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$6,754 $40,525

Engineering and Design (10%):

$4,053

Administration (5%):

$2,026

Construction Management (7%):

$2,837

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$49,441

App-59

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 2 I Street - Colorado Ave to Robert Ave â&#x20AC;˘ Connects to Mueller Elementary School, Chula Vista Center Mall and Hilltop High School

Length: Primary Costs

11,458 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

2.17 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

2.17

$3,581

Subtotal:

$3,581

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$716 $4,297

Engineering and Design (10%):

$430

Administration (5%):

$215

Construction Management (7%):

$301

Total Construction Costs:

App-60

$5,242

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 3 Naples Street - Industrial Boulevard to Fourth Avenue • Fills gap between existing bike route on Naples Street to Industrial Boulevard • Connects to Harborside Elementary School • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

4,541 Feet Unit

0.86 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

0.86

$1,419

$4,541

Subtotal:

$5,960

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%):

$1,192

Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$7,152

Engineering and Design (10%):

$715

Administration (5%):

$358

Construction Management (7%):

$501

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$8,725

App-61

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 4 Third Avenue - East J Street to Naples Street â&#x20AC;˘ Fills gap between proposed enhanced bike route on Third Avenue to bike route south of Naples Street â&#x20AC;˘ Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

5,280 Feet Unit

1.00 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

1.00

$1,650

$5,280

Subtotal:

$6,930

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%):

$1,386

Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$8,316

Engineering and Design (10%):

$832

Administration (5%):

$416

Construction Management (7%):

$582

Total Construction Costs:

App-62

$10,146

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 5 Fifth Avenue - City Limit to Orange Avenue • Alternative north-south connection to Broadway • Connects to Chula Vista High School, Vista Square Elementary School, Chula Vista Middle School and other private schools • Chula Vista Center Mall creates gap in facility. Route through mall property could include staining/painting shared use path to connect H and I Streets. Directional signage shared lane markings through parking lot another option • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

18,638 Feet Unit

3.53 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

3.53

$5,825

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

149

$18,638

Subtotal:

$24,463

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$4,893 $29,355

Engineering and Design (10%):

$2,936

Administration (5%):

$1,468

Construction Management (7%):

$2,055

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$35,814

App-63

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 6 Oxford Street and East Oxford Street - Industrial Boulevard to Melrose Avenue • Provides alternative to Melrose Avenue as north-south connection paralleling I-805 • Provides connection to Naples Street and Palomar Street crossings of I-805 where there are no on- and off-ramps • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

8,923 Feet Unit

1.69 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

1.69

$2,789

$8,923

Subtotal:

$11,712

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%):

$2,342 $14,054 $1,405

Administration (5%):

$703

Construction Management (7%):

$984

Total Construction Costs:

App-64

$17,146

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 7 Third Avenue - D Street to East J Street • Incorporate into Third Avenue Streetscape Project • Increase bicycle parking along this route • If warranted, investigate alternatives such as shared lane markings on green bicycle lane similar to Second Street in Long Beach, CA • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

7,920 Feet Unit

1.50 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

1.50

$2,475

$7,920

Subtotal:

$10,395

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%):

$2,079 $12,474 $1,247

Administration (5%):

$624

Construction Management (7%):

$873

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$15,218

App-65

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 8 Third Avenue - C Street to D Street â&#x20AC;˘ Fills gap between proposed enhanced bike route on Third Avenue to bike lanes on C Street â&#x20AC;˘ Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

2,059 Feet Unit

0.39 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

0.39

$644

$2,059

Subtotal:

$2,703

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$541 $3,243

Engineering and Design (10%):

$324

Administration (5%):

$162

Construction Management (7%):

$227

Total Construction Costs:

App-66

$3,957

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 9 Melrose Avenue - Telegraph Canyon Road to Main Street • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • North-south route to connect Kellogg, Palomar and Rohr Elementary Schools • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

13,675 Feet Unit

2.59 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

2.59

$4,274

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

109

$13,675

Subtotal:

$17,949

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$3,590 $21,538

Engineering and Design (10%):

$2,154

Administration (5%):

$1,077

Construction Management (7%):

$1,508

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$26,277

App-67

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 10 Oleander Avenue, Lori Lane, Crest Drive - East J Street to Main Street • Provides north-south connection paralleling I-805 • Connects to Rogers, Parkview and Valle Lindo Elementary Schools • Provides connection to Naples Street and Palomar Street crossings of I-805 where there are no on- and off-ramps • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length:

16,210 Feet

Primary Costs

Unit

3.07 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

3.07

$5,066

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

130

$16,210

Subtotal:

$21,275

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$4,255 $25,530

Engineering and Design (10%):

$2,553

Administration (5%):

$1,277

Construction Management (7%):

$1,787

Total Construction Costs:

App-68

$31,147

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 11 Flower Street and First Avenue - First Street to Bonita Road â&#x20AC;˘ Connects to Rosebank Elementary School

Length: Primary Costs

4,171 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

0.79 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

0.79

$1,304

Subtotal:

$1,304

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%): Administration (5%): Construction Management (7%): Total Construction Costs:

Final

$261 $1,564 $156 $78 $109 $1,908

App-69

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 12 Mackenzie Creek - Mt. Miguel Road to Lane Avenue â&#x20AC;˘ Fills gap between Mt. Miguel Road and Lane Avenue â&#x20AC;˘ Connects to Marshall Elementary School

Length: Primary Costs

7,128 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

1.35 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

1.35

$2,228

Subtotal:

$2,228

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$446 $2,673

Engineering and Design (10%):

$267

Administration (5%):

$134

Construction Management (7%):

$187

Total Construction Costs:

App-70

$3,261

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 13 Woods Drive, Stone Gate Street, Northwoods Drive, Adirondack Place, Duncan Ranch Road - Proctor Valley Road and Hunte Parkway to Otay Lakes Road â&#x20AC;˘ Connects to Eastlake Middle School, Salt Creek Elementary School, Montevalle Park and local trail system â&#x20AC;˘ Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

10,560 Feet Unit

2.00 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

2.00

$3,300

$10,560

Subtotal:

$13,860

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%): Administration (5%): Construction Management (7%): Total Construction Costs:

Final

$2,772 $16,632 $1,663 $832 $1,164 $20,291

App-71

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 14 Santa Venetia Street - Olympic Parkway to Magdalena Avenue • Fills Class 2 gap between La Media Road and Windchime Drive • Connects to Otay Ranch High School • Roadway too narrow to accommodate Class 2 bike lanes • Shared lane markings recommended between Olympic Parkway and La Media Road to access high school and pedestrian bridge

Length: Primary Costs

3,696 Feet Unit

0.70 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

0.70

$1,155

$3,696

Subtotal:

$4,851

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$970 $5,821

Engineering and Design (10%):

$582

Administration (5%):

$291

Construction Management (7%):

$407

Total Construction Costs:

App-72

$7,102

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 15 Albany Avenue - East Orange Avenue to Main Street â&#x20AC;˘ Connects to Otay Elementary School â&#x20AC;˘ Provides bike route between Main Street and Orange Ave

Length: Primary Costs

2,429 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

0.46 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

0.46

$759

Subtotal:

$759

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%):

$152

Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$911

Engineering and Design (10%):

$91

Administration (5%):

$46

Construction Management (7%):

$64

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$1,111

App-73

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update\ Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 16 East San Miguel Drive, Cuyamaca Avenue, Guatay Avenue - Vista Way to Hilltop Drive â&#x20AC;˘ Residential loop connects to Cook Elementary School

Length: Primary Costs

5,174 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

0.98 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

0.98

$1,617

Subtotal:

$1,617

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%): Administration (5%): Construction Management (7%): Total Construction Costs:

App-74

$323 $1,940 $194 $97 $136 $2,367

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 17 Max Avenue, Malta Avenue, Slate Street - East Orange Avenue to Melrose Avenue â&#x20AC;˘ Residential loop connects to Rohr Elementary School

Length: Primary Costs

4,277 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

0.81 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

0.81

$1,337

Subtotal:

$1,337

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%): Administration (5%): Construction Management (7%): Total Construction Costs:

Final

$267 $1,604 $160 $80 $112 $1,957

App-75

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 18 Gotham Street, Creekwood Way, Chateau Court - Nacion Avenue to Halecrest Drive • Proposed in 2005 Bikeway Master Plan • Connects to Southwestern College • Access needed through wall barrier at Chateau Court. Pedestrian and bicycle width cut-through recommended if entire wall not removed • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

2,798 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

0.53 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

0.53

Cut Through Wall

$1,000.00

$1,000

Subtotal:

$1,875

$875

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$375 $2,249

Engineering and Design (10%):

$225

Administration (5%):

$112

Construction Management (7%):

$157

Total Construction Costs:

App-76

$2,744

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 19 East Rienstra Street and Nacion Avenue - East L Street/Telegraph Canyon Road to Melrose Avenue • Provides alternative to Melrose Avenue as north-south connection paralleling I-805 • Provides connection to Naples Street and Palomar Street crossings of I-805 where there are no on- and off-ramps • Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

8,923 Feet Unit

1.69 Miles

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)

$125.00

1.69

$2,789

$8,923

Subtotal:

$11,712

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%):

$2,342 $14,054 $1,405

Administration (5%):

$703

Construction Management (7%):

$984

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$17,146

App-77

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 20 Allen School Lane - Otay Lakes Rd to Allen Elementary School â&#x20AC;˘ Connects to Allen Elementary School

Length: Primary Costs

1,690 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

0.32 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

0.32

$528

Subtotal:

$528

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%):

$106

Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$634

Engineering and Design (10%):

$63

Administration (5%):

$32

Construction Management (7%):

$44

Total Construction Costs:

App-78

$773

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 21 Oak Springs Drive - Silver Springs Drive to South Creekside Drive â&#x20AC;˘ Fills gap to South Creekside Drive â&#x20AC;˘ Connects to Salt Creek Park, Arroyo Vista Elementary and local clubhouse

Length: Primary Costs

1,162 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

0.22 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

0.22

$363

Subtotal:

$363

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$73 $436

Engineering and Design (10%):

$44

Administration (5%):

$22

Construction Management (7%):

$30

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$531

App-79

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 22 Hidden Vista Drive, Smoky Circle, and Bayleaf Drive - Terra Nova to City Limits • Provides connection to Swetwater community and then to Bonita Road • Utilizes existing access path to connect to Vista Coronado Drive in Sweetwater • Connects to Clearview Elementary School

Length: Primary Costs

3,432 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

0.65 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

0.65

$1,073

Subtotal:

$1,073

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies: Engineering and Design (10%):

$215 $1,287 $129

Administration (5%):

$64

Construction Management (7%):

$90

Total Construction Costs:

App-80

$1,570

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 23 Santa Rosa Drive, Santa Paula Drive - Otay Lakes Road to East Palomar Street â&#x20AC;˘ North-south connection between H and East Palomar Streets â&#x20AC;˘ Increase bicycle awareness signage and directional signage

Length: Primary Costs

5,491 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

1.04 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

1.04

$1,716

Subtotal:

$1,716

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$343 $2,059

Engineering and Design (10%):

$206

Administration (5%):

$103

Construction Management (7%):

$144

Total Construction Costs:

Final

$2,512

App-81

Appendices

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Capital Cost Estimate Rank: 24 State Street - Santa Victoria Road to La Media Road â&#x20AC;˘ Fills gap between Birch Road and Santa Victoria Road â&#x20AC;˘ Add additional signage for roundabout

Length: Primary Costs

1,003 Feet Unit

Unit Cost

0.19 Miles Quantity

Total Cost

Class 3 Bicycle Route: Bike Route Signing

$1,650.00

0.19

$314

Subtotal:

$314

Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%): Construction Costs with Contingencies:

$63 $376

Engineering and Design (10%):

$38

Administration (5%):

$19

Construction Management (7%):

$26

Total Construction Costs:

App-82

$459

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Appendix C: Guidelines for Selecting Safe Routes To School Choosing a safe bicycle route to school is different from choosing a safe walking route because cyclists and pedestrians have different needs for maximum safety. The higher speed of cyclists increases the need for visibility, smooth surfaces and predictable interaction with other road users. Note also that bicycle skills vary among students more than walking skills do and they are usually acquired at a later age. Younger children have less skill at estimating closing speed for automobiles and have less ability to process peripheral vision. Younger children should therefore cycle mainly on less complicated streets, where they can focus on one hazard at a time. Older students will cycle faster and so they need to have longer sight lines. Routes suitable for high school age students may be unsuitable for elementary school students, and vice versa. Publishing recommended routes to school is not sufficient for encouraging bicycling to school. Other measures are also needed, including bicycle education, safe bike parking, rewards for cycling (such as bike-to-school days), bike-to-school groups lead by an adult, and so forth. When choosing safe bicycle routes to school, look for: • The safest, most direct route - Detours to avoid hazards should not add significantly to the length of the ride, or they will be ignored. • On-street routes - Children riding on the sidewalk have an increased risk of collision with an automobile 2.5 times over riding on the street. A “bike path” that parallels a road is the same as a sidewalk. Riding a bicycle on sidewalks is prohibited in most jurisdictions in California, at least in business districts. Use off-street routes only when they have no intersections with streets or driveways, or when they provide a substantial short cut. The faster the cyclists, the more important it is to avoid sidewalks. Cyclists should ride on the right side of the street with traffic for maximum safety (wrong way sidewalk riding has the highest risk). When the road is so narrow and so busy that young cyclists cannot ride on it safely, they should walk their bikes on the sidewalk. Generally, this is only feasible to require near intersections with crossing guards. Where uphill slopes are so steep that the cyclists cannot maintain a straight line (about percent slope equal to age up to 12 years old), students should get off and walk on their bikes on the sidewalk. Similarly steep downgrades require well-maintained brakes and training in braking on hills. Students without that training should walk their bikes down the hills. • Adequate width of curb lane and good maintenance of road edge - For safe sharing of the curb lane by motorists and cyclists, it should be at least 14 feet wide, with no on-street parking—wider is better, particularly for younger cyclists who cannot hold as straight a line. Broken pavement and accumulated debris on the side of the road can narrow the effective width substantially. If there is a bike lane, its width can be added to the rightmost travel lane to determine if width is adequate. On very quiet residential roads with low traffic speeds and good sight lines, even young children can safely take a lane and wide curb lanes are not needed.

Final

App-83

Appendices

Also watch out for drain grates, potholes, obstructed visibility, dogs off-leash and other obvious hazards. It is best to scout out the routes by bicycle and consult with cyclists who regularly cycle in the area. • Right turns, not left turns - It is much easier for a cyclist (particularly a beginning cyclist) to turn right than to turn left. This means that the best route away from school may differ from the best route to school. There are two ways to safely make left-turns. The first is merging into the left-turn lane and the second is crossing, stopping, turning the bike in place and crossing again. The merge-left technique can be learned by students as young as nine years old (later for multi-lane streets), but younger students should cross to the far right corner and then cross over to the left. When left-turns are necessary, it is best if they can be done from low-traffic streets onto low-traffic streets, with all-way stops or traffic signals. T-intersections make left turns even easier, since there are fewer potential conflict points with motor vehicle movements. • No right-turn only lanes where cyclists go straight - Right-turn-only lanes require cyclists to merge across a lane of traffic to continue straight. This skill can be learned by middle-school students, but only with proper bicycle instruction. Where right-turn-only lanes are unavoidable, younger cyclists should probably be directed to walk their bikes on the sidewalk. • Few stop signs - Stopping requires significant extra effort to regain loss momentum, tempting students to run stop signs illegally. It is safer for them to ride on a slightly busier street with fewer stops and the protection of having the right-of-way, than to risk running stop signs. • Only traffic signals that sense cyclists and give sufficient green time - For a cyclists to use intersections with traffic signals safely, the traffic signals should detect the bike and make sure there is enough green time for the cyclist to clear the intersection. Traffic signals that do no meet this standard should have their sensors adjusted and be re-timed. Younger children may need to dismount and become pedestrians, using the pedestrian push-button and walking their bikes in the crosswalk. • Few curb cuts - The turning traffic at commercial driveways is a serious hazard to cyclists (even more so if they are riding on the sidewalk). • Low traffic volume and low speeds - Although this criterion is often the first one people think of, it is actually the least important because most accidents involve turning traffic, not passing traffic. Streets with few intersections or curb cuts are safer, even if motor vehicle volumes and speeds are higher.

App-84

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Appendix D: Suitability Model and Project Prioritization The Bicycle Suitability Model was developed to determine the most likely areas within the City of Chula Vista where cyclists are likely to ride to and come from. The model was created to prioritize areas and projects to benefit the largest number of cyclists possible. The Bicycle Suitability Model identifies existing and potential bicycle activity areas citywide utilizing existing data within an extensive GIS database.

Bicycle Suitability Model

The overall model is comprised of three basic models: the Attractor, Generator and Detractor Models. When these three interim models are combined, they create the Bicycle Suitability Model. The model identifies the characteristics of each particular area in geographic space and assigns a numeric value for each of these characteristics. The score per area is then added to create a ranking for that particular area in geographic space.

Cycling Attractor Model Methodology

The Bicycle Suitability Model identifies activity areas by utilizing cycling-related geographic features and conditions likely to attract cyclists. Typical bicycle commuter trips to nearby shopping centers, restaurants and work are very short, usually between two and five miles each way. As noted in survey responses, more avid cyclists can commute over 20 miles round trip. School age children will normally ride to school no more than a few miles round trip. The closer these attractors are to neighborhoods and primary cycling generators, the more conducive they are for trips by bike, and are therefore given a higher weighting score. A one mile maximum distance in the model was given to encompass the majority of the shorter bicycle trips. Many attractors are close enough to each other that they would overlap within the mile. The point scoring for the given attractors was based on a multitude of cycling opportunities and bicycle amenities such as bicycle parking connections with other modes of transportation. For example, elementary schools are typically in neighborhoods to accommodate the younger population. Generally, a larger percentage of elementary school aged children rely on their bicycles as a mode of transportation to get to school compared to high school kids who are may hold a driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s license. a. The nine features used are schools, parks and recreation facilities, neighborhood and community retail, neighborhood and neighborhood civic facilities (e.g., post offices, libraries, major attractions and transit stations and stops). b. Points were assigned to several categories in each feature type, recognizing certain features were more likely to attract cyclists than other features. c. Once identified, network buffers were applied to each location using the GIS street database to simulate the actual street network and to develop an accurate distinction of cycling patterns. Each network buffer increases in distance from the featureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s center point. d. Weighted distance values were assigned to each buffer. For example, a quarter mile network buffer is assigned a higher value than a half mile network buffer, since more people are likely to ride their bike to a destination a quarter of a mile away than half a mile. e. The values assigned to each feature type were multiplied by the weighted distance values for each network buffer. Final

App-85

Appendices

f. Each of the individual buffered feature types with their multiplied weighted values were overlaid on the city-wide cell grid. g. Within each cell, the features points were multiplied by the weighted values and then added to the other feature point scores with a resulting total attractor value assigned to the cell. h. The areas with high concentrations of cells with high values were identified. These high concentration areas identify existing and potential high cycling activity areas throughout the City. Weight ed Mult iplier

Cycling Attractors

Points

1/4 mile*

4.5

2.25

1.5

4.5

2.25

1.5

0.75

0.5

High Volume Transit Stops (> 10,000 boardings and alightings per day) Elementary Schools (Including Private) Medium volume Transit Stops (1,000 - 10,000 boardings and alightings per day) Middle Schools Neighborhood Civic Facilities (Libraries, Post Office & Religious Facilities) Neighborhood and Community Retail Low volume Transit Stops (<1,000 boardings and alightings per day) High Schools Parks and Recreation (excludes non-useable open space)

1/2 mile 3/4 mile

1 mile

*1/4 mile = 1.5 x Points, 1/2 mile = 1 x points, 3/4 mile = .75 x points , 1 mile = .5 x points

Cycling Generator Model Methodology

The Bicycle Suitability Model also utilizes demographic data as indicators of potential volume of cyclists based on how many people live or work within the cycling activity areas identified in the Attractor Model. This particular component is called the Generator Model. Existing and projected total population and employment were used, as well as other demographic data such as age and use of public transportation. The weighted multiplier scores were derived from City staff input, previous applications of the model and the factors that most influence bicycle trips within the City. Cycling activity areas that contain a greater number of people living or working within them were more likely to have more people cycling. The model uses SANDAG-defined pseudo-Census blocks called SANDAG Geographic Reference Areas (SGRAs) citywide and U.S. Census Bureau Census Block Groups. SANDAG Smart Growth Areas was also used to determine areas of potential development that could have high cycling activity due to their mixed land use criteria. a. The existing and future SGRA total population was divided by the SGRA area to determine existing and future population density. b. The existing and future SGRA total employment was divided by the SGRA area to determine existing and future employment density. c. The total population less than 16 years old was divided by the Census Block Group Area to determine the population density of these two age classes.

App-86

2011

Final

Middle High School Private Other

Railroad

Lakes

Elementary

Trails

City of Chula Vista Schools**

Imperial Beach

Coronado

National City

Low Attractor Score

High Attractor Score

Attractors

805

San Diego

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

125

Miles

0.5

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: SANDAG 2008

Bicycle Suitability Model: Attractors

Sweetwater

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

App-87

Appendices

d. The employment and population SGRA densities, as well as age densities, were categorized into density ranges and assigned points so that SGRAs with higher density ranges received higher initial points. e. Bike to Work Densities, Age Densities and Public Transportation Density were based on Census Block Group data from the Long Form from the year 2000 census. f. The age density and public transportation density points were overlaid to make a city-wide cell grid. Weighted

Cycling Generators

Points

Multiplier

Score

9 6 3

Cycling Mobility: People who bike to work* **

>4 2-4 <2

3 2 1

Non-Vehicular Transportation: People who walk or use public transportation to work* **

> 10 5 - 10 <5

3 2 1

> 20 10 - 20 5 - 10 1-5

4 3 2 1

> 40 20 - 40 < 20

3 2 1

> 5 2-5 <2

3 2 1

< $34,500 $34,500 - $63,400 > $63,400

3 2 1

> 25 5 - 25 1-5

3 2 1

> 15 5 - 15 1-5 Adopted Smart Growth Areas

9 6 3

Population Density*

8 6 4 2

Employment Density*

6 4 2

3 2 1

6 4 2

3 2 1

6 4 2

Age Density: Children per acre (under 16 years old) **

Household Income (Affects Transportation Options) **

Future Population Density ***

Future Employment Density ***

Smart Growth Areas *** * People per acre, ** 2000 US Census Bureau, *** SANDAG

App-88

2011

Final

Lakes

Railroad

Trails

Other

High School Private

Elementary Middle

City of Chula Vista Schools**

Imperial Beach

Coronado

National City

Low Generator Score

High Generator Score

Generators

805

San Diego

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

125

Miles

0.5

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: SANDAG 2008

Bicycle Suitability Model: Generators

Sweetwater

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

App-89

Appendices

Cycling Detractor Model Methodology

Detractors are conditions that discourage or detract people from riding their bikes. Relevant factors are primarily related to vehicular volume and perceived safety of the cycling environment. Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and speeds tend to detract people from cycling. Known areas with a high level of bicycle-related collisions are also a deterrent since people may reroute their trip to avoid certain streets and intersections where safety may be a concern. The point system and weighted multipliers were derived from City staff input, public input through previous surveys, past applications of the model and available City data.

Weighted

Cycling Detractors

Points

Multiplier

Score

12 8 4 0

Collisions Per Year *

3 2 1 No collisions

3 2 1 0

Average Daily Trips as it Affects the amount of traffic congestion

> 20,000 10,000 - 20,000 5,000-10,000 1,000 - 5,000

4 3 2 1

12 9 6 3

Freeway Barriers related to Cycling Travel

3 2 1

4 3 2

Speed as it Affects the perception of safety

50+ 25-45 < 25 mph

3 2 1

Slope & Canyons as Barriers to Cycling Travel

Landform Feature with Slope > 25% Landform or Street Slope 10-25% Slopes < 10% Exising Bicycle Facility Gaps * A 1/16 mile buffer was applied to each collision location.

App-90

2011

Final

Lakes

Railroad

Trails

High School Private Other

Elementary Middle

City of Chula Vista Schools**

Imperial Beach

Coronado

National City

Low Detractor Score

High Detractor Score

Detractors

805

San Diego

Sweetwater

125

Miles

0.5

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: SANDAG 2008

Composite Bicycle Suitability Model: Detractors

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

App-91

Appendices

Composite Model

The Bicycle Suitability Model then combined the Generators, Attractors and Detractors. a. The Attractor, Generator and Detractor grid cell models were overlaid to produce the Bicycle Suitability Model. b. The combined grid cells that contain generators, attractors and detractors were added to provide a total composite value for each combined cell. c. The composite value identifies the areas that have a higher cycling activity point total. d. In some cases, the areas that have a high cycling activity score are areas that already have facilities, but further improvement can be made to enhance the cycling environment. Refer to the following figure for the results of overlaying the four previous mapping efforts.

Facility Prioritization Criteria and Implementation

The projects in this document are a combination of planned and recommended bicycle facilities. Since the planned projects have yet to be implemented, prioritizing them along with the recommended projects subjects all of them to the same priority and implementation criteria. These projects were then itemized into Prioritized Projects, which are those that will have a significant impact on the existing bikeway system, such as by closing major gaps, or extending or developing bike paths, lanes or routes along major transportation corridors. The following prioritization criteria were used to help identify which routes are likely to provide the most benefit to the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bikeway system. The numbering used to identify projects within each bikeway facility class in the following sections does not necessarily imply priority. Bikeway facility implementation has no specific time line, since the availability of funds for implementation is variable and tied to the priorities of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capital improvement projects.

