Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan by KTUA

City of Eastvale

Bicycle Master Plan

April 2016

Acknowledgments The City of Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan was prepared under the guidance of: Michele Nissen, City Manager George Alvarez, City Engineer Ruben Castaneda, Assistant Engineer

Additional project support was provided by the following stakeholders: Eric Norris, Planning Director, City of Eastvale Cathy Perring, Assistant Planning Director, City of Eastvale Steven Ellis, Coordinator, Corona-Norco Unified School District Ted Rozzi, Assistant Superintendent, Corona-Norco Unified School District Scott Forbes, Lieutenant and Assistant Police Chief, City of Eastvale Richard Welch, Director of Parks and Community Affairs, Jurupa Community Services District

This plan was prepared by KTU+A Planning + Landscape Architecture: John Holloway, Candidate Principal, PLA, ASLA, LEED Green Associate, LCI Joe Punsalan, Senior Associate, GISP, PTP, LCI Alison Moss, Mobility Planner Beth Chamberlin, Senior Planner Jacob Leon, Senior Planner Juan Alberto Bonilla, Planner Kristin Bleile, GIS Analyst Diana Smith, GIS Analyst

Public input was provided by community workshop participants.

This is a project for the City of Eastvale with funding provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainability Program. The Sustainability Program is a key SCAG initiative for implementing the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), combining Compass Blueprint assistance for integrated land use and transportation planning with new Green Region Initiative assistance aimed at local sustainability and Active Transportation assistance for bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts. Sustainability Projects are intended to provide SCAG-member jurisdictions the resources to implement regional policies at the local level, focusing on voluntary efforts that will meet local needs and contribute to implementing the RTP/SCS, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and providing the range of local and regional benefits outlined in the RTP/SCS. The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant(s) from the Federal Transit Administration (PTA) through the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in accordance with the provisions under the Metropolitan Planning Program as set forth in Section 104(f) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG, DOT or the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. SCAG shall not be responsible for the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future use or adaptation of the report.

Table of Contents

1 2 3 4 5 6

Introduction 1 Project Scope.........................................................................................................................................2 Study Area...............................................................................................................................................2 Project Goals and Approach.............................................................................................................4 Benefits of Cycling................................................................................................................................4 Applicable Legislation.........................................................................................................................6 Average Annual Cost of Operation.................................................................................................6 Bicycle Facility State of Practice.......................................................................................................7 Bikeway Facility Types .......................................................................................................................8 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................12 Public & Stakeholder Input ...............................................................................................................13

Existing Conditions 17 Existing Plans..........................................................................................................................................18 City Codes (The Zoning Code).........................................................................................................27 Current Bicycle Programs in Eastvale............................................................................................30 Existing Facilities and Programs .....................................................................................................30

Analysis 33 Analysis Overview................................................................................................................................34 Activity Centers......................................................................................................................................34 Population and Employment Density.............................................................................................36 Posted Speed Limits............................................................................................................................37 Transit Routes.........................................................................................................................................38 Safety Analysis.......................................................................................................................................39 Bicycle Boulevard Routing Analysis................................................................................................42

Recommended Facilities

Recommendations................................................................................................................................48 Bicycle Project Development and Feasibility Assessment.....................................................48 Recommended Bikeway Projects....................................................................................................51 Future Opportunities............................................................................................................................62 Bicycle Parking .....................................................................................................................................65 Calculating Demand for Bicycle Parking.......................................................................................67

Recommended Programs & Policies

Education/Encouragement/Marketing Programs.......................................................................70 Education/Enforcement Programs...................................................................................................79 Monitoring and Evaluation.................................................................................................................81 Recommended Policies .....................................................................................................................84

Implementation & Funding

Implementation......................................................................................................................................90 Potential Funding Sources.................................................................................................................91

Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

List of Figures Figure 1-1: Study Area...........................................................................................................................3 Figure 1-2: Off-Street Bicycle Facilities...........................................................................................8 Figure 1-3: On-Street Bicycle Facilities...........................................................................................9 Figure 1-4: Shared Street Facilities..................................................................................................10 Figure 2-1: Land Use Map...................................................................................................................21 Figure 2-2: Regional Bicycle Facilities...........................................................................................25 Figure 2-3: Bicycle Un-Friendly Land Use....................................................................................28 Figure 2-4: Bicycle Friendly Land Use...........................................................................................29 Figure 2-5: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map....................................................................................31 Figure 3-1: Activity Centers.................................................................................................................35 Figure 3-2: Population & Employment Density...........................................................................36 Figure 3-3: Posted Speed Limits......................................................................................................37 Figure 3-4: Transit Routes...................................................................................................................38 Figure 3-5: Bike Collisions.................................................................................................................41 Figure 3-6: Potential Bicycle Boulevards......................................................................................43 Figure 3-7: Recommended Bicycle Boulevards .........................................................................45 Figure 4-1: Tier 1 Bicycle Projects.....................................................................................................52 Figure 4-2: Tier 2 Bicycle Projects..................................................................................................55 Figure 4-3: Tier 3 Bicycle Projects...................................................................................................59 Figure 4-4: Future Opportunities......................................................................................................63

Table of Contents

List of Tables Table 2-1: Roadway Classification and Level of Service...........................................................19 Table 4-1: Tier 1 Bicycle Projects.......................................................................................................53 Table 4-2: Tier 2 Bicycle Projects....................................................................................................56 Table 4-3: Tier 3 Bicycle Projects.....................................................................................................60 Table 4-4: Future Opportunity Projects..........................................................................................62 Table 6-1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Opportunities - Federal Sources...................93 Table 6-2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Opportunities - State Sources.......................96 Table 6-3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Opportunities - Local sources.......................99 Table 6-4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Opportunities - Private and Non-Profit.......102 Table A-1: Inputs - Benefit-Cost Analysis.......................................................................................A-70

Appendices

A: Toolbox - Design Guidelines........................................................................................................A-2 B: Project Prioritization........................................................................................................................A-67 C: Benefit-Cost Analysis......................................................................................................................A-70 D: Applicable Legislation....................................................................................................................A-72 E: BTA Reviewer Checklist.................................................................................................................A-75

Introduction

Chapter 1:

Introduction

Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Project Scope This Bicycle Master Plan was prepared for the City of Eastvale, consistent with California Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2. This plan was made possible through the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Sustainability Grant Program. This Bicycle Master Plan incorporates other applicable plans’ goals, objectives and policies, including SCAG’s 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Western Riverside Council of Governments’ (WRCOG) Non-motorized Transportation Plan, and adjacent cities’ bicycle master plans. The project’s scope included developing a citywide bicycle network and a menu of supportive programs. To this end, the scope called for strong emphases on the following: Agency and Public Participation; a Bicyclist Needs and Demand Analysis; Education, Enforcement and Encouragement Recommendations; and an Implementation Plan. Because this is Eastvale’s first dedicated Bicycle Master Plan, and the “state of practice” in bicycle planning is rapidly evolving, this report relies heavily on 3D models, maps, photographs and other graphics to illustrate proposed facilities and concepts.

Study Area Eastvale is located in northwestern Riverside County, within southern California’s Inland Empire region, between Los Angeles and Orange Counties and accessible by Interstate 15 and California State Routes 91, 60 and 71. Locally, its boundaries are Hellman Avenue to the west, Bellegrave Avenue to the north, the Santa Ana River and the City of Norco to the south, and Interstate 15 to the east, as shown in Figure 1-1. The Eastvale area had been predominately agricultural, particularly dairy farming. By the late 1990s, the area began to suburbanize to accommodate people from neighboring Orange and Los Angeles Counties seeking affordable housing. Despite significant development since its 2010 incorporation, Eastvale remains a “commuter town.” The overwhelming majority of commute trips are by single-occupancy vehicle with 92 percent of the employed population driving a vehicle to work. The online application Walk Score categorizes Eastvale as a “Car-Dependent City,” earning a 23/100 walkability score. Although a bike score for Eastvale is not available, it would probably be slightly higher than the walk score based on longer distances reasonably covered by bike.

92% Drive a car, truck or van

Take alternative transportation or work from home

Introduction

Figure 1-1: Study Area

Demographics

With a 2010 census population of 53,668 within 11.45 square miles, Eastvale’s population density is 4,689 people per square mile. Eastvale’s racial make-up is approximately half white, a quarter Asian and ten percent African American. In addition, 40 percent of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latino. Eastvale’s population is young, with a 30.9 year median age and over 95.3 percent of residents under the age of 65. Eastvale also has a high household percentage with children under the age of 18 (62.7 percent). Eastvale is a middle class community with a median household income of $109,841, and housing units are 82.7 percent owner-occupied. As demonstrated by strong participation in the projects’ online survey, Eastvale is a highly connected or “tech savvy” community.

43%

White

24%

Asian

18%

Other Race African American 2+ Races

10%

Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Project Goals and Approach This project’s overall goal was to create a bicycle master plan for the City of Eastvale. Bicycle master plan adoption and implementation can help achieve important community health, environmental and economic benefits, and plays an increasingly important role in meeting state mandates regarding the environment, health, safety and social equity. The most successful bicycle master plans – those that achieve community benefits and meet legal mandates – reflect important changes in bicycle facilities’ “state of practice.” The following paragraphs highlight the most relevant benefits attributable to bicycling, as well as applicable legislation. They also offer further insight into bicycle facility planning’s “state of practice” and brief facility type descriptions consistent with that state of practice and recommended by this plan. The section concludes with a brief discussion of the methodology used to determine both facility and program recommendations.

Benefits of Cycling Numerous environmental, health and economic benefits are attributable to cycling, especially as a substitute for driving a vehicle.

Environmental Benefits Increased bicycling reduces fossil fuel emissions. In California, 40 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are produced by the transportation sector. While CO2 is not the most harmful greenhouse gas, it is the most abundant. Even after accounting for the other greenhouse gases’ global warming potentials (comparing them in terms of CO2), 95 to 99 percent of vehicle emissions are CO2. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the average vehicle emits 0.95 pounds of CO2 per mile, meaning that almost 10 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions could be avoided each day if an individual with a five mile (each way) commute switched from driving to an active transportation mode like bicycling.

How can cycling help the Environment?

0.95 lb

0.05 lb

Vehicles produce approximately 0.9lbs of CO2/passenger/mile traveled.

Bicycling produces only 0.05lb of CO2/passenger/mile traveled.

Introduction

Health Benefits Despite dramatic strides in recent decades through regulations and technological improvements, vehicle emissions still pose a significant threat to air quality and human health. Vehicle-generated air pollution contains harmful greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, nitrous oxide and volatile organic compounds. These pollutants and irritants can cause asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia and decreased resistance to respiratory infections. Taking steps to reduce these emissions is particularly important in the United States, which leads the world in petroleum consumption. Converting vehicular trips to bicycling trips is an opportunity to help reduce emissions and improve public health. In addition to the universal public health benefits, such as improved air quality described above, bicycling has the potential to positively impact personal health. A significant percentage of Americans are overweight or obese and recent projections indicate that 42 percent of the population will be obese by 2030. To combat this trend and prevent a variety of diseases and their associated societal costs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest 30 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity five days per week minimum. Not only does bicycling qualify as â&#x20AC;&#x153;moderate intensity activity,â&#x20AC;? it can also be seamlessly integrated into daily routine, especially for utilitarian purposes like commuting or running errands. Other health benefits associated with moderate activity, such as bicycling, include improved strength and stamina through better heart and lung function. Regular exercise reduces the risk of high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes. In addition to heart disease, regular exercise can also help to prevent other health problems such as non-insulin dependent diabetes, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. Lastly, exercise has been shown to improve mental health by relieving depression, anxiety and stress symptoms.

3 HOURS OF BIKING PER WEEK CAN

REDUCE YOUR RISK OF

HEART DISEASE BY 50%

A 30-MINUTE BIKE RIDE CAN

BURN 215-500

CALORIES

13 LBS AVERAGE

WEIGHT LOSS IN

FIRST YEAR BIKING TO WORK

Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Economic Benefits

Average Annual Cost of Operation

Cycling infrastructure and programs has increasingly been shown to deliver economic benefits to both individuals and society at large. Bicycling benefits may, in fact, outweigh its costs. Bicycling, and utilitarian bicycling in particular, offers somewhat obvious savings to individuals. Beyond the up-front vehicle operating costs are additional maintenance, insurance, and often parking costs. According to the American Automobile Association, the annual cost of owning a car and driving it 15,000 miles a year is now over $9,000 (See graphic below).

$250

Converting even a fraction of automobile trips to bicycle trips can create significant transportation-related savings due to reduced traffic congestion. Increased bicycling also translates to health-related savings, for both individuals and taxpayers, due to the reduced need for preventive care.

$680 $1,810 $9,641

More bicycling has also been tied to increases in commercial and residential property values and retail sales. Shoppers who reach their destination by bicycle have been shown to make smaller purchases, but shop more often and spend more money overall. Shoppers who arrive by bicycle, by virtue of their more limited range, are also more likely to support local businesses, and do not require a vehicle parking spot. Perhaps more compelling than reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or combating the obesity epidemic are bicycling’s quality of life benefits. Bicycling, and especially utilitarian riding, is increasingly seen as a fun, low-cost, healthy and sustainable way to get around. How then, can we make it easier for any person to choose a bicycle for his or her daily trips?

Applicable Legislation Several pieces of legislation support increased bicycling in the State of California. Much of the legislation concerns greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and employs bicycling as a means to achieve GHG reduction targets. Other legislation highlights bicycling’s intrinsic worth and treats safe and convenient bicyclist accommodation as a matter of equity. The most relevant legislative acts for bicycle policy, planning, infrastructure and programs include:

Federal Legislation • Safe Streets Act (S-2004/HR-2468)

State Legislation and Policies • AB-32 Global Warming Solutions Act • SB-375 Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gases • AB-1358 Complete Streets Act • AB-1581 Bicycle and Motorcycle Traffic Signal Actuation • AB-1371 Passing Distance/Three Feet for Safety Act • SB-743 CEQA Reform • AB-1193 Bikeways • Caltrans’ Deputy Directive 64-R1

Introduction

What Kind Of cyclist Are You?

Bicycle Facility State of Practice In an effort to re-position bicycling as a safe and common transportation mode and increasing the number of people bicycling, attention needs to be shifted away from creating “cyclists” and toward making it easier for any person to choose bicycling for their everyday trips. Research shows a strong latent interest in bicycling among those who identify as “interested, but concerned.” These individuals do not identify themselves as “cyclists,” but they do not necessarily need to do so to benefit from programs to encourage bicycling. While all population segments may be encouraged to ride, it is through the encouragement of this largest “interested, but concerned” segment that the greatest gains in mode share will be made. The field of bicycle planning is being redefined to serve this target audience.

Strong and Fearless

1% 7%

Enthused and Confident

60%

32%

Interested but Concerned

No Way, No How!

Riding is a strong part of my identity and I am undeterred by traffic speed and volume, or other roadway conditions. I am comfortable sharing the road with motor vehicles, but given a choice, I prefer to use bike lanes and boulevards.

I like riding a bike, but I don’t ride much. I would like to feel safer when I do ride, with less traffic and slower speeds.

I don’t ride at all due to inability, fear for my safety, or simply a complete and utter lack of interest.

Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Bikeway Facility Types This plan includes three low-stress bikeway facility categories: off-street, on-street and shared street. These broad categories include more specific bikeway types. The category and facility type recommended depends on the context, including street type and its vehicle traffic speed and volume.

Off-Street Facilities Off-street bicycle facilities include open space, shared used paths (i.e. Caltrans Class I facilities) and roadside shared use paved paths or â&#x20AC;&#x153;urban trails.â&#x20AC;? These facilities are recommended where a recreational experience is desired, where a route is desired and no street exists, and where exceedingly high speed and volume vehicular traffic warrants substantial separation.

Figure 1-2: Off-Street Bicycle Facilities

Paths in Active Railroad Corridors

Paths in Abandoned Railroad Corridors

Local Neighborhood Access to Paths

Introduction

On-Street Facilities On-street facilities include striped bike lanes (i.e. Caltrans Class II facilities), buffered bike lanes and protected bike lanes (i.e. Class IV facilities). These facilities are recommended where the desired bicycling route follows an existing street and where traffic speeds and volumes are low enough to permit an adjacent facility, but high enough to preclude a â&#x20AC;&#x153;sharedâ&#x20AC;? facility. As a simple rule for low-stress bike lanes, the greater the separation from vehicle traffic, the better. Buffered bike lanes are recommended anywhere roadway space allows. Protected bike lanes, separated from vehicle lanes by vertical physical barriers, are recommended where vehicle speeds and volumes are high.

Protected Bike Lanes

Buffered Bike Lanes

Figure 1-3: On-Street Bicycle Facilities Striped Bike Lanes

10 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Shared-Street Facilities Shared-street facilities include bicycle routes (i.e. Caltrans Class III facilities) and bicycle boulevards or “neighborhood greenways.” These facilities are recommended only where vehicle speeds and volumes are low enough for bicyclists and motorists to truly “share the road.” In the case of bicycle boulevards, traffic calming and bicyclist priority measures may be included.

Bike Route

Neighborhood Greenway

Figure 1-4: Shared Street Facilities

Introduction

Design Guidelines for Bikeway Facilities These high-level facility descriptions and graphic representations are supplemented with more detailed design guidance in “Appendix A: Toolbox - Design Guidelines” on page A-2. They borrow heavily from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide to Bicycle Facilities and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway and Urban Street Design Guides, particularly for guidance on “innovative” facilities. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) supports using these resources to further develop non-motorized transportation networks, particularly in urban areas. Bicycle master plan compliance with applicable guidelines and standards is also required by California Street and Highways Code Section 891.2 and most grant applications.

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities This memorandum expresses the FHWA’s support for taking a flexible approach to bicycle and pedestrian facility design. The AASHTO bicycle and pedestrian design guides are the primary national resources for planning, designing, and operating bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Designing Urban Walkable Thoroughfares guide builds upon the flexibilities provided in the AASHTO guides, which can help communities plan and design safe and convenient facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists.

NACTO Urban Bikeway and Urban Street Design Guides The NACTO guides represent the industry standard for innovative bicycle and streetscape facilities and treatments in the United States. In 2014, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) followed AASHTO and officially endorsed the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. It is important to note that all but two of its design treatments are permitted under the federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the national standard for signs, signals and pavement markings. Caltrans also officially endorsed the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide as a valuable toolkit for designing and constructing safe, attractive local streets. (At the time, Caltrans was only the third State transportation agency to officially endorse the Guides.)

12 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Methodology This project’s process included conventional planning methods, such as evaluating existing conditions, collecting stakeholder feedback on draft recommendations, and refining the recommendations based on the feedback received, but the process also included several unique methods related to public outreach, analysis, project alternatives and stakeholder involvement, as described in the following sections.

Public Outreach This project’s outreach strategy relied heavily on non-traditional approaches, particularly “piggybacking” on other popular community events and by creating a strong online presence. This approach was informed by City staff input, who felt there would likely be low turnout at more traditional, stand-alone planning events. The online survey received almost 500 responses.

GIS Modeling A new GIS methodology was developed to reveal “low stress” neighborhood routes within Eastvale’s traditionally suburban street “loops and lollipops” network of arterials and cul-de-sacs to connect residential neighborhoods with parks, schools and retail centers. This method and its results are further described in the Recommendations Chapter.

Multiple Facility Scenarios Many of Eastvale’s streets are wider than they need to be, a relatively uncommon problem. This excess asphalt allowed for a novel bicycle planning approach, one in which multiple, alternative solutions could be considered.

Close Stakeholder Collaboration Due to Eastvale’s relatively recent incorporation and its subsequent rapid development, data regarding existing conditions and future projects were sometimes lacking. Stakeholder input, particularly from City staff, was indispensable throughout the project process to ensure that recommendations were appropriate for current and future contexts.

Introduction

Public & Stakeholder Input Local residents and public officials are a good source for obtaining knowledge, concerns and ideas related to specific areas within the city. Their input is critical to confirming preliminary information gathered from fieldwork, research and GIS modeling. The public and stakeholder input process for the City of Eastvale was designed to gather information and perceptions from a broad range of local residents and experts through a series of general public and stakeholder meetings. The process also employed a successful online and social media outreach program. Community involvement was instrumental in analyzing existing conditions, collecting ideas and formulating master plan recommendations.

Website and Online Survey Take advantage of Eastvale’s reputation as a “connected community,” a project website was created to provide project information and collect public input. The website included information for each of the public meetings as well as an online survey. This survey was advertised via the City website and social media outlets. Online surveys are a valuable tool in collecting public input as they allow respondents more time to compose their responses. The survey method often results in a greater number of comments and provides more site-specific insights than what is provided at public meetings alone. Almost 500 people completed the online survey, demonstrating a high level of engagement by Eastvale residents. PLAN ASTER M E L C Public Input Meetings BICY Three public input meetings were held during the planning process. Each meeting included a presentation followed by an open house. The open house included a mix of displays with project informational and small-group discussions. Maps of existing and proposed conditions, along with depictions of potential bicycle facility types, were provided to help residents identify issues and potential solutions within the planning area. In addition, large aerial maps were provided at tables to engage residents in small-group discussions regarding the local cycling environment. These table m tvale.co maps were the focal point of the meeting and encouraged participants bikeEas to discuss their views on bicycle facilities in Eastvale.

vale t s a E f City o

ENTS VERNM rtation nspo N OF GO CIATIO its Regional Tra stvale a A ASSO nt ed Ea LIFORNI s to impleme SCAG award ability, mobiliCA S). liv UTHERN mmunitie (RTP/SC es Eastvale’s THE SO rtners with co ities Strategy ot at prom ) pa Commun (SCAG r plan th netbicycle stainable a bicycle maste Plan/Su citywide City. bility. develop mended ies within the om rec grant to rity and sustaina the a ilit pe ment of ure bicycle fac ycling through part of lop ve ty, pros de y fut bic ide the d is a ke able, ing and AN promotes n will gu of exist twork, an PL equit This pla management ASTER t and visible ne provides for ians and M E d enien licy that clists, pedestr work an VALE BICYCL ted, conv te Streets” po ST cy connec luding ple The EA a “Com of a safe, users, inc creation commitment to streets by all all the City’s ective use of eff d safe an nsiders: nning co drivers. eway pla ensive bik d desires Compreh ity needs an

un y • Comm right-of-wa ness ble e • Availa ivity and direct flicts a Bicycl ing areas ect con rage bik mercial “5 E’s” for t, and • Conn and potential and com ms that encou yclists’ (LAB) en Bic gra ls, parks Enforcem • Safety ent pro American on schoo ement, • Focus n and enforcem the League of tion, Encourag tio based on eering, Educa • Educa ts en vem : Engin • Impro Community Friendly and Planning n inEvaluatio FORTS

EF ATIVE ledgeLLABOR pth local know de VEN, CO cipating ITY-DRI encies giving in- can begin parti MMUN citizens are CO ns, and local ag d ns ste pla ere m. The best e City, its citize l solutions. Int brief tvale.co th ll give a ants wi volving ut to achieve rea www.bikeEas le at y at e consult ns at a tab o be based inp online surve TING, th swer questio als an an LL MEE hics will through WN HA n and will then mational grap TO TH s. or LY 29 e the pla and inf concern At the JU ion to introduc l photo maps comments or ria n presentat the room. Ae lp clarify citize of he the back table to le at the availab

Rosa

The first meeting was held on June 29, 2014 as part of a regular Town Hall Meeting. Following a brief PowerPoint presentation about the project, participants were encouraged to provide feedback either through written comments or the smallgroup discussions. Participants were asked to comment on where they currently did or did not ride and why, where there were gaps or other deficiencies, and where they would like to see additional facilities. Discussion groups formed around the graphics and table maps, resulting in substantial brainstorming and feedback.

r 6:30 enta Parks Elem

Posters and Postcards for Public Workshops

The second public meeting on November 20, 2014 included a brief presentation followed by small-group discussions. Participants provided feedback on the draft plan, prioritization of the proposed bike facilities, and suggested programs and policies. Graphics were provided to demonstrate how the various bikeway types would be implemented in Eastvale. This strategy helped participants understand what could be proposed as part master plan recommendations.

14 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

The third public meeting was held on July 14, 2015 to collect feedback on the final recommendations for the bicycle master plan. The meeting began with a presentation summarizing the planning process and how the recommendations were developed. Table maps were provided for participants to review the final recommendations and give feedback. Along with citizens, several cycling advocacy group members attended the meeting and provided feedback.

Please join the City of Eastvale and the Inland Empire Biking Alliance IEBA for a

FREE Bicycle Playground and Safety Clinic

rticip ant wil

October 25, 2014

ty l receive a F R E E safe

Saturday 9 AM - 11 AM

WHERE

hand

Eleanor Roosevelt High School

out

7447 Scholar Way Eastvale, CA 92880

Participants must bring their own bike and bicycle helmet. Loaner bikes will be available (limited supply).

, bu

Kids will enjoy Ramps, Teeter Todders, Whoopy Dos, Bicycle Jenga, Newspaper Toss, Ring Joust and Poop Pit as part of the Bicycle Playground!

WHEN

h pa

• Proper helmet use and fitting • Importance of being predictable • Proper intersection position and crossing • Riding on sidewalk and bike lanes (door zones) • Turn signals • Evening riding- reflector and light usage • Laws and how they apply to bicycling (for ages 9 and older)

Eac

The purpose of the safety clinic is to teach safety and:

sti

ills

Cli

nic

Dip

lom

Questions? Call Michele Nissen Public Information Oﬃcer at (951) 703-4415 or visit www.eastvaleca.gov.

#bikeEastvale

bikeEastvale.com

The City worked with the consultant to created a dedicated branding image for Biking Eastvale #BikeEastvale. This was used throughout the project’s social media campaign and on business cards printed with the project’s online survey website link. These cards were designed to make it as convenient as possible for citizens to access the online survey and to encourage them to weigh in with their concerns and preferences.

bikeEastvale.com #bikeEastvale

Additional Outreach and Project Branding

bike

East

vale.

m In addition to the three public input meetings previously described, the City conducted other less formal and fun outreach events, including the following: The first outreach event, immediately following the project kick-off, was the display of a large board/aerial map showing Eastvale’s existing bicycle facilities at a June 2014 City event, Picnic in the Park at Eastvale Community Park. The website link cards were first handed out at this event, and resulted in a significant spike in survey responses. On October 25, 2014, the City joined with the Inland Empire Bicycle Alliance (IEBC) to conduct a Bicycle Playground and Safety Clinic. This included a free helmet giveaway and bicycle master plan promotion, as well as handing out additional website link cards to solicit further online comments. Some of the graphics developed for the project are shown on the following pages.

Stakeholder Participation The stakeholder group included representatives from the school district, the county sheriff’s office, the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) that manages City parks, as well as city administrators, planners, and engineers. This group participated in a series of three meetings in June 2014, January 2015 and April 2015. The meetings took advantage of the group’s familiarity and experience with Eastvale to review goals and objectives, suggest policies and actions, and review draft documents. The stakeholders were instrumental in directing the master plan, providing guidance on appropriate analyses, Eastvale’s future planning and development, and prioritizing project and program recommendations. A major outcome of the stakeholder input process was the format for the initial public meeting. The group felt that a conventional public meeting may not attract a satisfactory audience for collecting useful feedback. As a result, the first public meeting was scheduled in concurrence with Eastvale’s regularly scheduled quarterly Town Hall Meetings, which have been well attended.

“

Introduction

We can show a dream about what bicycling could be...simple and liberating, sociable and relaxing. The target market for this dream is the people who aren’t on bikes. They do not think brightly colored lycra covered with ads is cool. They don’t want to change their clothes and take a shower when they get to work. They do not want to belong to a bicycling subculture. We just want them to get on their bikes and ride, with the least possible impact to their cultural identification and daily routine.

”

- Zane Selvans, http://flatironbike.com

16 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Chapter 2:

Existing Conditions

18 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Understanding existing conditions of Eastvale and the surrounding region is imperative to planning for its future. This chapter includes sections on Existing Plans, City Codes and Existing Facilities and Programs. Rather than merely summarizing what exists, this chapter aims to provide meaningful discussions on each of the aforementioned topics, including how they support or impede bicycle facility development within the city of Eastvale.

Existing Plans Several existing plans – from Eastvale and beyond – are relevant to this Bicycle Master Plan. Most relevant from Eastvale is the General Plan and its elements. Others include transportation plans from neighboring jurisdictions (e.g. the cities of Chino, Corona, Jurupa Valley and Ontario), Riverside County and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). This section summarizes the most salient points from the aforementioned plans. In Recommended Standards, Codes and Policy Changes (Section 5.8, Ch. 5), the General Plan is revisited and analyzed as required by project scope of work “to determine if it adequately supports bicycle facility development within Eastvale.”

City of Eastvale General Plan Eastvale’s General Plan contains several elements relevant to this Bicycle Master Plan including Circulation and Infrastructure; Land Use; Parks, Recreation and Open Space; Healthy Community; and Air Quality and Conservation. Relevant information from each General Plan element is summarized in the following sections.

Circulation and Infrastructure Element The Circulation and Infrastructure Element retains the primacy of the automobile while providing strong support for developing alternative modes of transportation (i.e. walking, biking and public transit). This dual focus is evident in the opening quotation (seen below), the overall circulation framework and in the supporting goals and policies. In addition, this Element provides roadway classifications, seen in Table 2-1, which are defined by the amount of vehicle traffic anticipated on each roadway segment (but do not account for pedestrian, bicycle or transit use). For each type of roadway, there are basic design parameters (e.g. an arterial roadway would be expected to have 4–6 travel lanes, a raised center median, dedicated turn lanes, and parking lanes on both sides). Most important to these roadways, however, is the vehicle traffic they carry in relation to their capacity, also known as Level of Service (LOS).

“

Access to property is essential. And while the primary mode of transportation for most people remains the automobile, design of streets to include options to the automobile would improve travel and circulation, along with reducing noise and air pollution. This Circulation and Infrastructure Chapter provides an outline of existing and planned roadways, as well as alternatives to the use of private vehicles. This “multi-modal” approach ensures that all types of transportation are considered and that the City can meet the circulation needs of development accordingly.

