City of Goleta
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Final | October 2018
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Adopting City Council Paula Perotte, Mayor Stuart Kasdin, Mayor Pro Tempore Roger S. Aceves, Councilmember Michael T. Bennett, Councilmember Kyle Richards, Councilmember
Planning Commission Ed Fuller, Chair Jennifer R. Smith, Vice Chair Anne Linn Katie Maynard Robert K. Miller
City of Goleta Team Michelle Greene, City Manager Charles W. Ebeling, Public Works Director John Gentry, Deputy Public Works Director James Winslow, Senior Project Engineer, Project Manger Teresa Lopes, Senior Project Engineer Anne Wells, Advance Planning Manager Andy Newkirk, Senior Planner J. Ritterbeck, Senior Planner Valerie Kushnerov, Community Relations Manager Jaime Shaw, Administrative Assistant Jaime Valdez, Senior Project Manager Peter T. Imhof, Planning & Environmental Review Director Vyto Adomaitis, Neighborhood Services & Public Safety Director Derek Rapp, Stantec Consultants, Traffic Engineer
II
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Consultant Team
KTUA John Holloway, Principal, Project Manager Jacob Leon, Associate, Assistant Project Manager Juan Alberto Bonilla, Senior Planner Silvia Fang, Planner/GIS Analyst IBI Group Bill Delo, Transportation Planner Katherine Padilla & Associates Sam Gennawey, Outreach Facilitator
Technical Advisory Committee Matt Dobberteen, County of Santa Barbara Sam Furtner, City of Santa Barbara Mike Becker, SBCAG Kent Epperson, SBCAG Traffic Solutions Dennis Whelan, UCSB Planning Eva Inbar, COAST Greg Janee, COAST Joanna Kaufman, COAST Dorris Phinney, COAST Barry Remis, COAST Eve Sanford, SBBIKE Ed France, SBBIKE Wilson Hubbell, SBBIKE Frank Peters, SBBIKE Phebe Mansur, Old Town Community Association Cameron Gray, Community Environmental Council Ethan Bertrand, Isla Vista Community Services District (IVCSD) Jonathan Abboud, IVCSD Interim General Manager Steve Maas, MTD Kristen Miller, Goleta Chamber of Commerce Leslie Kearney, Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinics Luz Reyes Martin, Goleta Union School Board Member
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: Introduction 1 Study Area........................................................................................................... 2 Vision, Goals, and Objectives............................................................................. 3 Active Transportation Trends ............................................................................ 5 Scope................................................................................................................... 6 Planning Context.................................................................................................7 Bicycle/Pedestrian Network History..................................................................7 Relationship to General Plan and Other City Planning Projects...................15 Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning State of Practice..........................................16 Applicable Legislation ...................................................................................... 18 Bicycling and Walking Benefits........................................................................23 Social Justice and Equity.................................................................................. 25 The Way Forward.............................................................................................. 26
2: Existing Conditions and Analysis
27
Existing Conditions........................................................................................... 28 Analysis.............................................................................................................. 39
3: Community Engagement
59
Community Engagement Methods and Materials......................................... 60 Public Workshops............................................................................................. 64 Online Survey and Map Results....................................................................... 70 Survey Results....................................................................................................72 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)...............................................................75
III
4: Recommendations 77 Recommendations Overview............................................................................78 Bicycle and Pedestrian Treatments..................................................................78 Six Key Performance Measures........................................................................ 79 Project Spotlight: Hollister Class I Multi-use Path - SRTS Project..................82 Corridors Of Importance: Long-Term Vision Projects.................................... 92 Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations................................................... 100 School-zone Pedestrian Improvements......................................................... 110 Pedestrian Integration with Public Transportation......................................120 Bicycle Integration with Public Transportation..............................................121 Previously Proposed Projects - CIP List.......................................................... 122 Programs Overview......................................................................................... 127 Signage and Wayfinding Guidelines............................................................... 137
5: Policies 143 Policies..............................................................................................................144
6: Funding 157 Potential Infrastructure Funding Sources...................................................... 158
IV
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Study Area......................................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1: Existing Land Use........................................................................... 30 Figure 2-2: Proposed Land Use......................................................................... 31 Figure 2-3: Activity Centers...............................................................................32 Figure 2-4: Street Classification........................................................................35 Figure 2-5: Traffic Volumes............................................................................... 36 Figure 2-6: Mobility Barriers..............................................................................37 Figure 2-7: Transportation Mode Share........................................................... 38 Figure 2-8: School Zone Infrastructure............................................................41 Figure 2-9: Existing Bicycle Infrastructure...................................................... 42 Figure 2-10: Previously Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects (CIPs)..... 43 Figure 2-11: Bikeway Comparison Cities.......................................................... 44 Figure 2-12: Infrastructure Comparison—Race............................................... 45 Figure 2-13: Infrastructure Comparison—City Population............................ 46 Figure 2-14: Infrastructure Comparison—City Household Income............... 46 Figure 2-15: Infrastructure Comparison—Bicycle Network Coverage........... 47 Figure 2-16: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions by Year................................... 48 Figure 2-17: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions................................................ 49 Figure 2-18: Bicycle Gap Analysis..................................................................... 50 Figure 2-19: Pedestrian Gap Analysis................................................................ 51 Figure 2-20: Pedestrian Gap Analysis...............................................................53 Figure 2-21: Bicycle and Pedestrian Propensity.............................................. 55 Figure 2-22: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress........................................................57 Figure 2-23: Bicycle Parking Locations.............................................................58 Figure 3-1: Timeline of Events..........................................................................60
V
Figure 3-2: Online Map Comment Points........................................................ 70 Figure 3-3: Survey Heat Map............................................................................. 71 Figure 4-1: City-wide Project List Key Map.....................................................105 Figure 4-2: Project List Northwest Map.........................................................106 Figure 4-3: Project List Northeast Map..........................................................107 Figure 4-4: Project List Southwest Map.........................................................108 Figure 4-5: Project List Southeast Map..........................................................109 Figure 4-6: Brandon Elementary SRTS Map.................................................... 111 Figure 4-7: Dos Pueblos High School SRTS Map.............................................112 Figure 4-8: Ellwood Elementary SRTS Map.....................................................113 Figure 4-9: Goleta Valley Junior High, Private Schools SRTS Map................114 Figure 4-10: Kellogg Elementary SRTS Map....................................................115 Figure 4-11: La Patera Elementary School SRTS Map......................................116 Figure 4-12: St. Raphael Elementary SRTS Map..............................................117 Figure 4-13: Waldorf School Santa Barbara SRTS Map...................................118 Figure 4-14: Isla Vista Elementary School SRTS Map......................................119 Figure 4-15: Pedestrian Integration with Public Transportation Map..........120 Figure 4-16: Bicycle Integration with Public Transportation Map.................121 Figure 4-17: Previously Proposed Projects—CIP Map.................................... 122 Figure 4-18: Ellwood-Devereux Open Space Trails......................................... 125 Figure 4-19: Future Active Transportation Network Map............................. 126
VI
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1: Potential project list....................................................................... 101 Table 4-2: CIP list............................................................................................. 123 Table 6-1: Funding Sources.............................................................................. 159
APPENDICES Appendix A: Prioritization Results Appendix B: Top Ten Projects Planning Level Cost Estimates Appendix C: City Council Resolution, Notice of Exemption, and Letter of Support Appendix D: Active Transportation Plan and California Streets and Highway Code Requirements Checklist Appendix E: City's Past Expenditures on Bicycle Facilities
VII
1
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1
STUDY AREA The City of Goleta is located in the County of Santa Barbara, approximately 100 miles northwest of Los Angeles, and 10 miles west of the City of Santa Barbara. A variety of multimodal options such as vehicular, train, transit, local roads, and bikeways exist for accessing the City. Goleta is bisected by the east-west US Route 101, a rail line serving Amtrak and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and a network of roads and bikeways. For the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), the Public Works Department team also considered neighboring communities and unincorporated areas where existing and proposed bicycling or walking connections offered opportunities for increased regional connectivity. Because of the City’s geographic location, the Public Works Department coordinated with the City of Santa Barbara, the County of Santa Barbara, and the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) throughout the planning process. Strengthening regional connections, in addition to being a standard active transportation planning goal, is required for State approval of a city’s bicycle master planning. Until the early 20th century, the Goleta area was predominately agricultural—primarily citrus farming. This was followed by the petroleum and aviation industries, and later the establishment of research and tech-based firms, aerospace firms, and UCSB. The City is relatively young, having only incorporated in 2002. Since then, it has experienced remarkable growth and has been identified as a great place to live.
2
Figure 1-1: Study Area
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES VISION STATEMENT
To support Goleta’s long-term vitality, the City envisions a future where transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities help sustain
and improve Goleta’s healthy, active, family-friendly, outdoor lifestyle, and provide access to jobs, schools, and recreation. This is envisioned through well-connected, safe, accessible bikeways, and walking routes that provide equitable benefits to all road users.
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) will serve the communities within Goleta through a holistic, iterative approach to transportation planning that includes community engagement and comprehensive analyses. The following goals will guide the planning process to ensure a successful plan that everyone can support and work towards implementation: (1) The BPMP will identify barriers, both actual and perceived, to bicycling and walking and provide opportunities through community outreach and improvement projects to remove the barriers and improve the network. (2) Implementing the BPMP will improve community health as access to more active means of transportation (bicycling and walking) are developed. The public health will benefit from increased exercise, collision reduction, and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through less vehicle miles traveled as alternative methods are used and as the level of physical activity increases as a result of the system becoming more user friendly. (3) The disadvantaged community will benefit from a plan, and subsequent projects, that provide social equity. Many low-income residents rely on alternative transportation for jobs, access to medical facilities, and food options. (4) There will be an increased sense of pride in the community as a result of the community engagement, social interaction, and participating in achieving a common goal. Based on the quote below, the State of California’s desire to increase the number of bicycling and walking trips specifically addresses personal health, sustainability and economic concerns, but being able to safely and conveniently get around without needing a motor vehicle is the result of a community’s commitment to a certain quality of life embracing active transportation. This BPMP aims to be the vehicle for Goleta’s commitment to make the City a greener, more pedestrian and bicycle friendly community as part of a comprehensive sustainability strategy by reducing the need for motor vehicle travel and associated emissions.
“
“
It is the goal of the state to increase the number of trips Californians take by bicycling, walking, and other forms of active transportation in order to help meet the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, improve Californians’ health by helping more people be active, and stimulate the economy. ~ Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 89: Class IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways/Cycle Tracks) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
3
Eight percent of Goleta’s residents commute by bicycling or walking, four percent each. Even though this is relatively high compared to other American cities, here where the climate is so favorable for walking and bicycling, why don’t even more people walk or bicycle, or allow their children to do so? The primary barrier is widely perceived as the dangers of having to compete with motor vehicle traffic, and for many people, this makes driving simply feel more convenient and safer than walking or bicycling. The second largest barrier, both actual and perceived, is the lack of non-motorized, dedicated north-south crossings of US 101 and the UPRR. This BPMP’s primary purpose is to help to change these perceptions, reflecting Goleta’s desire to reshuffle transportation priorities to encourage more people choosing to bicycle and walk instead of driving. This BPMP forms a long-term vision supported by a variety of implementation measures. While addressing existing conditions and issues across Goleta, it also considers connections within the larger regional context. Its recommendations support an active transportation system better connected with regional systems linking Goleta with adjacent Santa Barbara County, the City of Santa Barbara, and the University of California Santa Barbara campus.