Bicycle Suitability Model (total of 4 points)

The Bicycle Suitability Model acquires the routes total model score and is then divided by the acreage of that project. This technique normalizes the scores throughout all the projects. This allows projects with smaller footprints to have the same scoring parameters as larger projects. The breakdown in points is as follows: 1. Scoring breakdown: 1 - 4 points - High: >1,350 - 4 - Moderately high: 900-1,350 - 3 - Moderate: 450-900 - 2 - Low: <450 - 1

App-92

2011

Final

Other

Low Bicycle Activity

Lakes

High Bicycle Activity

Middle High School Private

Railroad

Bicycle Suitability Model*

Elementary

Trails

City of Chula Vista Schools**

Imperial Beach

Coronado

National City

805

San Diego

SWEETWATER RESERVOIR

Sweetwater

Miles

0.5

* Source: KTU+A 2010 ** Source: SANDAG 2008

Bicycle Suitability Model

125

Otay

LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR

UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR

Jamul-Dulzura

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

App-93

Appendices

Mobility and Access (total of 9 points)

2. Provides access to major bicycle traffic generators: 1 - 3 points - Provides access to areas of high bicycle traffic generation – 3 (Ex: Project is over a mile long and travels through single family and/or multi-family residential and high employment densities such as office parks) - Moderately access to areas of high bicycle traffic generation – 2 (Ex: Project is less than a mile long and travels through or near single family residential, a school and moderate employment densities such as schools, commercial areas) - Low access to areas of high bicycle traffic generation – 1 (Ex: Project not near any residential land use and low to moderate employment densities) 3. Closes gap in significant route: 1 - 3 points - Closes a gap in an existing high bicycle traffic facility - 3 - Closes a gap in a non-existent high bicycle traffic facility - 2 - Closes a gap to connect facilities with little bicycle use - 1 4. Adequate access to activity centers, schools and transit sites: 1 – 3 points - Provides direct access to a major activity center, elementary school and/or transit center - 3 - Provides direct access to an activity center, middle and/or high school or bus stop - 2 - Route is not near an activity center, school and/or transit center but is important for connections- 1

Safety (total of 6 points)

5. Improves locations where bicycle crashes have occurred: 1 - 3 points - Fatal collisions have occurred directly on this route - 3 - Injury and non-injury related bicycle collisions have occurred on or near this route - 2 - No collisions have occurred on this route - 1 6. Improves routes with high vehicular traffic volumes: 1 - 3 points - Improves routes with high average daily trips (>15,000) - 3 - Improves routes with moderate average daily trips (5,000-15,000) - 2 - Improves routes with low average daily trips (<5,000) - 1

Existing Conditions (total of 6 points)

7. Route has a continuous bikeway: 1 – 3 points - The route has very few stop signs and/or is continuous on one street - 3 - The route has moderate stop signs and/or continues on no more than two to three streets - 2 - The route has many stops signs and/or continues along numerous streets - 1 8. Roadway able to accommodate bikeways: 1 – 3 points (Class 2 Only) - Roadway currently can accommodate the recommended facility with no construction and/or redesign – 3 (Ex: Add striping and signage) - Roadway can accommodate the recommended facility with minimal to moderate construction and/or redesign – 2 (Ex: Median or curb removal or realignment, re-striping lanes, etc) - Roadway will need extensive construction and/or redesign to accommodate the recommended facility – 1 (Ex: Parking removal, sidewalk/planting strip removal and reinstallation, roadway realignment, utility realignment, etc.)

App-94

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Regional Significance (total of 6 points)

9. Route has regional significance in the bikeway system: 1 – 3 points - High significance, connects major bicycle facilities and activity centers – 3 (Ex: Part of the SANDAG Regional Bike Plan network, connections to adjacent City’s bicycle facilities) - Moderate significance, connects some routes and activity centers – 2 (Ex: Important internal connections to regional routes and major activity centers, schools and colleges) - Little significance, does not directly connect to activity centers, etc., but is still important in the bikeway system – 1 (Ex: Project travels through neighborhoods and makes connections to other facilities) 10. Route has aesthetic attributes: 1 – 3 points - Majority of the route has significant aesthetic attributes, such as visible open space, waterway corridors, parks, beaches, etc. - 3 - Parts of the route has moderate aesthetic attributes, such as visible open space, waterway corridors, parks, beaches, etc. - 2 - Little to none of the route benefits from open space, waterway corridors, parks, beaches, etc. - 1 The maximum possible score is 31 points for Class 2 facilities and 28 for Class 1 and Class 3 facilities. Proposed projects can be rated periodically at whatever interval best fits funding cycles or to take into consideration the availability of new information, new funding sources, updated crash statistics, etc. Bikeway facility prioritization and implementation should be fine-tuned and adjusted accordingly based on future circumstances. The individual project scoring is shown in the following tables.

Miles

Model Score

Provides access to major bicycle traffic generators:

Closes gap in significant route:

Adequate access to activity centers and transit sites

Improves locations where bicycle crashes have occurred

Improves routes with high vehicular traffic volumes

Route has a continuous bikeway

Route has regional significance in the bikeway system

Bay Blvd E Street to F Street

0.25

1,976

I-805 Corridor between Telegraph Canyon Road and City limit

1.68

1,100

Bay Blvd F Street to H Street

0.51

1,260

Bay Blvd H Street to Bayshore Bikeway/ Palomar Street

1.71

885

E Street to H Street

1.22

386

H Street to Bay Boulevard

1.40

446

5 6 Final

Score

Segment Location

Route has aesthetic attributes

Segment Number

Model Results

Recommended Class 1 Bike Paths

App-95

Appendices

Segment Number

Roadway Segment

Miles

Limits

Model Results

Model Score

Provides access to major bicycle traffic generators:

Closes gap in significant route:

Adequate access to activity centers and transit sites

Improves locations where bicycle crashes have occurred

Improves routes with high vehicular traffic volumes

Route has a continuous bikeway

Roadway able to accommodate bikeways

Route has regional significance in the bikeway system

Route has aesthetic attributes

Score

Recommended Class 2 Bike Lanes

Main Street

2.89

I-5 to Main Court

299

Otay Lakes Road

0.30

Rutgers Avenue to end of existing westbound bike lanes

497

East H Street

0.57

End of bike lanes to Otay Lakes Road

1,140

Fourth Avenue

0.51

Main Street to City Limit

597

Otay Lakes Road

0.27

Elmhurst Street to Apache Drive

670

Heritage Road

0.27

Main Street to Entertainment Circle

190

Industrial Boulevard and L Street

0.94

Bay Boulevard to Palomar Street

1,479

Telegraph Canyon Road

0.25

Nacion Avenue to Halecrest Drive

800

East H Street

0.37

I-805 southbound onramp to existing bike lanes

758

Broadway

0.28

Main Street to City Limit

494

East J Street

0.70

River Ash Drive to Paseo Ranchero

1,071

East H Street

0.25

East of Otay Lakes Road to east of Auburn Avenue

695

Industrial Boulevard

0.50

Ada Street to Main Street

969

Santa Victoria Road

1.84

Olympic Parkway to Santa Venetia Street

170

Heritage Road

0.43

Olympic Parkway to Santa Victoria Road

145

Lake Crest Drive

0.88

Otay Lakes Road to Wueste Road

238

App-96

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Roadway Segment

Miles

Limits

Model Score

Provides access to major bicycle traffic generators:

Closes gap in significant route:

Adequate access to activity centers and transit sites

Route has a continuous bikeway

Route has regional bikeway system significance

Route has aesthetic attributes

Score

Broadway

4.16

C Street to City limit

701

I Street

2.17

Colorado Avenue to Robert Avenue

1,395

Naples Street

0.86

Industrial Boulevard to Fourth Avenue

1,450

Third Avenue

1.00

East J Street to Naples Street

674

Fifth Avenue

3.53

City limit to Orange Avenue

1,137

Oxford Street and East Oxford Street

2.44

Industrial Boulevard to Melrose Avenue

1,333

Third Avenue

1.50

D Street to East J Street

918

Third Avenue

0.39

C Street to D Street

1,019

Melrose Avenue

2.59

Telegraph Canyon Road to Main Street

886

Oleander Avenue, Lori Lane and Crest Drive

3.07

East J Street and Main Street

736

Flower Street and First Avenue

0.79

First Street Street to Bonita Road

665

Mackenzie Creek

1.35

Mt. Miguel Road to Lane Avenue

800

Woods Drive, Stone Gate Street, Northwoods Drive, Adirondack Place and Duncan Ranch Road

2.00

Proctor Valley Road and Hunte Parkway to Otay Lakes Road

521

Final

Improves locations where bicycle crashes have occurred Improves routes with high vehicular traffic volumes

Segment Number

Model Results

Recommended Class 3 Bike Routes

App-97

Appendices

5 17 6 18 7 8 19 9

1,395

737

3 2

3 3

Score

2 1

Route has aesthetic attributes

701 341

Route has regional bikeway system significance

C Street toParkway City limit Olympic to Magdalena Avenue Colorado Avenue to East Robert OrangeAvenue Avenue to

Route has a continuous bikeway

4.16 0.70

3 1

3 3

3 2

1 1

24 18

23 17

Improves locations where bicycle crashes have occurred Improves routes with high vehicular traffic volumes

Broadway Santa Venetia Street

Adequate access to activity centers and transit sites

Limits

Closes gap in significant route:

Miles

Provides access to major bicycle traffic generators:

1 14 2 15 3 16 4

Roadway Segment

Model Score

Segment Number

Model Results

Recommended Class 3 Bike Routes

3 2

I Street

2.17

Albany Avenue

0.46

Naples Street East San Miguel Drive, Cuyamaca Third Avenue Avenue and Guatay Avenue Max Avenue, Fifth Avenue Malta Avenue and Slate Street Oxford Street and East Oxford Gotham Street, Street Creekwood

0.86

Main Street Industrial Boulevard to Fourth Avenue

1,450

0.98 1.00

Vista Way to Hilltop East J Street to Naples Drive Street

401 674

1 2

3 2

1 2

3 3

1 3

2 3

2 2

1 2

15 22

3.53 0.81

City limit to Orange East Orange Avenue to Avenue Melrose Avenue

1,137 342

3 1

3 3

2 1

3 3

3 1

2 1

3 2

2 2

1 1

22 15

2.44

Industrial Boulevard to Melrose Avenue Rutgers Avenue,

1,333

Way and Third Avenue Chateau Court Third Avenue East Rienstra Street and Melrose Avenue Nacion Avenue

20 10 21 11 22 12 23 24 13

App-98

Allen School Oleander LaneLori Avenue, Lane and Crest Oak Springs Drive Drive Flower Street Hidden Vista and First Drive, Smoky Avenue Circle and Mackenzie Bayleaf Drive Creek Santa Rosa and Woods Drive, Santa Paula Stone Gate Drives Street, Northwoods State Street Drive, Adirondack Place and Duncan Ranch Road

0.53 1.50 0.39 1.69 2.59 0.32 3.07 0.22

Creekwood Way and Chateau Court D Street to East J Street C Street to D Street East L Street/Telegraph Canyon Road to Melrose Telegraph Canyon Road Avenue to Main Street Otay Lakes Road to Allen Elementary School East J Street and Main Street Silver Springs Drive to South Creekside Drive

425

918

1,019

816 886

2 2

3 3

1 2

1 3

2 2

1 1

2 3

1 2

2 1

15 19 15 19 15

455

736

643

First Street Street to Bonita Road Terra Nova to City Limits Mt. Miguel Road to Lane Avenue

665

599

18 15

800

1.04

Otay Lakes Road to East Palomar Street

369

0.19 2.00

Santa Victoria La Proctor ValleyRoad Roadto and Road HunteMedia Parkway to Otay

190 521

1 2

1 3

1 2

1 3

1 2

1 1

3 1

1 2

11 18

0.79 0.65 1.35

Lakes Road

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Appendix E: Agency Publications SANDAG Policy No. 031, Accommodating Bicyclists and Pedestrians - Section 4(E)(3)

All new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by revenues provided under this Ordinance shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and cyclists, except where pedestrians and cyclists are prohibited by law from using a given facility or where the cost of including bikeways and walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. Such facilities for pedestrian and bicycle use shall be designed to the best currently available standards and guidelines. This amendment to the TransNet ordinance utilizes existing bicycle and pedestrian design standards from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000 regarding bicycle facilities and the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. These documents provide reasonable and widely recognized designs guidelines proposed as the standard under this amendment.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution Number 211

On May 16, 2002 (the official California Bike-to-Work Day), Assembly Member Joe Nation (D-San Rafael) introduced Assembly Concurrent Resolution Number 211, relative to integrating walking and biking into transportation infrastructure. This advisory measure encourages all cities and counties to implement the policies of the California Department of Transportation Deputy Directive 64 and the United States Department of Transportation’s design guidance document on integrating bicycling and walking when building their transportation infrastructure. The text of the resolution is as follows: WHEREAS, Bicycling and walking contribute to cleaner air; and WHEREAS, Bicycling and walking provide affordable and healthy transportation options for many of the 10 million Californians who do not possess a driver’s license; and WHEREAS, The State Department of Health Services has declared that more than 40,000 Californians annually die from causes related to physical inactivity; and WHEREAS, The United States Centers for Disease Control has determined that changes in the community environment to promote physical activity may offer the most practical approach to prevent obesity or reduce its co-morbidities. Automobile trips that can be safely replaced by walking or bicycling offer the first target for increased physical activity in communities; and WHEREAS, Bicycling and walking contribute to safeguarding our coast from offshore oil drilling and enhance California’s energy independence and national security by reducing our reliance upon imported oil; and WHEREAS, Designing roads for safe and efficient travel by bicyclists and pedestrians saves lives; and WHEREAS, Bicyclists and pedestrians pay sales taxes which provide for the majority of local transportation spending; and WHEREAS, Local demand for funding from the Bicycle Transportation Account, the Safe Routes to School, and the Transportation Enhancement Activity Programs far exceeds available moneys; and WHEREAS, The best use of limited financial resources is to include bicycle and pedestrian elements into roadway projects where feasible; and Final

App-99

Appendices

WHEREAS, Bicycling and walking reduce traffic congestion in California; and WHEREAS, In February 2000, the United States Department of Transportation issued a design guidance statement titled, “Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach-A United States Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure;” and WHEREAS, In March 2001, the California Department of Transportation issued Deputy Directive 64 titled “Accommodating Non-Motorized Travel” which states that “The Department fully considers the needs of non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with disabilities) in all programming, planning maintenance, construction, operations, and project development activities and products. This includes incorporation of the best available standards in all of the Department’s practices. The Department adopts the best practices concepts in the US DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling And Walking into Transportation Infrastructure;” now, therefore, be it RESOLVED by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That in order to improve the ability of all Californians who choose to walk or bicycle to do so safely and efficiently, the Legislature of the State of California hereby encourages all cities and counties to implement the policies of the California Department of Transportation Deputy Directive 64 and the United States Department of Transportation’s design guidance document on integrating bicycling and walking when building their transportation infrastructure.

California Department of Transportation Deputy Directive 64: Accommodating NonMotorized Travel Policy The Department fully considers the needs of non-motorized travelers (including pedestrian cyclists and persons with disabilities) in all programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations and project development activities and products. This includes incorporation of the best available standards in all of the Department’s practices. The Department adopts the best practice concepts in the U.S. DOT Policy Statement on “Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure.”

Definition/Background The planning and project development process seeks to provide the people of California with a degree of mobility in balance with other values. They must ensure that economic, social and environmental effects are fully considered along with technical issues, so that the best interest of the public is served. This includes all users of California’s facilities and roadways. Attention must be given to many issues including, but not limited to, the following: • Safe and efficient transportation for all users of the transportation system • Provision of alternatives for non-motorized travel • Support of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) • Attainment of community goals and objectives • Transportation needs of low-mobility, disadvantaged groups • Support of the state’s economic development • Elimination or minimization of adverse effects on the environment, natural resources, public services, aesthetic features and the community • Realistic financial estimates • Cost-effectiveness App-100

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Individual projects are selected for construction on the basis of overall multimodal system benefits, as well as community goals, plans and values. Decisions place emphasis on making different transportation modes work together safely and effectively. Implicit in these objectives is the need to accommodate nonmotorized travelers as an important consideration in improving the transportation system. Responsibilities Deputy Director, Planning and Modal Programs: • Ensures that the needs of non-motorized travelers are incorporated into the program element of Transportation Planning and the modal elements of the statewide strategy for mobility. • Ensures that liaison exists with non-motorized advocates to incorporate non-motorized needs into all program areas including project and system planning. • Ensures that the needs of the non-motorized travelers are incorporated in personal movement strategies. Deputy Director, Project Delivery: • Ensures that projects incorporate best practices for non-motorized travel in the design and construction of capital projects. Deputy Director, Maintenance and Operations: • Ensures that the transportation system is maintained and operated in a safe and efficient manner with the recognition that non-motorized travel is a vital element of the transportation system. • Ensures that the needs of non-motorized travelers are met in maintenance work zones. District Directors: • Ensure that best practices for non-motorized travel are included in all district projects and project planning. • Ensure that best practices for non-motorized travel are implemented in maintenance and travel operations practices. Chief, Division of Design • Ensures that project delivery procedures and design guidance include the needs of non-motorized travelers as a regular part of doing business. • Ensures that all project delivery staff is trained and consider the needs of the non-motorized traveler while developing and designing transportation projects. Chief, Division of Planning: • Ensures incorporation of non-motorized travel elements in transportation plans, programs and studies prepared by Transportation Planning. • Ensures planning staff understand and are trained in the principles and design guidelines, non-motorized funding sources and the planning elements of non-motorized transportation. • Coordinates Caltrans projects with non-motorized interest groups. • Ensures incorporation of non-motorized travel elements in Corridor Studies prepared by Transportation Planning. Chief, Division of Environmental Analysis: • Ensures that non-motorized travel groups potentially affected by Caltrans projects are identified and have the opportunity to be involved in the project development process. • Advocates effectively for all reasonable project-specific best practices that support or promote nonmotorized travel.

Final

App-101

Appendices

Chief, Division of Maintenance: • Ensures State-owned facilities are maintained consistent with the needs of motorized and non-motorized travelers. • Provides guidance and training to those maintaining roadways to be aware of and sensitive to the needs of non-motorized travel. Chief, Division of Traffic Operations: • Ensures that the transportation system is operated in accordance with the needs of all travelers including non-motorized travel. • Provides training and guidance on the operation of the transportation facility consistent with providing mobility for all users. • Recommends safety measures in consideration of non-motorized travel on California’s transportation system. Chief, Division of Local Assistance: • Ensures that Local Assistance staff, local agencies and interest groups are familiar with funding programs available for non-motorized travelers. • Ensures that program coordinators responsible for non-motorized travel modes are familiar with nonmotorized issues and advocate on behalf of non-motorized travelers. Applicability All Caltrans employees who are involved in the planning, design, construction, maintenance and operations of the transportation system. Complete Streets A “complete street” is one that enables a safe and viable transportation access to all types of roadway users. They allow bicycles, pedestrians, seniors, transit riders and individuals with disabilities to move through a roadway. Complete streets addresses the safety and mobility needs of non-vehicular users while balancing efficiency of vehicular traffic. Roadway segments differ, so complete street design treatments will be unique as well. Adjacent land uses, transportation infrastructure and demographics play a key role in the design of a complete street. Typical amenities can include bike lanes, paved and hard surface paths, wide sidewalks, parkway strip, special bus lanes, pedestrian curb extensions, accessible pedestrian and bicycle signals and median islands. Complete streets in rural areas will look different than those in urban core areas, but can operate in the same way with a balance of convenience and safety designs. Complete streets offer many benefits for the surrounding community: • Wide, attractive sidewalks and well defined bike routes encourage healthy and active lifestyles among residents of all ages. • They give children opportunities to reach nearby destinations in a safe and supportive environment. • Transportation options allow everyone, particularly people with disabilities and older adults, to be mobile and stay connected to the community. • Multi-modal transportation networks help communities provide alternatives to sitting in traffic. • Integration of land use and transportation creates an attractive blend of buildings, houses, offices, shops and street designs. • Improved pedestrian facilities including sidewalks, raised medians, convenient bus stop placement, traffic calming measures and treatments for travelers with disabilities can increase the convenience and safety of all users. App-102

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

• Preserving resources through livable and walkable communities can also help reduce carbon emissions and are an important part of a climate change strategy. • Reductions in transportation costs and travel time, as well as lower public investment in infrastructure, can allow for increased spending in other areas and can result in economic revitalization. • Integrating sidewalks, bike lanes, transit amenities and safe crossings into the initial design of a project can reduce the need for costly retrofits later.

Deputy Directive 64 - Revision #1 - Complete Streets: Integrating the Transportation System

This revision to Deputy Directive 64 was signed on October 2, 2008. It reiterates that Caltrans is to provide for the needs of travelers of all ages and abilities in all planning, programming, design, construction, operations and maintenance activities and products on the State Highway System (SHS). Caltrans views all transportation improvements (new and retrofit) as opportunities to improve safety, access and mobility for all travelers and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system. The Department develops integrated multimodal projects in balance with community goals, plans, and values. Addressing the safety and mobility needs of cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, regardless of funding, is implicit in these objectives. Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel is facilitated by creating “complete streets” beginning early in system planning and continuing through project delivery, maintenance and operations. Developing a network of complete streets requires collaboration among all Department functional units and stakeholders. Deputy Directive 64-R1 further defines what complete streets are and creates an Implementation Action Plan Overview. The Implementation Action Plan projects are organized into seven categories: 1) Highest Focus Areas; 2) Guidance, Manuals, and Handbooks; 3) Policy and Plans; 4) Funding and Project Selection; 5) Raise Awareness; 6) Training; and 7) Research. A Complete Streets Steering Committee will oversee implementation of the projects, as well as track and report on action items, deliverables and policies. DD-64 designates roles and responsibilities for implementing Complete Streets.

Complete Streets Act - AB 1358

The Complete Streets Act of 2007 will ensure that the transportation plans of California communities meet the needs of all users of the roadway including pedestrians, cyclists, users of public transit, motorists, children, the elderly, and the disabled. AB 1358 requires the legislative body of a city or county, upon revision of the circulation element of their general plan, to identify how the jurisdiction will provide for the routine accommodation of all users of the roadway including motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, individuals with disabilities, seniors, and users of public transportation. The bill also directs the Office of Planning and Research to amend guidelines for the development of general plan circulation elements so that the building and operation of local transportation facilities safely and conveniently accommodate everyone, regardless of their mode of travel.

Final

App-103

Appendices

Design Guidance Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach A USDOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure

Purpose Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach is a policy statement adopted by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). USDOT hopes that public agencies, professional associations, advocacy groups, and others adopt this approach as a way of committing themselves to integrating bicycling and walking into the transportation mainstream. The Design Guidance incorporates three key principles: a) a policy statement that bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist; b) an approach to achieving this policy that has already worked in State and local agencies; and c) a series of action items that a public agency, professional association, or advocacy group can take to achieve the overriding goal of improving conditions for bicycling and walking. The Policy Statement was drafted by the U.S. Department of Transportation in response to Section 1202 (b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) with the input and assistance of public agencies, professional associations and advocacy groups. Introduction Bicycling and walking issues have grown in significance. Public agencies and public interest groups alike are striving to define the most appropriate way in which to accommodate the two modes within the overall transportation system so that those who walk or ride bicycles can safely, conveniently, and comfortably access every destination within a community. Public support and advocacy for improved conditions for bicycling and walking has created a widespread acceptance that more should be done to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of the non-motorized traveler. Public opinion surveys have demonstrated strong support for increased planning, funding and implementation of shared use paths, sidewalks and on-street facilities. At the same time, public agencies have become considerably better equipped to respond to this demand. Research and practical experience in designing facilities for cyclists and pedestrians has generated numerous national, state and local design manuals and resources. An increasing number of professional planners and engineers are familiar with this material and are applying this knowledge in towns and cities across the country. The Americans with Disabilities Act, building on an earlier law requiring curb ramps in new, altered, and existing sidewalks, added impetus to improving conditions for sidewalk users. People with disabilities rely on the pedestrian and transit infrastructure, and the links between them, for access and mobility. Congress and many State legislatures have made it considerably easier in recent years to fund nonmotorized projects and programs (for example, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century), and a number of laws and regulations now mandate certain planning activities and design standards to guarantee the inclusion of cyclists and pedestrians.