“

- City of Eastvale General Plan, Opening Paragraph

Existing Conditions

Table 2-1: Roadway Classification and Level of Service Roadway Classification

# of Lanes

Minimum Right-of-Way Width Required

Service Level C

Service Level D

Service Level E

Local Road

56 Feet

Varies

Secondary Collector

74-100 Feet

10,400

11,700

13,000

Major Collector

100-118 Feet

14,400

16,200

18,000

Arterial

128-152 Feet

28,700

32,300

35,900

Urban Arterial

128-152 Feet

28,700

32,300

35,900

Urban Arterial

128-152 Feet

43,100

48,500

53,900

Guidance provided regarding LOS is complex. The element acknowledges the fact that the LOS standard favors the automobile and sets fairly conservative default thresholds for acceptable level of service on Eastvale’s streets, as seen in Table 2-1. But it also allows for flexibility in meeting the stated threshold, in cases of overriding considerations, such as where a bike facility is desired, but there is no available ROW, or where the community wants a commercial development, but the roadway cannot be widened to accommodate projected traffic. The Circulation and Infrastructure Element discusses the role of non-motorized transportation, with special sub-topics for Pedestrian and Bikeways. The Pedestrian section includes discussion of pedestrian infrastructure elements, the role of pedestrian facilities and issues affecting pedestrian accommodation. The Bikeways section is more limited, noting only that “Eastvale does not have an independent system of bike paths, but is included as part of the County’s bikeway circulation system.” It also notes that Class II bike lanes are the only existing facility type.

“THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS CURRENTLY ONLY ADDRESS THE CIRCULATION NEEDS OF THE AUTOMOBILE.

COMPLETE STANDARD WOULD TAKE A MORE

INTO ACCOUNT LAND USE PATTERNS,

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, TRANSIT, AND

BICYCLE PATHS.”

The discussion of future planning efforts provides strong support for multi-modal improvements for Eastvale. The lack of bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, as well as an overemphasis on (costly) truck routes are mentioned as primary challenges for the City’s transportation (and fiscal) future. Improving non-motorized connections, including regional truck routes, and overhauling the City’s auto-centric Level of Service Standards are suggested future planning efforts. The goals presented in this element address all aspects of circulation and infrastructure. They call for a flexible, multi-modal transportation system that maximizes the use of existing infrastructure and interagency collaboration to produce the most effective system possible. These goals are further defined by policies, but these policies relate only to the automobile. Policies related to non-motorized circulation are provided separately. Circulation policies include strict metrics to assess the performance of vehicular transportation systems (mainly compliance with LOS thresholds), while non-motorized transportation policies prescribe no such metrics. Separate policies are also provided for future planning efforts. Policies related to this plan include:

Circulation Policies

20 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

POLICY C-30: The City will seek to develop a comprehensive bike and trail plan that would connect existing neighborhoods, schools, and commercial and employment centers. POLICY C-31: The City will evaluate its level of service and roadway width standards to determine if there is an ability to use narrower roadways and existing right-of-way to provide for pedestrian facilities, trails, bike lanes, and additional landscaping in medians and parkways. This may include establishing a comprehensive level of service threshold that includes non-motorized, transit, mixed use, and vehicle access.

Land Use Element Eastvale’s current land use designations have led to a suburban pattern, characterized by low-medium density residential development and a strong separation of uses. A bedroom community, Eastvale’s largest land use is residential. Residential use accounts for 62 percent of all land use. In contrast, potential employment centers and other activity centers constitute only 18 percent (Light Industrial: 8 percent; Business Park: 5 percent; Commercial Retail: 3 percent and Agriculture: 1 percent; and Public Facilities: 1 percent). Undeveloped land – including Conservation, Open Space Recreation and Water – accounts for 18 percent of all land use. As a further indication of Eastvale’s status as a “commuter town,” Freeways account for 2 percent of all land uses. Since Residential is Eastvale’s primary land use, residential densities provide a good indication of overall density. The highest density residential development is 8-14 dwelling units per acre and comprises only 5 percent of all land use. In contrast, medium-density residential is 2-5 dwelling units per acre and accounts for 50 percent of all land use. Eastvale maintains a relatively strong segregation of uses. As can be seen in Figure 2-1, the non-residential land uses that do exist (e.g. Commercial Retail) are evenly distributed throughout the City. These uses, however, are not finely mixed (i.e. retail is organized into shopping centers, rather than live/work units and Eastvale does not have a “mixed-use” land use designation.) Furthermore, much of the non-residential land use is confined to major roadway intersections (arterials and urban arterials). While an even dispersal of non-residential uses creates shorter trips and generally supports non-motorized travel, both coarse land use mix and the orientation of non-residential uses to major arterials can be barriers to biking and walking. In contrast, several schools and parks located within residential neighborhoods are accessible by local streets, making them more likely to be accessed by bike and on foot.

62%

Residential

18%

Employment/ Activity Centers

Undeveloped Land

Freeways

Existing Conditions

Figure 2-1: Land Use Map

Legend Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential High Density Residential Highest Density Residential Commercial Retail Light Industrial Business Park Public Facilities Agriculture Conservation Open Space Recreation Water

22 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

The following list provides land use goals and policies relevant to this plan: GOAL LU-5: A “downtown” or “city center” for Eastvale containing a mix of civic, office, retail, and residential uses. GOAL LU-7: Land use patterns and transportation systems that encourage physical activity, promote healthy living, and reduce chronic illnesses. POLICY LU-11: Development should be located to capitalize on multi-modal transportation opportunities and promote compatible land use arrangements that reduce reliance on the automobile. POLICY LU-12: The Land Use Map should provide for land use patterns which reduce the number and length of motor vehicle trips.

Land Use Goals & Policies

POLICY LU-23: Provide sufficient commercial and industrial development opportunities in order to increase local employment levels and reduce vehicle trips. POLICY LU-28: The Land Use Map should provide for land use arrangements that reduce reliance on the automobile and improve opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, neighborhood electric vehicle, and transit use in order to minimize congestion and air pollution. POLICY LU-29: Employment and service uses should be located in areas that are easily accessible to existing or planned transportation facilities. POLICY LU-30: Commercial uses should be located near transportation facilities and include facilities to promote the use of public transit (such as bus turnouts, bus shelters, etc.). POLICY LU-39: The City encourages shared parking and reduced parking standards in Town Center developments.

In contrast, the following policies may contradict these goals and hinder active transportation. Potential contradictions are highlighted in bold and further described in the following paragraph. POLICY LU-6: Calculations of the potential intensity of development on any site shall be based on gross acreage. As noted in Policy LU-5, a variety of constraints may affect a site’s development potential, including land required for right-of-way for collector and arterial streets shown on the Circulation Map; public parks (as defined in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Chapter); public facilities such as schools, fire stations, and police facilities; floodways or floodplains; protected biological habitats; location within an Airport Compatibility Zone; and other unique constraints applicable to the property as determined by the City. POLICY LU-16: The City will allow mixed-use projects to develop in commercially designated areas in accordance with the guidelines of the Town Center land use designation and with special consideration of impacts to adjacent uses. POLICY LU-26: Require setbacks and other design elements to buffer residential units to the extent possible from the impacts of abutting agricultural, roadway, commercial, and industrial uses. POLICY LU-36: The City shall require that new public facilities protect sensitive uses, such as schools and residences, from the impacts of noise, light spillover, fumes, odors, vehicular traffic, parking, and operational hazards. POLICY LU-40: Development in the Town Center designation shall be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between uses, considering such issues as noise, lighting, security, trash, and truck and automobile access.

Existing Conditions

Policies LU-6 and LU-16 have the potential to negatively impact active transportation because they rely on the City’s existing definition of transportation “impacts” (i.e. automobile-oriented Level of Service), which relate increased commercial and residential densities with increased vehicle trips. This narrow definition can inhibit the increased densities needed to reduce automobile dependency and to make walking and biking viable modes of transportation. Policies LU-26, LU-36 and LU-40 have the potential to negatively impact active transportation because they indiscriminately mandate a separation between uses, regardless of actual impact. While this policy has roots in the very reasonable goal of separating potentially incompatible uses, it may preclude the compact, human-scaled environments required to support active transportation.

Air Quality and Conservation Element Eastvale’s General Plan ties vehicle miles traveled to both air quality and conservation issues. Threats to air quality include both stationary and mobile pollution sources. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are identified as the greatest factor for stationary sources. VMT are also seen to impact conservation indirectly, through damage caused to air and water quality, and directly, through damage caused to habitat (e.g. for roadway construction, roadway widening and the sprawling land use pattern that accompanies auto-centric planning). The Air Quality and Conservation Element states that “transportation management is one of the primary ways in which Eastvale intends to meet its air quality targets” and includes several policies aimed at reducing VMT and increasing the use of non-motorized modes. Relevant goals and policies include: GOAL AQ-1: Air quality that meets or exceeds all state and federal standards.

Air Quality Goals & Policies

GOAL AQ-2: Meet or exceed all current and future state-mandated targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. POLICY AQ-3: Reduce vehicle miles traveled and motor vehicle emissions through local job creation. POLICY AQ-4: Attain performance goals and/or VMT reductions which are consistent with SCAG’s Growth Management Plan. POLICY AQ-30: Promote coordination of new public facilities with mass transit service and other alternative transportation services, including bicycles, and design structures to promote mass transit, bicycle, and pedestrian use. POLICY AQ-31: The City encourages urban design measures that support alternatives to private automobile use.

24 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Healthy Community Element As discussed in Chapter 1, the link between the built environment (and its support of active transportation) and community health is well documented. Eastvale’s Healthy Community Element includes policies supportive of a built environment that promotes physical activity and calls for land use and transportation planning that makes walking and biking to everyday destinations easy choices. It does so by “requiring, where appropriate, compact development patterns that are pedestrian and bicycle friendly.” Relevant policies include:

Healthy Community Policies

POLICY HC-2: Promote an understanding of the connections between the built environment and health. POLICY HC-3: The City encourages a built environment that promotes physical activity and access to healthy foods, while reducing driving and pollution. POLICY HC-4: Promote increased physical activity, reduced driving and increased walking, cycling and public transit by: • Requiring, where appropriate, the development of compact development patterns that are pedestrian and bicycle friendly. • Increasing opportunities for active transportation (walking and biking) and transit use. POLICY HC-8: Neighborhood retail, service, and public facilities should be located within walking distance of residential areas.

Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element This Element includes several goals relevant to, and supported by, the recommendations of this plan. Those most pertinent are excerpted below: GOAL OS-1: Expand outdoor recreation opportunities for all residents. GOAL OS-2: Provide active and passive park facilities and recreation programs that satisfy the leisure time and recreation needs of all residents.

Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Policies

GOAL OS-3: Develop a citywide trails system that provides safe, convenient, and attractive off-street opportunities for residents to travel, recreate, and exercise. GOAL OS-4: Maintain the Santa Ana River corridor as an important resource for open space, recreation, wildlife, and scenic beauty. POLICY OS-7: The trails system in Eastvale should provide for connectivity, so that all trails are linked to the extent possible for greater use as recreational and travel routes. The following features should be included in the trails system: • Trails should link residential areas with parks, commercial and office areas, and other destinations. • Trails along major roadways should avoid meanders or other design features which make bicycle use less convenient or safe. • Trails should be located off-street to the extent possible. • Easements such as access roads should be placed in joint use as trails. POLICY OS-8: Trails should be designed with the safety of users and adjacent property owners in mind. To the extent possible, the bicycle trails system should provide safe, off-street options suitable for use by children and less-experienced riders.

Existing Conditions

Local Bicycle Planning Efforts (Surrounding Cities) The neighboring communities of Chino, Corona, Jurupa Valley, Norco and Ontario have all engaged in bicycle planning efforts that include routes relevant to this plan. Chino is currently concluding a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that includes a Class I path on Pine Avenue (Schleisman Road in Eastvale), a Class I path on Chino Corona Avenue (Chandler Street in Eastvale) and a combination of Class I path and Class II bike lane on Hellman Avenue. The City of Coronaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bicycle Master Plan, adopted in 2001, includes a Class II bike lane on River Road, but this facility is not yet built. The City of Jurupa Valley has not yet completed a Bicycle Master Plan, but has recently secured funds to do so. In its current General Plan Circulation Element, Jurupa Valley identifies trail and bikeway standards, as well as important connections to make to the Riverside County trail network, but does not identify specific trails or bikeways within the City. The City of Norco does not have a bicycle plan, but does have some bicycle facilities including a segment of the Santa Ana River Trail (SART) running alongside River Road. The City of Ontario has a Multipurpose Trails and Bikeway Corridor Plan incorporated in its General Plan Circulation Element. Routes most relevant to this plan include multi-purpose trails on Haven Avenue (Sumner Avenue in Eastvale) and Archibald Avenue.

Figure 2-2: Regional Bicycle Facilities Legend

ONTARIO

Existing Class I Bike Facility Existing Class II Bike Facility Santa Ana River Trail Proposed Class I Bike Facility

JURUPA VAL

Proposed Class I Bike Facility City Boundary

CHINO

NORCO CHINO HILLS

RIVERSIDE COUNTY CORONA

26 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Regional Bicycle Planning Efforts Santa Ana River Trail This multi-use pathway currently stretches 30 miles along the Santa Ana River from the Pacific Ocean at Huntington Beach to the Riverside County line in Corona. Design is nearing completion for a seven mile segment from there through the cities of Corona, Eastvale and Norco with construction expected to begin in early 2016. The project is part of the planned 75 mile route from the Pacific Ocean to the San Bernardino National Forest. This segment was designed to minimize impacts to the river, river-related habitat, wildlife corridors, flood control and other facilities while maximizing trail user experience. It will include parallel natural surface trails and paved paths. Within Eastvale, this new segment will closely follow the river from the River Road bridge to connect at Dearborn Street to an existing trail segment running between Grapewin Street and Riverwalk Park at the south end of Soaring Bird Court. Completion of this segment will establish a continuous off-street route connecting Eastvale with the Pacific Ocean. In a subsequent phase, the trail will continue eastward along the river around Eastvale Community Park and under Interstate 15 into Norco.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan The following vision statements and goals, excerpted from the SCAG’s RTP, are most relevant to Eastvale’s Bicycle Master Plan: 1) Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness 2) Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region 3) Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region 4) Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system 5) Maximize the productivity of our transportation system 6) Protect the environment and health for our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as bicycling and walking) 7) Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible 8) Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non-motorized transportation

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Active Transportation Plan

The SCAG’s Active Transportation Plan is written to “demonstrates the agency’s strong commitment to Active Transportation and, importantly, legitimizes walking and cycling as travel modes that may actually be chosen over driving, thereby reducing congestion and air pollution. Further, it states that, in conjunction with supportive land use, these modes will increase in popularity.” Its focus is intended to help the “region work towards reducing congestion and air pollution, walking and bicycling,” as SCAG sees this “will become more essential to meet the future needs of (it’s) residents.” It states that “as the population in the SCAG region grows and matures, and as parts of the region move towards denser, mixed-use, and transit oriented development, the demand and use of active transportation will increase.” The strategies established by the Active Transportation Plan has the following goals: Goal Goal Goal Goal

1: Increase dedicated funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. 2: Increase accommodation and planning for bicyclists and pedestrians. 3: Increase transportation options, particularly for trips less than three miles. 4: Significantly decrease bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and injuries.

Existing Conditions

City Codes (The Zoning Code) Eastvale’s Zoning Code provides increased specificity to the guidance offered by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The zoning code is meant to ensure predictability and quality development. Like the General Plan Elements, the Zoning Code is also revisited and analyzed per project scope of work “to determine if it adequately supports bicycle facility development within Eastvale” in Recommended Standards, Codes and Policy Changes (Chapter 5).

Summary The zoning code further refines the General Plan Land Use Element by providing development standards (regulations) for each land use designation including the following: 1) Permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited land uses 2) Setbacks 3) Building heights 4) Site coverage 5) Parking 6) Provision of open space 7) Grading 8) Design guidelines, including site planning, architectural, and landscaping guidelines specific to the project 9) Signs 10) Nonconforming uses, structures, and signs Of these topics, setbacks, building heights, site coverage and parking have the greatest impact on active transportation. While there are too many land use designations to summarize zoning regulations for each, a more general summary is provided. Eastvale’s Zoning Code combines land use designations into the following broad categories: Residential and Agricultural; Commercial and Industrial. For both categories, it provides the following development standards: • Setbacks are defined in terms of minimums. • Building heights are provided in terms of maximums. • Site coverage is not defined for either category by the Zoning Code, but density is. For Residential and Agricultural uses, density is defined in terms of maximum dwelling units per acre (DUAs), as prescribed in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. For Commercial and Industrial uses, density is defined in terms of maximum floor area ratios (FARs). • Parking standards vary based on particular land use, but are defined in terms of minimums for all land uses. In general, the Zoning Code setback, building height, site coverage and parking standards demonstrate a bias against the type of compact, human-scaled development known to support active transportation. Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 demonstrate the impact of zoning code on bike- and walkability. The impacts of Zoning Code specifications on active transportation, as well as potential means of mitigating these impacts will be discussed further in Chapter 5, Recommendations.

28 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Figure 2-3: Bicycle Un-Friendly Land Use

Low site coverage (I.e. density) limits compact development and impedes bicycling

Deep setbacks

Limit compact development and impede bicycling

Low-rise Building heights Limit compact development and impede bicycling

Large amounts of vehicle parking

Limits compact development and presents a physical barrier, both of which impede bicycling

Existing Conditions

Figure 2-4: Bicycle Friendly Land Use

Small to Medium Setbacks

Allow for more compact development and support bicycling

Mid- to lowrise building heights

limit compact development and impede bicycling

Moderate to high site coverage

allows for more compact development and supports bicycling

Modest amount of vehicle parking

Allows for more compact development and provides good access, both of which support bicycling

30 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Existing Facilities and Programs Though this is Eastvale’s first Bicycle Master Planning effort, the City already has some bicycle facilities and programs. Understanding these existing conditions is an essential first step in recommending facility and program improvements.

Existing Bicycle Facilities Eastvale’s currently has only a few bicycle facilities evenly dispersed throughout the City, including three Class II bike lanes and one Class I multi-use path. The bike lanes are located on Sumner Avenue (from Blossom Way to Citrus Street), Hamner Avenue (from Limonite Avenue to Schleisman Road) and 65th Street (from Archibald Avenue to Hamner Avenue). The multi-use path runs along the southern end of the City, near the Santa Ana River Trail (SART) and extends approximately from Archibald Avenue to Hamner Avenue. The four routes described above provided a foundation – albeit small – for this plan to build upon (See Figure 2.6).

Existing Bicycle Programs Bicycle programs are typically recommended, in conjunction with bicycle projects, to maximize ridership, safety and the impact of broader bicycle programs. Traditionally, bike programming has been organized into specific topics under the umbrellas of the “5 Es”: Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation & Planning. As seen in the list of programs, the City currently has few programs that fall under the categories Education and Enforcement and none under the categories Engineering and Evaluation & Planning. Even so, what programs do exist can be expanded and made more robust. A suite of recommended programs for Eastvale, for all Es, is included in Chapter 5, Recommended Programs and Policies.

Current Bicycle Programs in Eastvale Education • Street Smarts Classes

Enforcement

• Targeted Enforcement

Encouragement

• Bike Month (Promoted by Inland Empire Bike Alliance) • Safe Routes to School Program • Traditional TDM – Employer Incentives (Through RCTC) • Bike Month (Promoted by Inland Empire Bike Alliance) • Walking School Bus & Bicycle Train • Walk and Bike to School Day

Existing Conditions

Figure 2-5: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map

Legend Multi Use Path (Class I) Bicycle Lane (Class II) Planned Santa Ana River Trail Parks Schools City Boundary

32 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Analysis

Chapter 3:

Analysis

34 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Analysis Overview Analysis – of existing and future conditions, as well as latent demand – is an essential step in any transportation project planning process. For this project, analysis included spatial (GIS) analysis, fieldwork and community and stakeholder input. This multi-pronged approach allowed for maximal data capture and cross-referencing of findings. For example, bicycle safety concerns were analyzed through collision data, including locations, frequencies and causes. Cross-referencing these collision data with public input helped to confirm safety issues and identify areas for new or improved facilities. This chapter is primarily concerned with explanations and discussions of the various spatial analyses employed in this project. Brief discussions of the role of fieldwork and community/stakeholder input are provided below, while the remainder of the chapter is devoted to spatial analysis.

Fieldwork The project team conducted fieldwork, using measuring tools and geo-referenced photos, on several occasions. Fieldwork was conducted at project kick-off (to better understand existing conditions) and during project development (to verify data obtained from GIS and community/stakeholder input).

Community/Stakeholder Input Community and stakeholder input played a very important role in developing facility and program recommendations. A summary of community and stakeholder input obtained and its impact on project recommendations is included at the end of Chapter 1.

Spatial (GIS) Analysis Spatial analysis included simple, data-driven analyses and more complex analyses, requiring evaluations of layered information and multiple inputs. Data-driven topics include activity centers, population/employment density, posted speed limits, and transit routes. Topics requiring more complex analysis included safety/ collisions and bicycle boulevard routing. Each of these topics are discussed in more detail throughout this chapter.

Activity Centers Activity centers include employment hubs, industrial sites, government sites, retail centers, hospitals, schools, colleges, parks, open spaces and other attractions. (Most of these activity centers are required to be considered under California’s bicycle planning enabling legislation.) Identifying these centers, and their draw for the community, is essential to creating a useful bicycle transportation network. It is important to create facilities that connect the places people actually want to frequent, rather than where convenient, as is often the case. Eastvale’s primary activity centers include public facilities, commercial/retail facilities, parks and schools. Since Eastvale is a commuter community and lacks a strong employment base of its own, parks and schools are relatively strong attractors. For the most part, parks and schools are evenly dispersed and generate comparable levels of activity. Eastvale also has the following specific attractors: the Community Center, Riverwalk Park, the Santa Ana River Trail and the Eastvale Gateway Mall.

Analysis

Figure 3-1: Activity Centers

Legend Public Facilities Commercial Retail Parks Schools City Boundary

36 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Population and Employment Density Suburban Eastvale’s population density is relatively low (less than five people per acre) and fairly uniform throughout the City. This reflects Eastvale’s overall land use pattern, predominated by single family housing. Eastvale’s employment density, which is also uniform across the city, is also less than five people per acre. Given Eastvale’s “commuter community” character, the low employment density is not surprising. What employment does exist in Eastvale likely falls in the service sector or public sector (This is inferred from available land use data. American Community Survey (ACS) data provide information on employment, by sector, for Eastvale residents, but do not indicate whether jobs are located within Eastvale or beyond). The low, but uniform population and employment densities indicate a need for bicycle facilities throughout Eastvale, rather than concentrating them in particular areas.

Legend

< 5 People Per Acre (Population Density)

< 5 People Per Acre (Employment Density)

Parks

Schools

City Boundary

Figure 3-2: Population & Employment Density

Analysis

Posted Speed Limits A majority of Eastvale’s streets (69 percent) have posted speed limits of 25 miles per hour (mph). These streets are followed – in quantity – by those of unknown posted speed (22 percent), those with posted speeds of 45 mph (five percent), those with posted speeds of 40 mph (two percent) and those with posted speeds of 30 and 35 mph (one percent each). Though the vast majority of Eastvale’s streets are low-speed, they are almost entirely confined within “superblocks” defined by high-speed arterial streets. For cross-city travel by bike, this renders the network of 25 mph streets practically useless and makes higher speed arterials the only option.

Figure 3-3: Posted Speed Limits

Legend Speed Limit Unknown 25 40 45 50 55 65 Parks Schools City Boundary

38 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Figure 3-4: Transit Routes

Legend Bus Routes Bus Stops Parks Schools

Transit Routes

City Boundary

Eastvale’s transit system is concentrated on its east side, east of Sumner Avenue and north of Citrus Street. Transit in these locations makes sense because of nearby shopping, schools and Interstate 15. The highest boarding and alighting volumes are at the following locations: Limonite Avenue, just east of Hamner Avenue; Citrus Street and Scholar Way; 68th Street and Scholar Way; and Swan Lake Avenue, just east of Hamner Avenue (at the entrance of the Swan Lake Mobile Home Park). Bicycle facilities and transit service are known to support one another (with bicycling helping to make “first mile/last mile” connections and transit helping to cover longer distances) and should be co-located to maximize the use of both.

Analysis

Safety Analysis Safety analysis entails the use of bicycle collision data to better understand collisions, including where they occur, why they occur and how they might be prevented. Typically, collision data is gleaned from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) data sets. However, since Eastvale’s Sheriff’s office had more current and detailed data, this project used that source instead. (Eastvale contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement.) Sheriff’s Department data covers the years 2012-2014 and includes descriptions of incidents and assignments of fault. Summaries of collision data – by year, month, severity, intersection type, street, incident details and assignment of fault – are provided in the following section. These data were used to identify trends, develop project recommendations, and help prioritize recommended projects. The data do include several limitations: • Collisions on off-street paths are not included in the data. • Collisions involving cyclists, whether they involve vehicles, other cyclists, or pedestrians, are generally under-reported, so bicycle collisions are likely to have occurred that were not included as part of this data - some estimates are as high as two unreported incidents for each reported incident.

Bicycle Collisions from 2012-2014

Bicycle Collisions by Year 23 collisions were recorded between 2012 and 2014. Of these, 11 occurred in 2012, five in 2013 and seven in 2014. Because of the small sample size, no trend by year can be inferred.

Bicycle Collisions by Month Bicycle collisions by month were also analyzed for trends. While the data do not portray a strong trend, the highest concentration occurred in May and collisions appear somewhat more frequent in the spring and summer than winter months. This slight trend may simply be correlated with higher levels of ridership in the spring and summer.

4 3 2

3 2

2 1

40 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Bicycle Collisions by Severity

Injuries

Fatality

The overwhelming majority of bicycle collisions led to injuries. These were followed by three incidents resulting in no injury and one incident resulting in fatality (hit-and-run driver later arrested through the efforts of the Sheriff’s Department). The majority of injuries occurred because of right-of-way violation, many of which occurred at intersections.

Bicycle Collisions by Intersection Type Nearest intersections were used as location references for collisions involving bicycles. Bicycle collisions most commonly occurred at intersections of two “Arterial/Collector” streets. No Injuries Collisions occurred to a lesser extent at the intersections of “Arterial/ Collector and Local” streets and “Local” streets. These findings make sense in light of the following points: (a) Eastvale’s suburban grid requires the use of “Arterial/Collector” streets for cross-city travel and (b) and “Arterial/Collector” streets are characterized by high traffic speeds and volumes and complex turning motions.

Bicycle Collisions by Street As discussed in the previous section on Intersection Types, collisions were far more common on “Arterial/ Collector” streets than on “Local” streets, representing nine out of ten of the top collision locations. The top four collision streets – Hamner Avenue, Schleisman Avenue, Limonite Avenue and Scholar Way – are well traveled by all transportation modes and have relatively high posted speed limits: 50 mph, 50 mph, 45 mph and 35 mph, respectively. Even among the bicycle collisions on “Local” streets, the majority of them occurred at their intersection with “Arterial/Collector” streets. These findings indicate the need for enhanced facilities (e.g. separated bicycle facilities along “Arterial/Collector” streets and traffic calming along “Local” streets) and targeted education and enforcement efforts.

Bicycle Collisions by Cause The overwhelming majority of bicycle collisions was caused by right-of-way violation (18 of 23). Many of these incidents occurred at large intersections and were likely exacerbated by complex intersection operations. Two incidents were caused by more than one violation (e.g. a cyclist riding the wrong way and driver using his/her mobile phone). The one collision resulting in fatality was caused by a hit-and run driver. The cause of the single remaining collision was unknown due to lack of cooperation of both parties.

Automobile

Bicycle Collisions by Fault Assigned There was complete parity between cyclists and drivers in terms of fault assigned. Cyclists and drivers were also equally guilty in violating each another’s right-of-way. Primary differences in fault occurred with wrong way riding and drunk driving. Wrong way riding is often addressed through facility improvements, which direct cyclists to safe crossings with reduced crossing distances. All causes of collisions should also be addressed through education and enforcement efforts.

Neither

Bicycle

Both Car & Bicycle

Analysis

Figure 3-5: Bike Collisions

# of Collisions

Legend Bus Stops Parks Schools City Boundary

Intersection

Limonite & Hamner

Schleisman & Hamner

65th & Scholar

Alderwood & Walnut Grove

Amberhill & Hamner

Archibald & 65th

Archibald & Soleil

Chandler & Walnut Grove

Citrus & Sumner

Hamner & 65th

Harrison & Champion

Parkwood & Valley Meadow

Schleisman & Harrison

Schleisman & Sumner

Scholar & Baltimore

Scholar & Orange

Scholar & Schleisman

Sumner & Limonite

Tisdale & Chandler

Wind River & Archibald

42 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Bicycle Boulevard Routing Analysis Background A bicycle boulevard is a bicycle priority route, generally located on calm residential streets, parallel to busier arterials and collectors. They are used by bicyclists seeking “low-stress” experiences to access destinations. Candidate bicycle boulevard streets may vary in the amount of traffic calming (i.e. speed and volume reduction) and other interventions required, but are alike in requiring comprehensive wayfinding treatments. (Many cities are now referring to bicycle boulevards as “neighborhood greenways” to better emphasize their traffic calming features that improve pedestrian safety, as well as encourage bicycling.) In communities with conventional street grids, strong bicycle boulevard candidates are often easy to identify. In fact, public input often reveals that residential streets parallel to busier streets are already used as defacto bicycle boulevards. In communities with typically suburban street grids (i.e. those characterized superblocks and cul-de-sacs), bicycle boulevard candidates are much more difficult to identify. Cul-de-sac streets seldom offer bicycle and pedestrian connections and, even when they do, often meander to the point of inconvenience. Still, nearly all communities, including Eastvale, have some bicycle boulevard potential.

Approach For Eastvale’s Bicycle Master Plan, knowledge of bicycle boulevard design was paired with GIS analysis to improve efficiency and maximize positive identification of bicycle boulevard candidates. Using GIS, a network analysis was performed to identify a system of suitable bicycle boulevards based on projectspecific inputs and parameters. The primary input was the existing street network, which was augmented with both existing and potential Class I facilities, as well as small sidewalk connections. Such additions served to close gaps and better represent existing conditions, therefore effectively increasing the amount of bicycle boulevard candidates. Parameters included streets designated as “Local” and those with speeds appropriate for bicycle boulevards (≤ 25 mph). Segment length was also included as a parameter to guide selection of the shortest possible routes. Parks, schools and major intersection crossings were integrated into the network as origins and destinations between which the network analysis was run.