4
This travel network, coupled with education, enforcement, and promotional programs, will create a more bicycle and walking friendly City. This BPMP provides a framework for Goleta’s active transportation network development, as well as supports eligibility for regional, State, and federal active transportation project funding. This resulting document helps to improve safety through identified prioritized bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects, associated encouragement programs, and policy recommendations. Not exclusively focused on new infrastructure construction, the far-reaching strategies aims to support walking and bicycling through raising awareness for sustainable mobility, especially in support of more bicycling and walking to school, work, and play. This BPMP sets the foundation for decisions and identifies a blueprint for future bicycle and walking development by helping to ensure that opportunities are not missed during decision making about related infrastructure, land use, and development. Recommendations found in Chapter 4 include physical improvements across a range of project types. These project types include pedestrian and bicyclist improvements for safer crossings at busy intersections near activity centers, safe connections to transit, and improvements to important corridors. Associated programs and policies to encourage more bicycling and walking in Goleta are also included in this plan.
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Infrastructure types perceived to be both the safest and most convenient virtually always receive the highest survey approval rates regardless of their cost or ability to readily implement them. While the majority of proposed physical improvements reflect established infrastructure categories, an additional “visionary projects” category has been included. This category addresses the likely long-term “big picture” solutions to help make Goleta a truly bicycle and pedestrian friendly community through the implementation of a convenient network of “low-stress” infrastructure separated from motor vehicle traffic (see Figure 2-21). An example of this would be a backbone loop consisting of multi-use paths along Cathedral Oaks Road and Hollister Avenue, with extensions to popular destinations such as Goleta Beach Park, as well as connecting with existing and planned multi-use paths to UCSB. The anticipated result of implementing the recommendations is a mode shift to increased bicycling and walking. Commuting increases will likely be primarily via bicycle, while intra-City travel increases will be via both bicycle and walking. Implementation will result in fewer daily vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Recommended improvements are described in Chapter 4, but precise alignments and details will be developed during subsequent implementation phases.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TRENDS Many American cities were built on a foundation of auto-centric infrastructure, programs, and policies, but many of those same cities are embracing active transportation as a viable option to driving. Some of them are making minor improvements to support bicycling and walking, while others are working hard to undo decades of planning that privileged motor vehicle throughput. Environmental, health, and economic benefits reinforce the task of retrofitting American cities to make them bicycle and pedestrian friendly. The movement to make bicycling and walking viable transportation options is also supported by several recent pieces of California legislation. According to the US Public Interest Research Group, the average American drove six percent less in 2011 than 2004, and among young adults (16 to 34 year olds), car use plummeted 23 percent from 2001 to 2009(1). Diminished driving levels and increased preference for walkable, bikeable, and transit-connected communities among both Millennials and Empty Nesters is well documented. Millennials, in particular, are interested in living where getting around does not immediately imply driving a motor vehicle. They are driving less and walking, bicycling, and taking transit at significantly higher levels than previous generations. It is clear that this next generation of workers – and consumers – are less interested in driving than their parents.
(1)
Reasons for this trend likely include a blend of what was until recently a relatively slack job market (i.e. unemployed people drive less), as well as an increased use of technology (i.e. virtual interaction has replaced some face-to-face interaction), and a changing culture (i.e. preference for cities over suburbs and walkable places over drivable places). Decision makers should consider their community’s demographic composition when making transportation decisions. Empty Nesters, particularly as the number of Baby Boomers reaching retirement age accelerates, are also showing a strong preference for communities that support walking. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) surveys found that 70 percent of respondents age 65 and older agreed that living near where they want to go, such as grocery stores, health care providers, libraries, and social or religious organizations, was extremely or very important. Additionally, 51 percent agreed that it was extremely or very important to be able to walk easily in their community. Even though Goleta is a relatively young city, with 60 percent of the population under 45 and 86.5 percent of its population under 65, an estimated 4,085 residents are over 65.
https://uspirg.org/media/usp/young-people-driving-less-embrace-other-transportation
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
5
Kids Walking To and From School
Alliance for Biking and Walking Benchmarking Report, 2016
In many California cities, non-motorized bikeway and trail network development have not kept up with demand. Bikeways and trails are often conditions of development, but relying on this can result in disconnected infrastructure. Many cities are addressing system gaps through completing fragmented or incomplete sidewalk networks, re-striping streets to reallocate space to bicycles, updating bicycle and trails master planning, and securing grants for infrastructure construction. Besides improvements specifically designed to improve pedestrian safety and comfort (i.e. curb extensions, refuge islands, improved signal timing, new user-activated signals), there has also been a growing preference for new bicycle infrastructure that enhance bicyclist safety, particularly protected bicycle lanes physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Survey results for this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) corroborate this trend and are reflected in improvement recommendations.
SCOPE The City of Goleta is embarking on the next generation of mobility planning with this BPMP funded by the Proposition 84 Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentives Program (Prop 84). Its scope addresses the grant objectives of promoting public health, reducing automobile usage, and fuel consumption, and promoting transportation equity. The BPMP will replace the existing Interim Bicycle Transportation Plan last revised in 2009, as well as guide future pedestrian planning.
Communities with Lighting
The project scope includes developing a comprehensive BPMP that addresses the objectives listed above, as well as forming a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of staff and members from partnering organizations, developing methods and metrics for evaluating and prioritizing projects, performing public outreach, and data collection, and updating the City’s roadway design standards to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian transportation best management practices. Consistent with Prop 84, the BPMP’s goals include: 1. Identifying gaps and barriers, both perceived and actual, in the existing network where high priority routes are disconnected;
Bridging the Gap, Income Disparities in Street Features that Encourage Walking, 2012
2. Developing a metric and methodology for prioritizing projects including identifying the need in the disadvantaged community (Old Town), family friendly routes, and a tiered network that serves experienced riders and less experienced riders; 3. Incorporating design guidance into City street standards that can be applied to a typology of different street types and provide for a sustainable community; and 4. Encouraging walking and bicycling as viable modes of transportation (currently 8% total).
6
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
PLANNING CONTEXT 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data shows that more than 73 percent of Goleta’s commuters drove alone to work, about four percent each rode bicycles or walked to work, and three percent used transit. However, it is important to note that the ACS data includes only trips to work and therefore omits many walking and bicycling trips, as well as the fact that all transit trips involve a walking or bicycling trip to reach the bus stop or train station. The online application Walk Score categorizes Goleta as a “Car-Dependent City,” earning a 42/100 walkability score. Although a corresponding bicycle score for Goleta is not available, it would probably be significantly higher than its walk score based on the longer distances reasonably covered by bicycle and several popular Class I multi-use paths connecting Goleta and the UCSB campus, which has one of the highest per capita rates of bicycle commuting among American universities. The campus website states that “over 10,000 people bicycle-commute between their home and UCSB on a daily basis.” A recent survey noted that 53 percent of UCSB students get around by bicycle and the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) awarded UCSB a Gold-Level Bicycle Friendly University designation in 2011. As demonstrated by strong participation in the BPMP’s online survey (see Chapter 3), Goleta is a highly connected community. Nearby UCSB is the area’s major center of economic activity and several well-known tech companies operate in the area, such Citrix, Cisco, FLIR, and Raytheon. (2)
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN NETWORK HISTORY In 2005, the City of Goleta adopted an Interim Bicycle Transportation Plan that was essentially an administrative update of the County of Santa Barbara’s original 1999 Bikeway Master Plan. It did not propose any significant new projects beyond those already identified in the county’s plan. In 2006, the City developed and adopted its General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP) Transportation Element that included 15 Transportation Element Policies, 10 of which applied to bicycle or pedestrian transportation modes. Both the GP/CLUP and the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments’ (SBCAG) 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) noted that Goleta’s existing circulation system was incomplete and/or underdeveloped and that existing gaps in the arterial and residential street system adversely affected community access to places of employment and transit centers. The GP/CLUP also specified the need to develop a Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan.(2) In 2009, the City Council adopted a resolution (09-57) to amend the 2005 Interim Bicycle Transportation Plan specifically to allow the City to submit a Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grant application for a Class I multi-use pathway along the south side of Hollister Avenue between Pacific Oaks Road and Ellwood Elementary School.
This Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) replaces the Interim Bicycle Transportation Plan the City adopted from the County and updated in 2009. Public Works included the pedestrian component (TE 10) into one master plan document.
REGIONAL PLANNING AND PREVIOUS MASTER PLANS
The following is a summary of bicycle and pedestrian policies from the planning documents noted previously in chronological order, as well as the 2012 Santa Barbara County Bicycle Master Plan and Santa Barbara County Association of Governments’ (SBCAG) 2015 Regional Active Transportation Master Plan.
2005 INTERIM BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The City of Goleta was incorporated in 2002, and in 2005, adopted an Interim Bicycle Transportation Plan that was essentially an administrative update of the County of Santa Barbara’s original 1999 Bikeway Master Plan. It did not propose any significant new projects that were not identified in the county’s plan at that time.
2006 GENERAL PLAN/ COASTAL LAND USE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Bicycle and pedestrian circulation is well represented in the City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP) Transportation Element and referenced in most of its 15 policy sections.
Transportation Element: TE No. 10.2 and 11.5, Implementation Action TE-IA-6
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
7
The GP/CLUP introduction includes a list of transportation issues and needs that resulted from both transportation modeling and community input, highlighted by concerns such as improving crossings of US-101, safer bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on Hollister Avenue, and “concerns about improving safety, for vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, at a number of locations within the city.” The GP/LP guiding principles and goals further describe the relative importance of bicycle and pedestrian travel, noting that “Alternative transportation modes are also identified in this element to reduce dependency on the automobile and improve environmental quality.” Two of the nine principles address bicycle and pedestrian travel, particularly stressing transportation system balance and diversity of choice of modes, including expanded bus transit, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure, to manage congestion and improve mobility, and improving connectivity between the various travel modes.
Policy TE 1: Integrated Multi-Modal Transportation System Objectives: To create and maintain a balanced and integrated transportation system to support the mobility needs of Goleta’s residents and workforce, with choice of bus transit, bicycle, and pedestrian as well as private automobile modes. To reduce the percentage of peakhour person-trips that are made by automobile and provide the facilities that will enable diversion of trips from automobiles to other modes. To develop, maintain, and operate a balanced, safe, and efficient multi-modal transportation system to serve all persons, special-needs populations, and activities in the community. 8
Section TE 1.1 (Alternative Modes) describes the City’s intent to achieve a realistic and cost-effective balance “between travel modes, including bikeways, pedestrian circulation, and bus transit,” but also that the City is to encourage alternative modes of transportation, such as bus transit, bicycling, and walking. Section TE 1.3 (Improved Connectivity in Street, Pedestrian, and Bikeway Systems) states that the City will give priority to creating “one or more additional non-interchange crossings of US-101 to connect the community from north to south…to facilitate cross-town traffic, improve bicycle and pedestrian flow and safety.” Section TE 1.6 (Development Review) is also important because it specifically mentions development conditions of approval that may include “Bicycle storage, parking spaces, and shower facilities for employees.”