App-104

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Despite these many advances, injury and fatality numbers for cyclists and pedestrians remain stubbornly high, levels of bicycling and walking remain frustratingly low, and most communities continue to grow in ways that make travel by means other than the private automobile quite challenging. Failure to provide an accessible pedestrian network for people with disabilities often requires the provision of costly paratransit service. Ongoing investment in the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation infrastructure is still more likely to overlook rather than integrate cyclists and pedestrians. In response to demands from user groups that every transportation project include a bicycle and pedestrian element, Congress asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to study various approaches to accommodating the two modes. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) instructs the Secretary to work with professional groups such as AASHTO, ITE, and other interested parties to recommend policies and standards that might achieve the overall goal of fully integrating cyclists and pedestrians into the transportation system. TEA-21 also says that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation projects, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permittedâ&#x20AC;? (Section 1202). Sec. 1202. Bicycle Transportation And Pedestrian Walkways. (b) Design Guidance. (1) In general - In implementing section 217(g) of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary, in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and other interested organizations, shall develop guidance on the various approaches to accommodating bicycles and pedestrian travel. (2) Issues to be addressed - The guidance shall address issues such as the level and nature of the demand, volume, and speed of motor vehicle traffic, safety, terrain, cost, and sight distance. (3) Recommendations - The guidance shall include recommendations on amending and updating the policies of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials relating to highway and street design standards to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. (4) Time period for development - The guidance shall be developed within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. In August 1998, FHWA convened a Task Force comprising representatives from FHWA, AASHTO, ITE, bicycle and pedestrian user groups, State and local agencies, the U.S. Access Board and representatives of disability organizations to seek advice on how to proceed with developing this guidance. The Task Force reviewed existing and proposed information on the planning and technical design of facilities for cyclists and pedestrians and concluded that these made creation of another design manual unnecessary. However, the area where information and guidance was most lacking was in determining when to include designated or special facilities for cyclists and pedestrians in transportation projects. There was also uncertainty about the type of facility to provide, and the design elements needed to ensure accessibility.

Final

App-105

Appendices

For example, when a new suburban arterial road is planned and designed, what facilities for cyclists and pedestrians should be provided? The task force felt that once the decision to provide a particular facility was made, the specific information on designing that facility is generally available. However, the decision on whether to provide sidewalks on neither, one or both sides of the road, or a shoulder, striped bike lane, wide outside lane or separate trail for cyclists is usually made with little guidance or help. After a second meeting with the Task Force in January 1999, FHWA agreed to develop a Policy Statement on Accommodating Bicyclists and Pedestrians in Transportation Projects to guide state and local agencies in answering these questions. Task Force members recommended against trying to create specific warrants for different facilities (warrants leave little room for engineering judgment and have often been used to avoid providing facilities for bicycling and walking). Instead, the purpose of the Policy Statement is to provide a recommended approach to the accommodation of cyclists and pedestrians that can be adopted by State and local agencies (as well as professional societies and associations, advocacy groups, and Federal agencies) as a commitment to developing a safe, convenient, accessible transportation infrastructure attractive to both motorized and non-motorized users alike. The Policy Statement has four elements: a) An acknowledgment of the issues associated with balancing the competing interests of motorized and non-motorized users; b) A recommended policy approach to accommodating cyclists and pedestrians (including people with disabilities) that can be adopted by an agency or organizations as a statement of policy to be implemented or a target to be reached in the future; c) A list of recommended actions that can be taken to implement the solutions and approaches described above; and d) Further information and resources on the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. The Challenge: Balancing Competing Interests For most of the second half of the 20th Century, the transportation, traffic engineering and highway professions in the United States were synonymous. They shared a singular purpose: building a transportation system that promoted the safety, convenience and comfort of motor vehicle operation. The post-war boom in car and home ownership, the growth of suburban America, the challenge of completing the Interstate System, and the continued availability of cheap gasoline all fueled the development of a transportation infrastructure focused almost exclusively on the private vehicle and commercial truck. Initially, there were few constraints on the traffic engineer and highway designer. Starting at the centerline, highways were developed according to the number of motor vehicle travel lanes needed well into the future, as well as providing space for breakdowns. Beyond that, facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, environmental mitigation, accessibility, community preservation, and aesthetics were often an afterthought, or rejected as unnecessary, costly and regressive. Many states passed laws preventing the use of state gas tax funds on anything other than motor vehicle lanes and facilities. The resulting highway environment discouraged bicycling and walking and has made the two modes more dangerous. Further, the ability of pedestrians with disabilities to travel independently and safely has been compromised, especially for those with vision impairments.

App-106

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Over time, the task of designing and building highways has become more complex and challenging. Traffic engineers now have to integrate accessibility, utilities, landscaping, community preservation, wetland mitigation, historic preservation and a host of other concerns into their plans and designs. Yet they often have less space and resources within which to operate while traffic volumes continue to grow. The additional “burden” of having to find space for pedestrians and cyclists was rejected as impossible in many communities because of space and funding constraints and a perceived lack of demand. There was also anxiety about encouraging an activity that many felt to be dangerous and fraught with liability issues. Designers continued to design from the centerline out and often simply ran out of space before bike lanes, paved shoulders, sidewalks and other “amenities” could be included. By contrast, bicycle and pedestrian user groups argued the roadway designer should design highways from the right-of-way limits in, rather than the centerline out. They advocated beginning the design of a highway with the sidewalk and/or trail, including a buffer before the paved shoulder or bike lane, and then allocating the remaining space for motor vehicles. Through this approach, walking and bicycling are positively encouraged, made safer, and included as a critical element in every transportation project, rather than as an afterthought in a handful of unconnected and arbitrary locations within a community. Retrofitting the built environment often provides even more challenges than building new roads and communities. Space is at a premium and there is a perception that providing better conditions for cyclists and pedestrians will necessarily take away space or convenience from motor vehicles. During the 1990s, Congress spearheaded a movement towards a transportation system that favors people and goods over motor vehicles with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (1991) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998). The call for more walkable, livable, and accessible communities has seen bicycling and walking emerge as an “indicator species” for the health and well-being of a community. People want to live and work in places where they can safely and conveniently walk and/or bicycle and not always have to deal with worsening traffic congestion, road rage and the fight for a parking space. Vice President Gore launched a Livability Initiative in 1999 with the ironic statement that “a gallon of gas can be used up just driving to get a gallon of milk.” The challenge for transportation planners, highway engineers and bicycle and pedestrian user groups, therefore, is to balance their competing interests in a limited amount of right-of-way, and to develop a transportation infrastructure that provides access for all, a real choice of modes, and safety in equal measure for each mode of travel. This task is made more challenging by the widely divergent character of our nation’s highways and byways. Traffic speeds and volumes, topography, land use, the mix of road users and many other factors mean that a four-lane highway in rural North Carolina cannot be designed in the same way as a four-lane highway in New York City, a dirt road in Utah or an interstate highway in southern California. In addition, many different agencies are responsible for the development, management and operation of the transportation system. In a memorandum transmitting Program Guidance on bicycle and pedestrian issues to FHWA Division Offices, the Federal Highway Administrator wrote, “We expect every transportation agency to make accommodation for bicycling and walking a routine part of their planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance activities.” The Program Guidance itself makes a number of clear statements of intent:

Final

App-107

Appendices

• Congress clearly intends for cyclists and pedestrians to have safe, convenient access to the transportation system and sees every transportation improvement as an opportunity to enhance the safety and convenience of the two modes. • “Due consideration” of bicycle and pedestrian needs should include, at a minimum, a presumption that cyclists and pedestrians will be accommodated in the design of new and improved transportation facilities. • To varying extents, cyclists and pedestrians will be present on all highways and transportation facilities where they are permitted and it is clearly the intent of TEA-21 that all new and improved transportation facilities be planned, designed and constructed with this fact in mind. • The decision not to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians] should be the exception rather than the rule. There must be exceptional circumstances for denying bicycle and pedestrian access, either by prohibition or by designing highways that are incompatible with safe, convenient walking and bicycling. The Program Guidance defers a suggested definition of what constitutes “exceptional circumstances” until this Policy Statement is completed. However, it does offer interim guidance that included controlled access highways and projects where the cost of accommodating cyclists and pedestrians is high in relation to the overall project costs and likely level of use by non-motorized travelers. Providing access for people with disabilities is a civil rights mandate not subject to limitation by project costs, levels of use, or “exceptional circumstances.” While the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require pedestrian facilities in the absence of a pedestrian route, it does require that pedestrian facilities, when newly constructed or altered, be accessible. Policy Statement 1. Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in new construction and reconstruction projects in all urbanized areas unless one or more of three conditions are met: • Cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the roadway. In this instance, a greater effort may be necessary to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians elsewhere within the right-of-way or within the same transportation corridor. • The cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. Excessively disproportionate is defined as exceeding twenty percent of the cost of the larger transportation project. • Where scarcity of population or other factors indicate an absence of need. For example, the Portland Pedestrian Guide requires “all construction of new public streets” to include sidewalk improvements on both sides, unless the street is a cul-de-sac with four or fewer dwellings or the street has severe topographic or natural resource constraints. 2. In rural areas, paved shoulders should be included in all new construction and reconstruction projects on roadways used by more than 1,000 vehicles per day, as is currently the case in Wisconsin. Paved shoulders have safety and operational advantages for all road users in addition to providing a place for cyclists and pedestrians to operate. Rumble strips are not recommended where shoulders are used by cyclists unless there is a minimum clear path of four feet in which a bicycle may safely operate. App-108

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

3. Sidewalks, shared use paths, street crossings (including over- and undercrossings), pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, transit stops and facilities, and all connecting pathways shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so that all pedestrians, including people with disabilities, can travel safely and independently. 4. The design and development of the transportation infrastructure shall improve conditions for bicycling and walking through the following additional steps: • Planning projects for the long-term - Transportation facilities are long-term investments that remain in place for many years. The design and construction of new facilities that meet the criteria in item 1) above should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling and walking facilities and not preclude the provision of future improvements. For example, a bridge likely to remain in place for 50 years might be built with sufficient width for safe bicycle and pedestrian use in anticipation that facilities will be available at either end of the bridge, even if not currently the case. • Addressing the need for cyclists and pedestrians to cross corridors, as well as travel along them - Even where cyclists and pedestrians may not commonly use a particular travel corridor being improved or constructed, they will likely need to be able to cross that corridor safely and conveniently. Therefore, the design of intersections and interchanges shall accommodate cyclists and pedestrians in a safe, accessible and convenient manner. • Getting exceptions approved at a senior level - Exceptions for the non-inclusion of bikeways and walkways shall be approved by a senior manager and be documented with supporting data that indicates the basis for the decision. • Designing facilities to the best currently available standards and guidelines - The design of facilities for cyclists and pedestrians should follow commonly used design guidelines and standards, such as the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, and the ITE Recommended Practice Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities. Policy Approach “Rewrite the Manuals” Approach Manuals commonly used by highway designers covering roadway geometrics, roadside safety and bridges should incorporate design information that integrates safe and convenient facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, including people with disabilities, into all new highway construction and reconstruction projects. In addition to incorporating detailed design information, such as the installation of safe and accessible crossing facilities for pedestrians, or safe and convenient intersections for cyclists, these manuals should also be amended to provide flexibility to the highway designer to develop facilities in keeping with transportation needs, accessibility, community values and aesthetics. For example, the Portland Pedestrian Design Guide (1998) applies to every project designed and built in the city, but the guide also notes that: “Site conditions and circumstances often make applying a specific solution difficult. The Pedestrian Design Guide should reduce the need for ad hoc decision by providing a published set of guidelines that are applicable to most situations. Throughout the guidelines, however, care has been taken to provide flexibility to the designer so she or he can tailor the standards to unique circumstances. Even when the specific guideline cannot be met, the designer should attempt to find the solution that best meets the pedestrian design principles described.” Final

App-109

Appendices

In the interim, these manuals may be supplemented by stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian facility manuals that provide detailed design information addressing on-street bicycle facilities, fully accessible sidewalks, crosswalks, shared use paths and other improvements. Examples: Florida and New Jersey DOTs have integrated bicycle and pedestrian facility design information into their standard highway design manuals. Many States and localities have developed their own bicycle and pedestrian facility design manuals, some of which are listed in the final section of this document. Applying Engineering Judgment to Roadway Design In rewriting manuals and developing standards for the accommodation of cyclists and pedestrians, there is a temptation to adopt “typical sections” that are applied to roadways without regard to travel speeds, lane widths, vehicle mix, adjacent land uses, traffic volumes and other critical factors. This approach can lead to inadequate provision on major roads (e.g. a four foot bike lane or four foot sidewalk on a six lane high-speed urban arterial) and the over-design of local and neighborhood streets (e.g. striping bike lanes on low volume residential roads), and leaves little room for engineering judgment. After adopting the policy that cyclists and pedestrians (including people with disabilities) will be fully integrated into the transportation system, state and local governments should encourage engineering judgment in the application of the range of available treatments. For example: • Collector and arterial streets shall typically have a minimum of a four foot wide striped bicycle lane, though wider lanes are often necessary in locations with parking, curb and gutter, heavier and/or faster traffic. • Collector and arterial streets shall typically have a minimum of a five foot sidewalk on both sides of the street, though wider sidewalks and landscaped buffers are necessary in locations with higher pedestrian or traffic volumes, and/or higher vehicle speeds. At intersections, sidewalks may need to be wider to accommodate accessible curb ramps. • Rural arterials shall typically have a minimum of a four foot paved shoulder, though wider shoulders (or marked bike lanes) and accessible sidewalks and crosswalks are necessary within rural communities and where traffic volumes and speeds increase. This approach also allows the highway engineer to achieve the performance goal of providing safe, convenient, and comfortable travel for cyclists and pedestrians by other means. For example, if it would be inappropriate to add width to an existing roadway to stripe a bike lane or widen a sidewalk, traffic calming measures can be employed to reduce motor vehicle speeds to levels more compatible with bicycling and walking. Actions The United States Department of Transportation encourages states, local governments, professional associations, other government agencies and community organizations to adopt this Policy Statement as an indication of their commitment to accommodating cyclists and pedestrians as an integral element of the transportation system. By so doing, the organization or agency should explicitly adopt one, all, or a combination of the various approaches described above and should be committed to taking some or all of the actions listed below as appropriate for their situation.

App-110

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

a) Define the exceptional circumstances in which facilities for cyclists and pedestrians will not be required in all transportation projects. b) Adopt new manuals, or amend existing manuals, covering the geometric design of streets, the development of roadside safety facilities and design of bridges and their approaches so that they comprehensively address the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as an integral element of the design of all new and reconstructed roadways. c) Adopt stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian facility design manuals as an interim step towards the adoption of new typical sections or manuals covering the design of streets and highways. d) Initiate an intensive re-tooling and re-education of transportation planners and engineers to make them conversant with the new information required to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. Training should be made available for, if not required of, agency traffic engineers and consultants who perform work in this field. Conclusion There is no question that conditions for bicycling and walking need to be improved in every community in the United States. It is no longer acceptable that 6,000 cyclists and pedestrians are killed in traffic every year, that people with disabilities cannot travel without encountering barriers and that two desirable and efficient modes of travel have been made difficult and uncomfortable. Every transportation agency has the responsibility and the opportunity to make a difference to the bicyclefriendliness and walkability of our communities. The design information to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians is available, as is the funding. The United States Department of Transportation is committed to doing all it can to improve conditions for bicycling and walking and to make them safer ways to travel. Additional Information and Resources General Design Resources A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition 2004 (The Green Book). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC, 20090-6716, Phone: (888) 227-4860 http://www.knovel.com/web/portal/browse/display?_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_bookid=2528 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 2000. Transportation Research Board, Box 289, Washington, DC 20055, Phone: (202) 334-3214. Next edition: 2010. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Superintendent of Documents. P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Next edition: 2011. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2011 Draft. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ Next edition: 2012. Flexibility in Highway Design, 2004. FHWA. HEP 30, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/index.htm

Final

App-111

Appendices

Bikeway Facility Design Resources Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2009, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC, 20090-6716, Phone: (888) 227-4860. Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, 1998, FHWA, HSR 20, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA. Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicyclists, 1993. FHWA, R&T Report Center, 9701 Philadelphia Ct., Unit Q; Lanham, MD 20706. (301) 577-1421 (fax only) North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, 1994. North Carolina DOT, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611. (919) 733-2804. Bicycle Facility Planning, 1995. Pinsof & Musser. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report # 459. American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave, Suite 1600; Chicago, IL 60603. Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual, 1994. Florida DOT, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Office, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399. Evaluation of Shared-use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles, 1996. Florida DOT, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Office, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399. Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Resources Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 1995. Oregon Department of Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, Room 210, Transportation Building, Salem, OR 97310, Phone: (503) 986-3555 Improving Conditions for Bicyclists and Pedestrians, A Best Practices Report, 1998. FHWA, HEP 10, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590. Traffic Calming Design Resources Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. 1999. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 525 School Street, SW, Suite 410; Washington, DC 20024. Florida Department of Transportationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Roundabout Guide. 1996. Florida Department of Transportation, 605 Suwannee St., MS-82, Tallahassee, FL 23299-0450. National Bicycling and Walking Study. Ten Year Status Report. 2004. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Traffic Calming. 1995. American Planning Association, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603 Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design Guidelines, Proposed Recommended Practice. 1997. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 525 School Street, SW, Suite 410; Washington, DC 20024. Making Streets that Work, City of Seattle, 600 Fourth Ave., 12th Floor, Seattle, WA 98104-1873, Phone: (206) 684-4000, Fax: (206) 684-5360. Traffic Control Manual for In-Street Work, 1994. Seattle Engineering Department, City of Seattle, 600 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-6967, Phone: (206) 684-5108. App-112

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Appendix F: California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Use of Roadways: The following sections of the California State Code are provided as a reference source concerning the legal implications of operating a bicycle on the roadways within the state of California. Sections 21200-21212 21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16. 7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000. 1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application. (b) (1) Any peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4. 5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, operating a bicycle during the course of his or her duties is exempt from the requirements of subdivision (a), except as those requirements relate to driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, if the bicycle is being operated under any of the following circumstances: (A) In response to an emergency call. (B) While engaged in rescue operations. (C) In the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law. (2) This subdivision does not relieve a peace officer from the duty to operate a bicycle with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway. 21200. 5. Notwithstanding Section 21200, it is unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle upon a highway while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug. Any person arrested for a violation of this section may request to have a chemical test made of the personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of that personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s blood, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed. A conviction of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Violations of this section are subject to Section 13202. 5. 21201. (a) No person shall operate a bicycle on a roadway unless it is equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make one braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement. (b) No person shall operate on the highway any bicycle equipped with handlebars so raised that the operator must elevate his hands above the level of his shoulders in order to grasp the normal steering grip area. (c) No person shall operate upon any highway a bicycle which is of such a size as to prevent the operator from safely stopping the bicycle, supporting it in an upright position with at least one foot on the ground, and restarting it in a safe manner. (d) Every bicycle operated upon any highway during darkness shall be equipped (1) with a lamp emitting a white light which, while the bicycle is in motion, illuminates the highway in front of the bicyclist and is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle; (2) with a red reflector on the rear which shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper Final

App-113

Appendices

beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle; (3) with a white or yellow reflector on each pedal visible from the front and rear of the bicycle from a distance of 200 feet; and (4) with a white or yellow reflector on each side forward of the center of the bicycle, and with a white or red reflector on each side to the rear of the center of the bicycle, except that bicycles which are equipped with reflectorized tires on the front and the rear need not be equipped with these side reflectors. Such reflectors and reflectorized tires shall be of a type meeting requirements established by the department. (e) A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached to the operator and visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle, may be used in lieu of the lamp required by clause (1) of subdivision (d). 21201. 5. (a) No person shall sell, or offer for sale, a reflex reflector or reflectorized tire of a type required on a bicycle unless it meets requirements established by the department. If there exists a Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission regulation applicable to bicycle reflectors, the provisions of that regulation shall prevail over provisions of this code or requirements established by the department pursuant to this code relative to bicycle reflectors. (b) No person shall sell, or offer for sale, a new bicycle that is not equipped with a red reflector on the rear, a white or yellow reflector on each pedal visible from the front and rear of the bicycle, a white or yellow reflector on each side forward of the center of the bicycle, and a white or red reflector on each side to the rear of the center of the bicycle, except that bicycles which are equipped with reflectorized tires on the front and rear need not be equipped with these side reflectors. (c) Area reflectorizing material meeting the requirements of Section 25500 may be used on a bicycle. 21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations: (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a â&#x20AC;&#x153;substandard width laneâ&#x20AC;? is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. (b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable. 21203. No person riding upon any motorcycle, motorized bicycle, bicycle, coaster, roller skates, sled, or toy vehicle shall attach the same or himself to any streetcar or vehicle on the roadway. 21204. (a) No person operating a bicycle upon a highway shall ride other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached thereto. App-114

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

(b) No operator shall allow a person riding as a passenger, and no person shall ride as a passenger, on a bicycle upon a highway other than upon or astride a separate seat attached thereto. If the passenger is four years of age or younger, or weighs 40 pounds or less, the seat shall have adequate provision for retaining the passenger in place and for protecting the passenger from the moving parts of the bicycle. 21205. No person operating a bicycle shall carry any package, bundle or article which prevents the operator from keeping at least one hand upon the handlebars. 21206. This chapter does not prevent local authorities, by ordinance, from regulating the registration of bicycles and the parking and operation of bicycles on pedestrian or bicycle facilities, provided such regulation is not in conflict with the provisions of this code. 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code. (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and Highways Code. 21207. 5. Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other provision of law, no motorized bicycle may be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over such path or trail permits, by ordinance, such operation. 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that such person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations: (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if such overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane. (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions. (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement. 21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows: (1) To park where parking is permitted. (2) To enter or leave the roadway. Final

App-115

Appendices

(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection. (b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207. 5, at a speed no greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility, traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of bicyclists. 21210. No person shall leave a bicycle lying on its side on any sidewalk, or shall park a bicycle on a sidewalk in any other position, so that there is not an adequate path for pedestrian traffic. Local authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit bicycle parking in designated areas of the public highway, provided that appropriate signs are erected. 21211. (a) No person shall stop, stand, sit, or loiter upon any class I bikeway, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 890. 4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public or private bicycle path or trail, if the stopping, standing, sitting, or loitering impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist. (b) No person shall place or park any bicycle, vehicle, or any other object upon any bikeway or bicycle path or trail, as specified in subdivision (a), which impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist unless the placement or parking is necessary for safe operation or is otherwise in compliance with the law. (c) This section does not apply to drivers or owners of utility or public utility vehicles, as provided in Section 22512. (d) This section does not apply to owners or drivers of vehicles who make brief stops while engaged in the delivery of newspapers to customers along the person’s route. 21212. (a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle, or ride upon a bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 2373 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90. 4 bicycle helmet standard) or the Snell Memorial Foundation’s Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling. This requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the bicycle. (b) Any helmet sold or offered for sale for use by operators and passengers of bicycles shall be conspicuously labeled in accordance with the standard described in subdivision (a) which shall constitute the manufacturer’s certification that the helmet conforms to the applicable safety standards. (c) No person shall sell, or offer for sale, for use by an operator or passenger of a bicycle any safety helmet which is not of a type meeting requirements established by this section. (d) (1) A person who violates a requirement of this section in 1994 shall be warned of the violation by the enforcing official, but shall not be issued a notice to appear.

App-116

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

(2) Any charge under this subdivision shall be dismissed when the person charged alleges in court, under oath, that the charge against the person is the first charge against that person under this subdivision, unless it is otherwise established in court that the charge is not the first charge against the person. (e) Except as provided in subdivision (d), a violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than twenty-five dollars ($25). The parent or legal guardian having control or custody of an unemancipated minor whose conduct violates this section shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed pursuant to this subdivision. (f) Notwithstanding Section 1463 of the Penal Code or any other provision of law, the fines collected for a violation of this section shall be allocated as follows: (1) Seventy-two and one-half percent of the amount collected shall be deposited in a special account of the county health department, to be used for bicycle safety education and for assisting low-income families in obtaining approved bicycle helmets for children under the age of 18 years, either on a loan or purchase basis. The county may contract for the implementation of this program, which, to the extent practicable, shall be operated in conjunction with the child passenger restraint program pursuant to Section 27360. (2) Two and one-half percent of the amount collected shall be deposited in the county treasury to be used by the county to administer the program described in paragraph (1). (3) If the violation occurred within a city, 25 percent of the amount collected shall be transferred to and deposited in the treasury of that city. If the violation occurred in an unincorporated area, this 25 percent shall be deposited and used pursuant to paragraph (1).

Final

App-117

Appendices

Appendix G: Public Input Summary On-line Survey Comments

• I believe having those “Share the Road” signs in more areas will be a nice reminder to the drivers and then getting some of the local streets cleaned/swept a little more often after weekends would be more encouraging. Lots of debris scattered after weekends. • J Street trolley crossing is dangerous and needs widening. Only a few loops detect cyclists, e.g. Hunte Parkway/Olympic Parkway “knows” I’m there. Lagoon Drive was not re-surfaced in the bike lanes, forcing bikes into roadway. F Street near Broadway has cracks similar to bike wheel width. • Transition at H and L streets at I-805 could be made more bike-friendly. Well paved bike lane the full length of 5th or 4th Streets would be nice. While the lanes are there the paving is lacking. When compared with other cities Chula Vista’s bike infrastructure is exceptional. It has allowed my wife and I to have only one car between us. Please continue to show cyclists from other cities how wonderful our bike facilities are by promoting cycling events like Bike the Bay, Cycle EastLake, The Grand Fondo, and the Criterium events in downtown. Also, please continue to encourage the informal rides like the Flojos (8 a.m. Sunday from AAA office) and the Pulse Endurance Sports ride. Thank you. • Need a better way to transition from the EastLake area to the Bayshore Bikeway. The area between I-805 and I-5 is bad for bikes. • Bike lanes through Chula Vista, so that you can ride around the bay from where the Coronado Ferry lets you off in downtown San Diego south to connect up with the trail around the bottom of the Bay and up the Strand. • Improve bike lanes on H and L Streets and Telegraph Canyon Road to safely access the Bayshore Bikeway. • I have been recently unemployed. And because of the limited routes to many facilities in Eastern Chula Vista, I chose not to spend money. If you would consider seniors and the hills it would take them to riding to and from shopping centers, you would understand the funds the city is losing because of this group. The more friendly routes for seniors, the more revenue the city receives from its growing populations of seniors. Cyclists would utilize Chula Vista more than motorists every would. I have many suggestions to assist in the growth of this missed opportunity. • The bike lanes at EastLake are well planned. City should work on improving bike lanes on all Chula Vista roads. • Serious cyclists are not interested in off road bike paths (e.g.: E. Palomar in the area of La Media). The off road bike paths do not allow cyclists to ride at a fast pace for fear of striking pedestrians/runners. Wide bike lanes serve a better purpose as they allow serious cyclists to ride faster and with the pace of traffic. • H Street overpass of 805 heading west is kind of a death trap with cars merging on from the freeway. Pretty sketchy!