Analysis

Figure 3-6: Potential Bicycle Boulevards

Legend Potential Bicycle Boulevard Routes Parks Schools City Boundary

44 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Results Preliminary results, depicted in Figure 3-6, were derived from the method described above. The GIS results are, however, not the final product. Knowledge of best practices was used to eliminate disjointed segments. These were segments that fit the required parameters, but did not serve the intended purpose. Conversely, professional judgment was used to more closely evaluate and incorporate segments that appeared to be strong candidates, but which were excluded by the analysis due to the strict parameters (e.g. vehicular speeds ≤ 25 mph). As mentioned above, some candidate routes require more intervention than others to become true bicycle boulevards. Lastly, an analysis of connectivity was performed, as recommended by the Mineta Transportation Institute’s 2012 document Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. The connectivity analysis measures outof-direction travel and is used to validate bicycle boulevard routes. Out-of-direction travel is determined by comparing each bicycle boulevard route to the corresponding direct route for the same origin and destination. Bicycle boulevards with additional length in excess of 25 percent were considered “intolerable” and removed from the results. Interestingly, despite the apparently circuitous nature of several of the candidate bicycle boulevards, none exceeded the 25 percent length threshold identified by the Mineta Institute’s report. The greatest increase in length was 16 percent and the vast majority of candidates entailed an increase in length of less than 10 percent. Still, drawing from professional and personal experience, several routes were deemed unacceptable bicycle boulevard candidates due to the number of turns they entailed, especially left turns. Routes that jog excessively, but still provide low-stress connectivity, were reclassified as Class III Bicycle Routes. The remaining candidate routes were retained as bicycle boulevards and are shown along with other bicycle facility types in Figure 3-7.

Analysis

Figure 3-7: Recommended Bicycle Boulevards

Legend Bicycle Boulevard Parks Schools City Boundary

Recommended Facilities

Chapter 4:

Recommended Facilities

48 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Recommendations This chapter presents and discusses the projects, programs and standards/codes/policies recommended to improve bicycling in the City of Eastvale. The City recognizes that improving bicycling will require a multi-faceted approach consisting of a complementary menu of recommended bicycle projects and programs, as well as suggested changes to existing standards, codes and policies. Recommended projects, or Engineering, is one of the most powerful methods to improve bicycling. According to the League of American Bicyclists (LAB), “The most visible and perhaps most tangible evidence of a great place for bicycling is the presence of infrastructure that welcomes and supports it. Survey after survey shows that the physical environment is a key determinant in whether people will get on a bike and ride.” This chapter begins with a discussion of how bike projects were developed and assessed for feasibility. It then presents specific recommendations for bike projects and “future opportunities” and more general recommendations for Safe Routes to Transit and bike parking. The success of recommended projects is closely tied to programs and adopted standards, codes and policies. Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation and Planning programs to help maximize investments in bike projects. Similarly, the effectiveness of bike programs is maximized by actual project implementation. Likewise, changes to City standards, codes and policies may be needed to implement bike facilities, and project implementation may, in turn, facilitate changes to City standards, codes and policies.

Bicycle Project Development and Feasibility Assessment Bicycle projects were developed according to the goal of creating a comprehensive and low-stress bicycle network. Project development considered the following factors: • Existing and Future Conditions • Public and Stakeholder Input • Analysis of Activity Centers, Population and Employment Density, Posted Speed Limits, Transit Routes, Safety/Collisions, Bicycle Boulevard Routing, Benefit/Cost • Level of Traffic Stress (i.e. anticipated stress, based on vehicle speeds and volumes, as well as type of bicycle facility provided) • Feasibility (e.g. available right-of-way, project cost, etc.) • Network Density (i.e. a sufficiently dense network, but not redundant) Facility types were recommended for specific streets and street segments. Recommended bike facility types include Multi-Use Paths (Class I), Buffered Bike Lanes (enhanced Class II), Bike Routes (Class III), Cycle Tracks (soon to be designated Class IV) and Bike Boulevards (referred to in this report as Class V). Further information on project development, by facility type, is provided in the following sections.

Recommended Facilities

Class 1 Multi-use Paths Multi-use paths were typically recommended along utility easements, flood control channels or through undeveloped areas, such as parks, “paper” streets, etc., to provide connections between otherwise disjointed on-street bike facilities. In only one case, along Harrison Road, was a multi-use path (essentially a widened sidewalk) recommended alongside an existing roadway. This roadside path was recommended due to: (a) the importance of Harrison Road as a bike route, (b) the existing “high-stress” cycling conditions, and (c) the lack of available curb-to-curb right-of-way to provide a low-stress, on-street facility. The minimum width for a multi-use path was considered to be 10 feet for this plan, with at least two feet of clearance from obstructions on each side. Considering the existing conditions, most were relatively unconstrained. For projects on roadway segments where there appeared to be constraining factors, horizontal clearance was measured using high-resolution aerial photos. This data collection was then supplemented with on-site field work and consultation with City staff. (Typical costs per mile can vary a great deal due to potential right-of-way acquisition, bridges and other possible major expenses such as grading due to hilly topography and facility width.)

Class 2 Buffered Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks Buffered bike lanes and cycle tracks were recommended along collector and arterial streets, where anticipated use (by all transportation modes), as well as stress levels, would be higher and where available right-of-way existed. Buffered bike lanes and cycle tracks require the following minimum widths: 5+ feet (ideally, 6-7 feet) and 8 feet, respectively. The decision to recommend a cycle track versus buffered bike lane was driven primarily by need, such as the need for increased separation to provide a low-stress cycling experience, but was also driven by feasibility, often available right-of-way. (For more information, see the explanation of Delta values in Section 5.2 Recommended Bikeway Projects). Because many collector and arterial streets in Eastvale are excessively wide and unconstrained, decisions about which type to recommend were generally based on need, rather than feasibility. This allowed for more cycle track than buffered bike lane recommendations.

Class 1 Multi-Use Path

Cycle Track

50 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Class 3 Bicycle Routes Bicycle routes recommended for Eastvale were developed with assistance from the Bicycle Boulevard Routing methodology (for more information, see Chapter 3, Analysis). These routes were identified using the Bicycle Boulevard methodology because they met its criteria. They are local streets, have low posted speeds (≤ 25 mph), connect parks, schools and major intersections, and they minimize “out-of-direction travel. However, despite meeting these criteria, because these routes changed direction excessively, they do not provide the convenience of a bike boulevard. Still, these low-stress neighborhood routes were seen as valuable components of the overall bike network and retained as bike routes since they would be useful for short distance travel, such as families going to parks and schools. Shared Lane Markings or “Sharrows” can be installed along these routes, provided actual speeds are less than 35 mph. Additional considerations, such as adjacent land use, on-street parking, connecting bicycle facilities and traffic volumes should also be considered when applying this treatment. The installation of Sharrows has proven most effective when accompanied by education and encouragement campaigns. For instance, many cyclists and drivers do not know that Sharrow placement (at approximately the center of the lane) is intended to promote safer sharing by: • Making cyclists more visible • Guiding cyclists away from the “door zone” • Directing drivers to make safer/wider passes

Bicycle Boulevards Similar to the Class III bike routes described above, bicycle boulevards recommended for Eastvale were developed with assistance from the Bicycle Boulevard Routing methodology (for more information, see Chapter 3, Analysis). They met methodology criteria of being local streets, with low speeds, connecting parks/schools/intersections and involving minimal out-of-direction travel. Unlike the bike routes, recommended bike boulevards provided – mostly – straight and intuitive routes that paralleled busier arterial streets. Some routes are so intuitive that they are likely already used as low-stress neighborhood routes by Eastvale residents, such as the Cedar Creek Road corridor. Bicycle boulevards, sometimes called “Neighborhood Greenways,” require additional planning and engineering prior to implementation. Example issues to be addressed by further study include, but are not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements at intersections and crossings, signage and wayfinding, traffic calming measures, impacts to vehicular traffic flow, and right-of-way acquisition. Education and enforcement related to these facilities is also recommended to maximize their (safe) use.

Recommended Facilities

Recommended Bikeway Projects Taken together, the previously described projects form a comprehensive, low-stress network, including bicycle facilities on every major (arterial) street and several smaller (local) streets as well. This master plan recommends a total of 59.23 miles of new bikeways (30 projects). Of these, 33 percent are cycle tracks, 26 percent are bike routes, 16 percent are multi-use paths, 15 percent are bike boulevards and 10 percent are buffered bike lanes. While the breakdown of recommended facilities may seem atypical for a city of its size and composition, it is not entirely surprising considering existing conditions in Eastvale. In other words, in light of Eastvale’s suburban street grid characterized by a majority of (low-speed) local streets within “superblock” of (highspeed) arterial streets, it is not surprising that cycle tracks and bike routes are the top two recommended facility types. Similarly, Eastvale’s irregular surburban street pattern within the superblocks make bike boulevards and bike lanes unlikely recommendations.

15%

Bike Boulevard

16%

Multi-Use Path

10% Buffered Bike Lane

33% Cycle Track

26% Bike Route

All projects were ranked according to cumulative scores derived from the following criteria: • • • • • •

Gap Closure Reported Collisions Economic Efficiency Required ROW Proximity to Schools Community Input

More information on these inputs can be found in “Appendix B: Project Prioritization” on page A-67 and “Appendix C: Benefit-Cost Analysis” on page A-70. Once ranked, projects were sorted by rank and divided into three tiers to assist in implementation. Recommended projects are presented in the following pages and are organized by tier (and ranked within each tier). For each tier, there is a map highlighting the projects contained and a table providing helpful, supplemental information. Items contained in the table include project rank, project length, project extent and “Delta” value (for bike lanes and cycle tracks). Delta values provide an indication Green = Feasible 6 of available right-of-way (ROW) to install a Red = Infeasible given facility type while preserving vehicle -3 travel lanes, turn lanes, medians and Blue = Value within four feet of minimum 2 parking. A positive Delta value, color-coded N/A = Not applicable for this recommendation N/A green, indicates a ROW surplus. A negative Delta value, color-coded red, indicates a ROW deficit. A neutral Delta value, colorcoded blue, indicates sufficient ROW.

52 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Figure 4-1: Tier 1 Bicycle Projects

Legend Existing Bicyle Facilities Multi Use Path (Class I) Bicycle Lane(Class II) Proposed Bicyle Facilities Multi Use Path (Class I) Bicycle Lane (Class II) Bicycle Route (Class III) Protected Bicycle Lane (Class IV) Bicyle Boulevard Planned Santa Ana River Trail Other Recommended Facilities Conditioned Multi Use Path (Class I) Parks Schools City Boundary

Recommended Facilities

Table 4-1: Tier 1 Bicycle Projects Rank

Length (Miles)

2.52

2.33

2.14

0.41

3.93

Facility Type

Protected Bike Lane (Class IV)

Street/Path Segment

Hamner Ave

1.53

2.33

Bellegrave Ave

Amberhill Ave

58th St

Mayfair Cir

Limonite Ave

-12

Limonite Ave

Ohio River Dr

Citrus St

Cleveland Ave

Bellegrave Ave

Limonite Ave

N/A

Scholar Way

Limonite Ave

Citrus St

Bellegrave Ave

Schleisman Rd

Orange St

-5

Orange St

Citrus St

Walters St

Chandler St

N/A

Hellman

Archibald

Harrison

Sumner

Scholar

Scholar Way

Hamner

Scholar Way

Wellsprings

N/A

Hellman Ave

Coyote Trail Ln

N/A

Coyote Trail Ln

Archibald Ave

N/A

Archibald

Hamner

-5

Bike Blvd

Hamner Ave

Wellsprings

N/A

Protected Bike Lane (Class IV)

Hellman Ave

Just W of dev’t

-1

Just W of dev’t

Archibald Ave

Bike Lane (Class II)

Archibald Ave

Harrison Ave

-5

Bike Blvd

Remington Ave

Limonite Ave

N/A

Limonite Ave

Chandler St

N/A

Protected Bike Lane (Class IV)

Sumner Ave

Bike Route (Class III)

Hall Ave

Protected Bike Lane (Class IV)

Schleisman Rd

Class I

Bike Blvd

Delta*

Bike Blvd

Multi-Use Path (Class I) 3.78

To (S/E)

Bike Lane (Class II)

Bike Blvd

From (N/W)

Protected Bike Lane (Class IV)

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

* Delta Value is explained on pg. 51

65th St

Chandler St

Harrison Ave

54 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Table 4-1: Tier 1 Bicycle Projects (cont.) Rank

Length (Miles)

3.76

Facility Type

From (N/W)

To (S/E)

Delta*

Hellman Ave

Archibald Ave

N/A: Paper Street

Archibald Ave

Harrison Ave

-1

Harrison Ave

Hamner Ave

I-15

Hawthorne Ave

Maple Glen Dr

Elderberry Ave

N/A

Elderberry Ave

Hawthorne Ave

Champion Way

N/A

Champion Way

Elderberry Ave

Harrison Ave

N/A

Hollowbrook Way

Harrison Ave

Cedar Creek Rd

N/A

Falcon Ridge Rd

Cedar Creek Rd

Dove Valley Way

N/A

Dove Valley Way

Orange St

Falcon Ridge Rd

N/A

Orange St

Dove Valley Way

Sumner Ave

N/A

Bike Lane (Class II)

Orange St

Sumner Ave

Scholar Way

Class I

Scholar Way

Hamner Ave

N/A

Protected Bike Lane (Class IV)

Bike Route (Class III)

1.77

Street/Path Segment

Bike Blvd

* Delta Value is explained on pg. 51

Limonite

Recommended Facilities

Figure 4-2: Tier 2 Bicycle Projects

56 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Table 4-2: Tier 2 Bicycle Projects Rank

Length (Miles)

Facility Type

Street/Path Segment

From (N/W)

To (S/E)

Delta*

Harrison Ave

Sumner Ave

Scholar Way

-5

Scholar Way

Carrollton Pl

-6

Carrollton Pl

Hamner Ave

Brayton Ave/ Oosten Farms Rd

Hellman Ave

Fieldmaster St

N/A

Cherry Creek Cir

Fieldmaster St

Wind River Rd

N/A

Wind River Rd

Cherry Creek Circle

Multi-Use Path

N/A

Bike Blvd

Cedar Creek Rd

Blossom Way

N Cedar Creek Park

N/A

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

Class I

N Cedar Creek Park

S Cedar Creek Park

N/A

Cedar Creek Rd S Cedar Creek Park

N Providence Ranch Park

N/A

Protected Bike Lane (Class IV) 11

1.50

Bike Lane (Class II)

Citrus St

Protected Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.14

2.16

1.10

3.55

1.27

Bike Blvd

Bike Blvd Multi-Use Path (Class I)

Class I

N Providence Ranch Park

S Providence Ranch Park

N/A

Bike Blvd

Cedar Creek Rd

S Providence Ranch Park

Class I

N/A

Bike Route (Class III)

Moonriver St

Caxton St

65th St

N/A

Bike Blvd

Wellspring St

65th St

Riverboat Dr

N/A

Bike Route (Class III)

Riverboat Dr

Wellspring St

Kern River Dr

N/A

Kern River Dr

Riverboat Dr

Multi-Use Path

N/A

Protected Bike Lane (Class IV)

Remington Ave

Rolling Meadow St

-2

Archibald Ave/ River Rd

Rolling Meadow St

65th St

Whispering Hills Dr

Whispering Hills Dr Baron Dr/River Rd

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

Multi-Use Path

Selby Ave

Swan Creek Dr

N/A

Fairchild Dr

Swank Creek Dr

Walnut Grove Ave

N/A

Walnut Grove Ave

Fairchild Dr

Star Ruby Ave

N/A

Star Ruby Ave

Walnut Grove Ave

Multi-Use Path

N/A

Multi-Use Path

Star Ruby Ave

Cobble Creek Dr

N/A

Bike Blvd Multi-Use Path (Class I)

* Delta Value is explained on pg. 51

Recommended Facilities

Table 4-2: Tier 2 Bicycle Projects (cont.) Rank

Length (Miles)

Facility Type

Bike Route (Class III)

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

To (S/E)

Delta*

Longbranch St/ Retama St

Rolling Meadows St

Heathgrove Dr

N/A

Heathgrove Dr

Havenhurst St

Longbranch St/ Retama St

N/A

Havenhurst St

Heathgrove Dr

Emmerglen Way

N/A

Multi-Use Path

Archibald Ave and Havenhurst St and Whispering Hills Dr Emmerglen Way

N/A

Havenhurst St

Stillbrook Way

N/A

Stillbrook Way

Emmerglen Way

Tourmaline Dr

N/A

Tourmaline Dr

Stillbrook Way

Riverglen Dr

N/A

Riverglen Dr

Tourmaline Dr

Moonflower Dr

N/A

Moonflower Dr

Riverglen Dr

Orangevale Ave

N/A

Orangevale Ave

Moonflower Dr

Maple Glen Dr

N/A

Maple Glen Dr

Orangevale Ave

Corona Valley Ave

N/A

Corona Valley Ave

Maple Glen Dr

Star Ruby Ave

N/A

Multi-Use Path

Eastvale Pkwy

Corona Valley Ave

N/A

Bike Route (Class III)

Walnut Grove Ave

Star Ruby Ave

Chandler St

N/A

Tisdale St

Chandler

Existing Class I

N/A

Bike Blvd

Blossom Way

Harrison Ave

Fuji St

2.65

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

0.74

From (N/W)

Emmerglen Way

Bike Route (Class III)

Street/Path Segment

* Delta Value is explained on pg. 51

58 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Table 4-2: Tier 2 Bicycle Projects (cont.) Rank

Length (Miles)

Facility Type

Street/Path Segment

From (N/W)

To (S/E)

Delta*

Bike Route (Class III)

Rolling Meadows St

Longbranch St

Northfork Dr

N/A

Northfork Dr

Rolling Meadows St

Bodega Ct

N/A

Bodega Ct

Kiwi Ave

Norfolk Dr

N/A

Kiwi Ave

Bodega Ct

Pear Ave

N/A

Pear Ave

Orchard Dr

Kiwi Ave

N/A

Orchard Dr/ Linnea St

Pear Ave

Bluebell St

N/A

Bluebell St

Cloris St

Linnea St

N/A

Cloris St

Bluebell St

Hazel St

N/A

Hazel St

Briar St

Cloris ST

N/A

Bike Route (Class III)

2.60

Briar St

Hazel St

Daphne St

N/A

Daphne St

Briar St

Merry Meadows Dr

N/A

Merry Meadows Dr

Daphne St

Oakdale St

N/A

Oakdale St

Merry Meadows Dr

Badminton St

N/A

Badminton St

Oakdale St

Caxton St

N/A

Caxton St

Badminton St

Moonriver St

N/A

Coyote Trail Ln

65th St

Campfire Pl

N/A

Campfire Pl

Coyote Trail Ln

Settlers Ridge Ct

N/A

Settlers Ridge Ct

Campfire Pl

Deer Creek Dr

N/A

Deer Creek Dr

Settlers Ridge Ct

Iron Horse Ln

N/A

Iron Horse Ln

Deer Creek Dr

Lost Horse Rd

N/A

Lost Horse Rd

Iron Horse Ln

Old Peak Ln

N/A

Old Peak Ln

Lost Horse Rd

Unnamed Rd

N/A

Bike Blvd

Unnamed Rd/ Whispering Hills Dr

Old Peak Ln

Harrison Ave

N/A

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

Class I

Harrison Ave

Everglades St

N/A

Bike Blvd

Forest Wind St

Everglades St

Forest Wind St

N/A

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

Class I

Forest Wind St

Sumner Ave

N/A

Sumner Ave

Hamner Ave

I-15

Bike Route (Class III)

3.27

Bike Lane (Class II) Protected Bike Lane (Class IV)

* Delta Value is explained on pg. 51

68th Street

Recommended Facilities

Figure 4-3: Tier 3 Bicycle Projects

60 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Table 4-3: Tier 3 Bicycle Projects Rank

Length (Miles)

1.84

0.72

Facility Type

Bike Route (Class III)

1.76

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

Bike Route (Class III)

* Delta Value is explained on pg. 51

Street/Path Segment

From (N/W)

To (S/E)

Delta*

Oakdale St

Merry Meadows Dr

Jersey St

Oakdale St

August St

Jersey St

Odyssey Way

August St

Lancelot Dr

Odyssey Way

Schleisman Rd

College Park Dr

Schleisman Rd

Terrapin Way

Raymond Dr

College Park Dr

Raymond Dr

Terrapin Way

Dairy St

Raymond Dr

Morning Hills Dr

Dairy St

Bodine Way

Morning Hills Dr

Burbank Rd

Carrollton Pl

Bodine Way

Carrollton Pl

Burbank Rd

Citrus St

58th St

Berryhill Dr

Hamner Ave

Selby Ave

Walters St

Orchid Dr

Selby Ave

Asterleaf Ln

Orchid Dr

Retriever St

Asterleaf Ln

Fieldmaster St

Bushmaster St

Fieldmaster St

Wolfhound St

Bushmaster St

Gamebird St

Wolfhound St

Multi-Use Path

Class 1

Gamebird St

Wind River Rd

Dewdrop Ct

Wind River Rd

Rollingstream Pl

Dewdrop Ct

Fiske Dr

Rollingstream Pl

Wiseman Dr

Fiske Dr

Lourenco Ln

Wiseman Dr

Corbin Dr

Lourenco Ln

Prado Basin Park Rd

Recommended Facilities

Table 4-3: Tier 3 Bicycle Projects (cont.) Rank

Length (Miles)

Facility Type

Street/Path Segment

From (N/W)

To (S/E)

Delta*

Bike Route (Class III)

Walters St

Hellman Ave

Multi-Use Path

Class I

Multi-Use Path

Walters Ave

Serenade Dr

Bike Route (Class III)

Serenade Dr

Smith River Rd

Multi-Use Path

Smith River Rd

Serenade Dr

Lower Creek St

Smith River

Lower Creek St

Berry Meadow Creek Cir

Berry Meadow Creek Valley Meadow Cir Ave

-5

1.51 Bike Lane (Class II) Bike Route (Class III)

1.03

Smith River Eastvale Pkwy

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

Valley Meadow Ave Corona Valley Ave

Hellman Ave

Archibald Ave

Whitewell Rd/ Aldergate Dr

White Clover Way

Prairie Smoke Rd

Meadows Way

Aldergate Dr

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

Multi-Use Path

Meadows Way

Class I (Project 27)

Bike Route (Class III)

2.11

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

Multi-Use Path

Bellegrave Ave

Hellman Ave

1.35

Multi-Use Path (Class I)

Multi-Use Path

Project 27

Remington Ave & Rolling Meadows St

Fallsgrove Dr

Bellegrave Ave

Berryhill Dr

N/A

Berryhill Dr

Fallsgrove Dr

N/A

Dancy St

Fuji St

Berryhill Dr

N/A

Fuji St

Dancy St

Early Crimson St

N/A

Early Crimson St

Fuji St

Mulan St

N/A

Mulan St

Early Crimson St

Lotus St

N/A

Lotus St

Mulan St

Snowdrop St

N/A

Snowdrop St

Lotus St

Hollis St

N/A

Hollis St

Snowdrop St

65th St

N/A

Multi-Use Path

65th St

68th St

N/A

Andaravida Rd

68th

Quarter Horse Dr

N/A

Quarter Horse Dr

Andaravida Rd

Schleisman Rd

N/A

Oosten Farms Rd

River Rd

Hall Ave

Archibald Ave

-5

Archibald Ave

Southern City Limit

-1

Bike Route (Class III) 29

2.09

Multi-Use Path (Class I) Bike Route (Class III)

1.32

Bike Route (Class III) Bike Lane (Class II)

* Delta Value is explained on pg. 51

Hall Ave

62 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Future Opportunities Future opportunities are long-term potential project recommendations developed with input from the City and stakeholders. In general, future opportunity projects are seen as valuable additions to a City’s bicycle network, but infeasible at the time of the bicycle master planning effort for various reasons, such as constrained right-of-way, limited funds or significant inter-jurisdictional cooperation. Future opportunity projects are neither (formally) recommended, nor ranked. Even so, identifying projects as future opportunities is important because it establishes precedent for considering certain projects and alignments, and allows for a discussion of their associated opportunities and constraints. In many cities, future opportunity projects represent downgrades, such as projects that were formerly recommended and ranked, but relegated to “future opportunities.” In Eastvale, very few future opportunity projects were downgraded. Instead, the majority were upgrades of projects already recommended. Altogether, ten projects were recommended as future opportunities, of which seven were recommendations to upgrade cycle tracks along major arterial streets to roadside multi-use paths or “urban trails.” These suggested upgrades were based on City and stakeholder preference for lower-stress, grade-separated facilities on major arterials and for designs that helped reduce landscaping (and irrigation) in the public right-of-way. The remaining projects were bike lanes (two) and a multi-use path along the City boundary, both requiring inter-jurisdictional cooperation to implement. For more information about future opportunities, see the following table and Figure 4-4.

Table 4-4: Future Opportunity Projects Facility

Segment

From (N/W)

To (E/S)

Multi-Use Path

68 St

Hamner Ave

Eastern City limit

Multi-Use Path

Archibald Ave

Bellegrave Ave

River Rd

Multi-Use Path

Bellegrave Ave

Hellman Ave

Wineville Rd (Jurupa Valley, CA)

Multi-Use Path

Chandler St

Hellman Ave

Archibald Ave

Multi-Use Path

Citrus St

Harrison Ave

Hamner Ave

Multi-Use Path

Hamner Ave

Bellegrave Ave

River Walk Park Path

Multi-Use Path

Limonite Ave

Hellman Ave

Eastern City limit

Multi-Use Path

Schleisman Rd

Hellman Ave

Wells Springs St

Multi-Use Path

Bellegrave Ave

Hellman Ave

Wineville Rd (Jurupa Valley, CA)

Buffered Bike Lane

Hamner Ave

Northern City limit

Bellegrave Ave

Buffered Bike Lane

Hellman Ave

Bellegrave Ave

River Rd

Notes

Opportunities: lower stress facility; landscape removal (water/ cost savings) Constraints: cost; existing policy and standards

Opportunities: network enhancement; routes of regional significance Constraints: inter-jurisdictional cooperation required

Recommended Facilities

Figure 4-4: Future Opportunities

Legend Future Opportunities Multi Use Path (Class I) Bicycle Lanes (Class II) Class Unknown Existing Bicyle Facilities Multi Use Path (Class I) Bicycle Lane (Class II) Proposed Bicyle Facilities Multi Use Path (Class I) Bicycle Lane (Class II) Bicycle Route (Class III) Protected Bicycle Lane (Cycle Track) Bicyle Boulevard Planned Santa Ana River Trail Conditioned Multi Use Path (Class I) Parks Schools City Boundary

64 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Safe Routes to Transit Providing safe non-motorized routes to and from transit is a fundamental requirement of a multi-modal transportation network. Many trips entail distances too long to be covered by bike or on foot, but easily covered by transit. Many trips also entail short distances (“first-mile”/”last mile”) to and from a transit center, distances that could covered by bike or on foot. Improving bicycle access to and from transit helps to expand the sphere of influence of both cycling and transit. As discussed in Chapter 3 (Analysis), Eastvale’s transit system is concentrated on its east side with bus stops on Limonite Avenue, 68th Street, Citrus Street, Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue. This master plan recommends low-stress, bicycle facilities on all transit-serving streets (see Figure 3-4). In turn, these direct bicycle connections are also linked to an entire, citywide network of low-stress bicycle facilities. Safe Routes to Transit, however, is about more than just connecting bicycle and transit facilities. It is also about how they are connected. Safe Routes to Transit improvements should consider best practices in transit, bicycle and pedestrian facility design and should also acknowledge the trade-offs between modes. In general, walking – as the dominant and most vulnerable mode – should be given priority in Safe Routes to Transit. Cycling should follow walking in priority and driving should be subordinate to all other modes. In practice, this hierarchy should translate into the following design features: • Curb cuts and ramps between bicycle facilities and transit stops (Curb cuts or ramps should be designed to create a – comfortable and safe – transition between cycling and pedestrian space) • Secure bike parking (Secure bike parking should be provided at transit stops, particularly where commuters might be expected to leave bikes during the workday) • Bike accommodation on transit vehicles (Transit vehicles should be equipped with front-mounted bike racks or other storage mechanisms) Note: The City of Eastvale’s transit system is currently minimal, consisting of two bus lines and no rail service. Further development of Eastvale’s transit system, particularly the inclusion of rail service, would merit additional design features and measures such as priority bike travel and parking at stations, full service bike stations, station wayfinding, elevators/escalators/stairs that accommodate bikes, and a bike share program.

Bicyle Lane Approaching Transit Stop Seattle, WA

“Share the Road” Sign San Clemente, CA

Recommended Facilities

Bicycle Parking Vehicle drivers expect convenient and secure parking to be provided at all destinations. Similar, if not greater, accommodation should be made for bicycle parking. Bicycle parking should be provided routinely, at all destinations where cyclists are expected, such as at shopping centers, work places, parks, apartment buildings, etc. Bike parking should be conveniently located, near the main entrances of buildings or other destinations and no further from the entrance than the closest vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking should also be well-lit and secure, which increases confidence in longer-term bike storage, and may encourage more bicycle commuting (to work and school). The provision of convenient bike parking may make bicycle trips, particularly short ones, more attractive than driving.

Bike Rack Design Good bike rack design is an essential component of bike parking. The most important element of good design is the ability to properly lock a bike, specifically the ability to secure the frame, the front wheel and the bike rack within a typically sized U-lock. Racks that support the bicycle, but either provide no way to lock the frame or require awkward lifting to enable locking, are not acceptable unless security is provided by other means, such as a locked enclosure or monitoring by attendants. See the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) Bike Parking Guidelines for more detailed information on bicycle parking design and placement. Bicycle racks must be designed so that they: • • • • • •

Do not bend wheels or damage other bicycle parts Accommodate high security U-shaped bicycle locks Accommodate securing the frame and wheels Do not trip pedestrians Are easily accessed yet protected from vehicles Are covered if users will leave their bicycles for long periods

Custom racks that lend added aesthetic or placemaking value may also be encouraged, so long as they provide adequate security. Bicycle racks can be customized to incorporate an area’s aesthetics, or designed to complement a specific building or business. For example, the City of Long Beach maintains a program funded by the American Recovery and Investment Act to help business owners install bicycle racks. Their program allows for businesses to choose from a range of existing designs or to design their own.

Offset Bike Racks Require Small Footprint Park-A-Bike

Custom Bike Racks Huntington Beach, CA

66 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Bicycle Corrals Bike corrals are groupings of bike racks, typically located in former vehicle parking stalls. Most bike corrals are located on streets, in former parallel parking spots, but some also exist within shopping center parking lots. Corrals can accommodate up to 20 bicycles per former vehicle parking space. On-street bicycle corrals provide the following benefits to businesses, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers: • Businesses - Corrals provide a high customer to parking space ratio and advertise “bicycle friendliness.” They also permit increased outdoor seating for restaurants by moving the bicycle parking off the sidewalk. Some cities have instituted programs that allow local businesses to sponsor or adopt a bicycle corral to improve bicycle parking in front of their business. • Pedestrians - Corrals clear the sidewalks and those installed at corners also serve as curb extensions. • Cyclists - Corrals increase cycling’s visibility and greatly expand bicycle parking options. • Vehicle drivers - Corrals improve visibility at intersections by preventing large vehicles from parking at street corners and blocking sight lines.