Policy TE 2: Transportation Demand Management Objective: To attempt to influence individual travel behavior, particularly by workers at larger scale employers, to lower future increases in peak-hour commute trips and other trips by persons in single-occupant vehicles. Section TE 2.1 (Reduction/Shifting of Peak-Hour Vehicle Trips) describes City support to limit traffic congestion by reducing low-occupancy auto trips through the possible provision of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and amenities.
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Policy TE 3: Streets and Highways Plan and Standards Objective: To provide a street network, including appropriate provisions for bicycles and pedestrians, that is adequate to support the mobility needs of city residents and businesses. This policy addresses design standards for major and minor arterials, collector streets and roads, and notes that all “shall include facilities to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles.”
Policy TE 6: Street Design and Streetscape Character Objectives: To ensure that the standards used for the design and development of new roadways and improvements to existing roadways reflect and support the character of adjacent development. To create streetscapes that will enhance neighborhood quality. Section TE 6.2 (Component Features Included in Street Standards) specifies that street standards will include “sidewalks or other facilities for pedestrians,” and “bicycle lanes or other appropriate facilities for bicycles, where shown on the Bikeways Plan Map.”
Policy TE 9: Parking Objectives: To ensure that an adequate amount of parking is provided to accommodate the needs of existing, new, and expanded development, with convenient accessibility and attention to good design. To assure that on- and offstreet parking is responsive to the varying and unique needs of individual commercial areas and residential neighborhoods.
Section TE 9.5 (Parking Lot Design) defines design standards for parking lots of three or more spaces that include landscape or other buffering of pedestrian walkways between the parking area and the street, main entrance, and transit stops.
Policy TE 11: Bikeways Plan
Section TE 9.6 (Old Town Parking) describes using on-street parking “to create a buffer between pedestrians and vehicle traffic, reduce the speed of traffic, and provide for needed short-term parking.”
This policy addresses the specifics of what is required for bicycle transportation planning, including listing items set forth in Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the enabling legislation that addresses bicycle planning in California.
Policy TE 10: Pedestrian Circulation
Section TE 11.2 (Bicycle Transportation Plan) describes plan content, including most of the required elements needed for Caltrans approval. This is reiterated in Implementation Action TE-IA-6.
Objective: To encourage increased walking for recreational and other purposes by developing an interconnected, safe, convenient, and visually attractive pedestrian circulation system. This policy addresses design criteria, pedestrian safety and new development requirements, including “benches, public art, informational signage, appropriate landscaping, and lighting.” Also of note is the statement that “Dedications of public access easements shall be required where appropriate.” Section TE 10.2 (Master Plan for Pedestrian Facilities) describes plan development and outlines suggested priorities, such as a continuous sidewalk network, ADA compliance, and achieving maximum separation of pedestrian pathways from vehicle traffic routes.
Objective: To encourage increased bicycle use for commuting and recreational purposes by developing an interconnected circulation system for bicycles that is safe, convenient, and within a visually attractive environment.
Section TE 11.4 (Facilities in New Development) specifically notes that “bicycle facilities such as lockers, secure enclosed parking, and lighting shall be incorporated into the design of all new development to encourage bicycle travel and facilitate and encourage bicycle commuting.”
Policy TE 12: Transportation Systems Management Objective: To establish operational controls that will manage the street network in a manner that will efficiently and safely utilize the existing limited capacity consistent with protection of the surrounding neighborhood.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
9
Section TE 12.2 (Efficient Utilization of Transportation Facilities) emphasizes that “a necessary priority in the future will be on making relatively minor improvements designed to achieve modest increases in capacity and to maximize efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities.” Policy TE 12 lists operational and safety improvements that affect bicycling and walking, including “adjustments of signal timing to improve traffic flows, including installation of coordinated signal systems on arterials,” and “improved sidewalks and street crossings for pedestrians.”
Policy TE 13: Mitigating Traffic Impacts of Development Objective: To ensure that new development is supported by adequate capacities in transportation systems, including city streets and roads, without reducing the quality of services to existing residents, commuters, and other users of the city street system. Section TE 13.4 (Options If Traffic Mitigations Are Not Fully Funded) describes four actions that can be taken if transportation capital improvements needed to maintain adopted transportation LOS standards are not able to be funded. One specifically addresses pedestrian and bicycle circulation by requiring “the developer to identify alternative strategies, such as transit improvements, improving signalization, improving other streets, adding pedestrian or bicycle improvements, etc., to mitigate potential traffic impacts.”
10
Policy TE 15: Regional Transportation Objective: Participate in developing regional transportation solutions to expand choices for local citizens, make the highway system more efficient, improve regional bus service, consider potential commuter rail service, and create an interconnected system of bicycle routes and trails. Section TE 15.2 (Linkages) This section notes that in developing street standards, “the City and neighboring jurisdictions should work together to develop consistent” standards and designations and that “this effort should include developing appropriate links between pedestrian and bicycle routes.”
2009 AMENDED BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
In 2009, the City Council adopted resolution 09-57 to amend the 2005 Interim Bicycle Transportation Plan, specifically to allow the City to submit a Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grant application for a Class I multi-use pathway along the south side of Hollister Avenue between Pacific Oaks Road and Ellwood Elementary School. (This project was successfully funded and subsequently constructed in 2017.)
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2012 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
The 2012 Santa Barbara County Bicycle Master Plan was an update to conform to BTA requirements, which states that new projects must be designed and developed to achieve the functional commuting needs and physical safety of all bicyclists. The County’s primary bikeway planning goal was “to give people who choose not to rely exclusively on the automobile safe and convenient transportation options by developing a comprehensive bike path network with seamless connections between the eight cities and the County.” The overall bike path network therefore strives to connect residential areas with major job centers, shopping and services, and recreational areas. Of particular interest are Chapter 2: Facilities, which describes County priorities and provides maps of existing and proposed infrastructure, and Chapter 5: Bicycle Policies and Plans, which describes how the county plan relates to the Community Plans and Regional Transportation Plan. The County’s plan notes that “coordination between all eight cities and the County is crucial for the construction of a cost-effective, safe and convenient bike path network. Bicyclists should experience seamless connections on bike paths as they pass from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.”
As part of its General Plan, the County has prepared Community Plans for each of the urbanized areas located in the unincorporated portions of Santa Barbara County. In updating the Bicycle Master Plan, County staff reviewed all adopted bikeway maps contained in the General Plan and each of the Community Plans. Proposed “future bike path links” shown in the County’s plan were culled from projects previously identified during development of the County’s adopted General Plan and Community Plans. They are intended to provide connections to and through major urban centers in both the incorporated and unincorporated parts of the County.
Action CIRC-GV-2.12 notes that the County Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) “shall explore the potential for locating bike paths under U.S. 101 utilizing existing creek channel tunnels.”
2007 GOLETA COMMUNITY PLAN
• Provide a more stable surface on wooden bridges along Atascadero Bikeway;
This community plan contains a number of actions applying to bicycle transportation, as well as mentions of pedestrian use. Safely crossing Highway 101 is noted several times. Action CIRC-GV-2.3 notes that the County is to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian uses in transportation planning. It also addresses actions for specific situations, especially overpasses: “When feasible, roadway improvements, including overpasses, shall be sited and designed to encourage and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle use. On-street parking and vehicle lanes may be removed where bike paths and pedestrian access would be enhanced. Where feasible, all new overpasses should provide for separated Class I pedestrian\bicycle ways.”
Action CIRC-GV-2.16 addresses specific locations where bikeway repairs are to be prioritized as funding becomes available: • Improve hazardous storm drain at intersection of Hollister Avenue and Fairview Avenue (partially within City of Santa Barbara); • Trim hedges at intersection of Atascadero Bikeway and Patterson Avenue to provide visibility of the intersection;
• Stripe segment of westbound El Colegio Road bike lane from Camino Corto to Storke Road; • Repair/replace damaged/missing portions of Fairview Avenue bike lane from Calle Real to approximately 1/4 mile south of Hollister Avenue; and • Repair/replace damaged/missing portions of Los Carneros bike lane from Cathedral Oaks to Hollister Avenue.
DevStd CIRC-GC-4.1 addresses transportation project design guidelines for the Goleta Planning Area: • US 101 Overpass Design: “include either a Class I or Class II bicycle/pedestrian lane in all future construction of US 101 overcrossings. Measures shall be included in these bikeways to increase the safety and attractiveness of these facilities.” • Bicycle Paths along Creeks: “bicycle paths along creeks shall be located to avoid significant habitat areas to the greatest extent feasible, and if feasible, riparian habitat restoration shall be included as part of any path proposed to be built adjacent to a creek.” Policy CIRC-GV-6 (Types of Bicycle Paths) addresses the County’s priorities for implementing bikeways. In particular, it notes the following: • Separated facilities (Class I paths or modified Class II lanes) are a higher priority than on-road facilities, until all of the separated facilities are constructed. • On-road lanes are a high priority where they address existing safety concerns, or where the majority of the funds that would be used to construct these paths are nor normally available for construction of separated facilities. Commuter paths are a higher priority than recreational paths for use of transportation impact fees.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
11
• The highest priority bike paths are separated crossings over or under the freeway. The second highest priority are east-west paths and/or those providing direct connections between commercial/industrial and residential land uses. Policy CIRC-GV-8 addresses siting and designing new development to “provide maximum access to non-motor vehicle forms of transportation, including well designed walkways, paths and trails between new residential development and adjacent and nearby commercial uses and employment centers.” Policy CIRC-GV-9 directs the County to “facilitate the use of the bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation…to meet the transportation and recreation needs of Goleta cyclists.”
2015 EASTERN GOLETA VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN
The Goleta Community Plan (GCP) was adopted in 1993, and since then, new development has occurred, population has grown, and the City of Goleta was incorporated. Issues of regional concern to the South Coast provided the momentum to revisit where, when, and how the Eastern Goleta Valley should change over the next 15 to 30 years. This plan is awaiting California Coastal Commission approval. Goal 8 specifically addresses multi-modal transportation access: “The community is served by an efficient transportation network serving the multi-modal needs of all users and abilities.” Objective TC-EGV-1 promotes enhancing the existing automobile transportation network with multi-modal improvements by making walking, biking and public transit more practical, safe, and attractive. Policy TC-EGV-1.6 prioritizes specific Eastern Goleta Valley Community Corridors for multi-modal Complete Street improvements: • Hollister Ave from the City of Goleta to the City of Santa Barbara; • Calle Real from the City of Santa Barbara to its western terminus; and • Turnpike Rd from Cathedral Oaks Rd to its southern terminus.