App-118

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

• A lot of the bike lanes are full of debris such as broken glass, cans, rocks, etc. Bike lanes need to be swept more often. • Continuous routes please. • I ride along Olympic Parkway most often and I wonder how often the street is cleaned. It seems more and more glass and other debris is building up. This makes it unsafe for me to ride and avoid tire damage. • When are you going to start enforcing the mobile phone hands-free laws? More and more motorists have their heads down while texting! (I commute to Southwestern College from Ocean Beach about 2-3 times per week via bicycle.) • Make the signals work for bikes! • Aggressive, dangerous driving is by far the biggest obstacle to cycling in urban areas. A lack of enforcement on local roads (City of San Diego citations have decreased markedly in last five years, for example) has made driving more dangerous in general, and very dangerous for cyclists. More enforcement of speeding on neighborhood streets is vital, as is enforcement of aggressive driving (tailgating, switching lanes, cutting off vehicles/cyclists, etc.). Sure, cyclists must also be educated about making legal stops at stop signs, etc., but all this pales in comparison to aggressive driving. • Too many of the main thoroughfares that a cyclist might take to commute to work are unsafe due to aggressive drivers, going beyond speed limit, in big powerful vehicles such as Telegraph Canyon Road and H Street. • Help everyone realize and act as responsible road users; road rage, bullying motorists, people who think that bikes do not belong on the road in traffic, and bicyclists who disregard traffic laws and courteous behaviors - all need to be fixed. Thanks for asking. • Eastbound Otay Lakes Road is a popular cycling route especially on weekends. I ride with my friends every Saturday morning. Pulse Endurance Sports and Trek bicycle shop both have shop rides on the weekend that use this route. Some weekends I see 40-100 riders on this route. It is a jewel of a ride and cyclist come from all over to ride this route. Unfortunately there is no bicycle lane and it is dangerous. Motorcyclists and motorists travel at high speed and pose a danger to cyclist. I would suggest adding a bicycle lane to this road. It will greatly improve the quality of life for locals and visitors who love cycling like I do. • Crossing I-805 on H Street. • Bay Boulevard and H Street. Have a bike sensor so that you don’t have to wait at the light forever when there is no auto traffic. • Install traffic signals at freeway on-ramps so we can veer left as needed. For example, the on-ramp on East H Street to I-805. I’m riding on the right side of east H Street, then have to wait for traffic before I can safely cross over. The traffic is too fast and aggressive to stake my claim on the lanes, plus their double lanes.

Final

App-119

Appendices

• I would appreciate if bike lanes would be free of glass and potholes. Especially around Rancho del Rey and EastLake areas there is a lot of glass on the bike lanes. Also around EastLake the bike lanes have many potholes. • One reason why I continue to live in east Chula Vista is because of the availability for recreational and commuting to be done by bike. If it was not for the bike lanes in the eastern part of the city and access to the Silver Strand I would have moved a long time ago. Please continue to upgrade where possible. I think more school age children could save the city money by cycling instead to using busses. Could the police run a test loop one day for students to each school to encourage parents to give it a try? • I am so grateful for the path that starts at the foot of Main Street and goes around Imperial Beach and on to Coronado. My problem is that I leave from my home on Montgomery Street and it is very dangerous going west on Main Street because of traffic and no designated bike lanes (between 4th Street and Broadway especially). If I take my car to that location there is no where to park except for Swiss Park and that is not allowed. On the bike path that runs along side the I-54 it is in desperate need of repair as the asphalt is breaking up and there are substantial breaks in the path. It’s a real nice ride except for that problem. I would also like to see a path that was better laid out that leads up to the J Street Marina. Again very dangerous with the street traffic. • More education for motorists to share the road, such as basic respect of space and safety. More education for group cyclists that as a group and disobey laws. • Pavement quality is a significant travel hazard for cyclist safety. • I live in Coronado, but ride through Chula Vista a couple of times a week mostly on Bay Boulevard. Chula Vista is the throughway to the hills out east. L Street by the San Diego Country Club is a little gamey. Also, westbound on Main Street, just west of the I-805. • Potholes on Palm/Ocean View are a definite hazard. The road is not as smooth as roads in other areas (probably because the roads are newer or using rougher asphalt). • Car drivers don’t react well to cyclists’ signals and ride patterns. • More police presence on Olympic Parkway and Telegraph Canyon. Speeding cars and drivers on cellphones endanger bicyclists. • More street sweeping to remove debris/glass from shoulders and bike lanes. • I think the top priority should be separate bike paths that are not sharing the road with cars. Commuters are focused on one thing: getting to their destination. They do not see nor appreciate bikers in their roads. Chula Vista is a town where most commute, and the only safe way to bike is to stay off the roads. • Make noticeable bike lanes used for bikes only.

App-120

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

• I prefer riding in bike lanes on roadways over riding on a separated bike path. Often bike paths become overrun with pedestrians, strollers, joggers, and people biking two or three across and it becomes dangerous to bike on them unless going very slowly. Additionally, many bike paths I’ve seen are not planned, as well as roads - there are often sharp corners with limited visibility, and this becomes a big problem if combining faster riding with the above mentioned obstacles. • I used to bike a lot in Chicago. The bike paths were along the lake so it was a beautiful area to bike. You could bike all the way down to the center of Chicago. I wish we could build that kind of path along the coast all the way down to San Diego. Harbor Drive is the kind of an area that could be part of this coastal route. We could also bike using the frontage roads near the salt ponds. Thanks for thinking of bikers. Maybe some day my dream will become a reality. • Otay Lakes road and out towards Honey Springs is massively popular, yet zero bike lane. Creating a real bike lane would make this one of the premiere cycling locations in southern California. • Chula Vista has made great strides in the new housing areas to improve roads for bikers. However, Bay Boulevard south of L Street needs to be resurfaced and/or repaired especially in the area of the power plant and the salt ponds. That area is unsafe at best. Another area needing resurfacing is the extension of F Street west around the boat repair facility to the Chula Vista Marina park. Lastly, J Street needs to be repaired and slurry sealed from end to end, especially east of Third Avenue. There are several pot holes and cracks making it unsafe for riders. • A bike path that fully circumvents Otay Lakes would be a great family destination for a fun, flat, safe ride. There’s already parking! Need more scenic, leisure, destination rides. The bayfront is another candidate and off-road path should be included in any plan. Otherwise Chula Vista locals put their bikes on their SUVs and drive up to San Diego, and spend their time and money there, rather than at home. • Riding east to west along Main Street/Autopark way under I-805 there is a gap in the bike lane starting near the shopping center at Oleander Street that makes it dangerous to ride on the street in that area. • Bike paths from Seaport Village to freeway entrance heading south that parallels 32nd Street Naval Base is terrible (the route for Bike to Bay ride). • I am interested in setting up a bike rodeo for the Heritage Elementary School and surrounding community. Please contact me at andrew.dewar@pph.org • City buses nearly run over you. People don’t move over even when there is room to do so. • Educate people to jog on sidewalks not the bike lanes. • Several roads on the west side of I-805 (e.g. Palomar Street, 3rd Avenue) need designated bike lanes to protect cyclists from motorists • I have no idea what a “bike loop detection system” is. The intersection at E and 2nd Streets includes a completely blind moment for cars at the eastbound entry to the intersection. People driving west to the intersection speed up to make the light. I’ve called the police about it, but they say its not a really dangerous intersection. I listen to the numerous accidents there. Final

App-121

Appendices

• The major problem is distracted drivers, either holding cell phones or texting, drivers also speeding, but it’s the swerving into the bike lane by distracted drivers and lack of attention, and lack of concern for cyclists that keeps me and my family off the road and on trails only. • There should be more roads for bikers. • I think that the City of Chula Vista is not biker friend in any way, shape or form. I think that this survey and the input it requests is a step in the right direction. I hope a bicycle route/transit-system doesn’t take five to 10 years to establish. Simple road demarcations would suffice as a pilot program. • Intersection of H and 2nd Street is very bike UNFRIENDLY. You cannot go north on 2nd Street unless there is a car there and it is supposed to be a bike route. There is no pedestrian crossing, so no button to push. This is just stupid. Bay Shore Drive is dangerous because of the road surface, but thanks for cutting back the bushes. Get rid of the guys living along the river channel and their trash. Clean the debris out of the channel, yes, we would like to help. Love the causeway that links to the Strand. • Better roadways • Traffic light on H Street and Bay Boulevard rarely responds to cyclists; Bay Boulevard is a popular bike route. • We need more designated, bike-only paths • Making sure that the intersection of Lane Avenue and MacKenzie Creek Road is safer to cross. It leads to a major vein of some trails, and the traffic is ALWAYS racing through that intersection. Not safe for kids to handle without an adult. • I would love to see more bike paths not only in Chula Vista, but the entire San Diego County. I live in East San Diego and because of the roads, it’s very unsafe for me to ride my bicycle to work. Otherwise, I would. • There is no really safe route across the I-805 freeway except J Street, which is very steep. Can you fix that? • East H Street west of Otay Lakes road has no bike lanes for about one half mile and in the eastbound direction the sidewalk is asphalt and heavily damaged by tree roots leaving all bikes to navigate through traffic moving at higher speeds than posted. This creates a hazard for both bike riders and motorists. • If you could please stop using the chip (pebbly rock) surface when repaving street in the bike lanes that would be great (like on Telegraph, Wueste, Hunte in between Olympic and Otay Lakes). What you did on Olympic was great (cars use chip, bikes use smoother surface). That is a good compromise. If you could do something to add a smoother surface especially to Wueste on the shoulders, that would be great. It has become unridable now the chip is so rough. • We could use a bike-oriented skate park and encourage BMX racing for young kids. Great ways to keep them happy and healthy.

App-122

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

• A lot of streets do not have sidewalks. By not having them, it causes motorist to creep on the edges of the road, in some cases forcing cyclist off the road. • Provide bike safety and simple bike repair workshops at libraries, YMCAs, etc. to better train riders, especially school age children. • People riding bicycles on the sidewalk on E Street to Broadway. • Create community events to ride bicycles to recreation areas. • Fix bike lanes around the lake as EastLake. There are many potholes, which makes it dangerous to stay in the bike lane. • I was riding my bike to work, but had to quit because the streets are in such bad shape, I feel it is unsafe. 4th Avenue from Naples to J Street on both sides of street. Moss Street from 5th Avenue to Industrial on both sides. J Street from 5th Avenue to Broadway. All of Broadway. Basically most of the west side. It’s a shame because riding down to the marina should be an enjoyable past-time. • Very difficult to get to the bay bike Path from Industrial Boulevard. Too many vehicles on Palomar and L Streets makes it hard to get across the freeway overpasses. • Improve bicycle detection at signals on Bayshore Bikeway.

Public Workshop Comments

• 54 Bike Route - Use it a lot, but it has some ruts. • E Street gets scary. • Bike Route over I-805 on H Street. • Unused utility road that would allow bike access between East H Street and Bonita Road. • Great job here (Private Road - see map). • Scary crossing I-5 on Main Street to get bike path. • I-805 at Palomar to be improved by Caltrans. • The cycle track/shared use path for peds and cyclist on E. Palomar is excellent! Please use this as model for H Street and Paseo Del Rey. • Rienstra and Hilltop - please create traffic calming pop-out corners and enforcement of traffic laws (particularly motorists not stopping and phoning while driving. • Reduce speed limit on H Street. Enforce non-hands-free cell phone ban throughout Chula Vista, but especially on H Street and at E. Palomar. • Road diet on H Street from Southwestern College to I-5, particularly at Paseo Del Rey and H Street. Final

App-123

Appendices

• Cycle track on H Street, particularly from Paseo Del Rey to Paseo Ranchero. • Widen island refuge on H Street at Paseo Del Rey. • Advanced stop bars for motorist at H Street and Paseo Del Rey • Traffic calming and enforcement of speed limit laws on Max Avenue down the hill between Orange and Rienstra. • Reduce/restrict on car parking to make space for bicycling. Charge for parking. Roads are for travel not for storage of cars. • Improved access at trolley for cyclists. • Sequence traffic lights on Broadway for bike speeds - 12 mph. • “Road diet” on Broadway – one with bike lanes. • L Street at I-805 is difficult to cross. • Make Broadway road dieted - reduce number of travel lanes, add bike lanes. • Safe and secure bike parking – Bike parking could be better downtown. • Need more/better bike parking. • The center of the city has routes, but few bike lanes. • West side needs more awareness of bike traffic. • Roads going east and west - G, I, J and Moss Streets from 3rd Avenue to Industrial are in bad condition. • Curbs and gutters missing on Industrial. • Main Street over I-5 transition lane to I-5 north - Striping of lane/bike lane transition needs re-work. • Request to see crash locations. • My favorite route northbound is Broadway – Easy connectivity north-south if cyclist is ok “taking the lane.” • I hope bike plan speaks to education and enforcement both of motorist and cyclist. Include training of police about lawful biking traffic • I hope bike parking ordinances are part of the plan. Require bike parking spots at commercial areas, schools, residential. • I suggest adding two types of bike facilities with bicycle boulevards or greenways. App-124

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

• Make bicycling easier and more convenient than driving a car. • Let’s get biking and walking audits to/from all schools for safe routes to school. • At medical center and Telegraph Canyon left turn lanes and right turn lanes separated by bike lane never get swept - very gritty with debris. • Not safe for kids to ride to school – Plan events. • The college looks to be very separated from biking route to and from. • Implemented bike plan recommendations, e.g., manhole covers and valve covers in bike lanes along Olympic Parkway - Move out of bike lanes. • Service vehicles parked in bike lane with little or no signage - If bike lane is closed, no mitigation for cyclists. • Parking by parents at schools in bike lanes dropping off students – Dangerous. • General comment on freeway underpasses: 1. Sensors for bikes on paths 2. LED warning lights to signal car traffic that bikes are in tunnel.

Final

App-125

Appendices

-1 SR

D R D O O W IN O B

ET AR G

M AR

BONITA

WY EY

ID ER

HO RS

CASA

DR WINNETKA

Y W W VIE GE RID AR

RD SIT AS

AVNDA DEL REY

VIA

LP BAYO NA

VIA LUNA

CAM MIEL

DR NO RA

DR ERS DR

VENT

EW IN

DE LA TOBA

AL IR M VIA

SANTA OLIVIA

EG STON

AT E

NA MT DA

ITE

RIV

TNEY W HI

A NT

S IE

MAX

WEL

BRANDYWINE AV

NA AV RDECK

VIS

VISTA SAN IGNACIO

W Y T

RD R

OPAL CV

CV TA L CR YS

A N G LE R P L

A FI RE

AL DR

SURFWOOD LN

ER LN

MA R

INE

Y DW

LY ND OIN HU RS T PL T T R

QUA RT E

TOPSAIL

NIRVA

TOPSIDE

BLACK CORAL WY

DR LE A IS SE

KENTMERE TR

SEA COR

EN ER G Y W Y

ENTERTAINMENT

OL IV

DR LE AP DM RE

LN W N

ER AV WHITAK

MAIN CT

I-805 NB OFF RA

PASEO RANCHE

AVILA WY

TIERRA DEL REY

REY PASEO DEL

PL YO AR

AW Y ND SE LA

LN ELKS OC A

I-805 SB I-805 NB

I-805 SB OFF RA

I-805 NB ON RA

BIR

SEA WAT

SR-90 5 RA I-805 NB ON RA

RG A O BU

A LP

SAL

PASE

BURG

O RO PASE

PL A C AS G LA

ARGA PL

BL REY DEL IA PL SS CA

AV L PRIVATE RD

PRIVATE RD

RESEARCH

ILEXEY AV

KENALAN DR

NB OF F RA I-805

FUCHSIA LN

RENE CT ERTA WY LA HU

FIRETHORN ST

RALPH WY

TWINING AV

ILEXEY AV

AQUA PARK ST

KOSTNER DR

BLACKWOOD DR DARWIN PL

PICCARD AV

GIVENS ST

NORSTAD ST

NARWHAL ST

GRISSOM ST

RUTHUPHAM AV

SAUGERTIES AV

CHURRITUCK DR

FOREST GLEN RD

A O B N 25

KE ST

RA ON WB -54

RA ON B

TA VIS LA DE O

SE PA

WY SB OF F RA I-805

MARBLE CT

MALTA AV

M AR

PRIVATE RD

E DR MAPL

PRIVATE RD

RIOS AV

PALM AV

REGENCY WY

PRIVATE RD

DATE ST

MACE ST

MATHER AV

MAITLAND AV

COCHRAN AV

R FF

GAYNESWOOD

RIDGE

BROO

E ST

CARRIE

SHER

CASEY ST PIA

RAMFOS CR

EB -54 SR

RA ON

LVY

D AV FLOY

T DR CRES

ST D TA R

UIN Q E CT

SKYLARK WY

JADE CT

LOMA LN

JADE AV

R TD RD LM

JASPER AV

WAL

KIM PL

CONNOLEY AV REED CT

HALE

N AV NACIO

AV CA

GU AT AY

LI X

YA MA CU

ALBANY AV

LO MA

RD WO OD

BRIAR

CITAS LN

PRIVATE RD

AV MARMIL

VILL EA

DR MT MIGU EL

BANNER AV DEL MONTE AV

PRIVA TE RD L CT

30TH (SB) ST

SEA

T DR

HOLLISTER ST

DAYSAILOR

GREEN BAY ST

THERMAL AV

15TH (SB) ST

GRAN

C ED MER

DESIG N CT

TRITON AV

RED

2BG

MAI N ST

14TH ST

GR E

IT AS N BO AS AS C LE AL C

VISTA DR

VISTA WY

VISTA PL FRESNO AV

MABUHAY WY

ORCHID WY

HAWAII AV

BEYE

MADDEN AV

FLAX CT

RW Y

DAHLIA CT

BEEJAY DR

HARRIS AV

24TH (SB) ST

MANNING WY

MY WY

27TH (SB) ST

DEARBORN DR

GREEN ST

RAEDEL DR

DESTY ST

18TH ST

ZURICH DR

THALIA ST

16TH (SB) ST

ATWATER ST

GRANGER ST

POIPU WY

HOLLISTER ST

I-5 SB OFF RA

UNNAMED ST

THERMAL AV

16TH (SB) ST

GRANGER (SB) ST

15TH (SB) ST

HARWOOD ST

14TH (SB) ST

GEORGIA ST GEORGIA ST

GAYWOOD ST

12TH ST

FLORENCE ST 13TH (SB) ST

-54

RD NY KA OR IS

MAN

C HE

ETHE

STER

L PL

CT TOL AS

04TH AV

07TH ST

PRIVATE RD

SILVAS ST

JACQUA ST

PRIVATE RD

ALAMITOS AV

BARRETT

DR BY EL SH

PRIVATE RD

JAYKEN WY

PRIVATE RD

F RA I-5 SB OF ANITA AV

T OC RE

N R AV

PACIFIC AV

ALTA DR

N T AV

N U AV

ST TH 47 SATURN BL

27TH (SB) ST

EARL ST

RA OFF

F RA

I-5 NB

I-5 SB OF

S 43RD ST

S 41ST ST

S 40TH ST

S 39TH ST

ST N DE

A ST YAM

W CR OD EN A DO V E ST YL N S T E ST

OSBORN ST

ST A

ST HT UC

S 42ND ST

ST ST

ST SIV A

ST R O TH

N DE W O

S 32ND ST WA BA SH BL

BR CH INS ER M UR ST O R CH R IS ST ST

W O

12TH ST

WISE

CRE EK

ERRY

M AR

FLORENCE ST FLORENCE ST

H W

2011

SEAG LEN WY

2AZ NTA

Rancho Casillas

IR TL

FLORIDA ST

VIA ESCAL

FLORIDA ST

SHINO HARA LN

11TH ST

RA DE CE

11TH ST

CTE

PRIVATE RD

Hedenkamp

10TH ST

SIN

2AO

ST LEY

10TH ST

2AQ VIA

STRAWB

IVY LN

AM OR

ESSEX ST

08TH ST

ELER

RI O

AUTO PARK PL

OR CV

EMORY ST

ND E CA

WAY STA

08TH ST

S PL

CALL

DEL

DAW

H MP

ISO

COO PER

ANCH

DOWNING ST

DAMA

STA

PO INT ARG UELLO DR

EMORY ST

TIMRICK LN

2BE

09TH ST

DELAWARE ST

O DEL PAS

LA CRE

DERA

08TH ST

CAL

O LA

DELAWARE ST

WS DA

L E DE

ENT RAD

NER

PASE

07TH ST

2AO STEI

DELAWARE ST

PAS EO

US RO

BLES RO

S PY VIEW HILL

07TH ST

SO L

M AT AJO

PAS EO

RAINBOW DR

CAROLINA ST

3X PL

07TH ST

YAH

DR OVA CORD

OCE AN

PRIVATE RD

H CT

E ST

VERD

DEL

CALL

RED OAK

Valle Lindo

CONNECTICUT ST

TA VI BO NI

K RD

2BC

SEA REEF

EAST LN

D OL

EBAC

LOUDEN LN

EL W

NITA

RIDG

DR WEST POINT

05TH ST

MI GU

SIEM

MAN

05TH ST

SAN

TA RD BO NI

AMENA CT

SHER

CALIFORNIA ST

RD VIA

CAM

ALABAMA ST

UIT COND

AR ST TIM

RAMB UR ST

C ST

VIEW

DAVIES DR

A ST

ATER EE TW SW

IE ST

NTIA

FELIN

Discovery Charter

VIL

LEE

03RD ST

FRISB

CRES

2AC

ND DR

2BF

LAYLA CT

LAYLA W Y

ESCE

RO ECITA SITA CT

RIG

TA NBARK ST

O VA

PETERLYNN CT

G RD

2AP

Alta Vista Academy

2AU

TESOTA

E FL OR

N MA

TE RD PRIVA ST

RAN

SEQ UO IA ST

CALL

DE LU Z

ISLA

SO L

MARC WADE DR

PETERLYNN W Y

2AE

LA CR

RE Y

ASH DR

TARATA

A ST

AG O STO ST

IA AV

2AD

NES LN

2AM

PASO

2BB

REY

O OR DU

RIVER

CENTER

TIMBER

CAS

ARRUZA ST

SIMB

W Y

MEDI CAL

DEL

2AD

DEL

COLL IN

ACERO

PAZ

DARWIN WY

MARG E W Y

NCHO

DEL

NCHO

KEDZIE AV

ROS A L INDA ST

L AV

RIN

CIM A DEL REY

REG AT TA L N

ARRECIF E W Y

D EL SO L BL

TA CR

S TU C T

EN ER O W Y

ON RA I-805 SB

R AN C H O D R

TALLOW

E WY

PO INT LA JO LL A DR

TA MA

TOPAZ CT

SAT INW O O D WY

TALUS ST

MEL ROS

E AT

CAM

LIL AC RA RIVE

2BA

RA RIVE

I-805 SB ON RA

EL AV

TRA

RIENS

MANSIO

PAS EO

OW EN

LAUR

LLIA

ANA LANT

E ST

ERIA

CAME

L CT QUAI

CT NOLAN

CT STON

Parkview

WI ST

PO WDERHO RN DR

DARW I N AV

EN ER O C T

GE DR

2AJ

2AV D

SIPES

E PL

DIAMO

AZALEA CT OCA LA ON RA I-805 NB

MARL

ARIES D

DAVE S W Y

DRESSA

N RA

E J ST

LA RD

2AT

LE PL

IL P

LAZO

ORIO

N RAVE

O OD

NORE LLA ST

2AG

A DR

ORO

N PL

ANO

S RA

CALM

OAK PL

A QU

DEBBYANN P L

KIM SUE W Y

PO NY

VIEW

FO XB

AV R

PECA

IO N

VEN DR LARKHA

CA RO

E LN SHIR HAMP T LN NPOR DAVE T DR UCKE NANT

AV C

O ST

CAM ESPUELAS

CHOL

NDER

FO RD

MAX

2AA

YA MO

LO MA

CASEMAN AV

JUST S T

FILL Y LN

2AI

Rogers

ING REDW

COL DWE LL LN

BATEMAN AV

SU R R EY DR

MESA PL

OL EA

OA K

MI SS

UNE

N NOLA

NAPA

NEPT

CT CT

JUDS

AR EY D R

E DR

LEN

CAM ELEVADO

Covenant Christian

OT AV

E OX

MURRIE

PLUMBAGO LN

IA ST

LFG

SERR

LE M O N S E E D D R

R EN E D R

MIRAR

GO L DEN S K Y

C H A N U TE S T

GL ADING DR

NIE

ACAC

2AL

OCEL

A AV

TE B O C T

SYLV

TA GL BO NI

A ON

AV NILE

ESA

AN AV

REST

BUENA VISTA

OCAL

MYRA

RC WATE

A RPAD

TO ER

G AS

AI R

OA SIS

PL ES

E AT IV

R CT

A CR

R DOVE

EY AV

OSE

PO SA

L CT

NT CA

ESA

GATT Y ST

COL EM AN AV

O VE

MARI

H ST

MAL ITO CT

BYR D ST

RSON

GROS

OSA

CL MO NT

E AV

UNE

ON NACI

NT ER

MELR

THER

3AG

C H A N U TE S T

ANDE

N DOLA

TA W BO NI

ESCA

E CT

PADE

ESTREL CAMTO

ANITA

MARIP

Rohr

QUA RRY

K CT

O DR

MANZ

QUINC

VALL

FIFIELD ST

E NA

IEST

THER

PROS

LO T U S D R

OTAY

NERA

PICASS

CAL

Palomar Elem

ECKM

3BE

RAW HID

MI LA

VA DR

TIFFANY WY

OS AG

A NORM

E AV

MYRA

VIEW

MESITA

CALLE

RI MAVE

CORRAL CT

Y DW

JAMU

Y ST

Loma Verde

3BD

D O

LN HO OL CT N SC ER ALLE ANGL WR BU

A NO

DOUG LAS

SAND

TA MA RINDO WY

T LN

LO MA

2AK

CALM

TR VIA

AV RAL

S DR

O PASE

PLA

RLAN

A WY JICAM

UR IS CO

2AH

RA RIVE

TENN

ENIDA

VERIN

F NB OF

RA QUAIL

E CT

DORY

2U VILLA

I-805

R ST

MO NT

MY ENST

CAFE

NEPT

CLAI

OO D

RACIN

ETTE

E RD

SURREY

GA TE

PA INKO

EREY

LE PAIS

PRAY

CENT

MO NT

ELYN

JO SS

GSW

HILL

ST FO RD ST YM PIA E OL ST EI DA E ON O ST LA ND E OR

JUDS

KIN

HIL

E AT IV

ORTH ELW

KENN

ING

G RE

EL WHE

C OR

CE DR ER

-1

DAVID

ST PAH

E OX

NANN

NITA CT Y NW NOLA AV IO N

WALLA

AZO MALP THE

YL PL CHER

ERAT

04TH ST

SE W

MI SS

MO NS NE

MO NT

N ST

AN EEN

-5

VID DA

E EW

O MF

-5

Allen

2X TERR

MYRA

MARI

EL CENTRO ST

ANA

IN TO AD

E IVAT

PRIVATE RD

AN SH

LA O

IVAT

HORTON

EREY

1E ST

Class 2: Bike Lanes (73.3 miles)