Bike Corral Long Beach, CA

Bicycle Lockers Bike lockers provide increased security for bicycles, their easily removable parts and attached accessories, such as lights, pump, tools and bags. Bike lockers are long-term parking facilities, intended for situations where bicycles are left unattended for long periods of time: apartments and condominium complexes, schools, places of employment and transit stops.

Recommended Facilities

Calculating Demand for Bicycle Parking While the provision of parking should be standard, the amount of parking should be tailored to context. Typically, one of three ratios are used to determine appropriate bicycle parking amounts (by land use): a) a percentage based on car parking requirements, b) the square footage of each land use, or c) using specific units, such as the number of bedrooms or employees. Each method has benefits and drawbacks. Because of this, a variety of methods is often used. Descriptions of each method, including summaries of benefits and drawbacks include: • Method “a” sets the percentage of bike parking spots according to the desired bike mode share. For example, if a 10 percent mode share is desired, bike parking should constitute 10 percent of overall parking). This method has the benefit of being easy to calculate, but has several drawbacks. First, it is based on vehicle parking minimums, which are often inflated. Secondly, it directly links vehicle and bike parking, so that a decrease in vehicle parking would necessarily lead to a decrease in bike parking. Lastly, it may overgeneralize and underestimate bike parking demand based on land use. • Method “b” links the amount of bicycle parking to building square footage. This method has the advantage of being detached from vehicle parking and linked instead to floor area and land use. In this way, uses expected to generate more bike trips would include greater amounts of bike parking. The primary drawback of this method is that even projections based on use involve significant guesswork. • Method “c” calculates bike parking demand according to the specific units within a building. The primary advantage of this method is that it links actual people (and potential cyclists) to parking demand, rather than space, which may or may not contain people. Like method “b,” this method has the disadvantage of projecting bike parking demand based on scant evidence.

68 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Recommended Programs and Policies

Chapter 5:

Recommended Programs & Policies

70 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

There has been a shift away from the traditional, compartmentalized “Five Es” approach developed by the League of American Bicyclists (Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation and Planning) and toward a more fully integrated and complementary menu of initiatives. By offering a menu rather than a prescriptive list, bicycle programming can more accurately address existing conditions and the desired outcomes of a given context. This approach allows for increased targeting of the “interested, but concerned” population of would-be cyclists and provides the greatest return on investment. The programs recommended for the City of Eastvale are organized into three categories: 1. Education/Encouragement/Marketing 2. Education/Enforcement 3. Monitoring and Evaluation These categories are not definitive. They are merely intended to offer a level of organization to the many program initiatives, the majority of which fall into more than one category.

Education/Encouragement/Marketing Programs Smart Trips Program Bundle Smart Trips is a generic name for community-based transportation demand management (TDM) programs that provide tools and incentives to make cycling (and other modes) the preferred mode for particular trips. Smart Trips are intended to complement efforts aimed at commute behavior by targeting other household trips. This is important because while many people find the prospect of commuting by bicycle daunting, they may be enticed to try riding for shorter trips around their neighborhood. Smart Trip programs have been shown to result in two to 14 percent reduction in drive-alone car trips and a significant increase in cycling. Implementation of a variety of initiatives, leveraged as part of a Smart Trips program and delivered as a “bundle,” has been important to the success of Smart Trips programs in other cities. The bundled delivery of Smart Trips initiatives allows for the saturation of a target audience and has been instrumental in maximizing limited outreach dollars.

Street Smarts Classes and Bicycle Ambassadors This initiative promotes safe bicycling through community-based outreach, which helps bridge the gap between people who want to start riding and the availability of opportunities to help people learn to bicycle safely. Ideally, safety would be taught through bicycle safety courses delivered at the Cycling Education Center (described below) and on city streets, as appropriate. A Bicycle Ambassador program has recently been initiated by the Inland Empire Biking Alliance. The City should support this program through funding or, at least, in-kind contributions.

Recommended Programs and Policies

Bicycle Friendly Businesses and Districts The City can promote the League of American Bicyclists’ (LAB) Bicycle Friendly Business program among local businesses to encourage cycling by their employees and customers. Businesses then use their bicycle friendliness as part of marketing. Benefits to employees often include attractive and secure bicycle parking, locker rooms, showers and reimbursement for trips made by bicycle, via the Bicycle Commuter Benefit Act. Under this Act, companies can reimburse employees on a tax-free basis for “reasonable expenses” incurred as a bicycle commuter. This can include the 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 a company chooses to offer. Benefits to customers can include secure parking and discounts. Bicycle Friendly Business Districts combine the efforts of individual businesses to offer a more supportive and coherent cycling environment.

Community Bicycle Programs Community bicycle programs, also known as Bike Kitchens, are commonly formed as grass roots initiatives by community members within low income and underserved communities to provide bicycles, helmets, maintenance help and safety instruction to people as a means of expanding their transportation options and providing people better access to work and services. The City of Eastvale should support the creation of a Bike Kitchen within its boundaries and leverage its resources in coordination with the bicycle facilities prioritized in the bicycle master plan. This combination will help to encourage an increase in cycling mode share, serve as a missing link in the public transit system, reduce GHG emissions and provide additional “green” jobs related to system management and maintenance.

Expand Traditional TDM – Employer Incentives Existing TDM measures within the City of Eastvale include the Inland Empire Commuter Incentives offered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). Incentives offered are available to those switching from single occupancy vehicle trips to alternative modes and include both short-term and longterm perks ($2 per day for the first three months and premium coupon booklets for continuing participants, respectively). The City should work with the RCTC and local major employers to expand the reach and marketing of its existing program. In addition to marketing to major employers, the City could deliver targeted marketing of available TDM benefits along corridors where new bicycle facilities are implemented. The existing incentives program could also be used to leverage participation in special challenges and competitions hosted by the City and regional planning agencies, such as Bike to Work/School Challenges. Lastly, the City should work with the RCTC to ensure the provision of appropriate TDM end-of-trip amenities for cycling like safe and secure bicycle parking and Safe Routes to Transit.

Events - Bike Month Have the Mayor continue to 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. Promote Bike Month or monthly Bike to Work days heavily within Smart Trips target areas and among target populations.

72 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Safe Routes to School Develop a Safe Routes to School Program Inactivity, and even obesity, among school-aged children is among the greatest public health crises in America. Encouraging children to walk or bicycle to school is one important means of combating this epidemic and has the potential to instill lifelong healthy habits. Successful Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) programs not only provide encouragement and support for walking and cycling, but address legitimate safety concerns of many parents. SRTS programs tackle safety issues through education and infrastructure improvements. Wherever possible, SRTS efforts should be integrated into the larger processes of planning and project implementation. Best practices in SRTS education programs combine more traditional print media and classroom tactics with experiential courses and clinics. For example, the Alameda County SRTS program provides an array of education and safety programs including Educator Guides, Skills Drills Bicycle Safety Course, Bicycle Clinics, Bicycle Safety Certification Program and Bikemobile, a mobile repair clinic (http:// alamedacountysr2s.org/). Ideally, the SRTS program could partner with a regional Traffic Garden to offer more comprehensive traffic safety education, teaching children the fundamental rules and responsibilities of all modes. Participating schools could make attendance for field trips to the regional Traffic Garden compulsory and recurring, a component of Physical Education, with activities tailored to age groups. Barring the availability of a local Traffic Garden, a makeshift streetscape could be created with chalk, for example. Supplemental exercises in the mechanics of actually riding a bike, from basic to advanced bicycle handling skills, could be provided as needed at the Cycling Education Center.

Recommended Programs and Policies

SRTS efforts at infrastructure improvement are unique in their incorporation of youth perspectives. Youth are encouraged to participate at all phases and even to serve as a Safe Routes to School liaison. Further funding may be available through Safe Routes to Schools grants, available at both the federal and State level. 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. More information can be found at: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org.

Promote the Walking School Bus and Bicycle Train These are volunteer-based programs in which children are chaperoned by adults as in they walk or bicycle to school. Parents often cite safety concerns for their reluctance to allow their children to walk or ride to school. Providing adult supervision may alleviate these concerns. The Temecula Bike Train, led by Inland Empire Biking Alliance Board Member Zak Schwank, is one highly successful Riverside County example. This Bike Train occurs every Friday with 25 to 100 schoolchildren (https://www.facebook.com/BikeTrain).

Continue to Participate in Walk and Bike to School Day This one-day October event in more than 40 countries celebrates the many benefits of safely walking and cycling to school. Walking and rolling to school embodies the two main goals of First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! Campaign: to increase children’s 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. For more information, go to www.walktoschool.org.

Cycling Education Center Create a Cycling Education Center that would serve as a clearinghouse for cycling educational materials, electronic and printed, and host a variety of courses. Course material would be bicycle-specific and, in the case of the Traffic Garden (described below), cover general mobility. Bicycle-specific areas would include: • • • •

Handling skills (balance, starting, maneuvering, stopping) Riding in traffic skills (riding predictably, signaling, merging, obeying applicable laws) Safety gear (helmets, lights, visible clothing) Other (basic maintenance, locking your bicycle)

Teaching skills courses will require the training of licensed cycling instructors (e.g. the League of American Bicyclists’ Cycling Instructor program). In the case of a Traffic Garden, detailed knowledge of laws related to all modes would be required. For this reason, the City’s designated law enforcement liaison may be the most suitable referee. An ideal Cycling Education Center location would be central and served by existing or planned bicycle facilities, may even be an existing public property (a park, school or civic center) that can simply be enhanced. The success of a Cycling Education Center would be the result of significant coordination between the Engineering and Planning Departments, Riverside County Sheriff Department, local volunteers, advocates and cyclists.

74 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Bike Skills Park/Pump Track/BMX Track Easily accessible natural surface facilities like these are designed to be fun and can help to encourage children to ride their bikes more often. Many bike skills parks and pump tracks are located in city parks and often adjacent to schools to cater to after-school use. They often enjoy significant volunteer, advocate and user support. A BMX track can also be a revenue generator. These types of facilities cater to all ages.

Example Pump Track and Bike Skills Park Features

Maps and Signage Produce an Updated Bicycle Facility Map The bicycle system, built and planned, could be promoted through a publicity campaign and a user-friendly map that illustrates available utilitarian and recreational routes and their connection to regional routes. In addition to route location and distances, this map should include other essential information such as key destinations and rules of the road. While bicycle maps have traditionally included designations of facility type (Class 1, 2 and 3), the utility of this for the general public is increasingly questioned. Instead, information more directly related to preferred user experience, such as topography, traffic stress, the scenic or direct quality of a route, which varies from user to user, is seen as valuable. The flip side of the map is an excellent place to locate education materials and sponsorship information. If printing costs are prohibitive, seeking funding though grants and sponsorship is recommended. The cartography and graphic design work of the map may be taken on by students of a local GIS or design class. The map should be made available in both hardcopy and digital format, with the latter available for download via the City website. Lastly, it is critical to update the map as new bicycle facilities are implemented or facilities are changed.

Partner with Google to Provide Better Bicycle Directions Consistent with the effort to make cycling an easy choice for a broad range of people, bicycle maps should “break out of the cyclist silo” and become an integrated component of general mobility wayfinding. Google Maps is chief among general wayfinding applications, and currently includes the option of selecting bicycling for travel directions, but is limited in its utility. While driving directions and transit directions include a menu of options for preferred user experience (“avoid highways, avoid tolls, shortest travel time, fewest connections, etc.”), there are none for cycling. As suggested previously, tailored cycling directions, based on preferred user experience, offer the greatest value to the range of people who cycle. Eastvale may choose to share data generated for this bicycle master plan, such as stress level, network connectivity, etc., with Google to improve the interface and to promote cycling. This pilot project could serve to catalyze a nationwide upgrade of Google Maps.

Recommended Programs and Policies

Example Bicycle System Map (http://www.chulavistaca.gov/clean/conservation/ climate/alternative.asp) Zmap Folding Maps is a proprietary folding technology that allows users to quickly unfold and refold a map into an easy-to-carry pocket size package between cardstock covers.

Develop and Implement a Wayfinding System Directional signage allows new cyclists and tourists alike to find their way to their destination or nearby landmark via a recommended route. Wayfinding signage directs people and provides information about destinations, directions and/or distances. A highly legible and well-executed wayfinding system has the potential to increase comfort and safety, through even diverse and chaotic environments. Wayfinding systems can also achieve community objectives, such as the promotion of a local attractions and the resultant benefit of economic development. When applied on a regional level, wayfinding can link adjacent communities. People are the single most important component in developing a wayfinding strategy. Public input on preferred routes, important destinations and the signage itself has proven invaluable. In designing a wayfinding strategy or system, the following questions need to be considered: • • • •

What user types are likely to use the wayfinding system? Where are these users going? What do the users or visitors want to see and hear? What is the primary goal: navigation, directional information, orientation, location information, or interpretation? • Is a clear message being sent by the signage? • Based on the expected user types, what are the safest or most logical paths or routes? There is considerable variation in wayfinding signage legibility and utility. Wayfinding system development for Eastvale should begin with a thorough examination of best practices and should conclude with a clear set of guidelines related to actual signage design and design of the signage system.

76 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Install Advisory Signage along Popular Routes Alert drivers to the presence of cyclists, particularly on a shared facility, or where there is no dedicated bicycle facility. The message should serve to both advise motorists and legitimize the presence of cyclists. Cycling is an important component of the transportation system and should be respected by other modes. While the “Bikes May Use Full Lane” Sign (R4-11) is commonly accepted and generally conveys the intended message, current discourse suggests the use of stronger language (“Shared Road”) – and accompanying education – where appropriate. This phrasing is powerful because it is a statement of fact and implies legal consequence for violators, whereas “Bikes May Use Full Lane” and “Share the Road” sound more like pleading cautions. Regardless of the exact language used, this type of sign should accompany any Shared Lane Markings used. Ample education and marketing should be provided to explain all new signage.

Street/Bicycle Boulevard Signage Vancouver, B.C.

Bicycle Wayfinding Signage San Antonio, TX

Bicycle Wayfinding Sign Portland, OR

Recommended Programs and Policies

Professional Development Develop or facilitate the development of an Active Transportation Professional Development program for the Riverside County region. The program would be oriented toward professionals, advocates, and the members of the public who wish to further their education in bicycle and pedestrian planning and design. Professional affiliations to target for the program include engineers, planners, bicycle advisory committees, health professionals, teachers and school administrators and law enforcement. Program coursework could provide continuing education units (CEUs) to some professionals. The curriculum could include the following courses: • • • • • • • •

Transportation Planning Bicycle Data Capture and Analysis Bicycle Planning Bicycle Facility Design Pedestrian Data Capture and Analysis Pedestrian Planning Pedestrian Facility Design Best Practices in Active Transportation Policies • Instituting “Complete Streets” and “Routine Accommodation” Policies

Bicycle Campaign Poster - University of Nebraska Lincoln, NE

The program could be developed in a largely self-sufficient manner, with student fees covering a majority of the costs.

Marketing Campaigns Build awareness and general appeal of cycling as a safe and common mode of transportation. Marketing is about more than advertising. Communication and promotion play important roles. To get people to see cycling as a desirable mode choice, and to pay attention to safety, they must be engaged through effective marketing. Lessons from the field of marketing point to the proven effectiveness of positive messages that inspire people and get out more to ride. The objective is not to get everybody to ride bicycles all of the time, but rather to target those most ready to change. Bicycle Safety Campaign Poster Pittsburgh, PA

78 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Messages should inspire people to move from “might” to “sometimes” and from “sometimes” to “often.” For example, a targeted message might be one directed at people who currently solely ride for recreation and have never considered a short errand trip within their neighborhood, but would be open to the suggestion. Other messages might target the market of people ready to improve their riding techniques or even those who may never ride, but who might be encouraged to treat cyclists with more care and civility.

Host a Ciclovia and Other Signature Events A Ciclovía (also ciclovia or cyclovia in English) is a Spanish word that translates into “bicycle path” and is used to describe either a permanently designated bicycle route or a temporary event where the street is closed to vehicles for use by people and non-motorized transportation. Ciclovia events are celebrations of livable streets and communities, encouraging citizens and businesses to get out in the street and enjoy their city through active participation. While Bogotá, Colombia is often credited with starting ciclovias, they have gained considerable popularity in the United States in the past five years.

Ciclovia events (CicLAvia) Los Angeles, CA

While all Ciclovia events are alike in their Ciclovia Events (CicloSDias) San Diego, CA creation of a people-oriented, car-free space, they are otherwise unique. In some cities, the event occurs once or twice a year, while in others it occurs every Saturday or Sunday throughout the entire summer. Some cities re-use routes, while others, like Portland and Chicago, host the events in different locations around the city each weekend. Some routes form a circuitous route, while others are linear. Most include parks or other open public spaces. Most include music, performance, games and other activities, some of which is scripted and some spontaneous. Ciclovias often have a theme of health, exercise and active transportation and include groups promoting free, healthy activities stationed along the route. Ciclovia routes can incorporate and highlight new bikeways and preferred routes, encouraging their use and maximizing investment. In addition to Ciclovias, the City can promote cycling through more sport-oriented events such as road and cyclocross rides and races. By joining forces with a local bicycle coalition (Inland Empire Biking Alliance or IEBA) or club, the City can maximize resources and participation. Events focused on the sport of cycling are important because they promote health and wellness, but also introduce people to cycling. Those who cycle recreationally may consider cycling for everyday, utilitarian trips and, in doing so, make positive societal contributions (e.g. air quality, transportation expenses, health care expenses, local economy, etc.).

Recommended Programs and Policies

Education/Enforcement Programs Educate All Law Enforcement Staff Regarding Cycling Issues and Concerns If the ultimate aim is to promote cycling as a legitimate form of transportation, all officers should receive some form of bicycle training and should be offered LCI training, if possible.

Designate a Law Enforcement Liaison Responsible for Cycling Issues and Concerns This liaison would be the main contact for Eastvale residents concerning bicycle-related incidents. This liaison would perform the important function of communication between law enforcement and cyclists. The liaison would be in charge of the supplemental education of fellow officers regarding bicycling rules, etiquette and behavior. The liaison could be the same person as the referee for the Traffic Garden and should be LCI certified, as well as ride a bicycle while on duty, as appropriate. Allocate funding for the training and support of this duty, as well as for necessary bicycle equipment.

Targeted Enforcement The Riverside County Sheriff Department uses targeted enforcement to educate motorists and cyclists about applicable traffic laws and the need to share the road. These efforts are an effective way to expand motorist and cyclist education. Targeted enforcement should be expanded to warn and educate motorists and cyclists about laws, rules of the road and safety procedures. This could be in the form of a brochure or tip card explaining each user’s rights and responsibilities. Targeted enforcement may help mitigate the following traffic safety problems: • • • • • • •

Speeding in school zones Illegal passing of school buses Parking violations – bus zone, crosswalks, residential driveways, time zones Risks to cyclists during drop-off and pick-up times Lack of safety patrol/crossing guard operations Unsafe cycling practices Other school zone traffic law violations

Police Bicycle Patrol Easley, SC

Riverside County Sheriff Traffic Enforcement Moreno Valley, CA

80 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

This approach has been successful in Los Angeles where four officers, one for each of its police department traffic divisions, have been dedicated solely to bicycle safety and outreach. In nearby Moreno Valley, the Riverside County Sheriff Department garnered national attention with its “Gingerbread Man” crossing enforcement sting program. Its purpose is to educate drivers about the crosswalk laws and to make them more aware of the dangers of speeding and inattention, especially near schools. (http://blog. pe.com/breaking-news/2013/09/26/moreno-valley-gingerbread-man-helps-nab-crosswalk-violators/)

Implement a Bicycle Diversion Program A Bicycle Diversion Program allows for adult cyclists who commit traffic violations to receive reduced fines in exchange for taking a bicycle education class. On September 21, 2015, California’s Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 902 to create such a program. This legislation has been touted as a boost for both equity and encouragement in cycling. It is expected to promote equity because, in reducing fines, it effectively makes cycling more affordable. It is expected to encourage cycling by treating violations as opportunities to educate people and impart confidence and skills. AB 902 will go into effect on January 1, 2016, but it will be up to each city and its law enforcement department to adopt diversion programs.

Distribute Lights and Helmets to Cyclists If law enforcement officers observe a cyclist riding at night without the proper reflectors or lights, they may give the cyclist a light along with a note or friendly reminder about the light requirement and its importance. This provides a positive and educational interaction rather than a punitive one. This program could be funded through a safetyoriented grant. Many cities have targeted the end of daylight savings as an ideal time to perform this function.

Helmet Giveaway San Diego, CA

Helmet giveaway programs are another opportunity for positive education and interaction. Law enforcement departments have conducted public events to hand out helmets, as well as distributing them in the community during the course of patrol when an officer sees a child riding without a helmet.

Recommended Programs and Policies

Monitoring and Evaluation Create City Staff Bicycle Coordinator Position The creation of a Bicycle Coordinator position would demonstrate the City’s commitment to cycling and “Complete Streets.” A bicycle coordinator or program manager can help coordinate between City departments to ensure projects planning consistency and cooperation. A bicycle coordinator would manage programs and implement projects listed in the bicycle master plan, and would be responsible for updating the plan in a timely manner. This includes maintaining a prioritized list of improvements, updating cost estimates and identifying appropriate funding sources. This investment in staff is often returned since this position usually is responsible for securing State and federal funding for bicycle projects.

Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee A Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) assists the City with implementation of plan projects, policies and programs. The BAC allows City staff, volunteers and bicycle advocates to continue efforts to improve cycling throughout the City. This group acts as a community liaison and addresses issues concerning local cycling. The BAC can review the implementation and regularly evaluate the progress of improvements in the Bicycle Master Plan. City support is imperative for creating the committee, budgeting time and resources for City staff and elected officials to attend and to support these meetings. Some cities have developed bicycle and pedestrian or active transportation advisory committees.

Count Cyclists and Review Collision Data Conduct regular cyclist counts throughout the City to determine baseline mode share and subsequent changes. Gathering cyclist counts would allow the City to collect information on where the most cycling occurs. This assists in prioritizing and justifying projects when funding is solicited and received. Counts can also be used to study cycling trends throughout the City. Analysis that could be conducted includes: • Changes in volumes before and after projects have been implemented • Prioritization of local and regional projects • Research on clean air change with increased bicycle use Counts should be conducted at the same locations and at the same times every year. Conducting counts during different seasons within the year may be beneficial to understanding the differences in bicycle traffic volumes based on weather. 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 (See section 17). The Riverside County Sheriff Department should continue to collect and track collision data. Regular reports of traffic collisions should be presented at the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Traffic collisions involving cyclists could be reviewed and analyzed regularly to develop plans to reduce their frequency and severity. Any such plans should include law enforcement involvement and should be monitored to determine their effectiveness. Results of the number of bicycle-related traffic collisions should be recorded in the bicycle report card.

82 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Law Enforcement Referral Process Design a communication process that encourages students and parents to notify the school and law enforcement of the occurrence of a crash or near-miss during school commute trips involving auto, bus, pedestrian or bicycle transportation. Include not only law enforcement, but also the Public Safety Commission, the Planning Department and SRTS stakeholders in this reporting system to help better use data generated. Enlist the help of law enforcement with a number of traffic safety duties: • Enforcement of traffic and parking laws through citations and warnings. • Targeted enforcement of problem areas – an intensive, focused effort during the first two weeks of school, as well as a strategy for the rest of the year. • Participation in traffic safety programs: Traffic Garden, SRTS Task Force, etc. Los Angeles has a successful program called the LA Bike Map that allows cyclists to submit incidents, see them displayed instantly, and study the overall pattern, dynamically, in one place.

Develop a Bicycle Report Card The City could develop a bicycle report card, a checklist used to measure the success of plan implementation, as well as effort made, within the City. The report card could be completed annually and used to identify the magnitude of accomplishments in the previous year and general trends. The bicycle report card could include, but not be limited to, keeping track of user counts, bicycle related collisions and system completion. The City can use the report card to track trends, placing more value on relative than absolute gains (in system completion, mode share and safety). 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 crash numbers go up simply because cycling 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 would 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.

Key Findings in San Francisco Bicycling for 2011 • •

•

• •

Since 2006, counts have increased an impressive 71% and are up 7% since 2014. A sample of 10,139 riders (September) were manually counted in the peak 90 minutes; approximately 75,000 bike trips occur each day out of 2.2 million total trips across all modes SFMTA survey data in 2011 indicate that 3.5% of all trips in San Francisco are made by bicycle, a 75% increase mode in Share since 2000 when bicycling was 2% of daily trips Late September has 18% more riders than early August 94% of riders use bicycle facilities as designated

Since 2006, counts have increased an impressive 71% and are up 7% since 2014. The count trend since 2006 during the 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. peak continues to rise. *These counts represent a sample of, not total daily ridership **Approximately 18% of the 2011 increase (shown in red) is attributed to shifting the count from early August to late September

Recommended Programs and Policies

The report card is not intended to be an additional task for City staff, but rather a means of documenting and publicizing the City’s efforts related to bicycle planning. If a Bicycle Advisory Committee is appointed, it can be a task of the committee to review the report cards and adjust future plans and goals accordingly. In addition to quantifying accomplishments related to the bicycle plan, the City should strive to quantify its efforts. These may be quantified as money spent, staff hours devoted or other in-kind contributions. The quantified effort should be submitted as a component of the bicycle report card. Some cities publish their bicycle report cards online.

Apply for Bicycle Friendly Community/Neighborhood Designation Bicycle Friendly Community/Neighborhood Designation is part of an official program offered by the League of American Bicyclists intended to provide communities with guidance on becoming more bicycle friendly and to offer recognition for their achievements. Like the report card described above, applying for Bicycle Friendly Community/Neighborhood Designation provides a standard by which Eastvale can measure its progress.

“

The Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) program provides a roadmap to improve conditions for bicycling and the guidance to make your distinct vision for a better, bikeable community a reality. A community recognized by the League as Bicycle Friendly welcomes bicyclists by providing safe accommodation for cycling and encouraging people to bike for transportation and recreation.

”

- League of American Bicyclists

84 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Recommended Policies Supportive policies are essential to the development of bicycle facilities in the city of Eastvale. Without them, bicycle facility development may stagnate or – worse – be actively impeded. Recognizing this, the City of Eastvale has included an assessment of its adopted General Plan and Zoning Code (“to determine if they adequately support bicycle facility development”) within this Bicycle Master Plan. The General Plan and Zoning Code contain a wealth of policies that support bicycle facility development. The General Plan even includes a policy calling for the development of a comprehensive bike and trail plan (this plan). But while supportive policies exist, they may be overridden by other less supportive or even impeding policies. Examples of unsupportive policies include those that retain automobile priority, irrespective of context, and those that hinder the compact, mixed-use development needed to support increased walking and biking. This section discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Eastvale’s bicycle-related policies and suggests policy changes to better support the development of bicycle facilities within the City.

City of Eastvale General Plan Circulation and Infrastructure Element The Circulation Element provides the most direct policy guidance related to the development of bicycle facilities. As discussed in Chapter 2 (Existing Conditions), the Circulation Element contains many supportive policies, but also contains policies – and an overall structure – that are problematic from the perspective of bicycle facility development. The Circulation Element places bicycles in a silo, apart from general Circulation (i.e. automobile) policies. Because bicycles, automobiles and other transportation modes are treated separately, their trade-offs cannot be adequately assessed. Similarly, there are no common metrics by which to assess the different transportation modes. In fact, the Circulation Element contains no measures of bicycle facility development and performance, but provides very clear measures of automobile performance (namely, Level of Service).

Space Required to Transport 60 People

Recommended Programs and Policies

The Circulation Element acknowledges these shortcomings, stating that “the level of service standards currently only address the circulation needs of the automobile” and that “a more complete standard would take into account land use patterns, pedestrian access, transit, and bicycle paths.” Policy C-31 even directs the city to evaluate its level of service and roadway width standards and – possibly – establish a “comprehensive level of service threshold that includes non-motorized, transit, mixed use, and vehicle access.” This plan recommends that the City implement Policy C-31 and evaluate its LOS and roadway width standards. It also recommends the development of a multi-modal level of service threshold. These steps would signify an important shift in Eastvale’s transportation planning, where bicycling (and other ‘alternative’ modes) are considered legitimate modes of transportation and are provided for accordingly.

Land Use Element Policies contained in the Land Use element have a less direct, but no less important influence on bicycle facility development in the city of Eastvale. As discussed in Chapter 2 (Existing Conditions) Eastvale’s Land Use policies have led to a suburban development pattern, characterized by residential development, low-medium density, and a strong separation of uses. These traits are underpinned by policies that dictate minimum Level of Service thresholds, minimum setbacks for all buildings and minimum buffers between different uses. The aforementioned development patterns and related land use policies do not tend to support bicycling. To better support bicycle use in Eastvale, this plan recommends the following land use policy changes: 1. Allow for greater diversity in land use designations: a greater mix will allow more people to meet their daily needs locally, by bicycle. 2. Permit “fine grain” mixed-use development: the City currently has no “mixed-use” land use designation. What commercial, civic or other non-residential uses exist within the City are grouped together, in large automobile-oriented complexes. Mixed use, at a “human scale” will promote more cycling, walking and transit use. 3. Allow for increased flexibility in density: compact development supports cycling, while sparse development does not. Determine areas or corridors prioritized for cycling/walking/transit and support density there. 4. Permit increased flexibility in building setbacks: the City’s current policy of maintaining minimum setbacks reinforces a suburban style of development. In contrast, maximum setbacks support cycling, and especially walking, by reducing distances traveled and increasing visual interest. Determine areas or corridors prioritized for cycling/walking/transit and support maximum setbacks there. 5. Allow for a more context sensitive separation of uses: the City’s general plan states that “Even the simple task of walking to school, shopping, or work can be made more difficult because of the lack of connectivity.” This plan recommends a focus on increased connectivity along low-stress (i.e. non-arterial) routes. At best, schools, shopping and civic buildings would be oriented towards Eastvale’s neighborhoods. At a minimum, the aforementioned should be accessible from Eastvale’s neighborhoods.