12
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Policy TC-EGV-1.7 encourages transit/pedestrian design standards for new residential and commercial development “to increase the appeal of walking, bicycling, and using public transit and decrease traffic congestion on roadways.” Policy TC-EGV-1.8 notes that the County’s longrange land use planning efforts will emphasize access to retail, commercial, recreational, and educational facilities via transit lines, bikeways and pedestrian trails. Policy TC-EGV-1.10 (Regional Transportation) generally addresses increasing north-south and east-west roadway, bike path and pedestrian route multi-modal connectivity and accessibility, specifically the north and south sides of Eastern Goleta Valley over US 101 and the Southern Pacific RR, and between the Cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara Program TC-EGV-1F addresses studying and constructing recommended multi-modal northsouth and east-west routes to better connect Eastern Goleta Valley destinations, neighborhoods, and land uses, such as a bicycle/pedestrian connection over Maria Ygnacio Creek to extend Calle Real to the City of Goleta via Patterson Avenue, an overpass or underpass to provide safe alternative for students to bypass Turnpike Road, and a Highway 101 overpass to connect north side neighborhoods with south side commercial and transit opportunities.
Action TC-EGV-1G addresses creating north-south connections between Cathedral Oaks Road and Calle Real to through traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians, or installing permeable barriers that can be opened as needed and in the event of emergency or to address congested circulation. Policy TC-EGV-2.3 (Priority Bicycle Facilities) describes the Eastern Goleta Valley’s bicycle improvement priorities as Safe Routes to School, east-west paths and/or those providing direct commuter connections between commercial and residential land uses, and Class I and Class II crossings over or under local highways.
2015 SBCAG REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) assists area governments with regional or multi-jurisdictional public policy issues, such as traffic, housing, air quality, and growth, because effectively addressing them often extend across jurisdictional boundaries. SBCAG’s 2015 Active Transportation Plan therefore provides a regional outlook that was reviewed for references applicable to the City of Goleta and the vicinity. The plan notes that the City of Goleta was recently awarded Measure A funding to prepare a bicycle and pedestrian plan and that the City received a U.S. Department of Transportation TIGER grant to create a Complete Streets plan for Hollister Avenue corridor in Old Town Goleta.
Several images in the document are from Goleta, UCSB, and nearby locations like Isla Vista. It highlights bikeway and intersection pedestrian improvements on Cathedral Oaks Road and El Colegio Road in Isla Vista, signage on the Obern Trail, and the recently completed Hollister Avenue Class I project in western Goleta.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure and Model Practices The plan notes that in 2012 the SBCAG region had 34.3 miles of Class I bikeways, 136.2 miles of Class II bicycle lanes, and 167.8 miles of Class III routes. “Each of the SBCAG member governments recognizes the value of accommodating bicyclists, is beginning to employ the principles of complete streets policies, and prioritizes investments in active transportation infrastructure. These efforts are paying dividends: the SBCAG region beats the national average by nearly eight-to-one for the percentage of bicycle mode share.”
Improving the Bicycle and Pedestrian Network A key component of SBCAG’s plan is the project list proposed to improve the region’s bicycle and pedestrian environments. SBCAG worked closely with member jurisdictions and considered the input of advocacy groups and the public, to create a list based on local planning efforts. These projects are in addition to projects to will be identified through more detailed local planning efforts, such as this bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts. These projects are intended to increase bicyclist and pedestrian mobility and improve safety. With a planning horizon of 2040, they align with the RTP-SCS, though updates will occur in the interim to tailor the project lists to evolving priorities. The plan lists 18 City of Goleta Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, ranging from master planning, to new bikeways, crosswalks, pedestrian activated crossing beacons, pathway lighting, habitat restoration, and a multi-modal bridge over US 101.
Connectivity with Other Modes
The SBCAG plan concludes with the following:
The plan notes that the Camino Real Marketplace at the intersection of Hollister Avenue and Storke Road is the terminus of seven Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) bus routes and is connected by both walkway and bicycle lanes with the surrounding commercial district. There is no bicycle parking near the bus stop itself, though bicycle racks are available throughout the Marketplace. The plan also notes the availability of bicycle parking at the Santa Barbara Airport and the Goleta Amtrak station.
Every bicycle or pedestrian trip: • Is one fewer vehicle congesting our roads and polluting our air; • Supports environmental and public health goals; and • Contributes to desirable and vibrant communities.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
13
FAST FORWARD 2040: SBCAG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a long-range planning document that describes how the Santa Barbara region plans to invest in their transportation system over 20 years based on regional goals, multi-modal transportation needs for people and goods, and estimates of available funding. The RTP has five major goals: Environment: Foster patterns of growth, development and transportation that protect natural resources and lead to a healthy environment. Mobility & System Reliability: Optimize the transportation system to improve accessibility jobs, schools, and services, allow the unimpeded movement of people and goods, and ensure the reliability of travel by all modes. Equity: Ensure that the transportation and housing needs of all socio-economic groups are adequately served. Health & Safety: Improve public health and ensure the safety of the regional transportation system. A Prosperous Economy: Achieve economically efficient transportation patterns and promote regional prosperity and economic growth.
Active Modes The RTP includes a section regarding active transportation. It describes closing bikeway gaps, improving connectivity to transit, and financing programs such as Safe Routes to School education.
14
GOLETA CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The 2014 Climate Action Plan (CAP) identifies measures to effectively meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. The plan describes that meeting reduction targets requires a commitment to local and federal actions. The following actions will contribute to the City’s sustainability by: • Conserving resources such as energy and water; • Fostering the creation of green jobs; and • Furthering Goleta’s leadership in clean research and development (R&D) industries.
Chapter 3: Emissions Reduction Plan Chapter 3 describes several strategies and measures regarding greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled reduction: T-1: Develop Design Guidelines for Increased Density for New Developments T-2: Develop Design Guidelines for Increased Destination Accessibility for New Developments T-3: Create an Incentive Program for Increased Diversity for New Developments (Mixed Use) T-4: Develop Design Guidelines for Improved Design for New Developments T-7: Implement General Plan Policy TE 11: Bikeways Plan T-8: Encourage Bicycle Parking through Development of Design Guidelines and Policies T-11: Continue to Encourage End-of-Trip Facilities
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
T-13: Coordinate with School Administrative Staffs to Adopt Programs Reducing Vehicular Travel to School T-14: Encourage Land Dedication for Trails T-15: Identify Opportunities for Bike Parking at Strategic Transit Locations
HEALTHY EATING AND ACTIVE LIVING CITY RESOLUTION NO. 17-49 (2017)
The League of California Cities adopted an annual conference resolution in 2004 to encourage cities to embrace policies that promote healthier lifestyles and communities, including healthy diet and nutrition and adoption of city design and planning principles that enable citizens of all ages and abilities to undertake exercise. This is known as the Healthy Eating and Active Living (HEAL) program, which specifically addresses a number of criteria affecting healthy eating and active living, particularly the built environment, employee wellness, access to healthy food, and land use. The resolution notes that obesity is a serious public health threat to the health and wellbeing of adults, children and families in Goleta. While individual lifestyle changes are necessary, individual effort alone is insufficient to combat obesity’s rising tide. Societal and environmental changes are needed to support individual efforts to make healthier choices. In support of the HEAL program, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-49, declaring Goleta a Healthy Eating and Active Living (HEAL) community.
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN AND OTHER CITY PLANNING PROJECTS The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan provides goals and objectives to create infrastructure, programs, and policies for implementation of bicycle and pedestrian related goals and policies in the General Plan. The General Plan is the primary document specifying goals and policies for the City, including those relating to walking and bicycling. Several other local and regional plans also contain goals and policies relating to bicycling and walking in Goleta as described in this chapter, and whose relevant goals and policies were summarized.
INTEGRATING HOLLISTER AVENUE COMPLETE STREETS CORRIDOR PLAN
Hollister Avenue serves as the primary corridor through Old Town and accesses adjacent businesses and neighborhoods. BPMP survey and workshop respondents generally described Hollister Avenue through Old Town as an uncomfortable bicycling route due to the lack of bicycle infrastructure coupled with motor vehicle traffic speeds and volumes. The City recently installed two user-activated mid-bock crossing signals to help make the pedestrian environment safer. The City of Goleta received TIGER VI Discretionary Grants Program funds to develop a Complete Streets Corridor Plan for the segment of Hollister Avenue between Fairview Avenue and SR 217. The Plan will identify improvements to Hollister Avenue through Old Town to make it easier and safer for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists - making Old Town a better place to live, work, shop, and dine. The project is aimed at developing a Corridor Plan that will: • Make Old Town safer for all travel modes; • Reduce cut-through traffic through Old Town; • Provide safe and convenient multi-modal connections to residents, employees and visitors; and • Improve the quality of life by making Hollister Avenue an appealing place to walk, cycle, drive, shop and dine. The BPMP process included ongoing coordination to ensure this important element of Goleta’s active transportation network becomes a well connected component of it. The conceptual design that results from the Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Plan are intended to integrally link it with the adjoining walking and bicycling systems described in this plan.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANNING STATE OF PRACTICE OVERVIEW
Providing safe, convenient, comfortable access for all users is the goal of “Complete Streets,” the conceptual basis for much new roadway design, construction, and renovation. Assembly Bill 1358 codifies Complete Streets into law by requiring that general plan circulation element updates: “identify how the jurisdiction will provide for the routine accommodation of all users of the roadway including drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, individuals with disabilities, seniors and public transit users.” While pedestrians have benefited from “routine accommodation,” with features such as sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, dedicated crosswalk signals, etc., these infrastructural improvements are still not universally applied, resulting in a walking environment often perceived as unsafe and uncomfortable, which therefore discourages people from walking. Pedestrian accommodation is being re-evaluated in the context of improving the overall street environment through the implementation of additional enhancements that make walking more comfortable, and therefore to encourage more people to do so. Bicycle infrastructure state of practice in the United States has undergone a significant transformation in the last decade. Much of this may be attributed to bicycling’s changing role in the overall transportation system. Once viewed as an “alternative” mode, it is increas-
16
ingly viewed as a legitimate transportation mode and one that should be actively promoted as a means of achieving environmental, social, and economic goals. While connectivity and convenience remain essential quality indicators, much recent research indicates the increased acceptance and practice of daily bicycling, in particular, will require “low-stress” bicycle infrastructure. Specific types and design interventions intended to encourage ridership among the “interested, but concerned” demographic tend to be those that separate bicyclists from high volume and high speed vehicular traffic.
PRIMARY DESIGN GUIDANCE
Just as the state of practice of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure has evolved, so has technical guidance. While bikeway design guidance in California, in particular, has traditionally come from the State, especially Caltrans and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), cities are increasingly turning to national organizations for guidance on best practices. These are primarily the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Fortunately for California cities, there is increased flexibility in design guidance offered by both Caltrans and the FHWA. In 2014, Caltrans officially endorsed the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide as valuable toolkits for designing and constructing safe, attractive streets for all users. California cities may also apply for experimental designation from the FHWA for projects not in conformance with the CA MUTCD. The creation of more Complete Streets is supported by these manuals’ guidance, as well as by several pieces of important legislation. The following section provides a review of the state of practice for walking and bicycling infrastructure, particularly the AASHTO and NACTO guides. It also includes a discussion on Routine Accommodation, as well as summaries of relevant legislation at the local, regional, State, and national levels. Infrastructure design improvement recommendations described later in this BPMP borrow heavily from the AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities and the NACTO Urban Bikeway and Urban Street Design Guides, particularly for guidance on “innovative” infrastructure. The FHWA supports using these resources to further develop bicycling and walking 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 programs.