L AV

ERSO

A NR OFF RA I-805 SB

R UD

CALLE

D R LA W

LLAN

E RI

PIEDRA

Private

Middle

Y ST

PECT

P ST

PEQ UEN

Class 1: Bike Path (5 miles)

E MI

Castle Park

OTONO

Other

3BC

Existing Bicycle Facilities*

Elementary

MO NT

01ST

LDAU

LEE

HELIX ISLE

ALO NQ UIN W Y

BLUFFS AV

VERA

CARNEL

PRIVATE RD

E QU

TE PRIVA

PRIVATE RD

ETA

GRO V E AV

JUDIT H AV

HANSEL D R

DENNERY

VIA TO NG A

O BR

M AL

FULHAM WY

BYR D ST

ES W

-5

I- 80

MLA

E QU

3AF

PRIVATE RD

GRO V E AV

PRIVATE DY

FERN AV

IM O G ENE AV

OFF

TO BO G G AN W Y

K-12

H ER M ES ST

Trail

H A LLE Y S T

VIS

E EM

HELIX

PRIVATE RD

SEWE LL AV

I-5 NB

App-126

City of Chula Vista Schools

H A LLE Y S T

H ER M ES ST

ING RI D AV

IRE

JAMU

E PA

BISHO

ALVO CA ST

IVAT E

Kellogg

E PR

WO SHER

HOL LY AV

ONE O NTA AV

GRO V E AV

VIE

Clear View OS

N NOLA

O LN QUILL TRAN PI A CT YM E OL CT EI DA E ON O CT LA ND E OR

PIC

BEVERLY AV

ARRIBA AVNDA

LIED ER DR

H A LO S T

CAMTO ESPI NO

LEM

St Pius X

TO BI

N DIXO

PRIVATE RD

2AF

MES

OSE

IS AV

HOL LY AV

ONE O NTA AV

GRO V E AV

STARBURST L N

MELR MYRA

DENN

HICKO RY CT

GRO V E AV

HOFER DR

SI MIS

OR CR

E JA

ADA

Castle Park Elem

DIX

GRO V E AV

FERN AV

WINDS

IS AV

CHEN

MYRA

GRET

TA W

CORO NA DO ( SB) AV

Chula Vista Existing Bicycle Facilities FERN AV

Halecrest

LEIL ANI W Y

REEF DR

KIL

INKO

VIS

TARD

VIS

E MO

A AV

QUIN

VIA PAPEET E

F LA X D R

MARI

I- 5

FLO W ER AV

MAD

CTE

VISTA

E LL

Otay

PITCA IRN ST

C A U LF I E LD D R PRIVATE RD

U O

W Y

TO P HILL

OSPE

I- 8

NIB

ST HO E

TIBIA

W PR

Otay Christian

ZENIT H ST

MAG E LLAN ST

CHADWEL L AV D

A RT UN

LE Y

M CA

3BB

PLES

LINDB ERG H ST

O DR

AG UA

F DR

I- 80

E AV

3AQ

DEN CT

WIN

CLAIR

PAIS

ENTR

ITAN DR

Cook

BETHUNE WY

TR E M O N T S T

DAHLI A AV

WI LL

ALIS

DENN

UR ARTH

RT ROBE

DR EG A CIEN RK TA FO EY VIS

VALL

AV E DO

MO NT GO M ERY ST

DONA X AV

DO RA

VISTA

ELM AV

CORO NA DO ( SB) AV

I- 5

R AED EL C T ELDER AV

AFABLE

ELM AV

CT AV

OS CT

VIE

NYON

CLAI LO

DR MAR

3BA

N HAVE

MAR

GO U L D L N

GARLAND

ELM AV

GAYA N

LUNG

VIA

ELDER AV

EVERG REEN AV

CANTAM AR RD

EBO E AV

RA OFF I-5 NB ICO M EX

IM PERI AL BEA CH BL

EBO NY AV

DAHLI A ( SB) AV

EBO NY AV

ELDER AV

CITRUS AV

ELDER AV ELKW O O D AV

CONIFER AV

DONA X AV

ENCINA AV

I-5 SB ON

ELM AV

ELM AV EVERG REEN AV

DORI S ST

TH O R N S T

DAT E AV

PAL M ( SB) AV

CATHY ST CHERI ST

PALO

KAANAPALI W Y MOLOKAI WY

DONA X AV

CALLA AV

DAT E CT

PRIVATE RD

DAHLI A AV

SPR U C E ST

DAISY AV

-75

DONA X AV

DAHLI A AV

PRIVATE RD

ON I-5 NB

BO NITO AV CITRUS AV

LO DR

ERRA

TE RD PRIVA

O FF

-54

RVA

TE RD PRIVA

CALLA AV

SUBOL

TA AL

VALL

CA WY

CARNATIO N AV

C AN AL ST

WY EDA

EL CAP

EL DR

Y LN HENR LN A LEOM

02ND

CYPRESS AV

Castle Park Mid

CHERRY AV

EA BAYL

CAM

PALA

Montgomery Elem

TR E M O N T S T

E AV

HID

N DR

E SI

E PA

N ST

GAR

ON I-5 SB

RD TE AV PRIVA ERRY CH

W IL

ELM

TE RD PRIVA TE RD TE RD PRIVA PRIVA TE RD PRIVA

EL LU

RD W FRONTAGE

RA E FRONTAG E RD I-5 NB ON

HOOPER BL

TE PRIVA

DUSK

D OA

BASSW O O D AV

CHERRY AV

LO URET AV

BOULEV ARD AV

ALAM

I-8

PI TA

MAAC

3AP

E DR

MAR

GL EN

3AW

E PL

DR UTICA

LYNWO OD

Chula Vista Elem

GU N MI

RRA

HO US

VIS

MA DR FR

E SA

ELM

MAR

AV OAKS TWIN

DEL

MO RE

RIN

J PL CT WAY

YL AV SHER A AV COST

E AT IV

N AV

CRAN

TE RD PRIVA

TO N

RD PRIVATE

3AO

VALL

SP M O

A AV FAIR

ELM

TE RD PRIVA

LNUT

TREN

EL CT

TL WAT

SID

A CA BO NIT

VISTA

ELM

ALPI

AL BL

ON I-5 NB

LO CD

SO EMER

EDY

TA RD

CAR

MARI

EL DR

PALO

SKI

Lauderbach

Palomar

RICE

VISTA

DUFF

MESA VIS

3AZ

SIE

NAPL

KENN

TT ST

LE G

2Q EL CA

MI GU

SAN

E I ST

2P K ST

DR AG E

ORSE

KEEN

A DR

I- 80

St John’s Episcopal

RIS

GRAC

LO ALTA

BELIN

CTE

ELM

ODLA

STRI

INDU

ON I-5 SB

RA COLO

I-5 SB

VILL

LN SHY TE RD PRIVA

AIN

ST RD OX FO TE RD PRIVA

WY VI A DR O VESU IG WY TT W Y ARTE MIA A WY MI NO DR ING FLEM

DARD

PALO

Hilltop Drive

3AV

3AN

GA RB

L ROYA

PALO

Hilltop Mid

NE ROCK

PAZ LN

01ST

A AV

H AV

R AV

I-5 NB ON

TE PRIVA

PARK

O DE

SA RD

W NA

ANITA ST

PASE

GLEN

HE LE

MARI

CTE

CHUR

DY TE PRIVA ST ES NAPL

ORANGE

ORD

A PL

KELLI E CT

LYND

A ME BO NIT

KA AV

GR O

SABINA DR

OO R

I- 8

Fifth Avenue Academy Sweetwater UHSD

FAIV RE ST

NITA

A AV

SIERR

Chula Vista Adult

TE RD PRIVA

REO

CALM

MARI

MAR

03RD

DEL

ETT

FIG

CEDA

BEEC

PARK

AV DATE

EAST

OFF I-5 SB

MO SS

A M AY

AS RD

HILLT

ST ON ST MAN NICK ST ISS CLAR WEISS

REDF

LO ALTA

SO NA

CTE

ELM

IS AV

R AV

OO D

ELDE

HTW

GA RR

BRIG

DR GUEL

BEAT

RO VIA

BIGNELL NEBRAS

DR CR DELOS LATROBE AN ST GUNZ ST ALSACIA

DYLAN ST

PE DR

EY VALL

Hilltop

WELT

3AE

GI NA

3AY

ENCI

ST ATO

AY ST

Rice

E ST

TE RD PRIVA

NI TA

MAR

WI CK

WB SR-54

L ST

Chula Vista

HI TN

GE OR

ST MI LL

SAN

AS TA

E MA

NEY

VIA

LAUR

TA ST

VISTA

NCHO

E SH

3AU

K ST

BY ST

T AV

LAND

ETT

MURR AY ST ST KING

KEAR

A BO

EL RA

I SIM

SR-54 W B O FF RA

A DR

Y LN

U N N AM ED R D

N CR

CHER

HALS

ST ON

PRIVATE RD

COO K CT

ITN

GROSS ST

S AV

SR-54

SARA

TO P HILL

MI NO

IA AV UN

GA RR

A AV GUAV

TA CRES

MI TS

CHAD

WAND

ATI ON EQ UIT

LIO

U DR

TOOMA ST

ST OKE

CHILD

N MA

TO NA

PLAZ

SHAS

ROAN

AJ O

E AV

IC PATR

VIL

E AB

VALL

O TR

TE PRIVA

ITN

ITE

R ST

SEASCA

ADRIENNE DR

ALP

ELM

ZEST

A ON

CALL TE RD PRIVA

TO P HILL

NE AV

T AV

3AT

S DR

O NK AT

LE BR

ALPI

MI NO

IA AV

02ND

IC PATR

CHUR

TA ST

IS ST

VIEWPOINT

HO M ES

R O

BALI

HEST

HI LL

Bonita Road

ONDA

NE AV

E ST

VA PA

PRANCER WY

ADIR

E DE

VIL C

ALWO SAND

AU LE

ELLO

CENT

G ST

ETT

GA RR

GL OV

FIG

Y ST

KIN

RIT

ID DE

RING

EB MO NT

MURR

SIERR

MARS AT CT

LUTHE

IP AN

EA PLAT

OF Y

ALPI

SHAS

OW ER

GS A RO

RANC

NB TA W

ES DR

FLOR

MINOT

LAS

OAKS TWIN

ETT

A AV GUAV

E CLYD

PUTT

HIL

RE E SE

NIN

E CT

VIS

A AV

DS DAVI

VANC

TE RD PRIVA

3AD

R WATE WI NC

K NO

05 MARI

N LN

F ST

ONA

Bounce Back Options

BELVIA LN

EDGE

WI ND

Chula Vista

S ST

CALL

ERLA

FAIR LOM

I- 8

HAY

OR EPAD E TR

CUMB

ESS

Southwestern

BUTT TED

ST KMAN STOC ST ERRY NEWB ST G LE CA ST BIG RD NA GS ME CT

3BI 3BH 3L 3K

3AL

WEST

CALL

E ST

I- 8 CTE

FLOR

GA RR

AV DATE

H AV

MARL

G ST

O WB -54 RA SR ON B 4E R-5

3AS

S CT

R AV

BEEC

CEDA

ASH

AY DW N AV BROA RL AW RIVE AV SO N N AV MADI RL AW N AV RIVE AV ERSO SO N JEFF MADI N AV ERSO AV AW N JEFF

I-5

F RA

RA COLO

OA KL

OF I-5 NB

ODLA

D ST

I ST

L VA

YLER

LYDIA ST

C ST

LAS

MAR

CYPR

GA RD

RTS ROBE

St Rose of Lima

KEAR

C ST

LAUD

BAKER

RO G

J ST

JAME

S ST

SIERR

EBEL

PALO

CRES

SABIN

O FF

DEL

CHUR

Chula Vista Learning

Y HONE

R PA

PARKLAND WY

NO RT ST OLT HUMB ST INYO

DEL

F LN

E ST

YO U

SEA STAR LN

BLUF

RIDGE

E VALL EY RD

SISKI

A ST

TO YO

IS AV AV

JAME

LEY

MO NT

ST ELT

3AK

PINE

ELL KENW

HO R MO

N AV

ESS

OL IVE

ORAN

I-8

INE

LANS

PLAZA

SCHU

S ST

ISO

SHAW ST

Rosebank

JASM

LAND

TA DR

DORO T HY ST

MARI AN AV

IN HOPK

HARB

CYPR

I- 8

ST AV CT

EV ROOS

3AC

CHARLES AV

FEE

SR-54 W B O N RA

Harborside

ADA ST

PECT ND ET TIA

05TH

ASH

NO R

N AV ERSO

AW N

ANITA ST

PROS

PO INS

W MA

JEFF

OA KL

OFF I-5 SB

STRA

MURPHY RD

JOHNSO N ST

R SILVE

STO NE ST

TA ST

WYKE

AV ST NC E

ADA ST

B GA

3AR

CENT

LARD

PARADIS

ST ANY

ALBE

AEL

R L MA

E PA

ARIZO

2H STELLA

MA PO TO

N DE

SO N

F RA RA ON SB I-5

S CK DO

ALLE

WEST

NESS

GER

MADR

AV DATE

MADI

N AV ERSO

OF I-5 NB

AW N

ODLA

OA KL

JEFF

HALS

JO UG

ROCK ISLAND RD

RACH

VAN

ITA N

GRAN

W STA

LEON

SHAS

3AB

ST ARD

WI LM

3AJ

N AV

A VIS

PARK

E WY

BAY

I-5

ODLA

MARI

SIERR

LA SIE

TA AV

CHAF

VIS

HEDG

OA KL

I-5 NB

RA COLO

E DR

E VIS

LANO

VALL

R AV

DE Y SI BA

RANG

EARL

ER WY

N AV

E 19

I-805

RAE

FIG

ELDE

R AV

TE PRIVA

PALM

LANOITA

ORAN

LL ST

AV AV

PIP

HALS

OSTERLING

RY ST

L DR

TE RD PRIVA

H ST

I ST

AS ST

AR BO LIV

AY EW RIDG

ST ELT OT IS

ANGE

PL DIA ARCA TE RD PRIVA CASA

PECT

E ST

ETT

05TH

DS DAVI

Vista Square Chula Vista Mid

E ST

PETA

ISO N

SANT

PROS

GROV

NEWE

GA RR

A AV GUAV

E ST

Christian Academy

Mueller

NO R

TE RD PRIVA

CHUL

H AV

SAND

AY QU

MARY CT

OL IVE

HARB

PLEA

AV DIA

BURD

GE ST

O CK

DR MONT ALTA

L TR

TE PRIVA

VA LE

CENT

VANC

LLYH HO

FENTO N PL

D ST

Pilgrim Lutheran

EV ROOS

E AV

N MU

L AV

ARCA

AEL

RBIS

RACH

S HA

SHEL

THEL

ORAN

OFF

LIA EX

KIM BAL

RTI N

NTON

DI ITA UE

3AI

ST ER CENT ST ONA MADR

ASH

I-5

TE DY PRIVA DY TE PRIVA

IVA TE

SEA

BEEC

AV ASH LN PARK

ODLA

E 17

C ST

N ST

CEDA

EAST

I-5

TE RD PRIVA

GL OV

BL BAY

TE DY PRIVA

PLUM

S LN

ELMA

D ST

Feaster-Edison

G ST

ELEA

PRES

VENE

CASS

ST MAN

FLOW

AW N

F RA

E 15

VIA

DIS PARA

ELSBER

M ST

CASS

O CORS

OA KL

ODLA

OF I-5 SB

TE PRIVA

OFF I-5 NB

H ST

E 20

OVER

ON LAGO

ORAN

I-805

N GL 03RD

PRIVATE RD

ATE PRIV

AY OADW

I-5

M AV

N BR

A VA

SH INTO

OSSO

I- 805 SB O N R A

D ER OW

E 24

N AV

ANE

OFF RA SR-54 EB

TE DY PRIVA

H BL

RA EB OFF SR-54

I-5 A VIS

E 14

IND

PEAC

E 24

O GR

RA OFF

BRISB

PL P GUN

DISE

O AV IA

TH AV

CHUL

TA ST

SEAW

IA ST GREW

SA RI PO

E 09T

E 11

SR-54 W B O N RA

N 04

GO ES RD PRIVATE

PARA

Q ST

YL LN SHER

GIN

3AH

22 ND

M AV VIR

VA LE

E 22

13 TH

E 12

I AV

E 30

ND ST

TH ST

C ST

SEA

E 28

RA ON

SR-54

W 35

TH ST TH

E 02

VIA LAS PALM AS

J AV

E 26

ST ST

OFF RA SR-54 WB

F RA

ER HOOV

OF I-5 SB

ANDS

-54

F AV

N AV

E 29

N LAW ROSE

E 23

TE PRIVA

TATIO

E 31

F WB OF SR-54

TE RD PRIVA

E 28

ST 33RD

K AV

B AV

SPOR

E 22

LL DR

E 32

E 11

E 20

ST 21 ST

E 17

I AV

ROSE

TE RD PRIVA

F RA

T WY

TE PRIVA

HPOR

OF I-5 NB

SO UT

E 28

ORRE

E 27

E 22

E 23

TE IVA

E 26

TRAN

TH ST

E 15

20 TH

I AV

E 24

BL CITY

TH ST

G AV

NAL

CARS

G AV

NATIO

ST ST

E 14

B AV

A AV

AV ELT

ING

MI LE

V AV

R AV

TH E 17

F AV

HARD

ID COOL

EV ROOS

E 21

F SB OF

E AV

C AV

ER HOOV

E 09TH ST

TH E 10

L AV

E 16

E 18

I AV

TH E 19

E 07

E 10

I-805

E 15

E 20

A AV VALV ID AV EUCL

E 13

F AV

15 TH

E 03

E 09

M AV

E 14

ND E 02

E 11

N AV

K AV

TH E 17

E IVAT

T AV

R AV

Q AV

E 09

AY DR SAFEW

I AV

J AV

KIM

E 06

O AV

N AV

M AV

L AV

DR HILL

PALM

M AV

E 07 E 07

K AV

G AV

ST ST

OSE

MELR

U AV

A BL

E 22

W 22

MARINA

RD PRIVATE

E 05

L AV

E 08

E 09

I AV

C AV TH

ES W

E 15

TIDEL

TERM INAL

W 32

N ST

E 05

E 04

E AV

A AV

E 12

AV ST

PLAZ

TH W 30

VI SIO

OSE

E 01

A AV ST

QUAY W 28

J AV

LA HIGH

F AV

B AV

16TH

LY AV

NA DR

MELR

E 12

W 24 MARI BAY

E 07

W 15

I-5

RD W 23

E 05

HAFF

RD PRIVATE

W 22

ID COOL

I-5

EY AV

E 06

KI NL

D AV

20TH

ST ST

E 12

W 14

W 17

ELAN

N AV

CLEV

ISO ST

W 18

E 01

E 03

12TH

WI LS

HARR

19TH

TH ST SB

DEWEY ST

AZA

W 11

I-5

W 11TH ST

E 03

E 09

OSE

ST ST

D AV

PRIVATE RD

W 14

TH W 09

W PL

TA FT

CUMM INGS

NT C CE CIVI

MOLE RD

A DR

I-5 SB ON

MOL E

E AT IV

E 01

W 07

MELR

TH ST

W 05

W 08

W 04

CANN

W 03

VI EW

SI DIVI

E 02

RI NE

04TH

W 02

BALS

OD W

T AV

SI DIVI

CROF

CA MC

ST CU

VE A ST

A ST

COT TONW O O D FLD CNTRL

NW ILLI AM

ER HOOV

CT RTA

OW LTO

NS RAVE

OS BO

AIN

I- 5

E DI

FIL

LAUREL

NORD ICA AV

I- 8

FIG CT

R O

O N

S C O TT D R

MODA LN ETA ST

ETA ST

ALBE

RD T D SS AR W B FU L KA ST R SE IN

EPSILON ST

BETA ST

GA MM A AV

LA P O S A D A S T

O TT

F RA

L PA

FLOW

E AT IV

B U C K Y LN

TE RD PRIVA A ST

M C

I-805 ON

TE RD PRIVA

N VA

AIR

DELTA ST

I- 8

BETA ST

E AT IV

M AIN

NO RM

BETA S T

GA MM A ST

S CL

I- 5

BIR

I- 8

GILMA

I-5

S KE

MANZ

BETA S T B

EBBS

MESA

I-1

ZEST CT

Appendix H: Existing Facility Improvement Recommendations

25 -1 SR

D R D O

D ER PR

PRIVATE RD

DR LS ING

VIA MAG

CO AS

TA L

GIOR E

HIL

INT PO

O IN

VIE

CO LBY

BR YA

EN EV

UZ CR

A EV A

AZ PL

LA MEDIA RD

VIA PORLEZZA EL PORTAL DR

RD EY VALL TO R OC

DR VIS

PL SCENIC

UA AG

PL IX ES GAT

RID

DS O

W O

TT SU

D R

WY HAWK

ES PIN EY

R TO

SILVE R

OO EW STL

KSIDE DR

LONG VIEW DR

GRAN

ITE SP RIN

GS DR

CRYSTAL

SILVERADO DR

RD OLY MP IC VI STA

BEAR VAL LE

K RD BLU FF

RIC

SID

Y RD

STA

ING

TWILIGHT

N E CT WHI TE PI

PRIVATE RD

IN TL W HIS

QU IE

HID

2BY

W AN

O FF

SOUTH CREE

RIVER ROCK RD

HAROLD PL PL AUGUSTA

GRE ENB

DOWNS DR

LA VIDA CT

DR RIA R A FR OF SB -125 SR

NB -125 SR

OLD TRAIL DR

MIL LE

RA O FF NB -125 SR I CV TRAPAN

F RA 5 SB OF SR-12 CLAUDE LN

LEVANT LN

CANVAS DR

SR-125 NB

TROUVILLE LN

AV NA DA MAG

BELIZE

O VE

MT MIGUEL RD

WINDY WY

PL R RW AT E EA CL RT O EP G ID BR

ALONDRA AV

GOLD RUN DR

PIEDM ONT ST APPLEG ATE ST

RU GO L

ND VE

D R N YO AV EL RD SANTA LUCIA

DR HE AP AC

AN C H AP R G LE TE

RM CA

ST R AT W AT E

LEHIGH AV

O LA

IN CT

ST B 33 D ME NA UN AV

RE NO

LAUS

E SE

MO NT

STAN IS

LINDSA Y ST

SR-125 SB OFF RA

TR EL FA

RID CO LT

AUST

D R IV AT E PR TE ES AL IR M VIA

SANTA OLIVIA

ZIN

LN ILL DH RE VIA

VIA LUNA

CAM MIEL

DR NO RA VE

DR LE AP DM

PASE

CAM MOJ AVE

PRIVATE RD

SPEYERS WY

ROLLING HILLS LN

PA L

SR-125 NB OFF RA

LIN AR

PIN G LO

HO RS

Y W W VIE GE RID RD

SIT AS

RO PASEO RANCHE

TIERRA DEL REY RE

DR ERS VENT

DR G

EW IN

IVAT

AVNDA DEL REY

LP BAYO NA

RG A O BU

A LP

SAL

BURG

PASE AVILA WY

LN W N

ER AV WHITAK

LIS

2CE HU

Wolf Canyon Y WY

Olympian

M TN

MAX

WEL

BRANDYWINE AV

NA AV

RIM

PRIVATE RD

T DR

DATSUN ST

-12

SR 5S

-1

ACCESS

AVI ATO R RD

LO NESTAR RD

PRIVATE RD

INNOVATIVE DR

T PT A FI RE

PO G O R W

SEAG LEN WY

EXPOSITION WY

A N G LE R P L

HARVEST RD

UNNAMED 36B ST

CV TA L CR YS EA

-1

AIR WING RD

LA MEDIA RD

RD R INE

ALT A

VISTA SAN IGNACIO

W Y

MA R

Y RD

SURFWOOD LN

RD ER

OPAL CV

E LL BE

TE RD PRIVA

ET VIS

ND OIN HU RS T PL T T R

IVA TE PR

BLACK CORAL WY

DR LE A IS SE

KENTMERE TR

RDECK

VALLE OTAY

NB OF F RA

NIRVA

MAIN CT

RENE CT

QUA RT E

TOPSAIL

AL DR

Final

EN ER G Y W Y

ENTERTAINMENT

OL IV

FUCHSIA LN

PRIVATE RD

OLIVE AV

ST ET AR G

M AR

REY PASEO DEL

PL YO AR

AW Y ND SE LA

LN ELKS AV LA OC A

I-805 NB OFF RA

PRIVATE RD

O RO PASE

PL A C AS G LA

ARGA PL

BL REY DEL IA PL SS CA

RA SB OF F I-805 SB I-805 NB

I-805 SB OFF RA

I-805 NB ON RA

TOPSIDE

OR CV

ER LN

S PY VIEW HILL

I-805

VIS

WAY STA

OCE AN

Y DW

O VA

I-805 NB ON RA

WILEY

FIRETHORN ST

SEA COR

5 RA

DAYSAILOR

SEA REEF

BIR

SEA WAT

SR-90

B ST

O W IN O B R

DR BONITA CASA

DR WINNETKA

PRIVA TE RD

RIDGE RA

ON WB -54 SR

RA ON EB -54 TA VIS LA DE O PRIVATE RD

WY VILL EA GR E

I-805

MARBLE CT

MALTA AV

AV L M AR

VISTA SO NR ISA AV CAMTO BORREG O

GAYNESWOOD

KE ST BROO

E ST

CASEY ST PIA

RAMFOS CR

ON B

D AV FLOY

T DR CRES

HALE ST D

TA R UIN Q

E DR

WUEST E RD

MAPL

MB L

TAGE HERI

ANCH

ERTA WY

JO AR

Y ST NFL

IVAT

PIC

ESTE

AT IO

AY OT

DR FALLING STAR

S OS

IN PR

SAG E RD

D WIN

KSIDE

K OA

BIRCH RD

LAKE CREST DR

RIN

RESEARCH

LA HU

CREE

SW EE

K ST

FI VE

2BP

AIL

2BX

G ST

G EX

W AL IN G

TE GA

VE SIL

W IN

LIN

2BZ GIN

CH S

P O P P Y H I LLS D R

SKY ST SPRING EE ST HONEYB RD FALLS REL CT KEST SO M BLOS AR PE

TE GA

N MT

E PL

2CA

C AV

PA L

D WIN

M IT

PO R

LAKE

RIVER RD FEATHER Y RD VA LLE OCK PEAC

EAST

YC BR

MOSAIC

NORT H

W O

EEK

NORTHWOODS DR

RIN

BEA M

3BF

OO M

TO AM

MO ON

N ST

2BW

EY RD

EW VI

JACK ON

IN PL

SICIL IA CAMTO

CANY

O OR

RO UT E

USE DR

ING

Salt Creek

PA R

IFF

KIN

VALL

Arroyo Vista UR

2BQ

ER EEN RIV

NTA

E DR BLUE RIDG

2BT

CLUBHO

TO CAM

Eastlake Mid

STO

SILVER

IRA CT

SUN

EIN ST

2CG

CO MP ASS

SHO WR

TO RA

R PA

ER WY

WO LF

BAY HILL RD

FLEISHB

-1

2CC

Mater Dei HTH

WEBB

K DR CREE DRY E PL ADOB

N GREENSVIEW

CAM WEL TO AL CA LB LA RO OK ST

SB ON

LANE

SR-125

ID AV

ER AV

RIA

NO R

LIT TLE LAKE ST

3BG

IRW IN ST

KINCA

V IC

ON RA SR-125 NB

E UR

2CB

AV MAY

NTA

2BS

AIL W

JO N E S S T

PEMB

IVY