86 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Air Quality Element/Healthy Community Element/Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Not surprisingly, the above General Plan Elements lend significant supportive to the recommendations of this Bicycle Master Plan. Bicycling is a means of combating air pollution (by providing an alternative to driving), a means of achieving health goals (through exercise) and a means of creating recreation opportunities and, in the case of bicycle boulevards, even “linear parks.” But while the above elements provide high-level support for bicycling, their support could be made stronger by including more metrics, with clear targets for cycling and walking. Example metrics may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Mode Share Goal: ___% of all trips will be made by bicycle in the city of Eastvale by the year 20__ • Obesity and Overweight Goal: Obesity will be reduced to ___% and over weight to ___% by the year 20__ • Fitness Goal: __% of Eastvale residents will get the recommended 20 minutes of daily exercise by the year 20__ • Traffic Safety Goal: All traffic-related fatalities are reduced by _% by the year 20__; All traffic-related fatalities are eliminated by the year 20__ (i.e. a “Vision Zero” policy) • Park and Open Space Goal: ___% of residents will live within a half mile of a trail by the year 20__

City Zoning Code As mentioned in Existing Conditions (Ch.2), the zoning code is intended to provide further definition to the policies included the Land Use Element. Also, as mentioned, the Zoning Code standards for setbacks, building heights, site coverage and parking demonstrate a bias against the type of compact, human-scaled development known to support active transportation. This section provides further discussion of the more problematic Zoning Code standards (vis-à-vis active transportation) and how they might be amended to better support bicycle facility development in the city of Eastvale. To better support bicycle use in Eastvale, this plan recommends the following zoning code changes: 1. Provide more flexibility in setbacks, particularly for corridors designated for bicycle travel: Setbacks are defined by the zoning code in terms of minimums (i.e. buildings must be at least X feet from the street and sidewalk, where X is dependent on land use designation). Setback minimums equate to longer distances for bicyclists and pedestrians to travel to reach their final destinations. This not takes more physical effort, but also provides less reward (i.e. less visual interest in the form of vibrant store fronts, sidewalk cafes, etc.). In contrast, providing setback maximums brings everyday destinations (schools, parks and retail) and residential areas closer together, decreasing distance barriers for biking and walking. 2. Increase flexibility in building heights and site coverage, especially for corridors designated for bicycle travel: Buildings heights and site coverage, though they may address different building dimensions (vertical and horizontal), are strongly related. Building heights are defined by the zoning code in terms of maximums (i.e. buildings may be no higher than X feet, where X is dependent on land use designation). Site coverage, which uses density – as prescribed in the General Plan’s Land Use Element – as a proxy, is also defined by maximums (i.e. maximum “dwelling units per acre” or “floor area ratios”). Like setback minimums, the use of maximums in building heights and site coverage increases travel distances and serves as a barrier to active transportation. Although less literal than with minimum setbacks, these standards do impede compact development and therefore active transportation.

Recommended Programs and Policies

3. Explore parking maximums, shared parking and parking tailored to actual expected use: Parking is defined by the zoning code in terms of minimums (i.e. buildings must provide X parking spaces, where X is determined by land use designation). Parking minimums are problematic, from the perspective of active transportation, for several reasons. First and foremost, parking minimums serve as a sort of selffulfilling prophesy. Parking minimums assume that nearly all travelers will be arriving by car and nearly none by bike or on foot. In doing so, they make driving attractive and biking and walking unattractive. Beyond promoting driving (over other modes), parking minimums also create barriers for those who do choose to bike or walk. Lastly, there are additional externalities associated with parking minimums that may or may not impact bicycle facility development: they significantly increase the cost of development (even development that aims to be sustainable); they cause environmental damage; they are often a waste of space (only nearing capacity for a few days out of the year). For instance, developments that are mixed-use, transit oriented or active transportation oriented should not have the same vehicle parking standards as conventionally suburban developments.

Electric Bikes A new law, AB-1096: Electric Bicycles, went into effect on January 1, 2016 that clarifies electric bicycle status in California. It defines electric bicycles, or e-bikes, as those with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts. It establishes three classes of electric bicycles based on their motor speed and level of electric assist: • Class 1 e-bike, or low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle, is equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and that stops providing assistance when the bicycle reaches 20 mph. • Class 2 e-bike, or low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle, is equipped with a motor that can exclusively propel the bicycle and that cannot provide assistance when the bike reaches 20 mph. • Class 3 e-bike, or speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle, is equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and stops providing assistance when the bicycle reaches 28 mph. Operators of Class 3 e-bikes must be 16 or older and wear a helmet. While Classes 1 and 2 are considered legal on streets and trails, Class 3 e-bikes are prohibited from paths, lanes and trails unless specifically authorized by a local ordinance. The bill prohibits tampering with or modifying electric bicycles to change their speed capability, unless the classification label also is changed. E-bike operators do not need a driver’s license, registration or license plate to ride them, though they do need to abide by existing traffic laws.

88 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Chapter 6:

Implementation & Funding

90 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Implementation Bikeway facility implementation is generally not governed by a specific timeline since the availability of funds for implementation is variable and often tied to the priorities of the City’s capital projects. Plan implementation is also necessarily multi-faceted. Besides adoption of goals and policies, it often includes carrying out programs and pursuing project funding, whether through the City’s capital improvements project process or grant funding. The plan addresses goals, policies, programs and projects that may not be feasible to implement immediately, but are included to inspire long-term actions. Following plan adoption, the next tasks may include grant writing to fund projects and programs, amending City standards and design guidelines for consistency, including projects in the City’s ongoing capital improvements programs, and implementing goals and policies in the everyday City and law enforcement management processes, whether in site plan review, street engineering decisions or traffic enforcement. Recommendations include projects and education and outreach programs that can be implemented by the City, schools, volunteers and law enforcement, but implementation ultimately rests on the community and City’s desire to make this plan’s recommendations a reality.

Implementation Steps Implementation of some bikeways, such as multi-use paths, bicycle boulevards and other innovative techniques described in this plan, will require a capital improvement project process, including identifying funding, a public and environmental review process and plan preparation. Other bikeway improvements can be integrated into planned construction, such as resurfacing, reconstruction, or utility work. The majority of bikeway facilities are provided on streets in the form of shared roadways or bicycle lanes. Shared roadways usually require little change to existing roadways, except for directional signs, pavement markings and minor changes in traffic control devices. Each project will need a varying level of additional study and analysis before installation. Depending upon the project’s complexity, some can be done by City staff, while more complex projects may be contracted out to specialist consultants. Potential Implementation Steps include: 1) Preliminary design and/or technical traffic studies 2) Parking study if parking removal is recommended 3) Construction drawings and detailed cost estimates 4) Funding (CIP, grant, etc.) 5) Recommendations for further environmental studies 6) Construction

Project Phasing Projects listed as short-term are those relatively easy to implement. These projects typically have low construction costs, would not necessitate the acquisition of right-of-way, and/or would require only a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. An example of a potential short-term project could include restriping a roadway to include a buffer to remedy a door zone bicycle lane or creating accessible connections to an existing facility like the Santa Ana River Trail.

Implementation and Funding

Mid-term projects are projects that will require a small amount of further study or a higher cost than projects that require only typical resurfacing and striping. The long-term projects involve pursuing grant funding opportunities or further study for the implementation of larger, and potentially costlier improvements. Examples of long-term projects include Class 1 multi-use path recommendations or Class IV separated bike lanes.

Program Phasing Program phasing can be addressed in phases in a similar manner. Each program is equally feasible for implementation, but some will require more time and funding investment from City staff, school districts and/or public volunteers. Short-term programs can be implemented without significant additional costs, staff or policy change. Mid-term programs may require budgetary considerations or significant volunteer involvement. Long-term programs will require additional staff, significant volunteer involvement, and additional funding through grants or budget additions.

Potential Funding Sources Federal, State and local government agencies invest billions of dollars every year in the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation system. Only a fraction of that funding is used in development projects, policy development and planning to improve conditions for cyclists and walkers. Even though appropriate funds are limited, they are available, but desirable projects sometimes go unfunded because communities may be unaware of a fundâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existence, or may apply for the wrong type of grants. Also, the competition between municipalities for the available funding is often fierce. Whenever federal funds are used for bicycle and pedestrian projects, a certain level of State and/or local matching funding is generally required. State funds are often available to local governments on the similar terms. Almost every implemented bicycle and pedestrian 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. The most commonly employed active transportation project funding sources have been sales tax revenues, federally funded transportation projects, State grants and community partnerships. Of the federal project funding, the most common has been highway programs, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary funds and community development block grants (CDBG), while state funding has come primarily from dedicated funds. Local funding has often occurred through general fund and developer impact fees, occasionally sales taxes and bonds, and tax incremental financing (TIF). Some private foundations also fund active transportation projects.

Federal Sources The previous federal transportation funding authorization, MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century), has been replaced with a new funding mechanism. In late 2015, Congress passed the Fixing Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which President Obama signed into law. The FAST Act is a five-year, $305 billion transportation bill and is the first law enacted in over ten years that provides longterm funding certainty for surface transportation, meaning States and local governments can move forward with critical transportation projects with the confidence that they will have a long-term federal partner. Many transportation funding programs were given new names.

92 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

The following list identifies the most relevant potential federal funding programs: 1. National Highway Performance Program: $22 billion (FY 2016) 2. Surface Transportation Program (STP): Wayfinding signage, trail traffic counters, bike parking, bus bike racks, etc. • Surface Transportation Block Grant Program: $10 billion • Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Set Aside: $820 million 3. Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP): • Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects (80%): Trails/Sidewalks/Traffic Calming/Safety/ADA • Safe Routes to School (10%): Infrastructure, Awareness campaigns, Education • Historic Projects/Environment (10%) 4. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ): $2.26 billion 5. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): $2.1 billion Notably, the FAST Act requires all design for National Highway System roadways to take into account access for all modes of transportation. It also permits local governments to use their own adopted design guides if they are the lead project sponsor, even if it differs from their state guidelines.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Program The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bicycle and Pedestrian Program promotes safe, comfortable, and convenient walking and bicycling for people of all ages and abilities, through funding, policy guidance, program management and resource development. Each State has a State Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, and each FHWA Division office has an FHWA Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator point of contact. The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is probably the best known and most popular federal funding source for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The accompanying matrix is based on a table provided on the FHWA website that summarizes potential eligibility for pedestrian and bicycle projects under Federal Transit and Federal Highway programs. This original table should be consulted as the starting point for investigating federal funding opportunities since it is likely to be the most up-to-date potential eligibility information source (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/ funding_opportunities.cfm). Specific program requirements must be met and eligibility must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Additional detail on the most popular programs are listed following the table. Besides TAP, FHWA funds eligible pedestrian and bicycle projects primarily through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program, Surface Transportation Program (STP), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), and Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation Programs (FLTTP). Each of these programs has different requirements, so to be eligible, pedestrian and bicycle projects must meet program requirements. For examples: • • • •

FTA transit funds may be used for bike lanes and sidewalks if they provide direct access to transit. CMAQ funds must be used for projects that benefit air quality. HSIP projects must address a highway safety problem. NHPP-funded projects must benefit National Highway System (NHS) corridors.

Implementation and Funding

Table 6-1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Opportunities - Federal Sources

Bicycle lanes on road Bicycle parking Bike racks on transit Bicycle share (capital and equipment; not operations) Bicycle storage or service centers Bridges/overcrossings for bicyclists and/or pedestrians Bus shelters and benches Coordinator positions (State or local/Limit 1 per State) Crosswalks (new or retrofit) Curb cuts and ramps Counting equipment Bicyclists/pedestrians data collection and monitoring

x x x x x x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x x x x x x x x

x x x

x x x x

Activity

Helmet promotion (for bicyclists) **Landscaping, streetscaping ***Lighting (pedestrian and bicyclist scale) Maps (for bicyclists and/or pedestrians) Paved shoulders for bicyclist and/or pedestrian use

x x x

x x

Police patrols

Recreational trails Safety brochures, books Safety education positions Separated bicycle lanes Shared use paths/transportation trails Sidewalks (new or retrofit) Signs/signals/signal improvements Signed bicycle or pedestrian routes Spot improvement programs Stormwater impacts related to pedestrian/bicycle projects Traffic calming Trail bridges Trail/highway intersections

x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x

Training Tunnels/undercrossings for bicyclists/pedestrians

x x x x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x

x x x

x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x

x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x x x

x x

x x x x x x

FLTTP

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

402

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

PLAN

SRTS

RTP

x x

x x x x x x x x

NHPP NHS

CMAQ

TAP TE

Bicycle and/or pedestrian plans

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

STP

ADA/504 Self Evaluation/Transition Plan

HSIP

*Access enhancements to public transportation

ATI

Activity

FTA

TIGER

Funding Source

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x

*Includes benches and bus pads **Bicycle and/or pedestrian route; transit access; related amenities (benches, water fountains) ***Associated with pedestrian/bicyclist project

94 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Because bicycle and pedestrian elements are often included in large roadway projects funded through these programs, FHWA division offices can assist in determining options for using multiple funding sources to fund a specific single project. For example, pedestrian and bicycle facilities may be included on rehabilitated, reconstructed or new bridges to improve the overall active transportation network. Funding is also available for non-infrastructure projects. For instance, NHTSA provides funding for behavioral safety aspects, education and enforcement, in coordination with State highway safety offices.

National Highway System (NHS) FHWA guidelines allow NHS capacity and safety needs to be addressed through a mix of on-system and parallel system network streets if a portion of the local network is part of the Federal-aid highway system. All other roads that have a functional classification higher than local road or rural minor collector are eligible for Federal-aid funding through STP. Projects on local roads and rural minor collectors may be eligible, in some cases. STP, TAP and HSIP funds may also be used for bicycle and pedestrian projects along any public road or trail, with no location restrictions. For more information, visit the following webpages: • Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Opportunities: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/ funding/funding_opportunities.cfm • Federal-Aid Highway Program Funding for Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Programs: http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/bipedfund.cfm • FTA Bicycles and Transit Information: http://www.fta.dot.gov/13747_14399.html • Final Policy Statement on Eligibility of Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements under Federal Transit Law: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/08/19/2011-21273/final-policy-statement-onthe-eligibility-of-pedestrian-and-bicycle-improvements-under-federal • CMAQ Program: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/ • STP Eligibility: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/stp.cfm • STP Guidance: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidestprev.cfm • TAP Guidance: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetap.cfm • HSIP Guidance: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehsip.cfm

Recreational Trails Program The California State Parks and Recreation Department administers Recreational Trails Program (RTP) funds. The RTP can be used to fund recreational trails, including bicycle and pedestrian paths.

Safe Routes to School Programs The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) administers two separate Safe Routes to School programs. The first is the State-legislated program referred to as “SR2S” and the second is a federal program referred to as “SRTS.” Both programs are intended to achieve the same basic goal of increasing the number of children walking and biking to school by making it safer for them to do so. SR2S is now a part of the Active Transportation Grant program (ATP) described under “State Sources.” The SRTS Program funds non-motorized facilities that improve access to schools through the Caltrans Safe Routes to School Coordinator. Eligible applicants include State, local and regional agencies experienced in meeting federal transportation requirements. Nonprofit 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.

Implementation and Funding

Eligible projects include stand-alone infrastructure or non-infrastructure projects. Projects must be completed within four years after project is amended into the FTIP. Targeted beneficiaries are children in grades K-8. No local match is required.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) The CDBG entitlement program allocates annual grants to larger cities and urban counties to develop viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and opportunities to expand economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate- income persons. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are eligible uses of these funds. â&#x20AC;¨

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) The U.S. Recreation and Heritage Conservation Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) jointly administer this funding source. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a 50 year old budget neutral program that reinvests a portion of the royalties from offshore oil and gas leasing into recreation and conservation priorities. The program has a tremendous track record of success and broad bipartisan support, and has been used to expand protected areas and improve recreation facilities in every state. Projects acquired or developed under the LWCF program must be primarily for recreational use and not transportation purposes, and the lead agency must guarantee to maintain the facility in perpetuity for public recreation. States receive individual allocations of LWCF grant funds based upon a national formula, with state population being the most influential factor. States initiate a statewide competition for the amount available annually. Applications are evaluated using criteria including priority status within the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The CDPR selects 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 using a population-based formula. Trails are the most commonly approved project. Though it was allowed to expire at the end of September, 2015, widespread public outcry is credited with helping to goad Congress into voting to reauthorize the LWCF with almost 200 co-sponsors in late 2015. It is now funded for three years at $450 million, 50 percent more than previously.

Department of the Interior - National Park Service - Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) This program is the National Park Serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s community assistance arm. The RTCA provides technical assistance to communities to preserve open space and develop trails. RCTA funds can not be used for infrastructure. Assistance is specifically for construction plans, engaging public participation and identifying other sources of funding for conservation and outdoor recreation projects. A local example is the Murrieta Creek Regional Trail, for which the NPS is a prime partner agency.

96 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Table 6-2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Opportunities - State Sources

Funding Sources

x x

Sustainable Transportaiton Planning Grant Program

x x

Office of Traffic Safety - Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program

x x

Disadvantaged Communities

Public Health

Parks and Recreation

Air Quality

Mode share

Transportation Development Act Article 3 (SB-821)

SRTS

Safety

State Highway Account

Programs

Planning

Caltrans ATP

Amenities

Infrastructure

Funding categories

AB 2766 Subvention Program

Per Capita Grant Program

Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris (RZH) Grant Program - Proposition 40

State Sources Caltrans - Active Transportation Program (ATP) The ATP program was created to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, and it is by far the most significant source of funds dedicated to increasing bicycling and walking in California. Its $120 million per year represents approximately one percent of the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual transportation budget. This is a competitive program to increase biking and walking trips, safety and mobility, to support regional agency GHG reduction, enhance public health, benefit disadvantaged communities, and include a broad spectrum of projects. ATP funds bike and pedestrian infrastructure projects, educational and promotional efforts, safe routes to school projects, and active transportation planning. The state awards half of the funds through a competitive grants process. Forty percent goes to metropolitan agencies to distribute and ten percent goes to rural areas. At least 25 percent of all funds must benefit residents in disadvantaged communities. This program consolidates existing federal and State transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program with a focus to make California a national leader in active transportation. The SR2S component of the ATP addresses eligible city and county infrastructure projects. Projects must be within two miles of a grade school or middle school and be completed within four years after project funds are allocated to the agency. Targeted beneficiaries must be children in grades K-12. The ATP is administered by the Division of Local Assistance, Office of Active Transportation and Special Programs. As of March 2015, no local match is required.

Implementation and Funding

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.

Transportation Development Act Article 3 (SB-821) TDA Article 3 funds, also known as the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), can be used by cities for the planning and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and associated activities. These can include engineering expenses leading to construction, right-of-way acquisition, and construction or reconstruction, as well as retrofitting existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities to comply with ADA requirements, route improvements like signal controls for cyclists, bicycle loop detectors and rubberized rail crossings. Also eligible are intersection improvements and the purchase and installation of facilities such as bicycle parking, benches, drinking fountains, rest rooms, showers adjacent to paths and employment centers, parkand-ride lots, and transit terminals accessible to the general public. TDA funds are based on State sales tax. By law, the County Auditorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office estimates the apportionment for the upcoming fiscal year.

Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants are awarded by Caltrans to help a jurisdiction improve sustainable transportation. These grants may be used for a wide range of transportation planning purposes that address local and regional transportation needs and issues. Implementation is intended to ultimately lead to the adoption, initiation and programming of transportation improvements.

Office of Traffic Safety - Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) seeks to reduce motor vehicle fatalities and injuries through a highway safety program. Priority areas include police traffic services, alcohol and other drugs, occupant protection, pedestrian and bicycle safety, emergency medical services, traffic records, roadway safety, and community-based organizations. OTS grants have funded traffic safety rodeos for elementary, middle and high schools, and community groups to increase awareness among various age groups. To boost compliance with the law and decrease injuries, this has included properly fitting and distributing helmets to children in need. Court diversion courses have been established in communities for those violating the bicycle helmet law. Other programs target high-risk populations and areas with multicultural public education addressing safer driving, biking and walking behaviors.

98 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

AB 2766 Subvention Program AB 2766 Clean Air Funds are generated by a surcharge on automobile registration. Air quality management districts allocate funds to cities according to their proportion of the region’s population for projects that improve air quality. Projects can include the design, development and installation of designated bicycle routes, bikeways/bike paths and associated bike trail improvements, such as facilities that safely link residential areas and major activity centers and are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Another eligible category is bicycle facilities that promote and support non-motorized travel, such as bicycle racks, lockers, signals and bus racks, including installation of bike storage units within park and ride facilities, or at trailheads.

Per Capita Grant Program The Per Capita Grant Program is administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation and is intended to maintain a high quality of life for California’s growing population by providing a continuing investment in parks and recreational facilities. Specifically, it supports the acquisition and development of neighborhood, community and regional parks and recreation lands and facilities in urban and rural areas. Per Capita grant funds can only be used for capital outlay, such as bike paths and trails. Regional park districts are eligible recipients.

Roberti-Z’Berg-Harris (RZH) Grant Program – Proposition 40 Funds for this grant program are allocated for projects pursuant to the Roberti-Z’berg- Harris Urban Open Space and Recreational Grant Program for a variety of uses related to parks and recreation. Project receive high priority that satisfy the most urgent park and recreation needs, with emphasis on unmet needs in the most heavily populated and most economically disadvantaged areas within each jurisdiction. Funding is intended to supplement local expenditures for park and recreation facilities. Bike paths and recreational trails are eligible uses of these funds.

Implementation and Funding

Table 6-3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Opportunities - Local sources

Funding Sources

Benefit Assessment Districts

Parks and Recreation

Impact Fees and Developer Mitigation

Mode share

Maintenance

Developer Impact Fees

Amenities

Infrastructure

Funding categories

x x

Business Improvement Districts (BIDs)

x x

User Fees

Property Taxes and Bonds

Resurfacing and Repaving

New construction

General Funds Parking Meter Revenues Adopt-a-Path Program

Local Sources 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 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 to 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.

Impact Fees and Developer Mitigation Local jurisdictions have the option to create their own impact fee and mitigation requirements. Impact fees may be assessed on new development to pay for transportation projects, typically tied to vehicle trip generation rates and traffic impacts generated by a proposed project. A developer may reduce the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- or off-site bikeway improvements that will encourage residents to bicycle rather than drive. In-lieu parking fees may also be used to contribute to the construction of new or improved bicycle parking facilities. Establishing a clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impacts is critical.

100 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Benefit Assessment Districts Bike paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, and related facilities can be funded as part of a local benefit assessment district. However, defining the boundaries of the benefit district may be difficult since the bikeways will have citywide or regional benefit. Sidewalks, trails, intersection crossings and other pedestrian improvements can also be funded through benefit assessment districts.

Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) Bicycle and pedestrian improvements can often be included as part of larger efforts of business improvement and retail district beautification. Similar to benefit assessment districts, business improvement districts (BIDs) collect levies on businesses to fund area-wide improvements that benefit businesses and improve access for customers. These districts may include provisions for bicycle improvements such as bicycle parking or shower and clothing locker amenities, sidewalk improvements and pedestrian crossing enhancements.

User Fees Bicycle lockers and automated bicycle parking could be paid for with user fees. Since it is difficult to know how much revenue such a fee would generate, this funding source would likely require an alternative backup source.

Property Taxes and Bonds Cities and counties may sell bonds to fund bikeways and pedestrian facilities, as well as amenities related to these facilities. A supermajority of two-thirds of voters in the jurisdiction must vote to levy property taxes to repay the bonds.

Resurfacing and Repaving Local jurisdictions can take advantage of opportunities to add bicycle lanes and other markings when streets are resurfaced or repaved. This requires close coordination between the planning or community services and public works departments so that low cost bicycle upgrades opportunities are not missed during normal street maintenance projects.

New Construction Future road widening and construction projects are a means of providing bicycle lanes, pedestrian improvements and trails. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide appropriate measures where needed, it is important that an effective review process or ordinance be in place to ensure that new roads meet the standards and guidelines presented in this master plan. Developers may also be required to dedicate land toward the widening of roadways to provide for enhanced bicycle mobility.

General Funds Cities and counties may spend general funds as they see fit. Any bicycle, pedestrian or trail project could be funded through general funds and matched with other funds.

Parking Meter Revenues Cities can fund various improvements through parking meter revenues. The ordinance that governs the use of the revenues would specify eligible uses. Cities have the option to pass ordinances that specify bicycle or pedestrian facilities as eligible expenditures.

Implementation and Funding

Adopt-a-Path Program Path and trail maintenance can be paid for from private funds in exchange for recognition, such as donor signs along a route. This is often administered through a special account into which donors can pay.

Other Local Sources Local sales taxes and fees may be implemented as new funding sources for bicycle projects. However, either 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 architecture or engineering firm. Work parties could be formed to help clear the right of way for the route. A local construction company 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, in which the businesses can â&#x20AC;&#x153;adoptâ&#x20AC;? a route or segment of one to help construct and maintain it.

101

102 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Table 6-4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Opportunities - Private and Non-Profit

Funding Sources

People for Bikes

Advocacy Advance

American Hiking Association

Environment/Air Quality

Mode share

Safety

Programs x

x x

Parks and Recreation

Public Health

Kaiser Permanente Foundation

Amenities

Infrastructure

Funding categories

x x

Private Sources Private funding may be available through advocacy groups or foundations wanting to enhance and improve public health or bicycle facilities and advocacy. Grant applications are typically intended to leverage supplemental funding in support of other federal, State and private sources.

Kaiser Permanente Foundation The Kaiser Permanente Foundation manages numerous programs to support their Community Health Initiatives. The most applicable is the Medical Center Local Grantmaking Program, whose current funding priorities include addressing obesity and overweight through opportunities for physical activity and service infrastructure for improved community collaboration concerning the impact of the built environment.

Grant Sources Available to Non-Profit Advocacy Organizations People for Bikes People for Bikes’ Community Grants Program typically focuses grant funding on bicycle infrastructure such as paths, lanes, trails and bridges, mountain bike facilities, bike parks and pump tracks, BMX facilities, and end-of-trip facilities such as bicycle parking. Grant funding is also available for other types of noncapital advocacy projects, such as programs that transform city streets, including Ciclovías and initiatives to increase ridership or investment in bicycle infrastructure. Most California grants have been for advocacy efforts in support of constructing Class I facilities.

Advocacy Advance Advocacy Advance’s Rapid Response Grants help State and local organizations take advantage of unexpected opportunities to win, increase, or preserve funding for biking and walking. These grants are for short-term campaigns that will increase or preserve investments in active transportation in communities where program choices are being made on how to spend federal, State, and local funding. Applications are accepted on a rolling basis.

Implementation and Funding

Another program is Advocacy Advanceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s â&#x20AC;&#x153;Big Ideaâ&#x20AC;? Grants intended to help with unforeseen opportunities, short-term campaigns or to push campaigns into the end zone to win funding for biking and walking infrastructure and programs. For either program, the grantee must be an Alliance for Biking and Walking and a League of American Bicyclists member and be a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4), with an immediate opportunity and a specific timeframe for a campaign to raise additional federal, State or local funding for biking and walking infrastructure and/or programs, or proposes a winnable, replicable campaign with measurable results.

American Hiking Association These grants are available to AHS Alliance members who are a also 501(c)(3) certified. Hikers should be the primary constituency, but multi-purpose trail uses are also eligible. Grants focus on supporting other funds acquisition, including conservation easements for projects that will result in access improvements, improved user safety and/or avoidance of environmental damage. Higher preference is often given to projects with volunteer labor.

103

104 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

APPENDIX

Appendices

A-2 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Appendix A: Toolbox - Design Guidelines This appendix is intended to assist in the selection and design of bicycle and trail facilities through illustrating best practices by facility type from public agencies and municipalities nationwide. Design treatments are addressed within a single sheet tabular format relaying important design information and discussion, example photos, schematics (if applicable) and existing summary guidance from current or upcoming draft standards. Existing standards are referenced throughout and should be the first source of information when seeking to implement any of the treatments featured here. Several agencies and organizations provide bike and pedestrian facilities design standards for the US, including the most commonly used manuals shown below.

APPENDIX

National Standards The Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) defines the standards used by roadway managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways and private roadways open to public traffic. The FHWA MUTCD forms the basis of the California MUTCD. To further clarify the MUTCD, the FHWA created a table of contemporary bicycle facilities that lists various bicycle related signs, markings, signals and other treatments and identifies their official status, such as whether it can be implemented or is currently experimental. See Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Bikeway treatments not explicitly covered by the MUTCD are often subject to experiments, interpretations and official rulings by the FHWA. The MUTCD Official Rulings is an online resource that allows website visitors to obtain information about these supplementary materials. Copies of various documents (such as incoming request letters, response letters from the FHWA, progress reports and final reports) are available on this website. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, updated in June 2012 provides guidance on dimensions, use and layout of specific bicycle facilities. The standards and guidelines presented by AASHTO provide basic information, such as minimum sidewalk widths, bicycle lane dimensions, detailed striping requirements and recommended signage and pavement markings. The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) 2014 Urban Bikeway Design Guide is the newest publication of nationally recognized bikeway design standards and offers guidance on current design state of the practice. Its intent is to offer substantive guidance for cities seeking to improve bicycle transportation in places where competing demands for the use of the right-of-way present unique challenges. All of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide treatments are in use internationally and in many cities around the US. Meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is an important part of any bicycle and pedestrian facility project. The United States Access Board’s proposed Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (2010 Standards) contain standards and guidance for the construction of accessible facilities. This includes requirements for sidewalk curb ramps, slope requirements and pedestrian railings along stairs. Some of these treatments are not directly referenced in the current versions of the AASHTO Guide or the MUTCD, although many of the elements of these treatments are found within these documents. In all cases, engineering judgment is recommended to ensure that the application makes sense for the context of each treatment, given the many complexities of urban streets.

Additional References and Guidelines FHWA Bicycle Facilities and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2011. MUTCD Official Rulings, FHWA.

A-3

A-4 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

State Standards and Guidelines California Highway Design Manual (HDM) (2012) This manual establishes uniform policies and procedures to carry out highway design functions for the California Department of Transportation. The 2012 edition incorporated Complete Streets focused revisions to address the Department Directive 64 R-1.

Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians (2010) This California Department of Transportation reference guide presents information and concepts related to improving conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians at major intersections and interchanges. The guide can be used to inform minor signage and striping changes to intersections, as well as major changes and designs for new intersections.

Main Streets: Flexibility in Design & Operations (2005) This Caltrans booklet is an informational guide that reflects many of the recent updates to the Caltrans manuals and policies that improve multimodal access, livability and sustainability within the transportation system. The document will help users locate information about standards and procedures descried in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) and the Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM).