Caltrans Highway Design Manual - Chapter 1000 – Bikeway Planning and Design
NACTO Urban Bikeway and Urban Street Design Guides
This reference has long the official resource for bikeway planning and design in California, but now largely represents the minimum standards required for specific bikeway infrastructure types. Senate Bill 1 (Road Repair and Accountability Act) includes a provision for Caltrans to update the Highway Design Manual to incorporate “Complete Streets” design concepts.
The NACTO guides represent the industry standard for innovative bicycle and walking infrastructure and treatments in the United States. In 2014, Caltrans followed AASHTO and officially endorsed the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide as valuable toolkits for designing and constructing safe and attractive streets. At the time, Caltrans was only the third State Department of Transportation to officially endorse the Guides. It is important to note that virtually all of the bikeway guide’s design treatments (with two exceptions) are permitted under the Federal MUTCD. The NACTO Urban Street Design Guide is the more generalized of the two guides and organized into six sections. Each section is further subdivided, depending on topic. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide is also organized into six sections, but its information is bicycle-specific. For each section, it offers three levels of guidance: Required Features, Recommended Features, and Optional Features.
AASHTO Guide to Bikeway Facilities This memorandum expresses FHWA support for taking a flexible approach to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure design. The AASHTO bicycle and pedestrian design guides are the primary national resources for planning, designing, and operating bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. 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 walking and riding infrastructure.
NACTO Transit Street Design Guide As transit starts to gain a more prominent role in cities, more people are using buses, streetcars, and light rail than ever before. As a result, street design is shifting to give transit the space it deserves. The NACTO Transit Street Design Guide provides guidance for the development of transit infrastructure on streets, as well as for prioritizing transit, improving its service quality, and to support other related goals.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
17
The majority of design elements included in this guide are consistent with MUTCD standards, including signage, markings, and signal elements that have received interim approval. These guidelines were developed using other design guidance as a basis, along with city case studies, best practices, research, and evaluation of existing designs, and professional consensus.
NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide The NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide provides guidance on how to create resilient cities that are better prepared for climate change, while creating public spaces that deliver social and economic value. This guide focuses on green infrastructure within urban streets, including the design and engineering of stormwater management practices that support and improve mobility. It also intends to reduce the impacts of runoff and human activity on natural ecological processes. One of the main goals of this guide is to encourage interdepartmental partnerships around sustainable infrastructure, which includes communicating the benefits of such projects. However, this guide does not address stormwater management strategies on private property, nor does it address drainage and infiltration around controlled-access highways.
18
APPLICABLE LEGISLATION Several pieces of legislation support increased bicycling and walking in the State of California. Much of the legislation addresses greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and employs bicycling and walking as means to achieve reduction targets. Other legislation highlights the intrinsic worth of bicycling and walking and treats the safe and convenient accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians as a matter of equity. The most relevant legislation concerning bicycle and pedestrian policy, planning, infrastructure, and programs are described in the following section.
STATE LEGISLATION AND POLICIES AB-32 California Global Warming Solutions (2006) This bill calls for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 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.
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
AB-390 Pedestrian Crossing Signals (2017) AB-390 was signed by the governor in October 2017. Under the previous state law, it was illegal to step into a crosswalk if the countdown timer was counting down—even if the person crossing the street had enough time to make it to the other side before the traffic light changed. The new bill allows a pedestrian facing a flashing “DON’T WALK” or “WAIT” or approved “Upraised hand” symbol with a “countdown” signal to proceed so long as a pedestrian completes the crossing before the display of the steady “Don’t Walk” or “Wait” or “upraised hand” symbol when the countdown ends..
AB-902 Traffic Violations and Diversion Programs (2015) Existing law provides that a local authority may not allow a person who has committed a traffic violation under the Vehicle Code to participate in a driver awareness or education program as an alternative to the imposition of those penalties and procedures, unless the program is a diversion program for a minor who commits an infraction not involving a motor vehicle and for which no fee is charged. This bill allows any person of any age who commits an infraction not involving a motor vehicle to participate in a diversion program that is sanctioned by local law enforcement. The bill eliminates the requirement that such a program charge no fee.
AB-1096 Electric Bicycles as Vehicles (2015)
AB-1193 Bikeways (2014)
This bill clarifies electric bicycle (e-bike) status in California 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:
This bills amends various code sections, all relating to bikeways in general, specifically by recognizing a fourth class of bicycle infrastructure, cycle tracks. However, the following may be even more significant to future bikeway development:
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.
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.
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 above 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. E-bike operators do not need a driver’s license, registration or license plate, but must abide by existing traffic laws. 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. Class 3 e-bikes operators must be 16 or older and wear a helmet.
This bill revised these provisions to require Caltrans to establish minimum safety design criteria for each type of bikeway and also authorized local agencies to utilize different minimum safety criteria if adopted by resolution at a public meeting.
AB-1218 California Environmental Quality Act Exemption: Bicycle Transportation Plans (2017) According to the Civil Code, Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies:
“A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. This section does not apply to the adoption of a plan that will have a legally binding effect on later activities. Association of Environmental Professionals 2014 CEQA Guidelines 229.” AB-1218 extends CEQA exemptions for bicycle transportation plans for an urbanized area until January 1, 2021. These exemptions include restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles under certain conditions. It exempts projects consisting of restriping of streets and highways for bicycle lanes in an urbanized area that are consistent with a bicycle transportation plan under certain conditions. Planning projects such as this BPMP are generally exempt from CEQA analysis since they are planning and conceptual recommendations. As individual recommendations move forward toward further design and implementation, the City will then need to determine if there are impacts for which additional environmental review may be necessary. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
19
AB-1358 Complete Streets (2008) 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 drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, individuals with disabilities, seniors, and public transit users. The bill also directs the OPR to amend guidelines for general plan circulation element development so that the building and operation of local transportation infrastructure safely and conveniently accommodate everyone, regardless of their travel mode.
AB-1581 Bicycle and Motorcycle Traffic Signal Actuation (2007) 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.
AB-1371 Passing Distance/Three Feet for Safety (2013) This bill, widely referred to as the “Three Foot Passing Law,” requires drivers to provide at least three feet of clearance when passing 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.
20
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
California Bicycle Coalition Three Feet Passing for Safety Education Logo
SB-1 Road Repair and Accountability (2017) This bill was drafted to address California’s significant funding shortfall in maintaining the state’s multi-modal transportation network, which is considered the state’s economic backbone and critical to quality of life. It is specifically intended to direct increased revenue to the state’s highest transportation needs, while fairly distributing the economic impact of increased funding across all user types. SB-1 increases several taxes and fees to raise over $5 billion annually in new transportation revenues, prioritizing funding towards maintenance and rehabilitation and safety improvements on state highways, local streets, and roads, and bridges and to improve the state’s trade corridors, transit, and active transportation infrastructure. Once fully implemented, approximately $1.5 billion per year in new revenue is earmarked for local streets and roads maintenance and rehabilitation and other eligible uses, including Complete Streets projects. In addition to augmenting the Active Transportation Program by $100 million per year, SB 1 requires that Caltrans update the Highway Design Manual to incorporate “Complete Streets” design concepts.
SB-375 Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gases (2008) 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 reduce 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.
SB-672 Traffic-Actuated Signals: Motorcycles and Bicycles (2017) This bill extends indefinitely the requirement to install traffic-actuated signals to detect lawful bicycle or motorcycle traffic on the roadway. By indefinitely extending requirements regarding traffic-actuated signals applicable to local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
SB-743 CEQA Reform (2013) For decades, vehicular congestion has been interpreted as an environmental impact. Projections of degraded Level of Service (LOS) has, at a minimum, driven up project costs and, at a maximum, precluded projects altogether, particularly on-street bicycle projects. SB-743 removes the requirement of LOS as a measure of vehicle traffic congestion that must be used to analyze environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is important because adequately accommodating bicyclists, particularly in builtout environments, often requires reallocation of right-of-way, and the potential for increased vehicular congestion. The reframing of LOS as a matter of driver inconvenience, rather than an environmental impact, forces planners to assess the impacts of transportation projects differently and may help to support active transportation projects that improve mobility for all roadway users. For example, as of November 2017, California state agencies stopped using LOS to measure environmental impacts in lieu of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
SB-760 Transportation Funding: Active Transportation: Complete Streets (2017) This bill established a Division of Active Transportation within Caltrans to give attention to active transportation program matters to guide progress toward meeting the department’s active transportation program goals and objectives. This bill requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to give high priority to increasing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and to the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The bill also directs the department to update the Highway Design Manual to incorporate “Complete Streets” design concepts, including guidance for selection of bicycle infrastructure.
Caltrans’ Deputy Directive 64-R1 Deputy Directive 64-R1 is a policy statement affecting Caltrans mobility planning and projects requiring the agency to: “...provide for the needs of travelers of all ages and abilities in all planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and maintenance activities, and products on the State highway system. The Department (Caltrans) 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.” The directive goes on to describe the environmental, health and economic benefits of more Complete Streets.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
21
FEDERAL LEGISLATION S-2004/HR-2468 Safe Streets Act (2014) 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.
COMPLETE STREETS AND ROUTINE ACCOMMODATION
A Complete Street is one designed and operated to provide safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicle drivers, and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, to walk to shops, and to bicycle to work. They allow buses to operate efficiently and make it safer for people to walk to and from transit locations. An adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan provides a road map to support planning and implementing a bicycle and pedestrian network, can help to integrate bicycle and pedestrian planning into broader planning efforts, and is required for State funding of active transportation projects.
22
For many cities, however, a bicycle and pedestrian plan alone is not enough to ensure the implementation of the plan’s goals and projects. A hurdle many cities face is that their various plans are not well integrated. Despite many cities’ attempts to support a “Complete Streets approach,” entrenched and often contradictory policies can make implementation difficult. For instance, a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, an ADA transition plan, and a specific plan may address the same area, but ignore each other’s recommendations. One plan may identify a certain project, but it may not be implementable due to prevailing policies and practices that prioritize vehicular flow and parking over other modes. An adopted Complete Streets policy has the potential to address these shortcomings through the designation of some important corridors as Complete Streets, accommodating all roadway users, and other corridors as priority corridors for certain modes. A system that assigns priority for different modes to specific corridors, offset from one another, is referred to as a layered network. Implementing Complete Streets policy often addresses increased flexibility to allow for the creation of a more balanced transportation system. In the case of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the network identified could become the bicycle and pedestrian layers. Identification in such a plan, reiteration within
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
a Complete Streets policy framework and exemption from traditional traffic analyses can make implementation more likely and much more affordable. Legislative support for Complete Streets can be found at the State level (AB-1358) and is being developed at the national level (HR-2468). As noted in the previous section on applicable legislation, AB-1358 requires cities and counties to incorporate Complete Streets in their general plan updates and directs the State Office of Planning Research (OPR) to include Complete Streets principles in its update of guidelines for general plan circulation elements. Examples of best practices in Complete Streets policies from around the United States can be found at: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/ resources/elements-complete-streets-policy/.