HI DR MAS O N RD

DO ST

GA ST

2BR S EA

RD SPANISH BAY

PERR

OCON

NTA

IA AV

EL PRA

ORTE

OL AL

GH ST

IN G

RSH

Veterans

ST ST NETIA LLAG IO BE

2CF

MTN RD

VILLE

RA SR-125 NB ON

GEYSER

NIC

Otay Ranch

RK W PA

TA B

STA AV

GO L FCREST LP

Olympic View

VIE

GR E

SB ON

N AV

FARG O LN

P IC YM OL

2BI

LA CO

Eastlake

PARKER

VAL LEY BEND S T

SR-125

B A S TI A

UL A

2BJ

2CH

2BO

2BN

NB ON RA

SAN SE

Calvary Christian

GOLDEN GATE

ST ST

SR-125

STAT E ST

IDO

CABO BAHIA

IN ND

FENTON

PAL OM

McMillin OM AR

RAN CATAMA

2CK

Y DR S BA

A VE SANT

2BH

RIA

PA LP SANTA NCH P RA RD SHEE EEK CR LE BATT D CT

HILLSBOROU

RIDGEWATER DR

BLEW

ILS

S MO

DR UNDY DR BURG ANDY NORM

UIS CT

OA K KNO L L CT

TTE R D

LES RD

MARQ U E

OINT

HARR

MEEK

K ST

D SR

TE PIN

VERSAIL

MI LL

NORT H

ROBLES

2CI

2CJ

PRO CTO R VALL EY RD

2CP

LAFAYETTE PL

OA KP

CAPR

E PAL

H AV

A NE

LL ST

GE GRAN

ALT

R TO

PRIVA TE RD

TIO C

BO SWEL L RD

SA A RO SANT

TRAIL

DR HILL

O AK

CAR

MARQ

E DR CHIM

BROO

2CR

SIDE

PAS O

RD PRIVATE

EDGE

RAL

CAN

VIEW

2CL WO OD

LAKESHORE DR

KENT ST

HED

ON ET

NTA

CAT

SKYLARK WY

2CU

C A LLE R E A L

PRIVATE RD

RD PRIVATE

DUKE ST

WI ND

S IE

ISLA VI STA DR

TH BA

PRIVATE RD

ON R ND A R

2BD FR

A NT

FERNAND

HIL

1R FIELD

E AT

MD E

ELLE

2BM

VIA

Heritage

M AR

ITE

RIV

TNEY W HI

-1

REGENCY WY

-1

N MO

RIOS AV

LO LL

East Hills

2BG

MAI N ST

KOSTNER DR

A CA

CTE V IEJ O

2AS

E ST

NTA

IR TL

AT E

R RD RIVE RD KE YA LA TENA RD KE W LA RO DR AR SP RA D WIN

SV ILL

EG STON

GRAN

NA MT DA

S AV

A OL

2BL

NA AV

MARY

ENA

R MO

2BK

LPHI

AL IA

NG ISLI

DESIG N CT

ILEXEY AV

Eastlake Elem

RA AV A CO SANT

EST

E ST

ITH

BELL

ODCR

A AV

FIC

2AZ ST

T GO

WN FA

STIN

N MA

CALLE

ROL LI NG RI DG E

A CR CO ST

A DE SANT

TL EA

M HA

SHINO HARA LN

ILEXEY AV

CALLE LA MARINA

2CO

BUCKNE

R AV

ST AN

CRE EK

MI RA

AG RIT

R DE LA TOBA

S SA

VIA ESCAL ANTE

H W

ERRY

ARD HARV

PACI

S ITO

Rancho del Rey

RED

RA DE CE

VIS

C MER

Chula Vista Hills

Casillas

Hedenkamp

CHATEAU CT

L YA

E LP

NCIA

NNE

2CS

O VALE

2AO

AZZO

VIA VI G ANELLO

Marshall Elem

HILL SIDE DR

3AA

TE PRIVA

DERA

V IE XA

ELER

MI CH

Tiffany

NT CALIE

OL CT

ND E CA

CTE

BRIST

AUBU

SIN

S UO

RD AR NYON DUNB AL CA CORR LN STER

OR BAYL

CALL

2AQ VIA

WISE

DLAN

CUES

RI O

O LA

-12

VIA LA

PO RT

DEL

DAW

NER

PASE

STEI

US RO

AUTO PARK PL

SEA

CAS

LAYLA CT

LAYLA W Y

AM OR

STRAWB

PO INT ARG UELLO DR

SO L

CAL

S ST

ST ELMHURST

2BI

STA

ST LEY

CTE MELANO

CTE CARL

SANTA LUNA ST

KEDZIE AV

MARG E W Y DEL

ADE D R

2BC

2BF

DARWIN WY

L SO L BL

COO PER

REG AT TA L N

ARRECIF E W Y

OD PEAB

TA NBARK ST

LE M O N S E E D D R

S TU C T

MI LL

BIA COLUM

L FA

RUE

RUE BAYO AL

MAN

ISLA

PO WDERHO RN DR

H MP

DENNERY

TA CR

ISO

2CM

CROS SCREEK RD N HAMPTO

Bonita Vista

GO L DEN S K Y

MURRIE

SHER

TESOTA

RD ACK

RED OAK

R AN C H O D R

TARATA

SI ME

2CN

Y RD

DR WEST POINT

E WY

TOPAZ CT MEL ROS

RIDG

MAY

VINE YA

2BE

TE RD PRIVA ST

LA CRE

SAN

CK RO

SEQ UO IA ST

BLES RO

VALLE

RAMB UR ST

Valle Lindo

TIMBER

2AO ED

Bonita Country Day Bonita Vista Mid

O DEL PAS

ENT RAD

VIL

ON RA I-805 SB

PAS EO

TALLOW

TA MA

L E DE

N MA

ASH DR

SO L

M AT AJO

PAS EO

DE LU Z

PO INT LA JO LL A DR

RIG

2BB

DR OVA CORD

RAN

DEL

CALL

RIVER

DAVIES DR

SAT INW O O D WY

TALUS ST

MAL ITO CT

CENTER

E AT

W Y

MEDI CAL

RA RIVE

2BA

RA RIVE

I-805 SB ON RA

E ST

Rohr

LIL AC

LLIA

ANA LANT

ON RA I-805 NB

STON

LEE

EL AV

CAME

OCA LA

CT NOLAN

MARL

ARIES

L CT QUAI CT TRA

RIENS

CAM

Alta Vista Academy

2AU

OW EN

LAUR

LE PL

N RAVE

ORIO

E PL

O OR

VIA

2AM

PASO

ND DR

Parkview

ERIA

FELIN

RO ECITA SITA CT

2AP

N PL

MYRA

QUINC

PAZ

PECA

E AV

A QU

DIAMO

WI ST

L IL P

2AT

AZALEA

Discovery Charter

PAS EO

2AV

OAK PL

CAM

SIPES

UNE

LROS

EY AV

ING REDW

O OD

HAMP

3V LW

E LN SHIR T LN NPOR DAVE T DR UCKE NANT

CT OA K

SAND

LA RD

ORO

FO RD

NDER

NEPT

IO N

NT ER

MI SS

N NOLA

NAPA

FO XB

OL EA

AV NILE

E OX

A DR

Rogers

OT AV

A AV

2AL

OCEL

OA SIS

OCAL

PECT

CHOL

CA RO

Covenant Christian

NT CA

CALM

AI R

NTIA

PA M

2AC

RE Y

2AJ C

VIEW

E AV

ESA

L CT

PO SA

OS AG

UNE

ON NACI

NEPT

A NORM

PL ES

MARI

F RA NB OF

CL MO NT

Palomar Elem

PROS

I-805 THER

R DOVE

A OFF RA I-805 SB

L PL

E NA

OSA

PAH

E FL OR

2AD

DEL

E J ST

LO MA

MARIP

2AG

2AI

3W DE

ANITA

CALL

ESCE

AILR

E IDG

CIM A DEL REY

NCHO

TO R

ET DR

VIE

MANZ

JAMU

IEST

LA CR

NORE LLA ST

2AA

LA ESTREL

MESA PL

DOUG LAS

2AD

NES LN

BUENA VISTA

2AK

TR VIA

FIFIELD ST

REY

DEL

TIFFANY WY

INKO

CALM

CAMTO

MANSIO

NCHO

2AE

N RA

AMENA CT

Y DW

ANO

S RA

LAZO

2AH

CAM ESPUELAS

SERR

R ST

CABERN

2CT

VERIN

DAVID

MO NT

O ST

CTE

APA

Liberty

VISTAS LN

G AS

YA MO

S PL

TO ER

BERL

CLAI

W DR

CANYON

NA MO

Halecrest

TVIE

DAMA

A CR

2AF

S ST

CRES

COUNTRY

IA AV

SU R R EY DR

G RD

L DR

CAM ELEVADO

GROS

PADE

GA TE

CAL

NO VA

A TERR

KIL

E CT

D R LA W

ACAC

ACERO

MI LA

PLA

ARRA CHAP

A RPAD

MTN RIDGE RD

BR M

Clear View OS

COLL IN

RAW HID

ESCA

PROC

FO RE

CORRAL CT

HORTON

CALLE

RI MAVE

HILL

SURREY

THE

Allen

LN HO OL CT N SC ER ANGL WR BU

TRAIL S

PASE

LO MA

TIMRICK LN

ON 5 SB

A TT

COUN TRY

IVAT

ALLE

MESITA

CALLE

LE G

S VILLA

CTE

WS DA

ST TIM

W IL

DO RA

E AT IV

B LA C K S M I T H R D

IR AM A LT

SR-12

A LO

N AV

VERD

GE DR

D OL

VIEW

DRESSA

RIN

ANA

GALE

CTE

OATS

PO NY

R TE

FILL Y LN

SR-12 5 SB

NB ON SR-125

H RD

WILD

RANC

L MIG UE

SR-125 SB OFF RA

H CT

WI LL

NIE

MIRAR

E DR

LEN

YAH

TA VI BO NI

TA GL BO NI

AZO MALP

URT IS CO

AV RAL

VIEW

JO NEL W Y

E ST

S LN

TE RD PRIVA

ARRO

PRIVATE RD

ADOW

NITA

SIEM

IE ST

TENN

LFG

SAN M I G U EL R D

EL R AN C H O G R AN D E

TA ME BO NI

EL W

MI GU

TE PRIVA

REST

SAN

FRISB

RC WATE

SAN

TA RD BO NI

LVY

UIT COND

-54

SIMB

ATER EE TW SW

IA ST

IDA

AV EN

R CT

ORTH ELW

CENT

CAFE

AIR

O VE

RSON

TA W BO NI

KENN

ING

E RD

DORY

HIL

G RE

E CT

ETTE

SAN MIGUEL RD

N DOLA

EL WHE HA

GRAC

RACIN

NANN

ANDE

PRAY

SYLV

O DR

-5

K CT

VID DA

C OR

PICASS

CE DR

O FF

-54

E AT IV

NERA

VIE

WALLA

TA AL

D O

-5

O BR

ES W

E DR

W Y

-1

ST SP

VIE

AN O MF

I PL

K RW

TL WAT

O RA

NDAC

SIM

ST ON

RIT

E QU

E IVAT

RIN

FULHAM WY

TOOMA ST

RIS

M O

DR CR DELOS LATROBE AN ST GUNZ ST ALSACIA

DYLAN ST

GR O

N LA O

IN TO

Y HONE

PRANCER WY

A ON

PRIVATE RD

QUA RRY

KA AV

BIGNELL NEBRAS

CARRIE

SHER

ZEST

BRIAR

ANA

WO OD

KIN

The table on the following pages contains field observations and suggestions for improving conditions on existing bikeway facilities and roadways. Note that only those segments needing improvement are included in the tables. See the figure below for locations of segments noted in the tables. MANZ

HIL

ZEST CT

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

S TA

App-127

IV AT E

Appendices

Segment Fac Affected Segment ID (See Class Roadway Extent map) 3BH

1st Avenue

3AR

2nd Avenue

3AS

2nd Avenue

3AT

2nd Avenue

3AU

2nd Avenue

3AV

3rd Avenue

3AW 3AH 3AI 3AJ 3AK 3AL 3 3AM 4th Avenue 3AN

3AO

3AP

3AQ

App-128

Signage Noted

Facility DeďŹ ciency

E Street to F Street City Limit to F Street F Street to H Street H Street to J Street J Street to L Street Orange Minimal Avenue to signage Anita Street Naples Street to Palomar Street Palomar Street to Orange Avenue North of C C Street to Route signage F Street High volumes Some route and speeds F Street to signage north H Street of G H Street to Minimal J Street signage Route signage J Street to L north of K Street Street L Street to Minimal Naples signage Street Naples Route signage Street to at some Palomar intersections Street Palomar Street to Orange Avenue Orange Avenue to Main Street Main Street to City Limit

Recommendations Signage

Striping and Engineering

Facility Class Change

Additional Notes

Sharrows

Add directional signage Consider Class 2

Transit

Sharrows

Provide treatments at intersection of Orange and 4th

Route signage at some intersections

Wide ROW/Truck route/Transit

Sharrows Route sign Sharrows

Add directional signage

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Segment Segment Fac Affected Segment Fac Affected Segment ID ID (See (See Class Roadway Extent Class Roadway Extent map) map)

Bay Boulevard

2F 2

C Street

3BI

E Street

3 F Street

4th Ave to 2nd Ave

Minimal signage

Lane width 4.5' with gutter

Add directional Add signage directional signage linking to Class 1

Sharrows Intersection treatment at H Street

Improvements through intersections Improvement Consider Class through 1 at junction connection with Class 1 with existing facility

Add directional signage Class 2 Add crosswalk treatment at intersection with Broadway; use Add sharrows directional when F St is a signage when 2-lane road linking to other bike facilities

At some 2nd intersections; Avenue to no directional 1st Avenue signage Signage after 1st Avenue intersection to Hilltop with 1st Ave; no directional Drive signage

Striping Striping and and Engineering Engineering

Additional Additional Notes Notes

Fix some points where bike lane narrows

Pavement L Street to Some signage; poor, narrow Palomar no directional (4.5' with signage Street gutter) and overgrown National Signage at City Limit beginning of to 4th bike lane Avenue 1st Avenue High volumes Minimal to City and speeds signage Limit Signage at start of bike Bay route and in Boulevard increments; to 4th Ave no directional signage

Final

Add directional signage

Minimal No signage parking/bike H Street to lane signage; J Street no directional signage No parking, J Street to L bike lane or Street directional signage

Signage Signage

Facility Facility Class Class Change Change

Better linkage to Class 1 facility (1A)

Signage at F Street to bike lane start; H Street no directional signage

Facility Facility DeďŹ ciency DeďŹ ciency

E Street to Signage at bike lane start; F Street/Lago no directional signage on Drive

Recommendations Signage Signage Noted Noted

Route on overpass (marked lane)

Sharrows Add directional signage when route meets Hilltop Drive

App-129

Appendices

Segment Segment Fac Affected Segment Fac Affected Segment ID (See ID (See Class Roadway Extent Class Roadway Extent map) map)

Frontage Road

3 3E

H Street

Stella Street to Main Street

Recommendations Signage Signage Noted Noted

Signage near Yes - parked Bayshore Bikeway; no cars encroach directional into bike lane signage

4th Ave to 2nd Ave 2nd Occasional Avenue to route signage High volumes Hilltop and speeds Drive Minimal 1000' east signage Signage after of Hilltop intersection Drive J Street to Signage at Telegraph start; no Canyon directional Road signage

3AX

Signage at beginning of route and at F Street to some H Street intersections; no directional signage

3AY

At some H Street to intersections; J Street no directional signage

3AZ

Route signage Telegraph after Telegraph Canyon Canyon; no Road to L directional Street signage

Hilltop Drive

3BA

3BB

3BC 3 3BD

3BE

App-130

Facility Facility DeďŹ ciency DeďŹ ciency

L Street to Naples Street Naples Street to Palomar Street Palomar Street to Class 1 facility Class 1 Facility to Orange Avenue Orange Avenue to Main Street

Signage Signage

Striping and Striping and Engineering Engineering

Add directional signage

Marked parking lane (doublestriped bike lane) Sharrows

Add directional signage

Facility Facility Class Class Change Change

Additional Additional Notes Notes

Class 2

Add directional signage

Bus stops

Add directional signage

Sharrows Route signage; no directional signage

Route signage at some intersections; no directional signage

Road widens; potential for Class 2 facility Add directional signage linking to other facilities

2011

Add City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan directional signage linking to other facilities

Segment Segment Fac Affected Segment Fac Affected Segment ID (See ID (See Class Roadway Extent Class Roadway Extent map) map)

3AB

3 3AC

Industrial Boulevard

3AD

3B 3F

J Street

3O 3P

3AE

3AF

3AG

Lagoon Drive

3Q 3R

Final

L Street and Naples Street Naples Street to Palomar Street Route signage; Palomar no directional Street to signage Main Minimal Street signage Bay Boulevard to 4th Avenue 4th Ave to 2nd Avenue to Hilltop Drive Hilltop Marina Parkway to Bay Boulevard

4th Avenue to 3rd Avenue

Facility Facility Deﬁciency Deﬁciency

Signage Signage

Naples Street

Striping and Striping and Engineering Engineering

Sharrows

Facility Facility Class Class Change Change

Additional Additional Notes Notes

Possibly adequate ROW/ for Class 2 Short bike lane near trafﬁc circle at Palomar

Add directional signage

Signage at start of bike lane

Add directional 4th Avenue Route signage signage to 3rd at some linking to Avenue intersections other facilities, 3rd especially High volumes Main Street Avenue to Hilltop and speeds Hilltop Route sign Drive Hilltop Drive to I805 Sandpiper Occasional Marina Way and J route signage Parkway Street

Recommendations

Signage Signage Noted Noted

Sharrows

Widen some spots where lane is under 4' (without gutter)

Poor pavement conditions in parts

Wide ROW; truck route Class 2

No signage

3rd Avenue to 2nd Avenue Occasional 2nd route signage Avenue to Hilltop Drive Hilltop

Add directional signage

Sharrows

Better connection with Moss

Difﬁcult connection intersecting Moss Street

Sharrows

App-131

Appendices

Segment Fac Affected Segment ID (See Class Roadway Extent map)

Off-Street

I-5 to E Street

Recommendations Signage Noted

Facility DeďŹ ciency

Signage at bike lane end

Palomar Street to 4th Avenue

4th Avenue to 3rd Avenue

Orange Avenue 2O

Palomar Street

Sandpiper Way

App-132

Indicate change to Class 2

High visibility lane or extend Class 1 to improve linkage with Sharrows Class 2

3rd Avenue to 2nd Avenue 2nd Avenue to Hilltop Drive Hilltop Drive to I805

G Street and Marina Parkway

Telegraph Canyon Road

Additional Notes

Add directional signage

Wide enough for bike lane

Minimal signage

High volumes and speeds

Class 2

Sharrows

Add directional signage

No signage

2 2Q

Striping and Engineering

4th Avenue to 3rd Avenue

3rd Avenue to Hilltop Drive Hilltop Drive to I805 Industrial Boulevard to 4th Ave

Minimal signage Minimal signage

Signage

Facility Class Change

Add a double stripe to delineate parking from bike lane

Poor pavement condition in northern part near Lagoon Drive/No bike lane signage

Hilltop Drive to Class 1 facility Route signage Class 1 facility to L Street

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Appendix I: Bicycle Count Summary

5pm

4pm

8am

7am

Location: Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road Date: 9/29/10 Time Period: 7-8am/4-6pm Weather: Sunny and warm

Date: Weather:

6:00-6:15 6:15-6:30 6:30-6:45 6:45-7:00 7:00-7:15 7:15-7:30 7:30-7:45 7:45-8:00 4:00-4:15 4:15-4:30 4:30-4:45 4:45-5:00 5:00-5:15 5:15-5:30 5:30-5:45 5:45-6:00 10/9/10 Sunny

8am

The bicycle use survey employed a standardized form based on National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project methodology. The surveyor was asked to note location, weather conditions, date and time. Surveyors were instructed to note specific user attributes. For example, they were asked to count the number of people on bicycles, not the number of bicycles. Therefore, two people on a tandem bicycle were counted as two, not one. Cyclist gender was also noted, as well as cyclists who were seen riding on the sidewalk.

Bicycle Count Summary

8:00-8:15 8:15-8:30 8:30-8:45 8:45-8:00

9am

The tables on the following pages contain bicycle count information compiled for this master plan update. Counts were taken at four locations at three different times each, two on weekdays and one on weekends. Times have been adjusted for local conditions.