New Legislation Allowing Safety Standards Other Than Caltrans HDM AB-1193, signed into law in September 2014, allows local agencies to adopt, by resolution, safety standards for bikeways other than Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual. According to the Legislative Analyst, AB-1193 “allows local governments to deviate from state criteria when designing bikeways, but does not give them complete control. Cities and counties that elect to use design criteria not contained within the HDM would have to ensure that the alternative criteria have been reviewed and approved by a qualified engineer, are adopted by resolution at a public meeting and adhere to guidelines established by a national association of public agency transportation officials, such as the National Association of City Transportation Officials.” The bill also expands the definition of bikeways to include cycle tracks or separated bikeways, also referred to as “Class IV bikeways,” which promote active transportation and provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.

NCHRP Legal Digest 53: Liability Aspects of Bikeways (2010) This digest is a useful resource for city staff considering innovative engineering solutions to localized issues. The document addresses the liability of public entities for bicycle collisions on bikeways as well as on streets and highways. The report will be useful to attorneys, transportation officials, planners, maintenance engineers and all persons interested in the relative rights and responsibilities of drivers and bicyclists on shared roadways.

APPENDIX

Bicycle Facility Standards Compliance Some of these bicycle facilities covered by these guidelines are not directly referenced in the current versions of the AASHTO Guide or the California MUTCD, although many of the elements of these treatments are found within these documents. An “X” in the following table identifies the inclusion of a particular treatment within the national and state design guides. No marking indicates a treatment is not specifically mentioned, but is allowable assuming MUTCD-compliant signs and markings are used. In all cases, engineering judgment is recommended to ensure that the application makes sense for the context of each treatment, given the potential complexities of any specific site.

California MUTCD (2014)

Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)

Signed Shared Roadway

Marked Shared Roadway

Facility Type

Bicycle Boulevard

Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014)

Bicycle Lane

Buffered Bicycle Lane

“One-way sidepath”

Cycle Tracks Bike Box

Bike Lanes at Right Turn Only Lanes

Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict Areas

FHWA Interim Approval

Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane

Intersection Crossing Markings

Wayfinding Sign Types and Placement

Shared-Use Path

Active Warning Beacons

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons

A-5

A-6 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Multimodal Level of Service Description Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) methods are used to inventory and evaluate existing conditions, or to forecast future conditions for roadway users under different design scenarios. While automobile-oriented LOS measures vehicle delay, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit LOS is oriented toward user comfort. MMLOS scores different modes independently, but their results are interdependent, allowing an understanding of trade-offs between modes for different street designs. A compatible A-F scoring system makes comparison between modes simple. There are a variety of Multimodal or Bicycle/Pedestrian LOS tools available for use. Different tools require different data and may present different or conflicting results. Despite potential limitations of MMLOS methodology, the results help jurisdictions better plan for all road users.

Guidance MMLOS modeling is an emerging practice and current methods continue to be improved and revised. Local resident and planner knowledge should be used to verify MMLOS model results. The current standard for MMLOS calculation is described in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010). This method has limitations, particularly for Bicycle LOS modeling (See Discussion). An alternative MMLOS method/ tool should be considered if HCM 2010 is not appropriate for the community. Other multimodal “Service Quality” tools include: • Florida DOT LOSPLAN • LOS+ • Mineta Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis (Bicycle-only scoring)

Discussion HCM 2010 model for Bicycle LOS calculation limitations include: • Calculations do not address gradients. • Contemporary facility types included in this guide, such as shared lane markings, bike boxes or cycle tracks, are not included in the HCM (Florida LOSPLAN update does feature cycle tracks). • Scoring is for a “typical” adult bicyclist and heavily weighs the presence of bike lanes. Results may not be appropriate in communities that seek to encourage bicycle travel by people of varying ages and abilities where bike lanes may not be adequate.

Additional References and Guidelines Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Florida Department of Transportation, LOSPLAN, 2012. Fehr&Peers, LOS+ Multi-Modal Roadway Analysis Tool. Mineta Transportation Institute, Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, 2011.

APPENDIX

Bicycle Facility Selection There are no “hard and fast” rules for determining the most appropriate type of bicycle facility for a particular location – roadway speeds, volumes, right-of-way width, presence of parking, adjacent land uses and expected bicycle user types are all critical elements of this decision. Studies find that the most significant factors influencing bicycle use are motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds. Additionally, most bicyclists prefer facilities separated from motor vehicle traffic or located on local roads with low motor vehicle traffic speeds and volumes. Because off-street pathways are physically separated from the roadway, they are perceived as safe and attractive routes for bicyclists who prefer to avoid motor vehicle traffic. Consistent use of treatments and application of bikeway facility standards allows users to anticipate whether they would feel comfortable riding on a particular facility and plan their trips accordingly. This section provides guidance on various factors that affect the facility types that should be provided.

Facility Classification

Facility Continua

A-7

A-8 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Facility Continua

The following continua illustrate the range of bicycle facilities applicable to various roadway environments, based on the roadway type and desired degree of separation. Engineering judgment, traffic studies, previous municipal planning efforts, community input and local context should be used to refine criteria when developing bicycle facility recommendations for a particular street. In some corridors, it may be desirable to construct facilities to a higher level of treatment than those recommended in relevant planning documents in order to enhance user safety and comfort. In other cases, existing and/or future motor vehicle speeds and volumes may not justify the recommended level of separation and a less intensive treatment may be acceptable.

APPENDIX

Facility Classification Description Consistent with bicycle facility classifications throughout the United States, these design guidelines identify the following facility classes by degree of separation from motor vehicle traffic. Shared Roadways (No bikeway designation) are bikeways where bicyclists and cars operate within the same travel lane, either side by side or in single file depending on roadway configuration. In some instances, streets may be fully adequate and safe without bicycle specific signing and pavement markings. Class III (Bike Routes) are Shared Roadways configured with pavement markings, signage and other

treatments including directional signage, traffic diverters, chicanes, chokers and /or other traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes. Such enhanced treatments often are associated with Bicycle Boulevards.

Class II (Bike Lanes) use signage and striping to delineate the right-of-way assigned to bicyclists and

vehicle drivers. Bike lanes encourage predictable movements by both bicyclists and drivers.

A-9

A-10 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Class IV (Cycle Tracks) are exclusive bike facilities that combine the user experience of a separated path

with the on-street infrastructure of conventional bike lanes.

Class I (Multi-use Paths) are facilities separated from roadways for use by primarily bicyclists and

pedestrians, as well as other users.

APPENDIX

Shared Roadways On shared roadways, bicyclists and motor vehicles use the same roadway space. These facilities are typically on roadways with low speeds and traffic volumes, but they can be used on higher volume roads with wide outside lanes or shoulders. A vehicle driver will usually have to cross over into the adjacent travel lane to pass a bicyclist, unless a wide outside lane or shoulder is provided. Typical shared roadways often employ a variety of treatments, primarily signage and lane markings. Bicycle boulevards are a special class of shared roadways designed for a broad spectrum of bicyclists. They are low-volume local streets where drivers and bicyclists share the same travel lane. Bicycle boulevards treatments are selected as necessary to support appropriate vehicle volumes and speeds and to provide safe crossing opportunities of busy streets. Bicycle boulevards usually employ more complex treatments than other shared roadways, including traffic diverters, chicanes, chokers and other traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes. See Pages 14-15 for examples.

Signed Shared Roadway

Marked Shared Roadway

Bicycle Boulevard

A-11

A-12 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Signed Shared Roadway Description Class III facilities are generally located on roadways with lower speeds and traffic volumes. Class III facilities are designated as roadways with no striped bicycle lanes, but include signage to indicate the roadway is a bicycle route. Shared roadways can be used on higher volume roads with wide outside lanes or shoulders. A vehicle driver will usually have to cross over into the adjacent travel lane to pass a bicyclist, unless a wide outside lane or shoulder is provided.

Guidance “BIKE ROUTE” - This sign (D11-1) is intended for use where no unique route designation is desired. However, when used alone, this sign conveys very little information. Directional changes should be signed with appropriate arrow sub-plaques (D1-1b) or directional signage. “BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE” (BMUFL) - This sign (R4-11) sign may be used: • On roadways without bicycle lanes or adjacent shoulders usable by cyclists and where travel lanes are too narrow for cyclists and motor vehicles to safely operate side-by-side. • In locations where it is important to inform all road users that cyclists may occupy the travel lane.

Discussion A BICYCLE MAY USE FULL LANE sign (R4-11) may be used on a lane too narrow for a bicycle and an automobile to share the road side by side within the same lane).

Materials and Maintenance Maintenance needs for bicycle wayfinding signs are similar to other signs and will need periodic replacement due to wear and fading. SHARE THE ROAD plaque (W16-1p) may be used in conjunction with bicycle warning sign (W11-1) to warn drivers to watch for slower forms of transportation

MUTCD D11-1

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. California MUTCD, 2014.

APPENDIX

Marked Shared Roadway Description The shared lane marking (SLM) or “Sharrow” is commonly used where vehicle parking is provided 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. If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel lane less than 14 feet wide, the centers of the Shared Lane Markings should be at least four feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. (Note that these criteria are evolving and that it is now common practice to place SLMs in the center of the rightmost travel lane.)

Guidance Shared lane markings may be considered in the following situations: • On roadways with speeds of 40 mph or less (CA MUTCD). • On constrained roadways too narrow to stripe with bicycle lanes. • To delineate space within a wide outside lane where cyclists can be expected to ride. • On roadways where it is important to increase vehicle driver awareness of cyclists. • On roadways where cyclists tend to ride too close to parked vehicles.

MUTCD D11-1 Minimum placement 11’ from curb

When placed adjacent to parking, SLMs should be outside “Door Zone” Placement in center of travel lane is preferred in constrained conditions

A-13

A-14 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Discussion Bike lanes should be considered on roadways with outside travel lanes wider than 15 feet, or where other lane narrowing or removal strategies may provide adequate road space. SLMs can not be used in shoulders, designated bike lanes, or to designate bicycle detection at signalized intersections. (MUTCD 9C.07)

Materials and Maintenance Placing SLMs between vehicle tire tracks will increase the life of the markings and minimize the long-term cost of the treatment.

MUTCD D11-1 Minimum placement 11’ from curb

When placed adjacent to parking, SLMs should be outside “Door Zone” Placement in center of travel lane preferred in constrained conditions

Additional References and Guidelines Caltrans HDM Chapter 300. California MUTCD 2014. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. Model Design Manual of Living Streets, 2011. FHWA MUTCD, Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA14).

APPENDIX

Bicycle Boulevard Description Bicycle boulevards are low-volume, low-speed streets modified to enhance bicyclist comfort by using treatments such as signage, pavement markings, traffic calming and/or traffic reduction and intersection modifications. These treatments allow through movements of bicyclists while discouraging similar throughtrips by non-local motorized traffic.

Guidance • Signs and pavement markings are minimum treatments necessary to designate a street as a bicycle boulevard. • Bicycle boulevards should have a maximum posted speed of 25 mph. Use traffic calming to maintain an 85th percentile speed below 22 mph. • Implement volume control treatments based on bicycle boulevard context, using engineering judgment. Target motor vehicle volumes range from 1,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day. • Intersection crossings should be designed to enhance safety and minimize delay for bicyclists. Shared lane markings are MUTCD compliant and widely used to mark bicycle boulevards.

Signs identify street as a bicycle priority route. MUTCD D11-1

Enhanced Crossings: Use signals, beacons and road geometry to increase safety at major intersections.

Partial closures and other volume management tools limit the number of cars traveling on the bicycle boulevard.

A-15

A-16 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Discussion The term â&#x20AC;&#x153;bicycle boulevardâ&#x20AC;? implies a facility that encourages bicycle usage while reducing motor vehicle volumes and/or speeds to a greater extent than on a typical Class III route. Methods used may include preferential treatment such as turn restrictions, contra-flow access through one-way streets, exclusive traffic signal phases, or the reorientation of stop sign control to favor the bicycle boulevard. Traffic calming techniques may include curb extensions, chokers, traffic circles, roundabouts, speed humps, turn restrictions or barricades.

Materials and Maintenance Vegetation should be regularly trimmed to maintain visibility and attractiveness.

Additional References and Guidelines Caltrans HDM Chapter 300. California MUTCD 2014. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. FHWA Mini-Roundabouts, 2010.

Curb Extensions: Shorten pedestrian crossing distance.

Mini Traffic Circles: Slow drivers in advance of intersections.

APPENDIX

Separated Bikeways Designated exclusively for bicycle travel, separated bikeways are segregated from vehicle travel lanes by striping (Class II - Bicycle Lane), or physical measures such as bollards or curbs (Class IV - Cycle Tracks). Separated bikeways are most appropriate on arterial and collector streets where higher traffic volumes and speeds warrant greater separation. Separated bikeways can increase safety and promote proper riding by: • Defining road space for bicyclists and drivers, reducing the possibility that drivers will stray into the bicyclists’ path. • Discouraging bicyclists from riding on the sidewalk. • Reducing the incidence of wrong way riding. • Reminding drivers that bicyclists have a right to the road.

Bicycle Lane

Bicycle Lanes and Diagonal Parking

Buffered Bicycle Lanes

Cycle Tracks

A-17

A-18 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Bicycle Lane Description This facility provides an exclusive lane for one-way bicycle 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. On streets with on-street parking, bicycle lanes are located between the parking area and the traffic lanes and used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Many bicyclists, particularly less experienced riders, are more comfortable riding on a busy street if it has a striped and signed bikeway than if they are expected to share a lane with vehicles.

Guidance Provide five foot minimum width for bicycle lanes located between parking and traffic lanes. Six feet desired. • Provide four foot minimum width if no gutter exists. With a normal two foot gutter, minimum bicycle lane width is five feet. • 14.5 feet preferred from curb face to edge of bike lane (12 foot minimum). • Seven foot maximum width for use adjacent to arterials with high travel speeds. Greater widths may encourage motor vehicle use of bike lane. When approaching an intersection with right turn only lanes, the bike lane should be transitioned to a through bike lane to the left of the right turn only lane.

Discussion Wider bicycle lanes are desirable in certain situations such as on higher speed arterials (45 mph+) where use of a wider bicycle lane would increase separation between passing vehicles and bicyclists. Consider buffered bicycle lanes when further separation is desired.

Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas. 3’ minimum ridable surface outside of gutter seam

4” white line or parking “Ts”

R81 (CA)

6” white line

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. Caltrans California HDM, 2012. California MUTCD, 2014.

14.5’ preferred

APPENDIX

Bicycle Lanes and Diagonal Parking Description The 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 vehicle drivers may find their views blocked by large vehicles or tinted windows in adjacent vehicles. The presence of raised median islands helps prevent drivers from using a back-in stall for head-in parking.

Guidance Based on existing dimensions from test sites and permanent facilities, provide 16 feet from curb edge to inner bicycle lane stripe and a five foot bicycle lane.

Discussion Test the facility on streets with existing head-in angled parking and moderate to high bicycle traffic. Additional signs to direct vehicle driver in how the back-in angled parking works is recommended.

Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas.

Additional References and Guidelines Back-in/Head-out Angle Parking, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, 2005. City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan Update, City of Los Angeles.

Back-in Diagonal Parking

R81 (CA) 2â&#x20AC;&#x2122; buffer space

A-19

A-20 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Buffered Bicycle Lane Description Buffered bike lanes are defined in the Urban Bikeway Guide as “conventional bike lanes paired with a buffered space separating the bike lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane.” Buffered bike lanes are allowed per California 2014 MUTCD guidelines for buffered preferential lanes (Section 3D-01). Conventional bike lanes typically provide 5 to 6 foot wide space between the curb and travel lane. However, many bicyclists are uncomfortable riding this close to moving traffic particularly on higher speed and/or higher volume roadways. A recent Portland State University study titled “Evaluation of Innovative Bicycle Facilities,” shows that bicyclists feel a lower risk of being “doored” in a buffered bike lane and nearly nine in ten bicyclists prefer buffered lanes to standard lanes. Seven in ten bicyclists indicated they would go out of their way to ride on a buffered bike lane over a standard lane. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design guides list several advantages of buffered lanes including: • Providing “shy” distance between motor vehicles and bicyclists. • Providing space for bicyclists to pass another bicyclist without encroaching into the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane. • Encouraging bicyclists to ride outside the door zone when buffer is between parked cars and the bike lane. • Providing a greater space for bicycling without making the bike lane appear so wide that it might be mistaken for a travel or parking lane. • Appealing to a wider cross-section of bicycling users. • And encouraging bicycling by contributing to the perception of safety among users of the bicycle network. There • • •

are three types of buffers: Parking or side or curb buffer Travel lane side buffer Combined side or double buffer

Parking Side or Curb Buffers Parking or curb side buffers provide space between the bicyclist and parked cars or the gutter pan. This (1) reduces the potential for a bicyclist to strike a car door being opened by a driver, (2) eliminates use of the gutter pan as part of the bike lane and (3) moves the bicyclist out of the blind spots of drivers approaching on the side streets or driveways. The limitation to the parking side or curb side buffer is that they do not provide the “shy space” that makes bicyclists feel more comfortable, but they do reduce the risk of dooring and the use of the gutter pan as part of the bike lane.

Travel Side Buffer Travel side buffers provide space between the bicyclist and motor vehicles in the travel lane. High speed, high volume roadways make many bicyclists uncomfortable. Recent studies from the Portland State have shown that a simple buffer substantially increases the level of comfort for most bicyclists.

Combined Side or Double Sided Buffer The combined side or double sided buffer offers the advantage of guiding the bicyclists away from the door zone while providing a perceived safer distance between the bicyclist and the motor vehicles.

APPENDIX

Guidance According to California MUTCD 2014 Section 3D, buffered bike lanes are considered “allowable” treatments. Signage and dimensional guidelines are the same as for Class II bicycle lanes. Additional guidance is included in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. • Bike lane word and/or symbol shall be used (MUTCD Figure 9C-3). • The buffer shall have interior diagonal cross hatching or chevron markings if it is three feet in width or wider. • The buffer shall be marked with two white lines. California MUTCD 2014 standards (Section 3D.01) indicate that for a bicyclist to be allowed to cross a double white line, it must be dashed (these are the same standards applied to buffered HOV Lanes). Therefore, it is recommended that the inside line be dashed instead of solid. • Buffers should be at least 24 inches wide.

Discussion Add diagonal striping on the outer buffer adjacent to the traffic lanes every 10 feet. However longitudinal spacing should be determined by engineering judgment considering factors such as speed and desired visual impacts. • On-street parking remains adjacent to the curb. • A travel lane may need to be eliminated or narrowed to accommodate buffers.

Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas.

Additional References and Guidelines NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. CA MUTCD, 2014. Color may be used at the beginning of each block to discourage drivers from entering the buffered lane

Parking side buffer designed to discourage riding in the “door zone” R81 (CA)

Travel side (left) and parking side (right) buffers

A-21

A-22 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Cycle Track Description Cycle tracks, which were recently officially designated as Class IV bikeway facilities in California, are an exclusive bike facility that combines the user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. Cycle tracks are physically separated from motor traffic and distinct from the sidewalk. They differ from buffered lanes in that the bicyclist is separated from travel lanes by a physical barrier. Cycle tracks have different forms but all share common elements. They provide space exclusively or primarily used by bicycles and are separated from motor vehicle travel lanes, parking lanes and sidewalks. Raised cycle tracks may be at the level of the adjacent sidewalk or set at an intermediate level between the roadway and sidewalk to separate the cycle track from the pedestrian area. Over the past five years, more than 100 new separated bike facilities have been added in the US. This relatively new type of facility has been shown to be effective in increasing the number of bicyclists using the street, increasing safety for bicyclists, pedestrians and drivers and increasing access to local businesses (Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the US, National Institute for Transportation and Communities, 2014) Separated bikeways can increase safety and promote proper riding by: • Defining road space for bicyclists and drivers, reducing the possibility that drivers will stray into the bicyclists’ path. • Discouraging bicyclists from riding on the sidewalk.

Guidance Cycle tracks should ideally be placed along streets with long blocks and few driveways or mid-block motor vehicle access points.

One-Way Cycle Tracks NACTO Guidelines recommend seven foot minimum width to allow passing and five foot minimum in constrained locations. Note: In accordance with AB-1193, local agency must pass a resolution to adopt NACTO Guidelines in lieu of Caltrans Highway Design Manual if one-way cycle track width is less than nine feet. • One way cycle tracks can be either conventional flow (go the same direction as the adjacent traffic) or contra-flow (opposite direction of adjacent traffic flow, such as to the left side of traffic on a oneway street). R81 (CA) 3’ parking buffer

Locate cycle track between parking lane and sidewalk

Cycle track can be raised or at street level

APPENDIX

Two-Way Cycle Tracks â&#x20AC;˘ Cycle tracks on one-way streets have fewer potential conflict areas than those on two-way streets. â&#x20AC;˘ 12 foot recommended minimum for two-way facility. Eight foot minimum in constrained locations. Note: In accordance with AB-1193, local agency must pass resolution to adopt NACTO Guidelines in lieu of Caltrans Highway Design Manual if two-way cycle track is less than 12 feet wide.

Discussion Special consideration should be given at transit stops to manage bicycle and pedestrian interactions. Driveways and minor street crossings are unique challenges to cycle track design. Parking should be prohibited within 30 feet of the intersection to improve visibility.

Materials and Maintenance Depending on the width, barrier-separated and raised cycle tracks may require smaller sweeping equipment.

Additional References and Guidelines NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the US, National Institute for Transportation and Communities, 2014.

R81 (CA)

A-23

A-24 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Separated Bikeways at Intersections Intersections are junctions at which different modes of transportation meet and facilities overlap. Intersection facilitate the interchange between bicyclists, drivers, pedestrians and other modes to advance traffic flow in a safe and efficient manner. Designs for intersections with bicycle facilities should reduce conflict between bicyclists (and other vulnerable road users) and vehicles by heightening the level of visibility, denoting clear right-of-way and facilitating eye contact and awareness with other modes. Intersection treatments can improve both queuing and merging maneuvers for bicyclists and are often coordinated with timed or specialized signals. The configuration of a safe intersection for bicyclists may include elements such as color, signage, medians, signal detection and pavement markings. Intersection design should take into consideration existing and anticipated bicyclist, pedestrian and driver movements. In all cases, the degree of mixing or separation between bicyclists and other modes is intended to reduce the risk of crashes and increase bicyclist comfort. The level of treatment required for bicyclists at an intersection will depend on the bicycle facility type used, whether bicycle facilities are intersecting and the adjacent street function and land use.

Bike Boxes

Bike Lanes and Right Turn Only Lanes

Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict Areas

Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane

Intersection Crossing Markings

APPENDIX

Bike Box Description A bike box is a designated area located at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible space to get in front of queuing motorized traffic during the red signal phase. Motor vehicles must queue behind the white stop line at the rear of the bike box.

Guidance Bike boxes are currently experimental treatments and require more data before an official ruling is made by the FHWA. Obtaining experimental approval is a 4-6 week process and evaluation of the treatment is performed for a minimum of one year. • 10-16 foot depth. Deeper boxes help to prevent motor vehicle encroachment. • “STOP HERE ON RED” sign should be post mounted at stop line to reinforce stop line observance. • “YIELD TO BIKES” sign should be post-mounted in advance of and in conjunction with an egress lane to reinforce that bicyclists have the right-of-way going through the intersection. • An ingress lane should be used to provide access to the box. • Supplemental “WAIT HERE” legend can be provided in advance of stop bar to increase visibility. • Requires permission to experiment from Federal Highway Administration.

Discussion Bike boxes should be placed only at signalized intersections and motor vehicle right turns on red shall be prohibited. Bike boxes should be used in locations that have a large volume of bicyclists and are best utilized in central areas where traffic is usually moving more slowly.

Materials and Maintenance Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority.

Additional References and Guidelines NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. FHWA MUTCD Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes and Interim Approval (IA-14), 2011.

A-25

A-26 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

May be combined with intersection crossing markings and colored bike lanes in conflict areas

R10-11

Colored pavement can be used in box for increased visibility R10-15 variant Wide stop lines used for increased visibility R10-6a

If used, colored pavement should extend 50â&#x20AC;&#x2122; from the intersection

APPENDIX

Bike Lanes at Right Turn Only Lanes

A-27

Guidance

At auxiliary right turn only lanes (add lane): • Continue existing bike lane width; standard width Description of 5 to 6 feet (4 feet in constrained locations). The appropriate treatment at right-turn lanes is to • Use signage to indicate that drivers should place the bike lane between the right-turn lane yield to bicyclists through the conflict area. and the right-most through lane or, where right• Consider using colored conflict areas to of-way is insufficient, to use a shared bike lane/ promote visibility of the mixing zone. Where a turn lane. The design (right) illustrates a bike through lane becomes a right turn lane: lane pocket, with signage indicating that drivers • Do not define a dotted line merging path for should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area. bicyclists. • Drop bicycle lane in advance of merge area. • Use shared lane markings to Colored pavement may be used in the indicate shared use of the lane in the transition area to increase visibility and merging zone. awareness of potential conflict

MUTCD R4-4 (optional) Optional dotted lines

Discussion For other potential approaches to providing accommodations for bicyclists at intersections with turn lanes, please see combined bike lane/ turn lane, bicycle signals and colored bike facilities.

Materials and Maintenance Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority.

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. California MUTCD, 2014. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. Caltrans California HDM, 2012. Caltrans Complete Intersections, 2010.

A-28 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict Areas Description The Federal Highway Administrative (FHWA) has granted the State of California approval for optional use of green colored pavement in marked bicycle lanes and in extensions of bicycle lanes through intersections and other traffic conflict areas. It should be noted that the green colored pavement as described under this approval is used for two different situations:

White dotted edge lines should define colored space

• To denote a lane exclusively for bicyclists. • To advise drivers and bicyclists that they are sharing the same patch of pavement and should be aware of each other’s presence. Local agencies have adopted different philosophies on the usage of green colored pavement. Some agencies use green colored pavement only for Class II lanes where bicyclists have exclusive use and leave the conflict zones uncolored. Other agencies use the green colored pavement only in conflict zones, such as the weave shown in the figure below.

MUTCD R4-4 (optional)

APPENDIX

Guidance Jurisdictions must notify Caltrans where the treatment is being installed as part of FHWA’s conditions to maintain an inventory list. At auxiliary right turn only lanes (add lane): • Continue existing bike lane width; standard width of 5 to 6 feet (4 feet in constrained locations). • Use signage to indicate that drivers should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area. • Consider using colored conflict areas to promote visibility of the mixing zone. Where a through lane becomes a right turn lane: • Do not define a dotted line merging path for bicyclists. • Drop the bicycle lane in advance of the merge area. • Use shared lane markings to indicate shared use of the lane in the merging zone

Discussion The best practices for green colored pavement are still evolving. As of this date, more agencies use green colored pavement for conflict zones than for exclusive bicyclist lanes. The amount of green paint used by such agencies varies dramatically. Some agencies fill the entire conflict zone with solid green paint, while others use a pattern of green stripes. Some agencies use green colored pavement across every driveway, alley and cross streets, while others reserve the use of green colored pavement for conflict zones that merit special attention. The precise design of green colored pavement remains at the discretion of the local agencies. It should be noted that combing a shared lane marking (“sharrow”) within green colored pavement is no longer approved for new experimentation by the FHWA. However, the FHWA may accept for experimentation the use of green colored pavement as a “background conspicuity enhancement.”

Materials and Maintenance Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority.

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. California MUTCD, 2014 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. Caltrans California HDM, 2012. Caltrans Complete Intersections, 2010.

A-29

A-30 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane Description The combined bicycle/right turn lane places a standard-width bike lane on the left side of a dedicated right turn lane. A dotted line delineates the space for bicyclists and drivers within the shared lane. This treatment includes signage advising drivers and bicyclists of proper positioning within the lane. This treatment is recommended at intersections lacking sufficient space to accommodate both a standard through bike lane and right turn lane.

Short length turn pockets encourage slower motor vehicle speeds

Guidance The FHWA has disallowed the experimental use of combined bike lane/turn lane markings. Previously, installations were as follows: Maximum shared turn lane width is 13 feet; narrower is preferable. • Bike lane pocket should have a minimum width of 4 feet with 5 feet preferred. • Dotted 4 inch line and bicycle lane marking should be used to clarify bicyclist positioning within the combined lane, without excluding cars from the suggested bicycle area. • “RIGHT TURN ONLY” sign with an “EXCEPT BICYCLES” plaque may be needed for through bicyclists to legally use a right turn lane.

R4-4

Discussion

Additional References and Guidelines

Unless the FHWA resumes granting permission to experiment with a combined bike lane/turn lane, this treatment will not be recommended.

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012.

Materials and Maintenance Because the effectiveness of markings depends on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority.

APPENDIX

Intersection Crossing Markings Description Bicycle pavement markings through intersections indicate the intended path of bicyclists through an intersection or across a driveway or ramp. They guide bicyclists on a safe and direct path through the intersection and provide a clear boundary between the paths of through bicyclists and either through or crossing motor vehicles in the adjacent lane.

Chevrons

Shared Lane Markings

Colored Conflict Zones

Guidance • See MUTCD Section 3B.08: “dotted line extensions” • Crossing striping shall be at least six inches wide when adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes. • Dotted lines should be two-foot lines spaced two to six feet apart. • Chevrons, shared lane markings, or colored bike lanes in conflict areas may be used to increase visibility within conflict areas or across entire intersections.

Elephant’s Elephant’s Feet in ConFeet flict Areas 2’ stripe 2-6’ gap

Discussion

Additional References and Guidelines

Additional markings such as chevrons, shared lane markings, or colored bike lanes in conflict areas are strategies currently in use in the United States and Canada. Cities considering the implementation of markings through intersections should standardize future designs to avoid confusion.

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. California MUTCD, 2014. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014.

Materials and Maintenance Because the effectiveness of marked crossings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining marked crossings should be a high priority.

A-31

A-32 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Two-Stage Turn Box Description Many bicyclists are reluctant to cross traffic lanes to turn left. Two-stage turn boxes offer bicyclists a safe way to make left turns at multi-lane signalized intersections from a right side cycle track or bike lane. Bicyclists continue straight while the traffic signal displays green for the original direction of travel during the first stage of a traffic signal and then wait for the second stage when the cross street receives a green light to complete the move.

Discussion While two stage turns may increase bicyclist comfort in many locations, it results in higher average signal delay for bicyclists versus a vehicular style left turn maneuver.