BICYCLING AND WALKING BENEFITS Numerous economic, environmental, and health benefits are attributed to bicycling and walking, especially as a substitute for driving a vehicle. Neighborhoods become more desirable when traffic slows down and residents have more transportation choices. Businesses can encourage shopping among loyal, local customers by making bicycling and walking there more appealing. Individuals benefit from increased levels of fitness and health that result in real cost savings, such as employers having employees who miss fewer days of work. The following sections summarize benefits derived from research by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) and Active Living Research (ALR).
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
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 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, which means that almost a pound of carbon dioxide emissions could be avoided for every mile a person traveled by switched from driving to an active transportation mode like bicycling or walking. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22608371
(3)
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 walking or 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, walking and bicycling have 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.(3) 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 walking and bicycling qualify as “moderate intensity activity,” they can also be seamlessly integrated into daily routine, especially for utilitarian purposes like commuting or running errands.
15 lbs A four-mile walking trip keeps about 15 pounds of pollutants out of the air we breathe.
Lower your risk of heart disease by
50%
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
23
Bicycling and walking infrastructure and programs have increasingly been shown to deliver economic benefit to both individuals and society at large. The benefits of walking and bicycling may, in fact, outweigh their costs, especially when they can supplant the need for a car for all trips, or at least the need for more than one car. Besides the upfront cost of buying and operating a car are ongoing maintenance, insurance, and often parking costs. According to the American Automobile Association, the annual cost of owning a car and driving 15,000 miles a year is now just over $9,000.
The annual cost of owning a car and driving 15,000 miles a year is over
Increased walking and bicycling also translates to health-related savings, for both individuals and taxpayers, in the form of less need for preventative care. Converting even a fraction of automobile trips to bicycling or walking trips can create significant transportation-related savings as a result of reduced vehicle traffic congestion.
0
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Bicycling’s health benefits can also have a powerful economic impact. The City of Portland, Oregon determined that its residents could save between $388 and $594 million in individual health care costs by 2040, directly attributable to the city’s increased investment in bike infrastructure and that health care cost savings and fuel savings over time amply justified investments in bicycling infrastructure and promotion, yielding benefit-cost ratios as high as 3.8 to 1.(4) Additionally, accounting for lives saved from a reduction in deaths using value of statistical life, as is commonly done for transportation planning, further increased the benefits-cost ratio. The researchers felt that including other less easily monetizable benefits, such as less spending on motor vehicles and less time needed for additional exercise, would easily further bolster the economic case for bicycling investments.
$9,00
Other health benefits associated with moderate activity, such as walking and 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.
Source: American Automobile Association (4)
24
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21350262
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Investments in bicycling and walking infrastructure have been shown to make good economic sense as a cost-effective way to enhance shopping districts and communities, generate tourism, and support businesses. Studies indicate that more bicycling and walking increases commercial and residential property values and retail sales. For example, shoppers who reach their destination by bicycle have been shown to make smaller purchases, but shop more often and to spend more money overall. Shoppers who arrive by bicycle or on foot, by virtue of their more limited range, are also more likely to support local businesses, and serving a bicyclist or pedestrian does not require the relatively costly provision of a vehicle parking spot.
Bicycle Friendly America Program The League of American Bicyclists’ (LAB) Bicycle Friendly America Program provides a practical blueprint and guidance through hands-on assistance and resources to help states, communities, universities, and businesses to make places better for bicycling. The LAB’s Bicycle Friendly Business Program (BFB) is based on the League’s belief that bicycles are good for businesses, employees, and the community. BFBs are recognized for their efforts through an award system based on essential elements to being bicycle friendly: Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Equity, and Evaluation and Planning. All BFB applicants receive feedback to help them become more bike-friendly, and all awarded BFBs must renew every four years to maintain the designation.
Bicycle Friendly Business Districts
Bicycle Tourism
Encouraging people to come to commercial corridors on foot, bicycle, or transit can effectively increase local economic activity, and reduces GHGs and VMTs. Bicycle Friendly Business Districts (BFBDs) encourage and incentivize residents and visitors to make local trips by bike, on foot, or via transit, as organized areas of shops and restaurants that cooperatively integrate bicycling into their business district’s operations, events, and promotions. In San Diego, participating businesses offer discounts to customers who arrive by bicycle and identify themselves with a distinctive window sticker.
For a coastal community and climate like Goleta’s, bicycle tourism has a significant potential positive impact. Bicycling is popular across America, and communities that have fostered that popularity by providing bicycle infrastructure for transportation and recreation have seen considerable economic benefits by attracting businesses, tourism, and active residents.
BFBDs enhance services and amenities for bicyclists, walkers, and transit riders within business districts and commercial corridors through partnerships with local governments, businesses, residents, and community groups. For businesses, a BFBD can mean more customers, increased sales, happier employees, and more parking options for visitors. For residents, BFBDs help create healthier, safer, and more attractive neighborhoods. For local governments, they can help reduce congestion, improve public health, and help spur economic activity. BFBDs incentivizing customers to bicycle instead of drive also opens up parking and minimizes the need to build more. This is good for taxpayers because car parking is considerably more expensive to build and maintain than bicycle parking. Provided bicycle parking (racks, corrals, and valets) is free for customers, business owners, and employees and conveniently located in front of businesses. Some BFBDs offer participating businesses free bicycle racks.
A well-known example of bicycle tourism’s impact on a regional economy is North Carolina’s Outer Banks, where it generates $60 million in economic activity. This means that one-time investment of $6.7 million in bicycle infrastructure has resulted in an annual nine-to-one return. The types of visitors drawn to bicycle on the Outer Banks also contribute with their ability to spend money. Survey results show that bicycle tourists tend to be affluent (half earn more than $100,000 a year), and educated (40 percent have an advanced degree). It is important to note that the quality of bicycling has been shown to directly influence vacation planning. More than half of Outer Banks survey respondents said bicycling had a strong influence on their decision to return to the area. Besides bicycle tourism, organized rides and races often draw thousands of people to host communities. Current local examples include the Amgen Tour of California and the AIDS LifeCycle Ride. Once there, riders and their friends and family need food and lodging, and often need ride-related supplies, all of which hep boost the local economy.
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND EXPANDED MOBILITY CHOICE
Bicycle and pedestrian planning also needs to address social justice issues. Research shows that disadvantaged communities face everyday conditions that make mobility more difficult than affluent communities. Bicycle and pedestrian planning has to be approached from a holistic manner and provide expanded mobility choice for all community members, regardless of their background. There are numerous reports, such as AASHTO’s 2013 Commuting in America publication, that shows that people of color living in disadvantaged communities (DACs) are less likely to own a personal vehicle, so many have no option but to walk, bicycle, or use public transit for work, school, or other personal trips. Residents of DACs therefore walk or bicycle much more often out of necessity, and less for recreation. In an effort to equitably address these issues, planning must prioritize disadvantaged neighborhoods whose residents suffer the highest risks of traffic collisions and who lack affordable, safe transportation options. This will enable residents of low-income communities of color to benefit the soonest from safe and convenient active transportation infrastructure. Engaging, educating, and encouraging residents in a meaningful manner will result in an active transportation network that equitably benefits all.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
25
THE WAY FORWARD Perhaps more compelling than reducing GHG emissions or combating the obesity epidemic is the benefits walking and bicycling have to offer in terms of quality of life. For longer distances, bicycling is increasingly seen as a fun, low-cost, healthy, and sustainable way of getting around. The same applies to walking for shorter trips. How can we make it easier for any person to choose to walk or bicycle for his or her daily trips? Research shows a strong latent interest in bicycling among those who identify as “interested, but concerned.” These individuals do not identify themselves as “bicyclists,” but they do not necessarily need to do so to benefit from programs to encourage bicycling. While all segments of the population may be encouraged to ride, it is through the encouragement of this “interested, but concerned” population segment that the greatest gains in mode share will be made. The field of bicycle planning is being redefined toward this end. Similarly, in an effort to re-position walking as a safe and commonplace transportation mode and increasing the number of people walking, attention needs to be shifted toward making it an easier, and perhaps even an unconscious, decision for any person to choose to walk instead of driving for their everyday trips. The physical improvements represented by Complete Streets have been shown to increase walking by creating a safer, more comfortable, low-stress streetscape environment that makes walking a pleasure.
26
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
27
EXISTING CONDITIONS Understanding the existing roadway conditions in Goleta and the adjacent region is imperative to planning for its future. This chapter includes sections on Goleta’s demographics, various datasets such as bicycle and pedestrian collisions, and existing infrastructure. This chapter aims to provide meaningful discussions on each of the topics, including how they support or impede bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure development within Goleta. This chapter also summarizes various analyses models used to understand the City’s roadway network and the development of the bicycle and pedestrian projects found in Chapter 4. Each dataset provides valuable information that contributes to the holistic understanding of Goleta’s current network and how to improve it.
28
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
29
EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE
Goleta’s land use patterns reflect a typical suburban structure, while still maintaining evidence of its agricultural past. Non-residential land uses are concentrated south of US 101, with all remaining agricultural uses and most single family residential located to the north. As Goleta continues to develop, most land use change is slated to occur in the southern region, with little change to the residential and agricultural dominated north. According to the General Plan, most of Goleta’s remaining vacant land is slated to become residential, along with considerable amounts of commercial/office and some industrial.
Figure 2-1: Existing Land Use 30
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 2-2: Proposed Land Use
* Public and Quasi-public
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
31
ACTIVITY CENTERS
To be eligible for State Active Transportation Program funding, a city’s bicycle and pedestrian plan must address connections between specific activity center types. Activity centers can be characterized as key destinations including the major employee centers such as office buildings, industrial sites, government sites, retail centers, hospitals, schools, and parks, as well as other tourist attractions.
Figure 2-3: Activity Centers 32
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND MEDIAN INCOME
According to the U.S. Census 2015 American Community Survey (ACS), Goleta has a population of 30,541 within just under eight square miles, resulting in a population density of 3,865 people per square mile in 11,034 households. Goleta’s population has a relatively even age distribution with roughly 16 percent of the population classified as seniors (over the age of 65), and 17 percent as children (under the age of 14), as well as a fairly high household percentage with children under the age of 18 (28 percent). Goleta’s ethnic make-up is 69 percent white, eight percent Asian, two percent African American, with remaining residents identifying as other or more than two races. Almost 38 percent of Goleta’s population identifies as Hispanic or Latino. (ACS data are based on a five-year average and therefore have a large margin of error.) The ACS also reports a workforce population estimate of 17,347 and an unemployment rate of nearly six percent. Median household income is $80,438, almost 28 percent of residents reporting incomes below the national poverty level for a family of four. Lastly, of households surveyed in 2015, only six percent reported lacking access to a vehicle, with most households having access to two or more vehicles.