9:00-9:15 9:15-9:30 9:30-9:45 9:45-9:00

Weekday Totals Weekend Totals Totals:

Final

Weekday Count Female Male 2 2 1 3 1

1 1

1 2 2 2

4 3 2 5

14 10 2 8 3

Time Period: 8am- 10am Weekend Count Female Male 13 7 2 2

0 1

24 6 7 14 8

3 1

52 59

111

App-133

Appendices

Bicycle Count Summary

5pm

4pm

8am

7am

Location: Broadway between H St & I St Date: 8/31/10 Time Period: 7-8am and 4-6pm Weather: Sunny and warm

9am

8am

Date: Weather:

6:00-6:15 6:15-6:30 6:30-6:45 6:45-7:00 7:00-7:15 7:15-7:30 7:30-7:45 7:45-8:00 4:00-4:15 4:15-4:30 4:30-4:45 4:45-5:00 5:00-5:15 5:15-5:30 5:30-5:45 5:45-6:00 10/9/10 Sunny

8:00-8:15 8:15-8:30 8:30-8:45 8:45-8:00 9:00-9:15 9:15-9:30 9:30-9:45 9:45-9:00

Weekday Totals Weekend Totals Totals:

App-134

Weekday Count Female Male 1 2 4 2

3 1 1

5 1 3 2 2

8 2 2 3 3

Time Period: 8-10am Weekend Count Female Male 3 2 1

5 0

31 15

3 3 2 1

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Bicycle Count Summary

5pm

4pm

8am

7am

Location: Industrial Boulevard and Palomar Street Date: 9/24/10 Time Period: 7-8am and 4-6pm Weather: Sunny and warm

9am

8am

Date: Weather:

6:00-6:15 6:15-6:30 6:30-6:45 6:45-7:00 7:00-7:15 7:15-7:30 7:30-7:45 7:45-8:00 4:00-4:15 4:15-4:30 4:30-4:45 4:45-5:00 5:00-5:15 5:15-5:30 5:30-5:45 5:45-6:00 10/9/10 Sunny

8:00-8:15 8:15-8:30 8:30-8:45 8:45-8:00 9:00-9:15 9:15-9:30 9:30-9:45 9:45-9:00

Weekday Totals Weekend Totals Totals:

Final

Weekday Count Female Male 1 6 2 6 4 3

19 6 3 2

11 5 5

2 1

7 4 1 2

Time Period: 8-10am Weekend Count Female Male 2 3 4 1

7 0

58 23

5 3 4 1

App-135

Appendices

Bicycle Count Summary

7am 8am

7:00-7:15 7:15-7:30 7:30-7:45 7:45-8:00 4:00-4:15 4:15-4:30 4:30-4:45 4:45-5:00

5pm

6:00-6:15 6:15-6:30 6:30-6:45 6:45-7:00

4pm

Location: Telegraph Canyon Road and La Media Drive Date: 9/29/10 Time Period: 7-8am and 4-6pm Weather: Sunny and warm

9am

8am

Date: Weather:

5:00-5:15 5:15-5:30 5:30-5:45 5:45-6:00

9/25/10 Hot

8:00-8:15 8:15-8:30 8:30-8:45 8:45-8:00 9:00-9:15 9:15-9:30 9:30-9:45 9:45-9:00

Weekday Totals Weekend Totals Totals:

App-136

Weekday Count Female Male 2 1 2 3 2 6

13 3 4 3 2

2 2

12 1

1 3

1 1 1 2

Time Period: 8-10am Weekend Count Female Male 2 12 5 18 2 13 7 9

8 30

35 84

2 3 2 7

8 12 5 7

119

2011

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

Appendix J: Caltrans Highway Design Manual - Chapter 1000 The following pages contain the entirety of this essential document as a reference aid for project planners.

Final

App-137

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-1 September 1, 2006

CHAPTER 1000 BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN Topic 1001 - General Criteria Index 1001.1 - Introduction The needs of non-motorized transportation are an essential part of all highway projects. Topic 105 discusses Pedestrian Facilities with Index 105.3 addressing accessibility needs. This chapter discusses bicycle travel. All city, county, regional and other local agencies responsible for bikeways or roads where bicycle travel is permitted must follow the minimum bicycle planning and design criteria contained in this and other chapters of this manual (See Streets and Highways Code Section 891). Bicycle travel can be enhanced by improved maintenance and by upgrading existing roads used regularly by bicyclists, regardless of whether or not bikeways are designated. This effort requires increased attention to the right-hand portion of roadways where bicyclists are expected to ride. On new construction, and major reconstruction projects, adequate width should be provided to permit shared use by motorists and bicyclists. On resurfacing projects, it is important to provide a uniform surface for bicyclists and pedestrians. See Index 625.1(1) and 635.1(1) for guidance in accommodating bicyclist and pedestrian needs on resurfacing projects. When adding lanes or turn pockets, a minimum 4-foot shoulder shall be provided (see Topic 405 and Table 302.1). When feasible, a wider shoulder should be considered. When placing a roadway edge line, sufficient room outside the line should be provided for bicyclists. When considering the restriping of roadways for more traffic lanes, the impact on bicycle travel should be assessed. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic through construction zones should be addressed in the project development process. These efforts, to preserve or improve an area for use by bicyclists, can enhance motorist and bicyclist safety and mobility.

1001.2 The Role of Bikeways Bikeways are one element of an effort to improve bicycling safety and convenience - either to help accommodate motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on shared roadways, or to complement the road system to meet needs not adequately met by roads. Off-street bikeways in exclusive corridors can be effective in providing new recreational opportunities, or in some instances, desirable commuter routes. They can also be used to close gaps where barriers exist to bicycle travel (e.g., river crossing). On-street bikeways can serve to enhance safety and convenience, especially if other commitments are made in conjunction with establishment of bikeways, such as: elimination of parking or increasing roadway width, elimination of surface irregularities and roadway obstacles, frequent street sweeping, establishing intersection priority on the bike route street as compared with the majority of cross streets, and installation of bicycle-sensitive loop detectors at signalized intersections.

1001.3 The Decision to Develop Bikeways The decision to develop bikeways should be made with the knowledge that bikeways are not the solution to all bicycle-related problems. Many of the common problems are related to improper bicyclist and motorist behavior and can only be corrected through effective education and enforcement programs. The development of well conceived bikeways can have a positive effect on bicyclist and motorist behavior. Conversely, poorly conceived bikeways can be counterproductive to education and enforcement programs.

1001.4 Definitions The Streets and Highway Code Section 890.4 defines a "Bikeway" as a facility that is provided primarily for bicycle travel. (1) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Provides a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow by motorists minimized. (2) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.

1000-2

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

(3) Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.

1001.5 Streets and Highways Code References - Chapter 8 - Nonmotorized Transportation

(d) Section 21207 -- Allows local agencies to establish bike lanes on non-state highways.

(a) Section 887 -- Definition of nonmotorized facility. (b) Section 887.6 -- Agreements with local agencies to construct and maintain nonmotorized facilities.

(e) Section 21207.5 -- Prohibits motorized bicycles on bike paths or bike lanes. (f) Section 21208 -- Specifies permitted movements by bicyclists from bike lanes. (g) Section 21209 -- Specifies permitted movements by motorists in bike lanes.

(c) Section 887.8 -- Payment for construction and maintenance of nonmotorized facilities approximately paralleling State highways.

(h) Section 21210 -- Prohibits bicycle parking on sidewalks unless pedestrians have an adequate path.

(d) Section 888 -- Severance of existing major nonmotorized route by freeway construction.

(i) Section 21211 -- Prohibits impeding or obstruction of bicyclists on bike paths.

(e) Section 888.2 -- Incorporation of nonmotorized facilities in the design of freeways. (f) Section 888.4 -- Requires Caltrans to budget not less than $360,000 annually for nonmotorized facilities used in conjunction with the State highway system. (g) Section 890.4 -- Class I, II, and III bikeway definitions. (h) Section 890.6 - 890.8 -- Caltrans and local agencies to develop design criteria and symbols for signs, markers, and traffic control devices for bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel is permitted. (i) Section 891 -- Local agencies must comply with design criteria and uniform symbols. (j) Section 892 -- Use of abandoned right-ofway as a nonmotorized facility.

1001.6 Vehicle Code References - Bicycle Operation (a) Section 21200 -- Bicyclist's rights and responsibilities for traveling on highways. (b) Section 21202 -- Bicyclist's position on roadways when traveling slower than the normal traffic speed.

(j) Section 21717 -- Requires a motorist to drive in a bike lane prior to making a turn. (k) Section 21960 -- Use of freeways by bicyclists.

Topic 1002 - Bikeway Facilities 1002.1 Selection of the Type of Facility The type of facility to select in meeting the bicycle need is dependent on many factors, but the following applications are the most common for each type. (1) Shared Roadway (No Bikeway Designation). Most bicycle travel in the State now occurs on streets and highways without bikeway designations. This probably will be true in the future as well. In some instances, entire street systems may be fully adequate for safe and efficient bicycle travel, and signing and pavement marking for bicycle use may be unnecessary. In other cases, prior to designation as a bikeway, routes may need improvements for bicycle travel. Many rural highways are used by touring bicyclists for intercity and recreational travel. It might be inappropriate to designate the highways as bikeways because of the limited use and the lack of continuity with other bike routes. However, the development and

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-3 September 1, 2006

maintenance of 4-foot paved roadway shoulders with a standard 4 inch edge line can significantly improve the safety and convenience for bicyclists and motorists along such routes. (2) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Generally, bike paths should be used to serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where wide right of way exists, permitting such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets. Bike paths should offer opportunities not provided by the road system. They can either provide a recreational opportunity, or in some instances, can serve as direct high-speed commute routes if cross flow by motor vehicles and pedestrian conflicts can be minimized. The most common applications are along rivers, ocean fronts, canals, utility right of way, abandoned railroad right of way, within college campuses, or within and between parks. There may also be situations where such facilities can be provided as part of planned developments. Another common application of Class I facilities is to close gaps to bicycle travel caused by construction of freeways or because of the existence of natural barriers (rivers, mountains, etc.). (3) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Bike lanes are established along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand, and where there are distinct needs that can be served by them. The purpose should be to improve conditions for bicyclists in the corridors. Bike lanes are intended to delineate the right of way assigned to bicyclists and motorists and to provide for more predictable movements by each. But a more important reason for constructing bike lanes is to better accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for safe bicycling on existing streets. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of lanes, reducing lane width, or prohibiting parking on given streets in order to delineate bike lanes. In addition, other things can be done on bike lane streets to improve the situation for bicyclists, that might not be possible on all streets (e.g., improvements to the surface, augmented sweeping programs, special signal facilities,

etc.). Generally, pavement markings alone will not measurably enhance bicycling. If bicycle travel is to be controlled by delineation, special efforts should be made to assure that high levels of service are provided with these lanes. In selecting appropriate streets for bike lanes, location criteria discussed in the next section should be considered. (4) Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Bike routes are shared facilities which serve either to: (a) Provide continuity to other bicycle facilities (usually Class II bikeways); or (b) Designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. As with bike lanes, designation of bike routes should indicate to bicyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes as compared with alternative routes. This means that responsible agencies have taken actions to assure that these routes are suitable as shared routes and will be maintained in a manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists. Normally, bike routes are shared with motor vehicles. The use of sidewalks as Class III bikeways is strongly discouraged. It is emphasized that the designation of bikeways as Class I, II and III should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application. In selecting the proper facility, an overriding concern is to assure that the proposed facility will not encourage or require bicyclists or motorists to operate in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules of the road. An important consideration in selecting the type of facility is continuity. Alternating segments of Class I and Class II (or Class III) bikeways along a route are generally incompatible, as street crossings by bicyclists are required when the route changes character. Also, wrong-way bicycle travel will occur on the street beyond the ends of bike paths because of the inconvenience of having to cross the street.

1000-4

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

Topic 1003 - Design Criteria 1003.1 Class I Bikeways Class I bikeways (bike paths) are facilities with exclusive right of way, with cross flows by motorists minimized. Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code describes Class I bikeways as serving "the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians". However, experience has shown that if significant pedestrian use is anticipated, separate facilities for pedestrians are necessary to minimize conflicts. Dual use by pedestrians and bicycles is undesirable, and the two should be separated wherever possible. Sidewalk facilities are not considered Class I facilities because they are primarily intended to serve pedestrians, generally cannot meet the design standards for Class I bikeways, and do not minimize motorist cross flows. See Index 1003.3 for discussion relative to sidewalk bikeways. By State law, motorized bicycles ("mopeds") are prohibited on bike paths unless authorized by ordinance or approval of the agency having jurisdiction over the path. Likewise, all motor vehicles are prohibited from bike paths. These prohibitions can be strengthened by signing. (1) Widths. The minimum paved width for a two-way bike path shall be 8 feet. The minimum paved width for a one-way bike path shall be 5 feet. A minimum 2-foot wide graded area shall be provided adjacent to the pavement (see Figure 1003.1A). A 3-foot graded area is recommended to provide clearance from poles, trees, walls, fences, guardrails, or other lateral obstructions. A wider graded area can also serve as a jogging path. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum required, the graded area may be reduced accordingly; however, the graded area is a desirable feature regardless of the paved width. Development of a one-way bike path should be undertaken only after careful consideration due to the problems of enforcing one-way operation and the difficulties in maintaining a path of restricted width. Where heavy bicycle volumes are anticipated and/or significant pedestrian traffic is expected, the paved width of a two-way path should be

greater than 8-feet, preferably 12 feet or more. Another important factor to consider in determining the appropriate width is that bicyclists will tend to ride side by side on bike paths, necessitating more width for safe use. Experience has shown that paved paths less than 12 feet wide sometimes break up along the edge as a result of loads from maintenance vehicles. Where equestrians are expected, a separate facility should be provided. (2) Clearance to Obstructions. A minimum 2-foot horizontal clearance to obstructions shall be provided adjacent to the pavement (see Figure 1003.1A). A 3-foot clearance is recommended. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum required, the clearance may be reduced accordingly; however, an adequate clearance is desirable regardless of the paved width. If a wide path is paved contiguous with a continuous fixed object (e.g., block wall), a 4-inch white edge line, 2 feet from the fixed object, is recommended to minimize the likelihood of a bicyclist hitting it. The clear width on structures between railings shall be not less than 8 feet. It is desirable that the clear width of structures be equal to the minimum clear width of the path (i.e., 12 feet). The vertical clearance to obstructions across the clear width of the path shall be a minimum of 8 feet. Where practical, a vertical clearance of 10 feet is desirable. (3) Signing and Delineation. For application and placement of signs, see the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Section 9B.01 and the MUTCD and California Supplement Section 9B.01 and Figure 9B-101. For pavement marking guidance, see the MUTCD, Section 9C.03. (4) Intersections with Highways. Intersections are a prime consideration in bike path design. If alternate locations for a bike path are available, the one with the most favorable intersection conditions should be selected.

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-5 September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.1A Two-Way Bike Path on Separate Right of Way

1000-6

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.1B Typical Cross Section of Bike Path Along Highway

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-7 September 1, 2006

Where motor vehicle cross traffic and bicycle traffic is heavy, grade separations are desirable to eliminate intersection conflicts. Where grade separations are not feasible, assignment of right of way by traffic signals should be considered. Where traffic is not heavy, stop or yield signs for bicyclists may suffice. Bicycle path intersections and approaches should be on relatively flat grades. Stopping sight distances at intersections should be checked and adequate warning should be given to permit bicyclists to stop before reaching the intersection, especially on downgrades. When crossing an arterial street, the crossing should either occur at the pedestrian crossing, where motorists can be expected to stop, or at a location completely out of the influence of any intersection to permit adequate opportunity for bicyclists to see turning vehicles. When crossing at midblock locations, right of way should be assigned by devices such as yield signs, stop signs, or traffic signals which can be activated by bicyclists. Even when crossing within or adjacent to the pedestrian crossing, stop or yield signs for bicyclists should be placed to minimize potential for conflict resulting from turning autos. Where bike path stop or yield signs are visible to approaching motor vehicle traffic, they should be shielded to avoid confusion. In some cases, Bike Xing signs may be placed in advance of the crossing to alert motorists. Ramps should be installed in the curbs, to preserve the utility of the bike path. Ramps should be the same width as the bicycle paths. Curb cuts and ramps should provide a smooth transition between the bicycle paths and the roadway. (5) Separation Between Bike Paths and Highways. A wide separation is recommended between bike paths and adjacent highways (see Figure 1003.1B). 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. Bike paths within the clear recovery zone of freeways shall include a physical barrier separation. Suitable barriers could include chain link fences or dense shrubs. Low barriers (e.g., dikes, raised traffic bars) next to a highway are not

recommended because bicyclists could fall over them and into oncoming automobile traffic. In instances where there is danger of motorists encroaching into the bike path, a positive barrier (e.g., concrete barrier, steel guardrailing) should be provided. See Index 1003.6 for criteria relative to bike paths carried over highway bridges. Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not recommended. They should not be considered a substitute for the street, because many bicyclists will find it less convenient to ride on these types of facilities as compared with the streets, particularly for utility trips. (6) Bike Paths in the Median of Highways. As a general rule, bike paths in the median of highways are not recommended because they require movements contrary to normal rules of the road. Specific problems with such facilities include: (a) Bicyclist right turns from the center of roadways are unnatural for bicyclists and confusing to motorists. (b) Proper bicyclist movements through intersections with signals are unclear. (c) Left-turning motorists must cross one direction of motor vehicle traffic and two directions of bicycle traffic, which increases conflicts. (d) Where intersections are infrequent, bicyclists will enter or exit bike paths at midblock. (e) Where medians are landscaped, visual relationships between bicyclists and motorists at intersections are impaired. For the above reasons, bike paths in the median of highways should be considered only when the above problems can be avoided. Bike paths shall not be designed in the medians of freeways or expressways. (7) Design Speed. The proper design speed for a bike path is dependent on the expected type of use and on the terrain. The minimum design speed for bike paths shall be 25 miles per hour except as noted in Table 1003.1.

1000-8

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

Table 1003.1 Bike Path Design Speeds Type of Facility Bike Paths with Mopeds Prohibited Bike Paths with Mopeds Permitted Bike Paths on Long Downgrades (steeper than 4%, and longer than 500')

Design Speed (mph) 25 30 30

Installation of "speed bumps" or other similar surface obstructions, intended to cause bicyclists to slow down in advance of intersections or other geometric constraints, shall not be used. These devices cannot compensate for improper design. (8) Horizontal Alignment and Superelevation. The minimum radius of curvature negotiable by a bicycle is a function of the superelevation rate of the bicycle path surface, the coefficient of friction between the bicycle tires and the bicycle path surface, and the speed of the bicycle. For most bicycle path applications the superelevation rate will vary from a minimum of 2 percent (the minimum necessary to encourage adequate drainage) to a maximum of approximately 5 percent (beyond which maneuvering difficulties by slow bicyclists and adult tricyclists might be expected). A straight 2 percent cross slope is recommended on tangent sections. The minimum superelevation rate of 2 percent will be adequate for most conditions and will simplify construction. Superelevation rates steeper than 5 percent should be avoided on bike paths expected to have adult tricycle traffic. The coefficient of friction depends upon speed; surface type, roughness, and condition; tire type and condition; and whether the surface is wet or dry. Friction factors used for design should be selected based upon the point at which centrifugal force causes the bicyclist to

recognize a feeling of discomfort and instinctively act to avoid higher speed. Extrapolating from values used in highway design, design friction factors for paved bicycle paths can be assumed to vary from 0.31 at 12 miles per hour to 0.21 at 30 miles per hour. Although there is no data available for unpaved surfaces, it is suggested that friction factors be reduced by 50 percent to allow a sufficient margin of safety. The minimum radius of curvature can be selected from Figure 1003.1C. When curve radii smaller than those shown in Figure 1003.1C must be used on bicycle paths because of right of way, topographical or other considerations, standard curve warning signs and supplemental pavement markings should be installed. The negative effects of nonstandard curves can also be partially offset by widening the pavement through the curves. (9) Stopping Sight Distance. To provide bicyclists with an opportunity to see and react to the unexpected, a bicycle path should be designed with adequate stopping sight distances. The distance required to bring a bicycle to a full controlled stop is a function of the bicyclist’s perception and brake reaction time, the initial speed of the bicycle, the coefficient of friction between the tires and the pavement, and the braking ability of the bicycle. Figures 1003.1D and 1003.1E indicate the minimum stopping sight distances for various design speeds and grades. For two-way bike paths, the descending direction, that is, where “G” is negative, will control the design. (10) Length of Crest Vertical Curves. Figure 1003.1F indicates the minimum lengths of crest vertical curves for varying design speeds. (11) Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves. Figure 1003.1G indicates the minimum clearances to line of sight obstructions for horizontal curves. The required lateral clearance is obtained by entering Figure 1003.1G with the stopping sight distance from Figures 1003.1D and 1003.1E, the proposed horizontal curve radius.

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-9 September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.1C Curve Radii & Superelevations R=

V2 15(0.01e + f)

where, R = Minimum radius of curvature (ft) V = Design Speed (mph) e = Rate of bikeway superelevation, percent f = Coefficient of friction Design Speed-V (mph)

Friction Factor-f

Superelevation-e (%)

Minimum Radius-R (ft)

0.31

0.28

0.25

155

0.21

261

0.31

0.28

0.25

149

0.21

250

0.31

0.28

0.25

144

0.21

240

0.31

0.28

0.25

139

0.21

231

1000-10

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.1D Stopping Sight Distance â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Descending Grade

S= Where : S

V2 + 3.67 V 30(f - G)

= Stopping sight distance (ft)

V = Velocity (mph) f

= Coefficient of friction (use 0.25)

G = Grade (ft/ft) rise/run

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-11 September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.1E Stopping Sight Distance â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ascending Grade

S= Where : S

V2 + 3.67 V 30(f + G)

= Stopping sight distance (ft)

V = Velocity (mph) f

= Coefficient of friction (use 0.25)

G = Grade (ft/ft) rise/run

1000-12

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

Bicyclists frequently ride abreast of each other on bicycle paths, and on narrow bicycle paths, bicyclists have a tendency to ride near the middle of the path. For these reasons, and because of the serious consequences of a head on bicycle accident, lateral clearances on horizontal curves should be calculated based on the sum of the stopping sight distances for bicyclists traveling in opposite directions around the curve. Where this is not possible or feasible, consideration should be given to widening the path through the curve, installing a yellow center line, installing a curve warning sign, or some combination of these alternatives. (12) Grades. Bike paths generally attract less skilled bicyclists, so it is important to avoid steep grades in their design. Bicyclists not physically conditioned will be unable to negotiate long, steep uphill grades. Since novice bicyclists often ride poorly maintained bicycles, long downgrades can cause problems. For these reasons, bike paths with long, steep grades will generally receive very little use. The maximum grade rate recommended for bike paths is 5 percent. It is desirable that sustained grades be limited to 2 percent if a wide range of riders is to be accommodated. Steeper grades can be tolerated for short segments (e.g., up to about 500 feet). Where steeper grades are necessitated, the design speed should be increased and additional width should be provided for maneuverability. (13) Pavement Structure. The pavement structure of a bike path should be designed in the same manner as a highway, with consideration given to the quality of the basement soil and the anticipated loads the bikeway will experience. It is important to construct and maintain a smooth riding surface with skid resistant qualities. Principal loads will normally be from maintenance and emergency vehicles. Expansive soil should be given special consideration and will probably require a special pavement structure. A minimum pavement thickness of 2 inches of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) is recommended. HMA (as described in Department of Transportation Standard Specifications), with Â˝ inch maximum aggregate and medium grading is recommended. Consideration should be given

to increasing the asphalt content to provide increased pavement life. Consideration should also be given to sterilization of basement soil to preclude possible weed growth through the pavement. At unpaved highway or driveway crossings of bicycle paths, the highway or driveway should be paved a minimum of 10 feet on each side of the crossing to reduce the amount of gravel being scattered along the path by motor vehicles. The pavement structure at the crossing should be adequate to sustain the expected loading at that location. (14) Drainage. For proper drainage, the surface of a bike path should have a cross slope of 2 percent. Sloping in one direction usually simplifies longitudinal drainage design and surface construction, and accordingly is the preferred practice. Ordinarily, surface drainage from the path will be adequately dissipated as it flows down the gently sloping shoulder. However, when a bike path is constructed on the side of a hill, a drainage ditch of suitable dimensions may be necessary on the uphill side to intercept the hillside drainage. Where necessary, catch basins with drains should be provided to carry intercepted water across the path. Such ditches should be designed in such a way that no undue obstacle is presented to bicyclists. Culverts or bridges are necessary where a bike path crosses a drainage channel. (15) Barrier Posts. It may be necessary to install barrier posts at entrances to bike paths to prevent motor vehicles from entering. For barrier post placement, visibility marking, and pavement markings, see the MUTCD and California Supplement, Section 9C.101. Generally, barrier configurations that preclude entry by motorcycles present safety and convenience problems for bicyclists. Such devices should be used only where extreme problems are encountered.