Guidance • Two-stage turn box to facilitate jughandle turn at T-intersection is presently allowed in the Federal and California MUTCDs. • Two-stage turn box for use other than for jughandle turn at T-intersection is experimental. Required design elements include bicycle symbol pavement marking, a pavement marking turn or through arrow, full-time turn on red prohibition for the cross street and passive detection of bicycles if the signal phase that permits bicyclists to enter the intersection during the second stage of their turn is actuated. • Green colored pavement is optional. Turns from a bicycle lane may be protected by an adjacent parking lane or crosswalk setback.

Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates.

Additional References and Guidelines NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014.

Turns from bicycle lane may be protected by parking lane or other physical buffer

APPENDIX

Bike Lanes at Diverging Ramp Lanes Description Some arterials may include high speed freewaystyle design, such as merge lanes and exit ramps, which can create difficulties for bicyclists. These entrance and exit lanes typically have intrinsic visibility problems because of low approach angles and high speed differentials between bicyclists and motor vehicles. Strategies to improve safety focus on increasing sight distances, creating formal crossings and minimizing crossing distances.

Crossing located before drivers’ attention is focused on upcoming merge

W11-1

Guidance Entrance Ramps: Angle bike lane to increase approach angle with entering traffic. Position crossing to draw drivers’ attention prior to being focused on upcoming merge.

Exit Ramps: Use a jug handle turn to increase bicyclists approach angle with exiting traffic and add yield striping and signage to the bicycle approach. Colored pavement within bicycle lane increases facility visibility and reinforces bicyclists’ priority in conflict areas.

Custom Sign

W11-1

Discussion

Additional References and Guidelines

Green colored pavement is optional.

California MUTCD, 2014. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. Caltrans Complete Intersections, 2010.

Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates. Locate crossing markings out of wheel tread when possible to minimize wear and maintenance costs.

A-33

A-34 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Freeway Interchange Design Description

Guidance

Freeway Interchanges can be significant obstacles to bicycling if they are poorly designed. Travel through some interchange designs may be particularly challenging for youth bicyclists. Key design features at conflict areas through interchanges should be included to improve the experience for bicyclists.

Entrance Ramps:

• Right-turn lane should be configured with a taper as an “add-lane” for drivers turning right onto the freeway entrance ramp. • Bike lane should be provided along left side of right turn lane. Dotted through bike lane striping provides clear priority for bicyclists at right turn “add lane” on-ramps.

Exit Ramps: • Drivers existing freeway and turning onto crossroad should be controlled by a stop sign, signal, or yield sign, rather than allowing free flowing movement.

Discussion The on-ramps should be configured as a rightturn-only “add lane” to assert through bicyclist priority. Designs that function for bicycle passage typically encourage slowing or require motor vehicle traffic to slow or stop. Designs that encourage high-speed traffic movements are difficult for bicyclists to negotiate.

Materials and Maintenance Locate crossing markings out of wheel tread when possible to minimize wear and maintenance costs.

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. California MUTCD, 2014. Caltrans Complete Intersections, 2010.

APPENDIX

Signalization Determining which type of signal or beacon to use for a particular intersection depends on a variety of factors. These include speed limits, Average Daily Traffic (ADT), anticipated bicycle crossing traffic and the configuration of planned or existing bicycle facilities. Signals may be necessary as part of the construction of a protected bicycle facility such as a cycle track with potential turning conflicts, or to decrease vehicle or pedestrian conflicts at major crossings. An intersection with bicycle signals may reduce stress and delays for a crossing bicyclist and discourage illegal and unsafe crossing maneuvers.

Bicycle Detection and Actuation

Bicycle Signal Head

A-35

A-36 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Bicycle Detection and Actuation Loop Detectors or Video Detectors For signalized intersection movements that do not normally receive a green light unless actuated by a car or pedestrian, the California Vehicle Code requires installation of detectors capable of detecting bicyclists at the limit line. This is most commonly done with either inductive loop detectors or video detection. Traffic actuated signals should be sensitive to bicycles, should be located in the bicyclist’s expected path and stenciling should direct the bicyclist to the point where the bicycle will be detected. This allows the bicyclist to stay within the lane of travel without having to maneuver to the side of the road to trigger a push button.

Push Button Actuation A bicyclist pushbutton may be used to supplement the required limit line detectors. These buttons should be mounted in a location that permits their activation by a bicyclist without having to dismount.

Discussion Bicycle detection should meet two primary criteria: • Accurately detect bicyclists. • Provide clear guidance to bicyclists on how to actuate detection (e.g., what button to push, where to stand). Requirement for bicycle detection at all new and modified approaches to traffic signals is included in 2014 California MUTCD.

Materials and Maintenance Signal detection and actuation for bicyclists should be maintained with other traffic signal detection and roadway pavement markings.

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. California MUTCD. 2014. Caltrans Policy Directive 09-06, 2009. Caltrans Complete Intersections, 2010.

Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor Detection (RTMS) RTMS is uses radio signals to detect objects and marks the detected object with a time code to determine its distance from the sensor. The RTMS system is unaffected by temperature and lighting, which can affect standard video detection.

Push button activation

Bicycle detector pavement marking (MUTCD Figure 9C-7)

APPENDIX

Bicycle Signal Heads

Guidance

Description

California MUTCD Bicycle Signal Warrant is based on bicyclist volumes, collision history, or geometric warrants:

The California MUTCD authorizes bicycle signal heads only at locations that meet Caltrans Bicycle Signal Warrants. FHWA’s Interim Approval IA-I6 specifies a more detailed application of bicycle signal indications. Bicycle signal heads may be used for a movement not in conflict with any simultaneous motor vehicle movements at a signalized intersection, including right or left turns on red. The bicycle movement may not be modified by lane-use signs, turn prohibition signs, pavement markings, separate turn signal indications, or other traffic control devices. The signal lens size may be 4 inches, 8 inches, or 12 inches, with 4 inch lens size reserved only for supplemental near-side mountings.

A-37

• Those with high peak hour bicyclist volumes. • Those with high bicycle/motor vehicle collision numbers, especially those caused by turning vehicle movements. • Where a multi-use path intersects a roadway. • At locations to facilitate a bicycle movement not permitted for a motor vehicle. • Bicycle signals must utilize appropriate detection and actuation.

Discussion For improved visibility, smaller (4 inch lens) nearside bicycle signals should be considered to supplement far-side signals.

Materials and Maintenance Bicycle signal heads require the same maintenance as standard traffic signal heads, such as lamp replacement and responding to power outages.

Additional References and Guidelines FHWA Interim Approval IA-I6, 2013. California MUTCD, 2014.

A-38 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Active Warning Beacons Description

Guidance

Active warning beacons are user actuated illuminated devices designed to increase motor vehicle yielding compliance at crossings of multi lane or high volume roadways. Types of active warning beacons include conventional circular yellow flashing beacons, in roadway warning lights, or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB). RRFBs have blanket approval in California per FHWA MUTCD IA11.

Warning beacons shall not be used at crosswalks controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs or traffic signals. â&#x20AC;˘ Warning beacons shall initiate operation based on pedestrian or bicyclist actuation and shall cease operation at a predetermined time after actuation or, with passive detection, after the pedestrian or bicyclist clears the crosswalk.

Providing secondary installations of RRFBs on median islands improves driver yielding behavior

Median refuge islands provide added comfort and crossing should be angled to direct users to face oncoming traffic

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) dramatically increase compliance over conventional warning beacons

W11-15 W16-7P

Discussion

Additional References and Guidelines

Rectangular rapid flash beacons have the highest compliance of all warning beacon enhancement options. A study of the effectiveness of going from a no-beacon arrangement to a twobeacon RRFB installation increased yielding from 18 percent to 81 percent. A four-beacon arrangement raised compliance to 88 percent.

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. California MUTCD, 2014. FHWA Interim Approval (IA-11), 2008. Caltrans Complete Intersections, 2010.

Materials and Maintenance Depending on power supply, maintenance can be minimal. Solar-powered RRFBs can operate for years without issue.

APPENDIX

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons Description

Guidance

A pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), previously known as a high-intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK), consists of a signal head with two red lenses over a single yellow lens on the major street and pedestrian and/or bicycle signal heads for the minor street. There are no signal indications for motor vehicles on the minor street approaches. Pedestrian hybrid beacons are used to improve non-motorized crossings of major streets in locations where side-street volumes do not support installation of a conventional traffic signal or where there are concerns that a conventional signal will encourage additional motor vehicle traffic on the minor street. Hybrid beacons may also be used at mid-block crossing locations.

Pedestrian hybrid beacons may be installed without meeting traffic signal control warrants. The need should be considered on the basis of an engineering study that considers speed , major-street volumes and gaps: â&#x20AC;˘ If installed within a signal system, signal engineers should evaluate the need for the pedestrian hybrid beacon to be coordinated with other signals. â&#x20AC;˘ Parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the marked crosswalk.

May be paired with bicycle signal head to clarify bicycle movement W11-15

Discussion

Materials and Maintenance

An alternative to a pedestrian hybrid beacon is a standard signal face that displays a flashing red indication during the pedestrian clearance phase. The advantage of a standard signal face is that it displays no dark indications that could be interpreted by a driver to be a symptom of a power outage that requires coming to a stop.

Signing and striping need to be maintained to help users understand any unfamiliar traffic control.

Additional References and Guidelines California MUTCD, 2014.

A-39

A-40 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Retrofitting Existing Streets to Accommodate Bikeways Most major streets are characterized by high vehicle speeds and/or volumes for which dedicated bike lanes are the most appropriate facility to accommodate safe and comfortable riding. Although opportunities to add bike lanes through roadway widening may exist in some locations, many major streets have physical and other constraints that would require street retrofit measures within existing curb-to-curb widths. As a result, much of the guidance provided in this section focuses on effectively reallocating existing street width through striping modifications to accommodate dedicated bike lanes.

Lane Narrowing

Although largely intended for major streets, these measures may be appropriate for any roadway where bike lanes would be the best accommodation for bicyclists.

Lane Reconfiguration

APPENDIX

Lane Narrowing (“Lane Diet”) Description

Guidance Vehicle Lane Width

Lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds minimum standards to provide the needed space for bike lanes. Many roadways have existing travel lanes wider than those prescribed in local and national roadway design standards, or which are not marked. Most standards allow for the use of 11 foot and sometimes 10 foot wide travel lanes to create space for bike lanes.

• Before: 10-15 feet • After: 10-11 feet

Bicycle Lane Width • Bicycle lane guidance applies to this treatment.

Before 24’ Travel/Parking Lane

After

10’ Travel

6’ Bike

8’ Parking

Discussion

Additional References and Guidelines

Special consideration should be given to the amount of heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before the decision is made to narrow travel lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in certain situations to provide space for bike lanes.

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004. Caltrans California HDM, 2012. Caltrans Main Streets, 2005.

Materials and Maintenance Repair rough or uneven pavement surface.

A-41

A-42 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Lane Reconfiguration (“Road Diet”) Description

Guidance

The removal of a single travel lane will generally provide sufficient space for bike lanes on both sides of a street. Streets with excess vehicle capacity provide opportunities for bike lane retrofit projects.

Width depends on project. No narrowing may be needed if a lane is removed.

Bicycle lane width: • Bicycle lane guidance applies to this treatment.

Before

11-12’ Travel

11’ Travel

After

10-12’Turn

10-12’ Travel

6’ Bike

Discussion

Additional References and Guidelines

Depending on a street’s existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs and safety concerns, various lane reduction configurations may apply. For instance, a four-lane street (with two travel lanes in each direction) could be modified to provide one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane and bike lanes.

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. FHWA Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes, 2010. Caltrans Main Streets, 2005.

Materials and Maintenance Repair rough or uneven pavement surface.

APPENDIX

Shared Use Path Shared-use paths allow for two-way, offstreet bicycle use and also may be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users. These facilities are frequently found in parks, along rivers, beaches and in greenbelts or utility corridors where there are few conflicts with motorized vehicles. Path facilities can also include amenities such as lighting, signage and fencing (where appropriate). Key features of greenways include: • Frequent access points from the local road network. • Directional signs to direct users to and from the path. • Limited number of at-grade crossings with streets or driveways. • Terminating path where it is easily accessible to and from the street system. • Separate treads for pedestrians and bicyclists when heavy use is expected.

General Design Practices

Paths in River and Utility Corridors

Local Neighborhood Accessways

A-43

A-44 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

General Design Practices Description Shared-use paths can provide a desirable facility, particularly for recreation and for users of all skill levels preferring separation from traffic. Paths should generally provide directional travel opportunities not provided by existing roadways.

Discussion AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities generally recommends against development of shared use paths along roadways.

Materials and Maintenance Asphalt is the most common surface for Class I paths, but concrete has proven to be more durable over the long term.

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. California MUTCD, 2014. Caltrans California HDM, 2012.

Guidance Width • 9 feet is minimum allowed by HDM for one-way Class I multi-use path consisting of a five foot paved width with two foot shoulders. • 12 feet is minimum allowed by HDM for two-way Class I multi-use path consisting of two four foot lanes and two foot shoulders. On structures, Class I multi-use path clear width between railings shall not be less than 10 feet. Lateral Clearance • Minimum separation between edge of pavement of one-way or a two-way multiuse path and edge of travel way of parallel road or street shall be five feet plus standard shoulder width. Prior to 2012, the Highway Design Manual allowed narrower separation if a physical barrier was included. Since 2012, however, physical barrier would not result in reduced separation. Overhead Clearance • Minimum vertical clearance allowed by HDM to obstructions across width of multiuse path is eight feet and seven feet over shoulders. Striping • When striping is required, use a four inch dashed yellow centerline stripe with four inch solid white edge lines. • Solid centerlines can be provided on tight or blind corners and on the approaches to roadway crossings.

APPENDIX

Paths in River and Utility Corridors Description

Guidance

Utility and waterway corridors often offer excellent shared-use path development and bikeway gap closure opportunities. Utility corridors typically include power line and sewer corridors, while waterway corridors include canals, drainage ditches, rivers and beaches. These corridors offer excellent transportation and recreation opportunities for bicyclists of all ages and skills.

Shared-use paths in utility corridors should meet or exceed general design practices and must conform to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual if designated as a Class I multi-use path. If additional width allows, wider paths and landscaping are desirable.

Discussion

Any access point to the path should be welldefined with appropriate signage designating the pathway as a bicycle and pedestrian facility and prohibiting motor vehicles.

Similar to railroads, public access to flood control channels or canals is undesirable by all parties. Appropriate fencing may be required to keep path users within the designated travel way. Creative design of fencing is encouraged to make the path facility feel welcoming to the user.

Materials and Maintenance For paths susceptible to flooding or ponding, permeable pavement is an option to reduce water collection, but will require additional regular maintenance to maintain effectiveness.

Access Points

Path Closure Public access to the path may be prohibited during the following events: â&#x20AC;˘ Canal/flood control channel or other utility maintenance activities â&#x20AC;˘ Inclement weather or the prediction of storm conditions

A-45

A-46 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Local Neighborhood Accessways Description Neighborhood accessways provide residential areas with direct bicycle and pedestrian access to parks, trails, green spaces and other recreational areas. They most often serve as small trail connections to and from the larger trail network, typically having their own rights-of-way and easements. Additionally, these smaller trails can be used to provide bicycle and pedestrian connections between dead-end streets, cul-de-sacs and access to nearby destinations not provided by the street network.

Guidance • Neighborhood access should remain open to the public • Trail pavement should be at least 8 feet wide to accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicles, meet ADA requirements and be considered suitable for multi-use • Trail widths should be designed to be less than 8 feet wide only when necessary to protect large mature native trees over 18 inches in caliper, wetlands or other ecologically sensitive areas. • Access trails should slightly meander whenever possible to take advantage of available right-of-way space. 8’ wide concrete access trail from street (Minimum 5’ ADA access)

8’ wide asphalt trail

Discussion Neighborhood access should be designed into new subdivisions wherever possible.

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. California MUTCD, 2014. Flink, C. Greenways, 1993.

APPENDIX

Path/Roadway Crossing At-grade roadway crossings can create potential conflicts between path users and drivers, but well-designed crossings can mitigate many operational issues and provide a higher degree of safety and comfort for path users. This is evidenced by the thousands of successful facilities around the United States with atgrade crossings. In most cases, at-grade path crossings can be properly designed to provide a reasonable degree of safety and can meet existing traffic and safety standards.

Marked/Unsignalized Crossings

Path facilities that cater to bicyclists require additional considerations due to the higher travel speed of bicyclists versus pedestrians. In addition to guidance presented in this section, see previous entries for active warning beacons and pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) for other methods for enhancing trail crossings.

Signalized Crossings

Overcrossings

A-47

A-48 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Marked/Unsignalized Mid block Crossings Description Marked/unsignalized mid block crossings typically consist of a marked crossing area, signage and other markings to slow or stop traffic. Designing crossings at mid-block locations depends on an evaluation of vehicular traffic, line of sight, pathway traffic, use patterns, vehicle speed, road type, road width and other safety issues such as proximity to major attractions. When space is available, using a median refuge island can improve user safety by providing pedestrians and bicyclists space to safely cross one side of the roadway at a time. W11-15, W16-9P

Guidance Maximum traffic volumes • <9,000-12,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume • Up to 15,000 ADT on two-lane roads, preferably with a median • Up to 12,000 ADT on four-lane roads with median • Maximum travel speed: 35 mph

Minimum line of sight • 25 mph zone: 155 feet • 35 mph zone: 250 feet • 45 mph zone: 360 feet

Curves in path approaches help slow path users and make them aware of oncoming vehicles

Detectable warning strips help visually impaired pedestrians identify the edge of the street Crosswalk markings legally establish mid-block pedestrian crossing

If used, curb ramp should be full path width

Consider a median refuge island when space is available

Discussion

Additional References and Guidelines

Unsignalized crossings of multi-lane arterials over 15,000 ADT may be possible with features such as sufficient crossing gaps (more than 60 per hour), median refuges and/or active warning devices like rectangular rapid flash beacons.

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012 California MUTCD, 2014 Caltrans California HDM, 2012

Materials and Maintenance Locate markings out of wheel tread when possible to minimize wear and maintenance costs.

APPENDIX

A-49

Overcrossings Description Bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings provide critical non-motorized system links by joining areas separated by barriers such as deep canyons, waterways or major transportation corridors. In most cases, these structures are built in response to user demand for safe crossings where they previously did not exist. Grade-separated crossings may be needed where existing bicycle/pedestrian crossings do not exist, where ADT exceeds 25,000 vehicles and where 85th percentile speeds exceed 45 miles per hour.

Guidance • 10 foot minimum width between railings, 14 feet preferred. If overcrossing has any scenic vistas additional width should be provided to allow for stopping. A separate 5 foot pedestrian area may be provided for facilities with high bicycle and pedestrian use. • 10 foot headroom on overcrossing; clearance below will vary depending on feature being crossed. • Roadway: 17 feet • Freeway: 18.5 feet • Heavy Rail Line: 23 feet

Discussion

Additional References and Guidelines

Overcrossings for bicycles and pedestrians typically fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which strictly limits ramp slopes to 8.33 percent (1:12) with landings every 30 feet. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations requires gradients up to five percent (1:20) with five foot landings at 400 foot intervals.

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 2004.

Materials and Maintenance Potential vandalism may be addressed with sacrificial coatings.

A-50 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Signalized Crossings Description

Guidance

Path crossings within approximately 300 feet of an existing signalized intersection with pedestrian crosswalks are typically diverted to the intersection to avoid traffic operation problems when located so close to an existing signal. For this restriction to be effective, barriers and signing may be needed to direct path users to the signalized crossing. If no pedestrian crossing exists at the signal, modifications should be made.

Mid block crosswalks shall not be signalized if they are located within 300 feet of the nearest traffic control signal and should not be controlled by a traffic control signal if the crosswalk is located within 100 feet from side streets or driveways controlled by STOP signs or YIELD signs. If possible, offset the path to the intersection.

Wherever possible, offset path to intersection

Discussion

Additional References and Guidelines

In the US, the minimum distance a marked crossing can be from an existing signalized intersection varies from approximately 250 to 660 feet. Engineering judgment and location context should be taken into account when choosing the appropriate allowable setback.

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 2004. California MUTCD, 2014.

Materials and Maintenance If a sidewalk is used for crossing access, it should meet ADA guidelines.

APPENDIX

Bicycle Support Facilities Bicycle Parking Bicyclists expect a safe, convenient place to secure their bicycle when they reach their destination. This may be short-term parking of two hours or less, or long-term parking for employees, students, residents or commuters.

Access to Transit Safe and easy access to bicycle parking facilities is necessary to encourage commuters to access transit via bicycle. Providing bicycle access to transit and space for bicycles on buses and rail vehicles can increase the feasibility of transit in lower-density areas, where transit stops are beyond walking distance of many residences. People are often willing to walk only a quarterto half-mile to a bus stop, but they may bike as much as two or more miles to reach a transit station.

Bicycle Parking

On-Street Bicycle Corral

Bicycle Lockers

Secure Parking Areas (SPA)

Access to Transit

A-51

A-52 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Bicycle Racks Description

Guidance

Secure bicycle parking at likely destinations is an integral part of a bikeway network. Adequate bicycle parking should be incorporated into any new development or redevelopment project. Bicycle parking should be given a balanced level of importance when considering car parking improvements or development. In commercial areas where bicycle traffic is more prevalent, as well as parks and shopping centers, increased bicycle parking is recommended.

Acceptable racks: • Do not bend wheels or damage other bicycle parts • Accommodate high security U-locks. • Accommodate securing the frame and wheels. • Do not trip pedestrians. • Are easily accessed yet protected from motor vehicles. • Are covered if users will leave their bicycles for long periods. • Are located where cyclists are most likely to travel.

Bicycle rack type plays a major role in the utilization of the bicycle racks. Only racks that support the bicycle at two points and allow convenient locking should be used. The Association for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) recommends selecting bicycle racks that:

Discussion

• Supports the bicycle in at least two places, preventing it from falling over. • Allow locking of the frame and one or both wheels with a U-lock. • Are securely anchored to ground. • Resist cutting, rusting, bending or deformation.

Loop may be attached to retired parking meter posts to formalize meter as bicycle parking

Where bicycle parking is very limited, an occasional parking space could be converted into a bicycle corral to increase the attraction of cycling to the commercial district instead of driving there. See bike corrals.

Materials and Maintenance Use proper anchors to prevent vandalism or theft.

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. APBP Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition, 2010.

APPENDIX

Bicycle Lockers Description 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 longterm bicycle parking are: • Fully enclosed lockers accessible only by the user, either coin-operated, or by electronic, on-demand locks operated by “smartcards” equipped with touch-sensitive imbedded RFID chips. • A continuously monitored facility that provides at least medium-term type bicycle parking facilities generally available at no charge • Restricted access facilities in which shortterm type bicycle racks are provided and access is restricted only to the owners of the bicycles stored there

Guidance • Minimum dimensions: width (opening) 2.5 feet; height four feet; depth six feet. • Four foot side and six foot end clearance. • Seven foot minimum distance between facing lockers. • Locker designs that allow visual inspection are recommended for security. • Access controlled by a key or access code.

Perhaps the easiest retrofit is the bicycle locker. Generally, they are as strong as the locks on their doors and can secure individual bicycles with their panniers, computers, lights, etc, left in place. Some bicycle locker designs can be stacked to double the parking density.

Discussion Long-term parking facilities are more expensive to provide than short-term facilities, but are also significantly more secure. Although many bicycle commuters would be willing to pay a nominal fee to guarantee the safety of their bicycle, longterm bicycle parking should be free wherever automobile parking is free.

Materials and Maintenance Regularly inspect moving part function and enclosures. Change keys and access codes periodically to prevent access by unapproved users.

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. APBP Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition, 2010.

A-53

A-54 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

On-Street Bicycle Corral Description

Guidance

Bicycle corrals are generally former vehicle parking stalls converted to bicycle parking. Most have been on-street conversions, but they are now being incorporated into shopping center parking lots as well. Corrals can accommodate up to 20 bicycles per former vehicle parking space. On-street bicycle corrals provide many benefits where bicycle use is high and/or growing:

See bicycle rack guidelines section. • Bicyclists should have an entrance width from the roadway of 5–6 feet. • Desirable to put bicycle corrals near intersections. • Can be used with parallel or angled parking. • Parking stalls adjacent to curb extensions are good candidates for bicycle corrals since the concrete extension serves as delimitation on one side.

• Businesses - Corrals provide a much higher customer to parking space ratio and advertise “bicycle friendliness.” They also allow more outdoor seating for restaurants by moving the bicycle parking off the sidewalk. Some cities have instituted programs that allow local businesses to sponsor or adopt a bicycle corral to improve bicycle parking in front of their business. • Pedestrians - Corrals clear sidewalks and those installed at corners also serve as curb extensions • Cyclists - Corrals increase cycling visibility and greatly expand bicycle parking options • Vehicle drivers - Corrals improve visibility at intersections by preventing large vehicles from parking at street corners and blocking sight lines

Lockers can be custom designed and fabricated to complement specific locations.

Materials and Maintenance Physical barriers may obstruct drainage and collect debris. Establish a maintenance agreement with neighboring businesses.

Discussion In many communities, the installation of bicycle corrals is driven by requests from adjacent businesses and is not a city-driven initiative. In other areas, the city provides corrals and business associations take responsibility for maintenance.

Additional References and Guidelines APBP Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition, 2010.

Remove existing sidewalk bicycle racks to maximize pedestrian space

Improved corner visibility

APPENDIX

Secure Parking Areas (SPA) Description

Guidance

A Secure Parking Area for bicycles, also known as a Bike SPA or Bike & Ride (when located at transit stations), is a semi-enclosed space that offers a higher level of security than ordinary bike racks. Accessible via key-card, combination locks, or keys, Bike SPAs provide high-capacity parking for 10 to 100 or more bicycles. Increased security measures create an additional transportation option for those whose biggest concern is theft and vulnerability.

Key features may include: • Closed-circuit television monitoring • Double high racks and cargo bike spaces • Bike repair station with bench • Maintenance item vending machine • Bike lock “hitching post” – allows people to leave bike locks • Secure access for users

Discussion

Additional References and Guidelines

Long-term parking facilities are more expensive to provide than short-term facilities, but are also significantly more secure. Although many bicycle commuters would be willing to pay a nominal fee to guarantee the safety of their bicycles, longterm bicycle parking should be free wherever automobile parking is free.

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. APBP Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition, 2010.

Materials and Maintenance Regularly inspect moving part function and enclosures. Change keys and access codes periodically to prevent access by unapproved users.

A-55

A-56 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Bike Fix-It Stations Description

Materials and Maintenance

A bike fix-it station is a public work stand complete with tools to perform basic bike repairs and maintenance including fixing a flat to adjusting brakes. While there are several stand designs, they all provide an ergonomic work environment for any rider. The tools are attached to the stand via stainless steel gauge cables to prevent theft. Hanging the bike from the arm hangar allows the pedals and wheels to move freely while making adjustments to the bike.

Stations are built for outdoor use and sealed from the elements. Some vendors provide a warranty for service and repair should vandalism or mechanical failure occur.

Discussion

Wall Setbacks

Stations employ universal bike mounting and should be ADA compliant. Common bike tools are tethered to the station by stainless steel cables. The stations’ tubing are generally powder coated, galvanized or stainless steel anchored into concrete or another proper base material specified by vendor. Stations can be color customized from a variety of colors available by vendor. Many stations have a QR code with repair instructions should the rider need additional information.

Guidance Stations are best placed in public areas with a significant amount of bicycle traffic or at popular trailheads.

• Minimum of 48 inches from side of station to wall or other objects • Minimum of 12 inches from back of station to wall or other objects

Street or Trail Setback • Minimum of 60 inches from perpendicular street/trail • Minimum of 96 inches from parallel street/trail.

APPENDIX

Bicycle Access to Transit

Guidance Wayfinding

Description Safe and easy access to transit stations and secure bicycle parking facilities is necessary to encourage commuters to access transit via bicycle. Bicycling to transit reduces the need to provide expensive and space consuming car parking spaces. Many people who ride to a transit stop will want to bring their bicycle with them on the transit portion of their trip, so buses and other transit vehicles should be equipped accordingly. For staircases at bus or rail transit stations, bicycle access could be facilitated with bicycle staircase side ramps. These consist of narrow channels just wide enough to accommodate typical bicycle tires, installed below the handrails of staircases. Cyclists place their bicycle tires onto the side ramps and walk them up or down the stairs, so the bicycles roll within the channels.

Discussion

Providing bicycle routes to transit helps combine the long-distance coverage of bus and rail travel with the door-to-door service of bicycle riding. Transit use can overcome large obstacles to bicycling, including distance, hills, riding on busy streets, night riding, inclement weather and breakdowns.

• Provide direct and convenient access to transit stations and stops from bicycle and pedestrian networks. • Provide maps, wayfinding signage and pavement markings from bicycle network to transit stations.

Bicycle Parking • Route from bicycle parking locations to station/stop platforms should be well-lit and visible. • Signing should note bicycle parking location, rules for use and instructions, as needed. • Provide safe and secure long-term parking such as bicycle lockers at transit hubs. Parking should be easy to use and well maintained.

Materials and Maintenance Regularly inspect the functioning of long-term parking moving parts and enclosures.

Additional References and Guidelines APBP Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition, 2010. FHWA University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Lesson 18: Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections to Transit, 2006.

Long-term bicycle parking

Bicycle rack

Map of bicycle routes

A-57

A-58 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Bikeway Facility Maintenance Regular bicycle facility maintenance includes sweeping, maintaining a smooth roadway, ensuring that the gutter-to-pavement transition remains relatively flat and installing bicyclefriendly drainage grates. Pavement overlays are a good opportunity to improve bicycle facilities. The following recommendations provide a menu of options to consider enhancing a maintenance regimen.

Sweeping

Gutter to Pavement Transition

Roadway Surface

Drainage Grates

APPENDIX

Sweeping Description Bicyclists often avoid shoulders and bike lanes filled with gravel, broken glass and other debris; they will ride in the roadway to avoid these hazards, potentially causing conflicts with drivers. Debris from the roadway should not be swept onto sidewalks (pedestrians need a clean walking surface), nor should debris be swept from the sidewalk onto the roadway. A regularly scheduled inspection and maintenance program helps ensure that roadway debris is regularly picked up or swept.

Guidance Establish a seasonal sweeping schedule that prioritizes roadways with major bicycle routes. • Sweep walkways and bikeways whenever there is an accumulation of debris on the facility. • In curbed sections, sweepers should pick up debris; on open shoulders, debris can be swept onto gravel shoulders. • Pave gravel driveway approaches to minimize loose gravel on paved roadway shoulders. • Perform additional sweeping in the Spring to remove debris from the Winter. • Perform additional sweeping in the Fall in areas where leaves accumulate. Note: Some separated bike facilities (cycle tracks) that employ curbs or other physical barriers for separation may be too narrow for a standard street sweeper, which requires 10 foot clearance. If this is the case, smaller sweepers are available.