Population Density The City’s land use directly affects the population density. The large distribution of single-family residential neighborhoods and agricultural land contributes to a lower population density. Conversely, the multi-family, commercial, and industrial portions of the City contribute to a higher density. Senior Population Recognizing the City’s senior population is essential for identifying and prioritizing pedestrian improvements. The Encina Royale senior community, for example, located in the northeast region of the City, is important to address because its residents regularly travel to the nearby Calle Real Shopping Center on foot. Gathering their feedback for future street improvements was therefore a priority. Youth Population (Under 14) Similarly to senior population, recognizing the City’s population under the age of 14 is important for identifying zones and corridors that would benefit from pedestrian improvements and separated bicycle infrastructure.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
33
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The majority of Goleta’s streets (54 percent) are classified as local per the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Functional Classification System [California Road System (CRS) Maps]. These streets are followed in quantity by other freeway or expressway (16 percent), other principal arterial (15 percent), major collector (eight percent) and finally by minor arterials (seven percent). Arterials form a nearly complete loop system throughout the City and are currently the only option for crossing US 101.
Other Freeway or Expressway Other freeways and expressways are characterized by directional travel lanes and limited on- and offramps. Typically the travel lanes are separated by a physical barrier. The primary purpose of this functional class is to maximize mobility, therefore adjacent land uses are not directly served. Other Principal Arterial Principal arterials are continuous routes that carry through traffic between various neighborhoods and communities, frequently providing access to major traffic generators such as shopping areas, employment centers, recreational areas, higher-density residential areas, and places of assembly. Driveway access, especially for residential uses, to a major arterial is generally discouraged or kept to a minimum to facilitate traffic flows. Minor Arterial Minor arterials serve as a secondary arterial type carrying local through traffic within communities, frequently providing access to shopping areas, employment centers, recreational areas, residential areas, and places of assembly. A minor arterial may connect different neighborhood areas within the City. Major Collector Collector streets function to collect traffic from local streets and to carry that traffic to major or minor arterials. Collector roads provide access to local streets within residential and commercial areas or to connect streets of higher classifications to permit adequate traffic circulation. Collectors may also link two arterials, as well as collect traffic from local streets and abutting driveways. Local Local streets provide access to abutting individual properties and links such properties and their uses to a collector street. City street standards shall ensure that local streets provide access to abutting properties and should include a variety of designs and spacing, depending on access needs. Local streets are intended to serve only adjacent uses and are intended to protect residents from the impacts of through traffic.
34
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 2-4: Street Classification CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
35
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Peak AM and PM hour traffic counts were conducted in 2014 and 2016 at key intersections throughout Goleta in support of the City’s Congestion Management Program. The highest counts were observed along the City’s major arterials, which also host most of the City’s bicycle infrastructure.
Figure 2-5: Traffic Volumes 36
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
MOBILITY BARRIERS
The major barriers to active transportation in Goleta include US 101, UPRR, high volume intersections, high volume roadways, and gaps in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Areas of major concern exist mostly along the US 101 corridor at crossing points. Given limited crossing opportunities, those that do exist experience high traffic volumes and high collision rates. Gaps in existing and previously proposed infrastructure are addressed in a later section.
Figure 2-6: Mobility Barriers CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
37
TRANSPORTATION MODE SHARE
According to the U.S. Census 2016 American Community Survey “Transportation to Work” estimates, the majority of Goleta’s resident commuters (73 percent) rely on driving alone in personal vehicles to and from work. This mode is followed in prevalence by carpooling (12 percent), bicycling and walking (four percent each), transit and working from home (three percent) and finally by motorcycle (one percent).
Walking Mode Share The walking mode share measures the percentage of workers aged 16 years and over who commute to work by foot. Mode share reflects how well infrastructure and land-use patterns support travel to work by foot. In the City, walking mode share patterns are connected to the relative proximity of housing to employment centers. Bicycling Mode Share Similar to the walking mode share, bicycling mode share measures the percentage of resident workers aged 16 years and over who commute to work by bicycle. In the City, moderate bicycling mode share levels are evenly distributed, with peaks observed near high residential concentrations and retail commercial centers. Public Transit Mode Share Transit mode share measures the percentage of workers aged 16 years and over who commute to work by transit. This mode share reflects how well first mile-last mile infrastructure, transit routes, and land-use patterns support travel to work by transit. Figure 2-7: Transportation Mode Share
38
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
ANALYSIS 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 and pedestrian 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 infrastructure. This section 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 is devoted to spatial analysis.
FIELDWORK
The project team conducted fieldwork, using measuring tools and georeferenced 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 infrastructure and program recommendations. A summary of community and stakeholder input obtained and its impact on project recommendations is included in Chapter 3, “Outreach Summary.”
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 existing bicycle infrastructure, proposed bicycle infrastructure, average daily trips, activity centers, transit routes, safety analysis and bicycle-pedestrian suitability. Topics requiring more complex analysis (safety/collisions and bicycle-pedestrian routing) are discussed in more detail in their respective sections.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
39
SCHOOL ZONE INFRASTRUCTURE
To assess the safety of walking and bicycling routes to schools and bus stops in Goleta, pedestrian and bicycle deficiencies were analyzed in the quarter-mile service area around each school property based on aerial imagery, Google Streetview services, and feedback from the City. The bulk of roadways in Goleta’s school zones, 83 percent, are equipped with sidewalks on both sides. Ten percent of the remaining roadways host sidewalks on one side and seven percent are completely missing sidewalks. Of the missing infrastructure, two percent have plans for construction. Additional gaps in existing pedestrian infrastructure include 15 missing curb ramps and 356 curb ramps lacking tactile domes throughout the school zones. Crosswalks are generally present, but vary considerably in type. Bicycle infrastructure exists within 40 percent of the school zone network, leaving 60 percent of these zones without dedicated bikeways. Figure 2-8 depicts the infrastructure deficiencies within the pedestrian school zones, as well as the crossing barriers. The analysis also highlights the Old Town neighborhood because most students attend schools outside the neighborhood. All school-aged residents must therefore travel to different parts of the region to reach their respective schools over a mile away, many having to cross barriers such as the Fairview Avenue-101 interchanges and arterial corridors. Storke Road/Glen Annie is another corridor that experiences heavy school traffic because Dos Pueblos High School can be found at the north end and Isla Vista Elementary School and UCSB can be found at the southern end. Between these schools, there are major commercial centers that are frequented by City residents and visitors. Storke Road/Glenn Annie shares many of the same challenges students and others experiences at the Fairview Avenue/101 interchange.
40
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 2-8: School Zone Infrastructure CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
41
EXISTING BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Goleta’s existing bicycle infrastructure network consists of roughly 33 miles of multi-use paths, bicycle lanes, and shared bicycle routes within City limits. Over 60 percent of existing infrastructure is bicycle lanes and most of them are on major arterials. The existing infrastructure was reviewed for potential upgrades and missing sidewalk data helped guide future infill project recommendations.
Figure 2-9: Existing Bicycle Infrastructure 42
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE (CIP)
Between the 2009 General Plan and the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects list, over 10 miles of additional bikeways and almost seven miles of pedestrian infrastructure are planned. Proposed bicycle infrastructure predominantly include Class I multi-use path construction, while pedestrian improvements address many existing infrastructure upgrades, as well as new construction.
Figure 2-10: Previously Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects (CIPs) CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
43
INFRASTRUCTURE COMPARISON ANALYSIS
Data from a collection of California cities was analyzed to gain a general understanding of how Goleta’s bicycle infrastructure compares to other cities. Cities were chosen based on availability of data, completion of a bicycle plan, and proximity to the coast. Data used to help provide context for the comparison included demographic statistics such as population, household income, and race. In addition, the cities’ roadway and most recent bicycle network data was collected using open data portals and individual cities’ bicycle plans. The extent of existing bikeways and proposed bicycle improvements were compared to the overall size of road network to calculate percent coverage. The results offer a unique comparison between cities both similar and different to Goleta in demographics and size. It reveals that if Goleta were to implement all proposed bicycle improvements, 58 percent of its total roadway network would have bicycle infrastructure, second only to Davis in this analysis. The analysis also revealed that in top performing cities like Davis, San Luis Obispo, Burlingame, and Eastvale, median income ranged from $46K to $110K, showing no discernible relationship. Top performing cities differed in racial diversity, with percentages of “white alone” citizens spanning from 45 to 85 percent. Population comparisons revealed that all cities analyzed fell into the same category of under 100,000 residents. Figures 2-11 through 2-15 illustrate the supporting data used in the analysis.
Figure 2-11: Bikeway Comparison Cities 44
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
% Hispanic or Latino
38%
52%
Population
14%
19% 39%
16% 53% 18% 13%
12%
17%
38% 56%
51%
Figure 2-12: Infrastructure Comparison—Race CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
45
Figure 2-13: Infrastructure Comparison—City Population
46
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 2-14: Infrastructure Comparison—City Household Income
Figure 2-15: Infrastructure Comparison—Bicycle Network Coverage CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
47
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
Bicycle and pedestrian collision data were obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision dataset managed by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). This dataset captures all reported bicycle-vehicle, pedestrian-vehicle, and bicycle-pedestrian collisions that resulted in injury or property damage in Goleta in the 10 year period of 2007 through 2016. Collisions that occurred on US 101 and UPRR are displayed on Figure 2-17, but were not included in the subsequent analysis. Additionally, collisions on off-street paths are not reported in the data. It is important to note that collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians are known to be under-reported, and therefore such collisions are likely under-represented in this analysis. During this ten-year period there were a total of 157 bicycle-related collisions and 58 pedestrian-related collisions—four of which resulted in fatalities. Bicycle-related collisions fluctuated throughout this time period with peaks in 2010 and 2014, while pedestrian-related collisions remained relatively steady from year to year. The bulk of both collision types resulted in injury or complaint of pain (82 percent), with 18 percent resulting in severe injury or death. Most collisions (75 percent) occurred in daylight conditions, or in lighted conditions (15 percent), with only ten percent occurring in either unlighted conditions or at dawn/dusk. Most bicycle collisions (60 percent) were caused by bicyclists traveling on the wrong side of the road and both bicyclists and drivers making unsafe or improper turns. The remainder of collisions were caused by a variety of driver and bicyclists violations, with roughly 50 percent of total collisions being the fault of bicyclists and 41 percent the fault of drivers. Remaining bicycle collisions were caused by parked vehicles, at two percent, and unknown causes, at seven percent. Most pedestrian collisions (59 percent) were caused by pedestrians and drivers violating the other party’s right-of-way. Overall, 64 percent of pedestrian collisions were the fault of drivers, and only 29 percent the fault of pedestrians. Remaining pedestrian collisions were caused by bicyclists, at two percent, and unknown causes, at five percent.
Figure 2-16: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions by Year 48
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 2-17: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
49
GAP ANALYSIS
A gap analysis was performed to help identify missing links in both bicycle and pedestrian networks. This analysis examined each network as a whole to identify segments that lack existing infrastructure or previously proposed infrastructure from the General Plan or CIP list. Remaining segments were then analyzed further for project viability. The bicycle network gap analysis resulted in identification of almost exclusively local streets. This finding indicates that the main connectors throughout Goleta are already slated to become bicycle infrastructure, if they are not already. The main focus of recommendations on these already developed corridors therefore assessed whether existing or proposed infrastructure needed to be upgraded in condition or class.