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-13 September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.1F Minimum Length of Crest Vertical Curve (L) Based on Stopping Sight Distance (S) L = 2S -

1456 A

Double line represents S = L

when S > L

L = Minimum length of vertical curve – feet A = Algebraic grade difference - %

AS 1456

S = Stopping sight distance – feet

when S < L

Refer to Figure 1003.1D to determine “S”, for a given design speed “V”

Height of cyclist eye = 4½ feet A (%)

Height of object = 4 inches 110

S = Stopping Sight Distance (ft) 130 150 170 190 210

3 4 5 6

S>L

230

250

270 290

56 129

96 169

15 136 209

55 95 176 216 249 289

16 89

137

177

217

258

300 347

132

172

212

254

300

350 404

118

158

198

242

291

343

401 462

138

179

223

273

327

386

451 520

9 10 11

34 48

74 88

114 128

155 170

198 218

248 273

303 333

363 400

429 472

501 578 551 635

12 13

19 28

59 68

99 108

139 151

185 201

238 258

298 322

363 394

436 472

515 558

601 693 651 751

14 15 16

3 9

36 43 49

76 83 89

116 125 133

163 174 186

216 232 247

278 298 318

347 372 397

424 454 485

509 545 581

601 644 687

701 809 751 866 801 924

17 18 19 20

14 19 23 27

54 59 63 67

95 100 106 111

141 150 158 166

197 209 221 232

263 278 294 309

337 357 377 397

421 446 471 496

515 545 575 606

618 654 690 727

730 773 816 859

851 901 951 1001

982 1040 1097 1155

21 22 23 24 25

31 34 37 39 42

71 74 77 81 84

117 122 128 134 139

175 183 191 199 208

244 255 267 279 290

325 340 355 371 386

417 437 457 476 496

521 545 570 595 620

636 666 697 727 757

763 799 836 872 908

901 944 987 1030 1073

1051 1102 1152 1202 1252

1213 1271 1329 1386 1444

S<L

1000-14

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.1G Minimum Lateral Clearance (m) on Horizontal Curves

R (ft) 25 50 75 95 125 155 175 200 225 250 275 300 350 390 500 565 600 700 800 900 1000

20 2.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

40 7.6 3.9 2.7 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2

60 15.9 8.7 5.9 4.7 3.6 2.9 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5

100

S = Stopping Sight Distance (ft) 120 140 160 180 200

15.2 10.4 8.3 6.3 5.1 4.6 4.0 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8

23.0 16.1 12.9 9.9 8.0 7.1 6.2 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.2 3.6 3.2 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3

31.9 22.8 18.3 14.1 11.5 10.2 8.9 8.0 7.2 6.5 6.0 5.1 4.6 3.6 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.8

41.5 30.4 24.7 19.1 15.5 13.8 12.1 10.8 9.7 8.9 8.1 7.0 6.3 4.9 4.3 4.1 3.5 3.1 2.7 2.4

38.8 31.8 24.7 20.2 18.0 15.8 14.1 12.7 11.6 10.6 9.1 8.2 6.4 5.7 5.3 4.6 4.0 3.6 3.2

47.8 39.5 31.0 25.4 22.6 19.9 17.8 16.0 14.6 13.4 11.5 10.3 8.1 7.2 6.7 5.8 5.1 4.5 4.0

57.4 48.0 37.9 31.2 27.8 24.5 21.9 19.7 18.0 16.5 14.2 12.8 10.0 8.8 8.3 7.1 6.2 5.6 5.0

220

240

260

280

300

67.2 56.9 45.4 37.4 33.5 29.5 26.4 23.8 21.7 19.9 17.1 15.4 12.1 10.7 10.1 8.6 7.6 6.7 6.0

66.3 53.3 44.2 39.6 34.9 31.3 28.3 25.8 23.7 20.4 18.3 14.3 12.7 12.0 10.3 9.0 8.0 7.2

75.9 61.7 51.4 46.1 40.8 36.5 33.1 30.2 27.7 23.9 21.5 16.8 14.9 14.0 12.0 10.5 9.4 8.4

85.8 70.6 59.1 53.1 47.0 42.2 38.2 34.9 32.1 27.6 24.9 19.5 17.3 16.3 14.0 12.2 10.9 9.8

79.7 67.1 60.5 53.7 48.2 43.7 39.9 36.7 31.7 28.5 22.3 19.8 18.7 16.0 14.4 12.5 11.2

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-15 September 1, 2006

(16) Lighting. Fixed-source lighting reduces conflicts along paths and at intersections. In addition, lighting allows the bicyclist to see the bicycle path direction, surface conditions, and obstacles. Lighting for bicycle paths is important and should be considered where riding at night is expected, such as bicycle paths serving college students or commuters, and at highway intersections. Lighting should also be considered through underpasses or tunnels, and when nighttime security could be a problem. Depending on the location, average maintained horizontal illumination levels of 5 lux to 22 lux should be considered. Where special security problems exist, higher illumination levels may be considered. Light standards (poles) should meet the recommended horizontal and vertical clearances. Luminaires and standards should be at a scale appropriate for a pedestrian or bicycle path.

1003.2 Class II Bikeways Class II bikeways (bike lanes) for preferential use by bicycles are established within the paved area of highways. Bike lane pavement markings are intended to promote an orderly flow of traffic, by establishing specific lines of demarcation between areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to be occupied by motor vehicles. This effect is supported by bike lane signs and pavement markings. Bike lane pavement markings can increase bicyclists' confidence that motorists will not stray into their path of travel if they remain within the bike lane. Likewise, with more certainty as to where bicyclists will be, passing motorists are less apt to swerve toward opposing traffic in making certain they will not hit bicyclists. Class II bike lanes shall be one-way facilities. Two-way bike lanes (or bike paths that are contiguous to the roadway) are not permitted, as such facilities have proved unsatisfactory and promote riding against the flow of motor vehicle traffic. (1) Widths. Typical Class II bikeway configurations are illustrated in Figure 1003.2A and are described below: (a) Figure 1003.2A-(1) depicts bike lanes on an urban type curbed street where parking stalls (or continuous parking stripes) are

marked. Bike lanes are located between the parking area and the traffic lanes. As indicated, 5 feet shall be the minimum width of bike lane where parking stalls are marked. If parking volume is substantial or turnover high, an additional 1 foot to 2-foot of width is desirable. Bike lanes shall not be placed between the parking area and the curb. Such facilities increase the conflict between bicyclists and opening car doors and reduce visibility at intersections. Also, they prevent bicyclists from leaving the bike lane to turn left and cannot be effectively maintained. (b) Figure 1003.2A-(2) depicts bike lanes on an urban-type curbed street, where parking is permitted, but without parking stripe or stall marking. Bike lanes are established in conjunction with the parking areas. As indicated, 11 feet or 12 feet (depending on the type of curb) shall be the minimum width of the bike lane where parking is permitted. This type of lane is satisfacory where parking is not extensive and where turnover of parked cars is infrequent. However, if parking is substantial, turnover of parked cars is high, truck traffic is substantial, or if vehicle speeds exceed 35 miles per hour, additional width is recommended. (c) Figure 1003.2A-(3) depicts bike lanes along the outer portions of an urban type curbed street, where parking is prohibited. This is generally the most desirable configuration for bike lanes, as it eliminates potential conflicts resulting from auto parking (e.g., opening car doors). As indicated, if no gutter exists, the minimum bike lane width shall be 4 feet. With a normal 2-foot gutter, the minimum bike lane width shall be 5 feet. The intent is to provide a minimum 4 feet wide bike lane, but with at least 3 feet between the traffic lane and the longitudinal joint at the concrete gutter, since the gutter reduces the effective width of the bike lane for two reasons. First, the longitudinal joint may not always be smooth, and may be difficult

1000-16

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

to ride along. Secondly, the gutter does not provide a suitable surface for bicycle travel. Where gutters are wide (say, 4 feet), an additional 3 feet must be provided because bicyclists should not be expected to ride in the gutter. Wherever possible, the width of bike lanes should be increased 6 feet to 8 feet to provide for greater safety. Eight-foot bike lanes can also serve as emergency parking areas for disabled vehicles. Striping bike lanes next to curbs where parking is prohibited only during certain hours shall be done only in conjunction with special signing to designate the hours bike lanes are to be effective. Since the Vehicle Code requires bicyclists to ride in bike lanes where provided (except under certain conditions), proper signing is necessary to inform bicyclists that they are required to ride in bike lanes only during the course of the parking prohibition. This type of bike lane should be considered only if the vast majority of bicycle travel would occur during the hours of the parking prohibition, and only if there is a firm commitment to enforce the parking prohibition. Because of the obvious complications, this type of bike lane is not encouraged for general application. Figure 1003.2A-(4) depicts bike lanes on a highway without curbs and gutters. This location is in an undeveloped area where infrequent parking is handled off the pavement. This can be accomplished by supplementing the bike lane signing with R25 (park off pavement) signs, or R26 (no parking) signs. Minimum widths shall be as shown. Additional width is desirable, particularly where motor vehicle speeds exceed 35 miles per hour Per Topic 301, the minimum lane width standard is 12 feet. There are situations where it may be desirable to reduce the width of the traffic lanes in order to add or widen bicycle lanes or shoulders. In determining the appropriateness of narrower traffic lanes, consideration should be given to factors such as motor vehicle speeds,

truck volumes, alignment, bicycle lane width, sight distance, and the presence of on-street vehicle parking. When vehicle parking is permitted adjacent to a bicycle lane, or on a shoulder where bicycling is not prohibited, reducing the width of the adjacent traffic lane may allow for wider bicycle lanes or shoulders, to provide greater clearance between bicyclists and driver-side doors when opened. Where favorable conditions exist, traffic lanes of 11 feet may be feasible but must be approved per Topic 301. Bike lanes are not advisable on long, steep downgrades, where bicycle speeds greater than 30 miles per hour are expected. As grades increase, downhill bicycle speeds will increase, which increases the problem of riding near the edge of the roadway. In such situations, bicycle speeds can approach those of motor vehicles, and experienced bicyclists will generally move into the motor vehicle lanes to increase sight distance and maneuverability. If bike lanes are to be marked, additional width should be provided to accommodate higher bicycle speeds. If the bike lanes are to be located on oneway streets, they should be placed on the right side of the street. Bike lanes on the left side would cause bicyclists and motorists to undertake crossing maneuvers in making left turns onto a two-way street. (2) Signing and Pavement Markings. Details for signing and pavement marking of Class II bikeways are found in the MUTCD and California Supplement, Section 9C.04. (3) At-grade Intersection Design. Most auto/bicycle accidents occur at intersections. For this reason, bikeway design at intersections should be accomplished in a manner that will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists, and will permit both to operate in accordance with the normal rules of the road.

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-17 January 4, 2007

Figure 1003.2A Typical Bike Lane Cross Sections (On 2-lane or Multilane Highways)

1000-18

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.2B illustrates a typical at-grade intersection of multilane streets, with bike lanes on all approaches. Some common movements of motor vehicles and bicycles are shown. A prevalent type of accident involves straightthrough bicycle traffic and right-turning motorists. Left-turning bicyclists also have problems, as the bike lane is on the right side of the street, and bicyclists have to cross the path of cars traveling in both directions. Some bicyclists are proficient enough to merge across one or more lanes of traffic, to use the inside lane or left-turn lane. However, there are many who do not feel comfortable making this maneuver. They have the option of making a two-legged left turn by riding along a course similar to that followed by pedestrians, as shown in the diagram. Young children will often prefer to dismount and change directions by walking their bike in the crosswalk. (4) Interchange Design. As with bikeway design through at-grade intersections, bikeway design through interchanges should be accomplished in a manner that will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists. Designers should work closely with the local agency in designing bicycle facilities through interchanges. Local Agencies should carefully select interchange locations which are most suitable for bikeway designations and where the crossing meets applicable design standards. The local agency may have special needs and desires for continuity through interchanges which should be considered in the design process. For Class II bikeway signing and lane markings, see the MUTCD and California Supplement, Section 9C.04. The shoulder width shall not be reduced through the interchange area. The minimum shoulder width shall match the approach roadway shoulder width, but not less than 4 feet or 5 feet if a gutter exists. If the shoulder width is not available, the designated bike lane shall end at the previous local road intersection. Depending on the intersection angles, either Figure 1003.2C or 1003.2D should also be used

for multilane ramp intersections. Additionally, the outside through lane should be widened to 14 feet when feasible. This allows extra room for bicycles to share the through lane with vehicles. The outside shoulder width should not be reduced through the interchange area to accommodate this additional width.

1003.3 Class III Bikeways Class III bikeways (bike routes) are intended to provide continuity to the bikeway system. Bike routes are established along through routes not served by Class I or II bikeways, or to connect discontinuous segments of bikeway (normally bike lanes). Class III facilities are shared facilities, either with motor vehicles on the street, or with pedestrians on sidewalks, and in either case bicycle usage is secondary. Class III facilities are established by placing Bike Route signs along roadways. Minimum widths for Class III bikeways are not presented, as the acceptable width is dependent on many factors, including the volume and character of vehicular traffic on the road, typical speeds, vertical and horizontal alignment, sight distance, and parking conditions. Since bicyclists are permitted on all highways (except prohibited freeways), the decision to designate the route as a bikeway should be based on the advisability of encouraging bicycle travel on the route and other factors listed below. (1) On-street Bike Route Criteria. To be of benefit to bicyclists, bike routes should offer a higher degree of service than alternative streets. Routes should be signed only if some of the following apply: (a) They provide for through and direct travel in bicycle-demand corridors. (b) Connect discontinuous segments of bike lanes. (c) An effort has been made to adjust traffic control devices (stop signs, signals) to give greater priority to bicyclists, as compared with alternative streets. This could include placement of bicycle-sensitive detectors on the right-hand portion of the road, where bicyclists are expected to ride.

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-19 September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.2B Typical Bicycle/Auto Movements at Intersections of Multilane Streets

1000-20

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.2C Bike Lanes Approaching Motorist Right-turn-only Lane

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-21 September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.2D Bike Lanes Through Interchanges

1000-22

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

(d) Street parking has been removed or restricted in areas of critical width to provide improved safety. (e) Surface imperfections or irregularities have been corrected (e.g., utility covers adjusted to grade, potholes filled, etc.). (f) Maintenance of the route will be at a higher standard than that of other comparable streets (e.g., more frequent street sweeping). (2) Sidewalk Bikeway Criteria. In general, the designated use of sidewalks (as a Class III bikeway) for bicycle travel is unsatisfactory. It is important to recognize that the development of extremely wide sidewalks does not necessarily add to the safety of sidewalk bicycle travel, as wide sidewalks will encourage higher speed bicycle use and can increase potential for conflicts with motor vehicles at intersections, as well as with pedestrians and fixed objects. Sidewalk bikeways should be considered only under special circumstances, such as: (a) To provide bikeway continuity along high speed or heavily traveled roadways having inadequate space for bicyclists, and uninterrupted by driveways and intersections for long distances. (b) On long, narrow bridges. In such cases, ramps should be installed at the sidewalk approaches. If approach bikeways are twoway, sidewalk facilities should also be two-way. Whenever sidewalk bikeways are established, a special effort should be made to remove unnecessary obstacles. Whenever bicyclists are directed from bike lanes to sidewalks, curb cuts should be flush with the street to assure that bicyclists are not subjected to problems associated with crossing a vertical lip at a flat angle. Also curb cuts at each intersection are necessary. Curb cuts should be wide enough to accommodate adult tricycles and two-wheel bicycle trailers. In residential areas, sidewalk riding by young children too inexperienced to ride in the street

is common. With lower bicycle speeds and lower auto speeds, potential conflicts are somewhat lessened, but still exist. Nevertheless, this type of sidewalk bicycle use is accepted. But it is inappropriate to sign these facilities as bikeways. Bicyclists should not be encouraged (through signing) to ride facilities that are not designed to accommodate bicycle travel. (3) Destination Signing of Bike Routes. For Bike Route signs to be more functional, supplemental plates may be placed beneath them when located along routes leading to high demand destinations (e.g., "To Downtown"; "To State College"; etc. For typical signing, see the MUTCD and California Supplement, Figures 9B-5 and 9B-6. There are instances where it is necessary to sign a route to direct bicyclists to a logical destination, but where the route does not offer any of the above listed bike route features. In such cases, the route should not be signed as a bike route; however, destination signing may be advisable. A typical application of destination signing would be where bicyclists are directed off a highway to bypass a section of freeway. Special signs would be placed to guide bicyclists to the next logical destination. The intent is to direct bicyclists in the same way as motorists would be directed if a highway detour was necessitated. (4) Interchange Design As with bikeway design through at-grade intersections, bikeway design through interchanges should be accomplished in a manner that will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists. Designers should work closely with the local agency in designing bicycle facilities through interchanges. Local Agencies should carefully select interchange locations which are most suitable for bikeway designations and where the crossing meets applicable design standards. The local agency may have special needs and desires for continuity through interchanges which should be considered in the design process. Within the Interchange area the bike route shall require either an outside lane width of 16-foot or a 12-foot lane and a 4-foot shoulder. If the above width is not available,

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-23 September 1, 2006

the designated bike route shall end at the previous local road intersection.

1003.4 Bicycles on Freeways In some instances, bicyclists are permitted on freeways. Seldom would a freeway be designated as a bikeway, but it can be opened for use if it meets certain criteria. Essentially, the criteria involve assessing the safety and convenience of the freeway as compared with available alternate routes. However, a freeway should not be opened to bicycle use if it is determined to be incompatible. The Headquarters Traffic Liaisons and the Design Coordinator must approve any proposals to open freeways to bicyclists. If a suitable alternate route exists, it would normally be unnecessary to open the freeway. However, if the alternate route is unsuitable for bicycle travel the freeway may be a better alternative for bicyclists. In determining the suitability of an alternate route, safety should be the paramount consideration. The following factors should be considered: • • • • • • •

Number of intersections Shoulder widths Traffic volumes Vehicle speeds Bus, truck and recreational volumes Grades Travel time

vehicle

When a suitable alternate route does not exist, a freeway shoulder may be considered for bicycle travel. Normally, freeways in urban areas will have characteristics that make it unfeasible to permit bicycle use. In determining if the freeway shoulder is suitable for bicycle travel, the following factors should be considered; • •

•

Shoulder widths Bicycle hazards on shoulders (drainage grates, expansion joints, etc.) Number and location of entrance/exit ramps Traffic volumes on entrance/exit ramps

•

Bridge Railing height

•

When bicyclists are permitted on segments of freeway, it will be necessary to modify and supplement freeway regulatory signs, particularly those at freeway ramp entrances and exits, see the MUTCD and California Supplement, Section 9B.101. Where no reasonable alternate route exists within a freeway corridor, the Department should coordinate with local agencies to develop or improve existing routes or provide parallel bikeways within or adjacent to the freeway right of way. The long term goal is to provide a safe and convenient non-freeway route for bicycle travel.

1003.5 Multipurpose Trails In some instances, it may be appropriate for agencies to develop multipurpose trails - for hikers, joggers, equestrians, bicyclists, etc. Many of these trails will not be paved and will not meet the standards for Class I bikeways. As such, these facilities should not be signed as bikeways. Rather, they should be designated as multipurpose trails (or similar designation), along with regulatory signing to restrict motor vehicles, as appropriate. If multipurpose trails are primarily to serve bicycle travel, they should be developed in accordance with standards for Class I bikeways. In general, multipurpose trails are not recommended as high speed transportation facilities for bicyclists because of conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians. Wherever possible, separate bicycle and pedestrian paths should be provided. If this is not feasible, additional width, signing and pavement markings should be used to minimize conflicts. It is undesirable to mix mopeds and bicycles on the same facility. In general, mopeds should not be allowed on multipurpose trails because of conflicts with slower moving bicyclists and pedestrians. In some cases where an alternate route for mopeds does not exist, additional width, signing, and pavement markings should be used to minimize conflicts. Increased patrolling by law enforcement personnel is also recommended to enforce speed limits and other rules of the road. It is usually not desirable to mix horses and bicycle traffic on the same multipurpose trail. Bicyclists are often not aware of the need for slower speeds and additional operating space near horses. Horses

1000-24

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

January 4, 2007

can be startled easily and may be unpredictable if they perceive approaching bicyclists as a danger. In addition, pavement requirements for safe bicycle travel are not suitable for horses. For these reasons, a bridle trail separate from the multipurpose trail is recommended wherever possible.

minimize the likelihood of bicyclists falling over the railings. Standard bridge railings which are lower than 46 inches can be retrofitted with lightweight upper railings or chain link fence suitable to restrain bicyclists. See Index 208.10(6) for guidance regarding bicycle railing on bridges.

1003.6 Miscellaneous Bikeway Criteria

Separate highway overcrossing structures for bikeway traffic shall conform to Department standard pedestrian overcrossing design loading. The minimum clear width shall be the paved width of the approach bikeway but not less than 8 feet. If pedestrians are to use the structure, additional width is recommended.

The following are miscellaneous bikeway criteria which should be followed to the extent pertinent to Class I, II and III bikeways. Some, by their very nature, will not apply to all classes of bikeway. Many of the criteria are important to consider on any highway where bicycle travel is expected, without regard to whether or not bikeways are established. (1) Bridges. Bikeways on highway bridges must be carefully coordinated with approach bikeways to make sure that all elements are compatible. For example, bicycle traffic bound in opposite directions is best accommodated by bike lanes on each side of a highway. In such cases, a two-way bike path on one side of a bridge would normally be inappropriate, as one direction of bicycle traffic would be required to cross the highway at grade twice to get to and from the bridge bike path. Because of the inconvenience, many bicyclists will be encouraged to ride on the wrong side of the highway beyond the bridge termini. The following criteria apply to a two-way bike path on one side of a highway bridge: (a) The bikeway approach to the bridge should be by way of a separate two-way facility for the reason explained above. (b) A physical separation, such as a chain link fence or railing, shall be provided to offset the adverse effects of having bicycles traveling against motor vehicle traffic. The physical separation should be designed to minimize fixed end hazards to motor vehicles and if the bridge is an interchange structure, to minimize sight distance restrictions at ramp intersections. It is recommended that bikeway bridge railings or fences placed between traffic lanes and bikeways be at least 54 inches high to

(2) Surface Quality. The surface to be used by bicyclists should be smooth, free of potholes, and the pavement edge uniform. For rideability on new construction, the finished surface of bikeways should not vary more than Âź inch from the lower edge of an 8-foot long straight edge when laid on the surface in any direction. Table 1003.6 indicates the recommended bikeway surface tolerances for Class II and III bikeways developed on existing streets to minimize the potential for causing bicyclists to lose control of their bicycle (Note: Stricter tolerances should be achieved on new bikeway construction.) Shoulder rumble strips are not suitable as a riding surface for bicycles. See the MUTCD and California Supplement, Chapter 3B for additional information regarding rumble strip design considerations for bicycles. (3) Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, and Driveways. Drainage inlet grates, manhole covers, etc., on bikeways should be designed and installed in a manner that provides an adequate surface for bicyclists. They should be maintained flush with the surface when resurfacing.

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-25 September 1, 2006

Table 1003.6 Bikeway Surface Tolerances Direction of Travel

Grooves (1)

Steps (2)

Parallel to travel

No more than ½" wide

No more than ⅜" high No more than ¾" high

Perpendicular to travel

---

Notes: (1) Groove--A narrow slot in the surface that could catch a bicycle wheel, such as a gap between two concrete slabs. (2) Step--A ridge in the pavement, such as that which might exist between the pavement and a concrete gutter or manhole cover; or that might exist between two pavement blankets when the top level does not extend to the edge of the roadway.

Drainage inlet grates on bikeways shall have openings narrow enough and short enough to assure bicycle tires will not drop into the grates (e.g., reticuline type), regardless of the direction of bicycle travel. Where it is not immediately feasible to replace existing grates with standard grates designed for bicycles, 1" x ¼" steel cross straps should be welded to the grates at a spacing of 6 inches to 8 inches on centers to reduce the size of the openings adequately. Corrective actions described above are recommended on all highways where bicycle travel is permitted, whether or not bikeways are designated. Future driveway construction should avoid construction of a vertical lip from the driveway to the gutter, as the lip may create a problem for bicyclists when entering from the edge of the roadway at a flat angle. If a lip is deemed necessary, the height should be limited to ½ inch. (4) At-grade Railroad Crossings and Cattle Guards. Whenever it is necessary to cross railroad tracks with a bikeway, special care must be taken to assure that the safety of

bicyclists is protected. The bikeway crossing should be at least as wide as the approaches of the bikeway. Wherever possible, the crossing should be straight and at right angles to the rails. For on-street bikeways where a skew is unavoidable, the shoulder (or bike lane) should be widened, if possible, to permit bicyclists to cross at right angles (see Figure 1003.6A). If this is not possible, special construction and materials should be considered to keep the flangeway depth and width to a minimum. Pavement should be maintained so ridge buildup does not occur next to the rails. In some cases, timber plank crossings can be justified and can provide for a smoother crossing. Where hazards to bicyclist cannot be avoided, appropriate signs should be installed to warn bicyclists of the danger. All railroad crossings are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). All new bike path railroad crossings must be approved by the CPUC. Necessary railroad protection will be determined based on a joint field review involving the applicant, the railroad company, and the CPUC. The presence of cattle guards along any roadway where bicyclists are expected should be clearly marked with adequate advance warning. (5) Obstruction Markings. Vertical barriers and obstructions, such as abutments, piers, and other features causing bikeway constriction, should be clearly marked to gain the attention of approaching bicyclists. This treatment should be used only where unavoidable, and is by no means a substitute for good bikeway design. See the MUTCD, Section 9C.06.

1000-26

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

January 4, 2007

Figure 1003.6A Railroad Crossings

City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan

The End

2011