Guidance

Gutter to Pavement Transition Description On streets with concrete curbs and gutters, 1 to 2 feet of the curbside area is typically devoted to the gutter pan, where water collects and drains into catch basins. On many streets, bikeway is situated near the transition between gutter pan and pavement edge. This transition can be susceptible to erosion, creating potholes and a rough surface for travel. These areas can also be prone to standing water during and after rains.

• Ensure that gutter-to-pavement transitions have no more than a ¼” inch vertical difference. • Examine pavement transitions during every roadway project for new construction, maintenance activities and construction project activities that occur in streets. • Inspect the pavement two to four months after trenching construction activities are completed to ensure that excessive settlement has not occurred. • Provide at least three feet of pavement outside of the gutter seams. • When adding new bike facilities such as separated lanes, roundabouts and traffic circles, check for potential drainage issues. Installing bioswales to capture runoff and avoid standing water in bike lanes is becoming a standard part of building bike facilities in bike-friendly communities.

A-59

A-60 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Roadway Surface

Drainage Grates

Description Bicycles are much more sensitive to changes in roadway surface than motor vehicles. Various materials are used to pave roadways and some are smoother than others. Uneven settlement after trenching can affect roadway surface nearest the curb where bicycles travel. If compaction is not achieved to a satisfactory level, uneven pavement surface can result due to settling. When resurfacing streets, use the smallest chip size and ensure that the surface is as smooth as possible for bicyclist safety and comfort.

Guidance • Maintain a smooth pothole-free surface. • Ensure that on new roadway construction, the finished surface on bikeways does not vary more than ¼ inch. • Maintain pavement so ridge buildup does not occur at the gutter-to-pavement transition or adjacent to railway crossings. • Inspect the pavement two to four months after trenching construction activities are completed to ensure that excessive settlement has not occurred. • If chip sealing is to be performed, use the smallest possible chip on bike lanes and shoulders. Sweep loose chips regularly following application. • During chip seal maintenance projects, if bike lane pavement condition is satisfactory, it may be appropriate to chip seal the travel lanes only. However, use caution when doing so as not to create an unacceptable ridge between the bike lane and travel lane.

Description Drainage grates are typically located in the gutter area near the curb of a roadway. Drainage grates typically have slots through which water drains into the municipal storm sewer system. Some older grates were designed with linear parallel bars spread wide enough for a tire to become caught so that if a bicyclist were to ride on them, the front tire could become caught in the slot, causing the bicyclist to go over the handlebars and sustain potentially serious injuries.

Guidance Require all new drainage grates be bicyclefriendly, including grates with horizontal slats to prevent bicycle and assistive device tires from falling through. • Create a program to inventory all existing drainage grates and replace hazardous grates as necessary – temporary modifications such as installing re-bar horizontally across the grate should not be an acceptable alternative to replacement.

Direction of travel

Acceptable grate types

4” Max spacing

APPENDIX

Bikeway Maintenance and Operations Description Motor vehicle traffic tends to “sweep” debris like litter and broken glass toward the roadways edges where it can accumulate in bicycle lanes. Maneuvering to avoid such hazards can cause a cyclist to fall. In this way, proper maintenance directly affects safety and street sweeping must be a priority on roadways with bicycle facilities, especially in curb lanes and along curbs themselves. Law enforcement can assist by requiring towing companies to fully clean up crash sites to prevent glass and debris from being left in place or simply swept to the curb or shoulder after collisions. When any roadwork repairs are done by the city or other agencies, the roadway must be restored to satisfactory quality with particular attention to surface smoothness suitable for cycling. Striping must be restored to the prior markings, or new markings if called in for a project. Bicycle facilities also sometimes seem to “disappear” after roadway construction occurs. This can happen incrementally as paving repairs are made over time and are not promptly followed by proper re-striping. When combined with poor surface reconstruction following long periods of no service due to road work, bikeway facilities can be “lost”, which can discourage cycling in general. Construction projects that require the demolition and rebuilding of adjacent roadways can cause problems maintaining and restoring bikeway function.

Construction activities controlled through permits, such as driveway, drainage and utility work can have an important effect on roadway surface quality where cyclists operate in the form of mismatched pavement heights, rough surfaces or longitudinal gaps in adjoining pavements, or other pavement irregularities. 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. Strict specifications, standards and inspections designed to prevent these problems should developed. A five year bond should be held to assure correction of any deterioration that might occur as a result of faulty reconstruction of the roadway surface. Bicycle facilities should be swept regularly, at least twice a month and preferably more often for heavily traveled routes. Also, adjacent shrubs and trees should be kept trimmed back to prevent encroachment into the pathway or obstructing cyclists’ views.

A-61

A-62 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Guidance for Colored Pavements: Waterborne Paints Over the past 10 years, transportation agencies in the United States have gradually replaced conventional solvent paints with waterborne paints that have low volatile organic compounds (VOC) and other newer pavement marking materials. Waterborne traffic paints are the most widely used and least expensive pavement marking material available. Glass beads are either pre-mixed into the paint or dropped onto the waterborne paint to provide retro-reflectivity. Waterborne paints generally provide equal performance on asphalt and concrete pavements, but have the shortest service life of all pavement marking materials. This paint type tends to wear off rapidly and lose retro-reflectivity quickly after being exposed to factors such as high traffic volumes. Although still a widely used material, waterborne paint is also used as an interim marking material until they can apply something more durable.

Regular Solvent Paint This type of paint can be used universally for any pavement needing paint and is the least expensive. Additives such as reflective glass beads for reflectivity and sand for skid resistance are widely used to mark road surfaces. This is typically considered a non-durable pavement marking and is easily worn by vehicle tires and often requires annual re-application.

Durable Liquid Pavement Markings Durable liquid pavement markings (DLPM) include epoxy and methyl methacrylate (MMA). Epoxy paint has traditionally been viewed as a marking material that provides exceptional adhesion to both asphalt and concrete pavements when the pavement surface is properly cleaned before application. The strong bond that forms between epoxy paints and both asphalt and concrete pavement surfaces results in the material being highly durable when applied on both pavement surfaces. These markings are highly durable and can be sprayed or extruded but generally require long no-track times.

Thermoplastics Thermoplastics are a durable pavement marking material composed of glass beads, pigments, binders (plastics and resins) and fillers. There are two types of thermoplastics: hydrocarbon and alkyd. Hydrocarbon thermoplastics are made from petroleum-derived resins; and alkyd thermoplastics are made from wood-derived resins. One of the added advantages of using thermoplastic is that the material can be reapplied over older thermoplastic markings, thereby refurbishing the older marking as well as saving on the costs of removing old pavement markings. Although thermoplastic materials usually perform very well on all types of asphalt surfaces, there have been mixed results when they have been applied on concrete pavements.

Use of Green Paint A significant recent change is the FHWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interim approval for the use of green colored pavement within bicycle lanes in mixing or transition zones, such as at intersections and in other potential conflict zones where motor vehicles may cross a bicycle lane. They are intended to warn drivers to watch for and to yield to cyclists when they encounter them within the painted area. FHWA studies have also shown that green bicycle lanes improve cyclist positioning as they travel across intersections and other conflict areas. Jurisdictions must notify Caltrans before proceeding with green bicycle lane projects because the agency is required to maintain an inventory, but since Caltrans has requested to participate in this interim approval, the process has been streamlined because FHWA experimental treatment protocol is no longer required.

APPENDIX

Product Life Estimates for Paint • • • • • • • •

9-36 months Inexpensive Quick-drying Longer life on low-volume roads Easy clean-up and disposal Short life on high-volume roads Subject to damage from sand/abrasives Pavement must be warm or will not adhere

Durable Liquids for Pavement Markings: Epoxy

• • • • •

4 years Longer life on low-volume roads More retro-reflective Slow drying Requires coning and/or flagging during application • Heavy bead application-may need to be cleaned off of roadway • High initial cost • Subject to damage from sand/abrasives

Thermoplastic • • • • • • • • • •

3-6 years Long life on low-volume roads Retro-reflective No beads needed Any temperature for application Recommended use for symbols and spot treatments Subject to damage from sand/abrasives Cost prohibited if used for large scale applications Shown to wear quickly in conflicts areas Life of pavement marking will depend on traffic volume, road condition and application time of year

Additional References and Guidelines NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014. FHWA Durability and Retro-Reflectivity of Pavement Markings (Synthesis Study), 2008.

A-63

A-64 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

On-street Bikeway Signing The following signage system guidelines specifically address on-street bicycle routes. Such signage is regulated by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which establishes national standards for traffic signs and related traffic control devices. This ensures MUTCD-compliant signs are familiar to all roadway users. The MUTCD should therefore govern sign design and placement technical aspects, such as dimensions, font size and ground clearance. It guidance is intended to improve cyclists’ experience and to help encourage people to ride more frequently, or to begin riding. The ability to navigate through a city’s streets is informed by landmarks, natural features and other visual cues. Signs throughout the system should indicate:

A community-wide bicycle wayfinding signage plan identifies: • Sign locations • Sign types – what information should be included and design features • Destinations to be highlighted on each sign – key destinations for bicyclists • May include approximate distance and travel time to each destination bicycle wayfinding signs also visually cue drivers that they are driving along a bicycle route and should use caution. • Sign placement such as at key locations leading to and along bicycle routes, including intersection of multiple routes. Too many road signs tend to clutter the right-ofway and it is recommended that these signs be posted at a level most visible to bicyclists rather than per vehicle signage standards.

• Travel direction • Destinations locations • Travel time/distance to those destinations These signs will increase users’ comfort and bikeway system accessibility. Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes including: • Helping to familiarize users with the bicycle network • Helping users identify the best routes to destinations • Helping to address misconceptions about time and distance • Helping overcome a “barrier to entry” for people who are not frequent bicyclists (e.g., “interested but concerned” bicyclists)

On-Street Bikeway Signage

APPENDIX

On-street Bikeway Sign Types Description A on-street bicycle wayfinding system consists of comprehensive signing and/or pavement markings to guide bicyclists to their destinations along preferred bicycle routes. There are three general on-street bikeway wayfinding sign types:

Confirmation • Indicate to bicyclists that they are on a designated bikeway. • Make drivers aware of the bicycle route. • May include destinations and distance/ time, but not arrows.

Decision • Mark junctions of two or more bikeways. • Inform bicyclists of the designated bike route to access key destinations. • Destinations and arrows are required, distances are optional, but recommended. • Travel time is nonstandard, but recommended.

Confirmation Sign

City Hall

Turn • Indicate where a bikeway turns from one street onto another street. Can include pavement markings. • Include destinations and arrows.

Library

Decision Sign

Discussion There is no standard color for bicycle wayfinding signage. Section 1A.12 of the MUTCD establishes the general meaning for signage colors. Green is the color used for directional guidance and is the most common color of bicycle wayfinding signage in the US, including those in the MUTCD.

Library Turn Sign

Materials and Maintenance Maintenance needs for bicycle wayfinding signs are similar to other signs and will need periodic replacement due to wear and fading, to which south-facing signs are especially prone.

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. California MUTCD, 2014. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014.

A-65

A-66 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

On-street Bikeway Sign Placement Guidance

Discussion

Signs are typically placed at decision points along bicycle routes – typically at the intersection of two or more bikeways and at other key locations leading to and along bicycle routes.

A list of destinations on signs should be based on their relative distance to users from a particular sign’s location. A particular destination’s ranking in the hierarchy can be used to infer the physical distance from which the location is signed.

Decisions Signs • Near-side of intersections in advance of junction with another bicycle route. • Along route to indicate nearby destination.

Confirmation Signs • Every two or three blocks along on-street bicycle facilities, unless another sign type is used (e.g., within 150 feet of a turn or decision sign). • Should be placed soon after turns to confirm destination(s). Pavement markings can also be used for confirmation that a bicyclist is on a preferred route.

Materials and Maintenance Maintenance needs for bicycle wayfinding signs are similar to other signs and will need periodic replacement due to wear.

Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. California MUTCD, 2014. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014.

Turn Signs • Near-side of intersections where bike routes turn (e.g., where the street ceases to be a bicycle route or does not go through). Pavement markings can also indicate the need to turn to the bicyclist.

C C

Bike Route

Library

Confirmation Sign

Decision Sign

T T

T D

City Hall

Turn Sign

APPENDIX

Appendix B: Project Prioritization Overview The purpose of project prioritization is to determine which projects will provide the most benefit from among the list of projects defined within a master plan, and should therefore be expedited for implementation. Prioritizing projects is also a requirement of the State of California’s bicycle master planning enabling legislation, Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 891.2, Items a-k. Bicycle master plans must be approved by Caltrans for the municipality to be eligible for future Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding. Item j is written as follows: A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities of implementation.

Directly associated with this, it is becoming common for grant funding programs to require an explanation of a municipality’s prioritization methodology as part of grant scoring inputs. This is intended to help verify that the municipality carefully considered and can therefore justify the specific project’s priority relative to the rest of the municipality’s projects listed in its bicycle master plan. An important example is the State of California’s recently developed Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Grant Program, which has the potential to be a significant source of future funding for the types of projects listed in this master plan. Item n of ATP Guidelines is worded very similarly to the SHC Section 891.2’s Item j, but takes the prioritization requirement a substantial step further by requiring the applicant to not just list the projects by prioritization, but to describe the prioritization methodology: A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities of implementation, including the methodology for prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation.

Methodology Project prioritization is primarily a data-driven process underpinned as much as possible by objective information. It is therefore subject to the availability of suitable data, supplemented with other information sources where applicable. Initial prioritization model results are generally ported to carefully designed spreadsheets where they are combined and evaluated with other available data types to yield the best results for a specific location and project type. No matter what criteria are employed, the initial prioritization model run’s results are evaluated to determine which criteria should continue to be employed in subsequent refinement. This is because analyzing the initial run often reveals that certain criteria did not help to differentiate between alternatives. Eliminating them streamlines the analysis process. Once the criteria have been selected, they are differentially weighted relative to each other, primarily to take advantage of expert knowledge to help address specific local issues, conditions and values. For example, City of Eastvale staff felt that public input requesting specific facilities should be given high priority. In addition, the City agreed with a strong public preference that a facility’s proximity to schools should also be given higher consideration and relative weighting compared to other criteria. The following appendix section describes the six criteria determined to be most useful to prioritize recommended projects in Eastvale, with each one’s normalized (rounded) score and its cumulative percent effect on the total of all six per facility.

A-67

A-68 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Future facility ranking and implementation should be fine-tuned and adjusted accordingly based on any changing circumstances. Prioritized projects can be re-ranked within the State’s mandated five year bicycle master plan update cycle, or at whatever interval best fits future funding cycles. Prioritization updates could be scheduled to take into consideration the availability of new information, new funding sources, updated crash statistics, updated CIP lists, etc.

Gap Closure This criterion addressed potential bicycle connectivity improvements by evaluating each recommended facility’s overall contribution to system completeness. • Closes gap in an existing bicycle facility = 3 • Upgrades facility to higher classification (ex. Class 3 bike route to Class bike lane) = 2 • New facility connecting existing and proposed bicycle facilities = 1 Normalized score: 1.0 of 6 points (17 percent of total)

Reported Collisions This criterion addressed safety through five years of collision data, normalized by collisions per mile of recommended facility. Compared to automobile collisions, the lower number of bike crashes and lack of robust, long term exposure data (i.e. number of bicyclists using each corridor) means that this dataset is not as statistically sound. However, it is still commonly reported and easily understood. Dataset was derived from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). This criteria uses collisions per mile and gives points to recommended facilities that have high collision rates along their segments. Normalized score: 1.0 of 6 points (17 percent of total)

Economic Efficiency Economic efficiency measured the financial benefits associated with a corridor, normalized by the number of anticipated users (in turn a product of the facility type and length), and divided by the rough order construction cost estimates. Using National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552 methods, 1/4, 1/2 and one mile buffers were drawn around each corridor to obtain American Community Survey (ACS) population and journey to work mode share data. An extrapolation of all bicycle trips was made and estimates of potential ridership developed, based on multi-use path or bicycle lane attractiveness functions as defined by the NCHRP research. Using the existing and estimated ridership, annual mobility, health, recreation and reduced auto use, cost saving benefits were calculated. Economic efficiency is further explained through sample projects in Appendix C. Normalized score: 0.25 of 6 points (4 percent of total)

APPENDIX

Required vs. Existing Width Constraints This criterion looked at the common constraint of existing right-of-ways for adding bicycle facilities, particularly for on-street bicycle lanes and cycle tracks. However, any recommendations that included adjacent shared-use off-street paths would also be affected. • 0 feet needed = 4 • 1-4 feet needed = 3 • 5-9 feet needed = 2 • 10+ feet needed = 1 Normalized score: 0.5 of 6 points (8 percent of total)

Proximity to Schools This criterion addressed the distance from schools for each recommended facility and was given the highest weighting based on strong community preference. Normalized score: 1.75 of 6 points (29 percent of total)

Public Outreach Input Public outreach conducted for this plan consisted of three public workshops and an online survey available throughout the course of the project. The survey was filled out by almost 500 respondents. In both the survey and at the public meetings, City staff and residents were asked to identify the projects they felt were most important by facility type. Like the previous criterion, this one was highly weighted based City on guidance. • >6 points = 3 • 3-6 points = 2 • <3 points = 1 Normalized score: 1.5 of 6 points (25 percent of total)

A-69

A-70 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Appendix C: Benefit-Cost Analysis To illustrate the benefit-cost relationship, three sample projects representing high, moderate and low benefit-cost ratios are shown below. These are real projects selected from the 30 projects recommended by this plan (See “Table A-1: Inputs - Benefit-Cost Analysis” on page A-71 for benefit-cost information for all projects). The high “benefit to cost” project (Sample Project 1) is a bike boulevard along Blossom Way; the moderate “benefit to cost” project (Sample Project 2) is a protected bike lane on Citrus Street; and the low “benefit to cost” project (Sample Project 3) is a multi-use path along the Cucamonga River/Flood Control Path. While these benefit-cost ratios do provide some information about projects – and a means of comparison – it is important to note that they are relatively insensitive to facility type. On other words, they do not distinguish between facilities types other than multi-use paths (e.g. bike routes vs. protected bike lanes). For this reason, benefit-cost ratios have only a minor influence on overall project ranking, with reported collisions, proximity to schools and community input playing much larger roles.

High

$9,779.50

Sample Project 2

“Benefit to Cost” Project

Sample Project 3

Sample Project 1

Cost Benefit*

“Benefit to Cost” Project

Moderate

$455,404.00

$2,712,957.39

$4,692,991.62

Low

$3,375,603.64

$3,222,309.59

*"Benefit" is a combination of several financial benefits associated with the given projects: mobility benefits, health benefits, recreation benefits and reduced automobile use.

16373

1385

6819

7845

Project Number (Rank)

23351

5372

16948

15222

16728

11251

11122

2258

8175

7255

7659

16968

9795

8193

4422

6073

4203

17786

22663

13287

721

10183

11224

5817

610

7409

1433

3532

13752

1837

3752

6422

10246

29368

14816

12456

8140

11461

17272

13226

11512

29141

40566

32161

14889

26763

19068

26779

21637

31580

8714

26412

34961

32041

29575

15349

37626

42354

134

106

101

106

113

137

123

190

161

168

114

130

190

263

199

193

126

226

165

208

204

218

222

191

110

235

278

207

613

2911

1109

554

338

567

1337

643

262

2459

4925

4492

312

3557

1427

2719

1850

3635

438

2060

3413

3153

3715

984

4876

4383

204

3488

2959

6176

1513

6026

2487

1237

748

1645

2951

1801

652

5690

9934

7804

1856

6245

3286

5588

4103

7594

1170

4960

7428

6579

7662

2323

10203

9097

573

7252

13364

4313

12819

6525

5416

3520

4964

7577

5730

4916

12588

17673

14005

6519

11824

8379

11752

9200

13963

3650

11589

15339

13702

13100

6636

16320

18459

2757

14403

127

114

104

116

132

119

110

161

100

104

130

212

168

165

109

153

189

131

187

156

187

199

223

190

147

106

979314.138

6261944.957

4432161.467

3222309.592

1686912.433

2754775.482

3730433.268

2104762.131

1330118.112

4529861.635

8688776.234

6775282.102

2712957.390

6626691.579

3856448.589

5736752.370

2290860.258

7875603.231

1118030.213

4692991.619

7781019.018

5771526.757

9324317.130

2715661.548

8759213.847

8494756.410

1166766.878

7428215.029

5429840.674

3438668.121

0.00

0.20

1.40

2.11

0.14

1.03

0.04

0.02

0.00

0.38

0.00

0.17

0.06

0.00

0.41

0.00

0.50

0.00

2.00

0.00

0.99

0.00

1.32

2.09

1.35

2.11

1.03

1.51

1.76

0.72

1.84

3.27

2.55

0.74

2.65

1.27

3.55

1.10

2.16

1.14

1.50

1.77

3.76

2.33

1.53

3.78

3.93

0.41

2.14

2.33

2.52

$114,373.00

$349,016.00

$2,240,000.00

$3,375,603.64

$234,201.00

$1,640,836.70

$107,493.00

$55,465.00

$9,561.13

$24,334.14

$1,014,338.00

$33,660.00

$9,779.50

$307,151.00

$106,331.00

$1,847,948.00

$14,498.51

$677,431.00

$15,108.26

$455,404.00

$861,624.00

$1,952,799.00

$3,204,465.00

$586,184.00

$2,650,501.00

$1,629,031.00

$5,365.72

$1,114,761.00

$179,697.00

$1,310,750.00

* Combined benefit is a combination of several financial benefits associated with the given projects: mobility benefits, health benefits, recreation benefits and reduced automobile use. Combined benefits also uses a time series to account for forecasted benefits.

5571

2447

6585

813

1351

3033

1301

6610

4247

1547

2944

1542

13837

3175

7734

12487

2854

4701

1063

20732

489

9965

Total Population (One Mile)

Adult Population, 18+ (Quarter Mile)

Adult Population, 18+ (Half Mile)

Adult Population, 18+ (One Mile)

30951

Workers 16+ (Quarter Mile)

32668

Workers 16+ (Half Mile)

14284

Workers 16+ (One Mile)

Bike Commuters (Quarter Mile)

12180

Bike Commuters (Half Mile)

5013

Bike Commuters (One Mile)

2413

Combined Benefit*

205

Total Length of Existing Class 1 Facilities in Project (mi)

Total Length of Project (mi)

Estimated cost of project

28411

8.56

17.94

1.98

0.95

7.20

1.68

34.70

37.95

139.12

186.15

8.57

201.29

277.41

21.57

36.27

3.10

158.01

11.63

74.00

10.31

9.03

2.96

2.91

4.63

3.30

5.21

217.45

6.66

30.22

2.62

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

11961

Total Population (Quarter Mile)

5755

Total Population (Half Mile)

APPENDIX

A-71

Table A-1: Inputs - Benefit-Cost Analysis

A-72 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

Appendix D: Applicable Legislation Overview Several pieces of legislation support increased cycling in the State of California. Much of the legislation concerns greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and employs cycling as a means to achieve GHG reduction targets. Other legislation highlights the intrinsic worth of cycling and treats the safe and convenient accommodation of cyclists as a matter of equity. The most relevant legislative acts for bicycle policy, planning, infrastructure and programs are discussed below.

State Legislation and Policies AB-32 Global Warming Solutions Act This bill specifies greenhouse gas emissions reduction and codifies the 2020 emissions reduction goal. 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. AB-902 Diversion Programs This bill was signed in September 2015 and sponsored by the California Bicycle Coalition. It allows local jurisdictions to create diversion programs that allow ticketed cyclists to have their tickets removed from their records if they successfully complete a bicycle training course. This type of program has been available for children for some time, but this legislation expands availability to adults. It also offers all cyclists, ticketed or not, more opportunities to learn the rules of the road and safe bicycle handling skills. AB-1096 Redefine Electric Bikes The bill was passed by the California Senate in September 2015 and awaiting the Governor’s signature. It would replace California’s existing vehicle law that does not allow motorized bicycles on non-motorized paths. The updated law splits e-bikes from other motorized bikes and divide them into three categories: • Class I: pedal-assisted electric bike with a top assisted speed of 20mph • Class II: pedal-assisted or propelled unassisted with a top motor-driven speed of 20mph • Class III: pedal-assisted electric bike with a top assisted speed of 28mph Of those three categories, the first two will now be allowed on any infrastructure where conventional bicycles are allowed, but the bill also provides local authorities the specific ability to limit or prohibit those uses. Class III electric bikes or any bikes with a non-electric motor would not be allowed on off-street paths, but could still be used on on-street bike lanes. The changes apply to the state’s vehicle code and would not affect open space trails or public lands access rules.

APPENDIX

AB-1193 Bikeways This act amends various code sections, all relating to bikeways in general, specifically by recognizing a fourth class of bicycle facility, cycle tracks. However, the following may be even more significant to future bikeway development: Existing law requires Caltrans, in cooperation with county and city governments, to establish minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of bikeways, and requires the department to establish uniform specifications and symbols regarding bicycle travel and traffic related matters. Existing law also requires all city, county, regional and other local agencies responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways to utilize all of those minimum safety design criteria and uniform specifications and symbols. This bill revises these provisions and required Caltrans to establish minimum safety design criteria for each type of bikeway and also authorizes local agencies to utilize different minimum safety criteria if adopted by resolution at a public meeting. AB-1358 Complete Streets Act This bill 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 OPR 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. AB-1371 Passing Distance/3 Feet for Safety Act This statute, widely referred to as the “3 Foot Passing Law,” requires drivers to provide at least three feet of clearance when overtaking cyclists. If traffic or roadway conditions prevent drivers from giving cyclists three feet of clearance, they must “slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent” and wait until they reach a point where passing can occur without endangering the cyclist. Violations are punishable by a $35 base fine, but drivers who collide with cyclists and injure them in violation of the law are subject to a $220 fine. AB-1581 Bicycle and Motorcycle Traffic Signal Actuation This bill defines a traffic control device as a traffic-actuated signal that displays one or more of its indications in response to the presence of traffic detected by mechanical, visual, electrical or other means. Upon the first placement or replacement of a traffic-actuated signal, the signal would have to be installed and maintained, to the extent feasible and in conformance with professional engineering practices, so as to detect lawful bicycle or motorcycle traffic on the roadway. Caltrans has adopted standards for implementing the legislation. SB-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.

A-73

A-74 Eastvale Bicycle Master Plan

SB-743 CEQA Reform Just as important as the pieces of legislation described in this section that support increases in cycling infrastructure and accommodation, is one that promises to remove a longstanding roadblock to cycling infrastructure and accommodation. That roadblock is vehicular Level of Service (LOS) and the legislation with the potential to remove it is SB-743. For decades, vehicular congestion has been interpreted as an environmental impact and has often stymied bicycle projects. Projections of degraded Level of Service have, at a minimum, driven up project costs and, at a maximum, precluded projects altogether. SB-743 could completely remove LOS as a measure of car traffic congestion that must be used to analyze environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is extremely important because adequately accommodating cyclists, particularly in built-out environments, often requires reallocation of right-of-way and the potential for increased vehicular congestion. The reframing of Level of Service as a matter of motorist inconvenience, rather than an environmental impact, will allow planners to assess the true impacts of transportation projects and will help support cycling projects that improve mobility for all roadway users. According to the Association of Environmental Professionals 2014 CEQA Guidelines 229, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions that an agency has not approved, adopted or funded, does not require an EIR or Negative Declaration, but does require consideration of environmental factors. This has been supported by numerous cities and counties, as well as State agencies. Planning projects such as this bicycle master plan are therefore exempt from CEQA analysis since they are comprised of planning and conceptual recommendations. However, as individual recommendations move forward through design and implementation, the City will need to determine if there are impacts associated with them for which environmental review may be necessary. Caltransâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Deputy Directive 64-R1 Deputy Directive 64-R1 is a policy statement affecting Caltrans mobility planning and projects requiring the agency to: â&#x20AC;&#x153;...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. The Department views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.â&#x20AC;? The directive goes on to mention the environmental, health and economic benefits of more Complete Streets.

Federal Legislation Safe Streets Act (S-2004/HR-2468) HR2468 encourages safer streets through policy adoption at the state and regional levels, mirroring an approach already being used in many local jurisdictions, regional agencies and states governments. The bill calls upon all states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to adopt Safe Streets policies for federally funded construction and roadway improvement projects within two years. Federal legislation will ensure consistency and flexibility in road-building processes and standards at all levels of governance.

APPENDIX

Appendix E: BTA Reviewer Checklist For reviewer convenience, California Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2, items a-k code text and associated document sections and/or responses are listed below. (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. Current estimate of bicycle commuters is 662 using industry standard calculation methods. Expected increase as a result of this plan was based on other jurisdictionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience with bikeway system development. This also addresses forecasted future employment increase of seven percent to 18,305, yielding 1,274 commuting cyclists, or 612 additional cyclists, a 92 percent increase resulting from implementation of this plan. This includes students and transit users. This document recommends establishing a cycling activity baseline using annual count locations. (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 Chapter 2 maps and tables. (c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. See Chapter 4 maps and tables. (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 Chapter 4 maps and tables. (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 cyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles of ferry vessels. See Chapter 2 maps and tables. (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 Chapters 2 and 4 maps and tables.

A-75

APPENDIX

(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 cyclists. The Eastvale Police Department, in conjunction with the Public Works Department and Corona-Norco Unified School District, provides parents and students with safety pamphlets that specifically address safe driving practices. In addition to the training brochures, police traffic team and School Resource Officers conduct traffic enforcement in school zones before and after school. Many violations are related to bicyclist and/or helmet violations. The City also posts driving safety tips on its website. Eastvale Police Department also pass out free â&#x20AC;&#x153;slurpeeâ&#x20AC;? coupons to students wearing bicycle helmets and cite those who are not. Bike Month is promoted by the regional bicycle advocacy organization, Inland Empire Bike Alliance. (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 Appendix C, Community Input Summary. (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. Encouraging bicycle commuting is addressed throughout the document, particularly Chapter 5: Recommended Programs and Policies. (j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities of implementation. See Chapter 4 maps, tables and recommendations text. (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 City of Eastvale was only incorporated in 2010. This master plan is its inaugural bicycle planning effort and intended to be a comprehensive blueprint for future system development.

A-75