Figure 2-18: Bicycle Gap Analysis 50
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Pedestrian gap analysis revealed a well-connected pedestrian network on both major and minor roadways. Planned improvements are slated to address some of the larger gaps, leaving only a few pockets of local roadways without sufficient pedestrian infrastructure. Additional factors impacting pedestrian mobility, such as missing curbs ramps and missing crossings, are addressed in more detail in the previous School Zone Infrastructure Assessment.
Figure 2-19: Pedestrian Gap Analysis CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
51
TRANSIT ROUTES
The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) services Goleta with several bus routes providing commuters with options to UCSB via Hollister Avenue, Fairview Avenue, and Storke Road. Most routes follow major arterials. An AMTRAK platform is also located in Goleta, providing travel options train north and south of Goleta via the Pacific Surfliner or the Coast Starlight routes. The City has identified a location for a new multi-modal platform that would replace the current platform with newer, safer amenities.
52
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 2-20: Pedestrian Gap Analysis CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
53
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROPENSITY
To help define study focus areas, a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) model was created to reveal relationships between the many data layers analyzed. A Bicycle-Pedestrian Propensity Model (BPPM) was developed, considering all of the previously discussed analysis inputs, to establish where bicyclists and pedestrians are most likely to be, either currently or if improvements were to be made. The BPPM is comprised of three submodels: Attractor, Generator and Barrier Models. These three sub-models are then combined to create the composite Bicycle-Pedestrian Priority Model. Attractors are essentially activity centers known to attract bicyclists and pedestrians. Examples are schools, transit stops and shopping centers. Generators are developed from demographic data and address potential pedestrian and bicyclist volume based on how many people live and work within the study area. Examples of generators are population density, employment density, primary mode of transportation to work and vehicle ownership. Barriers are features likely to discourage or detract people from bicycling or walking. These are generally physical limitations, such as areas with high numbers of bicycle-related collisions, high vehicle volumes and speeds, and missing sidewalks. The resulting map shown in Figure 2-20 was employed to develop general recommendations and to select priority projects described in the following chapter. When comparing input from public workshops, stakeholders, and project surveys, there was correlation between the high propensity areas for bicycling and walking with input provided.
54
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 2-21: Bicycle and Pedestrian Propensity CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
55
BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
The Bicycling Level of Traffic Stress analysis assesses the perceived safety and comfort related to vehicle traffic speeds and volumes, the number of vehicle travel lanes, and the presence or absense of bicycle infrastructure. The higher the traffic stress, the less likely that a person will choose or bicycle (or walk) to their destination. Stress increases with traffic speed and volume, number of lanes and lack of bicycle infrastructure. LTS scores can range from 1 (lowest stress) to 4 (highest stress). Goleta’s streets were ranked into the categories shown in the graphic at the right using the values in the table below the graphic. The bicycling level of stress analysis results can help to highlight corridors that would benefit from infrastructure improvements so bicyclists (and walkers) can feel safer and more comfortable traveling along those corridors. Conversely, the results can also highlight which corridors should simply be avoided, as well as help to determine where alternative less stressful parallel routes should be provided.
56
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 2-22: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
57
EXISTING AND PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED BICYCLE PARKING AND *SHOWER FACILITIES Bicycle parking is located in several destinations throughout the City such as schools, parks, shopping centers, and other private businesses. The following schools have bike racks available for students and staff: Brandon Elementary School, Ellwood Elementary School, Kellog Elementary School, La Patera Elementary School, Goleta Valley Junior High School, and Dos Pueblos High School,. Additional locations include the Camino Real Marketplace, City Hall, Goleta Valley Community Center, and the Train Depot.
*No existing and proposed shower facilities in the public right-of-way
Figure 2-23: Bicycle Parking Locations 58
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
3
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
59
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT METHODS AND MATERIALS The community engagement process was tailored to be thorough, efficient, and engaging. The team and the City initially agreed that a variety of outreach methods and materials were advisable, beginning with a Stakeholder Outreach Plan (SOP) that outlined outreach goals. Outreach methods and materials included branding, local media announcements, online and paper surveys, an online crowdsourcing map, and the input of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The timeline below depicts the various community engagement milestones completed in the planning process.
Figure 3-1: Timeline of Events
60
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
61
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH PLAN
A Stakeholder Outreach Plan (SOP) was developed to establish a set of guidelines to maximize public outreach and engage City stakeholders. The SOP included education and involvement of a broad spectrum of stakeholders including elected officials, neighborhood association members, non-profits, recreational, environmental, community, faith-based and business organizations, property owners, residents, the TAC, and other interested persons. The SOP included goals, key messages, a list of contacts, and an outline for potential public workshops and committee meetings. The full SOP can be found in the Appendix.
Project Branding and Logo
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
As part of the SOP, a TAC representing a wide range of stakeholders was created. The TAC’s role was to provide feedback on project direction and to provide public outreach support by reaching out to their members, allies, and partners.
BRANDING
To generate interest, the team developed a fun and vibrant branding scheme specifically addressing project goals. This branding included a project logo employing the City seal’s colors and an easy-to-remember name: “WalkBikeGOleta.” This branding was used in all outreach materials, including flyers, postcards, surveys, an online map, website, workshop exhibits, and banners.
Outreach Materials A variety of outreach materials were designed to maximize public engagement. The City of Goleta’s population is ethnically and economically diverse, including workers and professionals who commute daily in and out of Goleta, and a large student, faculty, and staff population from the adjacent University of California, Santa Barbara. This diverse background meant the project needed to have a variety of outreach methods including printed media and an online presence, both of which were produced in English and Spanish.
Workshop Flyers 62
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Survey A survey was prepared to determine user and non-user satisfaction levels of current pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The survey asked a variety of walking and bicycling infrastructure questions and allowed respondents to provide both general and specific comments. The survey also directed people to the online map that allowed them to place comments on specific street corridors and intersections. The survey was available on the City website and as hard copies at public outreach events, the Goleta Library, City Hall, and the Goleta Valley Community Center. Online Map An online comment map provided through the ArcInfo Online platform was created as a supplemental input method that respondents could use to highlight location-specific issues. It allowed respondents to input comments about existing issues or to highlight good existing infrastructure. It also provided the option to attach photos and describe whether the highlighted issue had a pedestrian, bicycle, or “other� related focus. The ArcInfo Online platform also allows anyone to see where others had made comments and automatically georeferences all comment inputs. This valuable feature allowed the team and the City to efficiently document and analyze comments as they related to specific locations and issues identified by respondents.
Flyers, Postcards, and Announcements Other public outreach materials for workshops and meetings included flyers, postcards, email/text blasts, and Monarch Press articles. All of these materials were designed using the project branding and most were made available in both English and Spanish.
Online Survey and Map Postcard
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
63
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS Public workshops were designed to be flexible and targeted to best serve Goleta’s community and encourage wide participation. Workshops were scheduled throughout the project’s planning process to engage the community at important milestones.
Two pop-up workshops were conducted shortly after the project kick-off meeting. The team set up a booth at the Lemon Festival on Saturday, September 24 and at the Farmers’ Market on Sunday, September 25, 2016. Both events were very well attended and allowed the team to introduce the project to a large number of community members. In addition, the team gathered many comments utilizing large table maps and exhibits prepared for the workshops. The team distributed postcards inviting people to take the online survey and to provide additional comments via the online map.
POP-UP WORKSHOPS
Pop-up workshops are programmed to coincide with existing regularly scheduled community events. These workshops allow the project team to reach out to large numbers of community members in a setting with documented high attendance. These kinds of workshops work well at the beginning of the planning process because they allowed the team to gather comments, as well as to generate interest in upcoming conventional workshops.
“
Comment regarding Fairview Avenue and Hollister Ave intersection
Extend bike path to Cathedral Oaks.
Comment regarding multi-use path near Ellwood Elementary
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
“ “
Better signal timing. Dangerous intersection.
“
“
Intimidating, and long intersection. Not enough time and confusing signalization.
“
64
“ “
At both of these workshops, people enthusiastically provided comments on the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. They shared issues about certain corridors and intersections, but also highlighted areas that were good examples.
Comment regarding Storke Road and Hollister Ave intersection
Lots of emphasis here. Awful crossing.
Comment regarding Fairview Avenue/US101 overpass
Lemon Festival Pop-Up Workshop
Farmers’ Market Pop-Up Workshop
One of four table maps with comments from the Pop-up Workshops CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
65
CONVENTIONAL WORKSHOPS
Conventional workshops typically take place in centrally-located community spaces at important milestones of the planning process.
Workshops 1 and 2 The initial two workshops were scheduled on November 9, 2016, at two locations. The first took place at UCSB in the morning and the second took place at the Goleta Valley Community Center in the evening. Both workshops allowed community members and stakeholders to learn about the project and to provide valuable comments. A brief formal presentation was scheduled at the beginning of both workshops to introduce the project, review the planning process, and communicate the objectives of the workshop. The table maps were organized by dividing the City into four quadrants. This allowed the maps to be printed at a larger scale so that attendees could easily identify and highlight constraints and opportunities. Furthermore, the maps were designated with a bicycle-focus or pedestrian-focus to allow people to comment on specific matters. Additional exhibits depicting important information and educational material were posted on easels throughout the room. Surveys and Spanish interpretation was also available.
Workshop Instructions
The following comments summarize the major points of discussion:
The workshops were well-attended and the project team documented over 200 comments. Attendees were encouraged to complete the online survey and to provide additional comments using the online map.
66
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
1. Fairview Avenue and the 101 overpass is dangerous and needs attention. 2. Provide separated bicycle facilities. Multi-use paths are favored. 3. Improve signal timing for pedestrians and install higher visibility crosswalks at major intersections.
Table map discussions
Interactive exhibit participation
One of eight table map with comments from November 9, 2016 Workshop CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
67
Workshop 3 The City scheduled a third workshop at the Encina Royale clubhouse lounge on December 8, 2016. Taking this workshop to the Encino Royale senior neighborhood allowed the City to gather comments from community members that may not have had the ability to attend previous and future workshops. They provided many valuable comments, particularly regarding the walking environment, and suggestions on how to improve existing infrastructure. The following comments summarize the major points of discussion: 1. Fairview Avenue over the 101 overpass is dangerous and needs attention. 2. Replace broken sidewalks, widen narrow sidewalks, remove obstacles such as poles, and improve street infrastructure maintenance. 3. Many curbs near driveways are not painted red long enough. Hinders pedestrian visibility and makes crossing difficult. 4. Improve signal timing for pedestrians and install higher visibility crosswalks at major intersections. 5. Vehicular speeding is dangerous. Encina Royale Workshop table map comments
68
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Workshop 4 The fourth conventional workshop took place on June 21, 2017 at the Goleta Valley Community Center. Attendees were presented a list of potential projects that had been identified through the previous workshops and online input. Existing conditions photos, key maps, and planning-level recommendations were provided for each of the projects. In addition, a list of all active transportatino-related City projects was presented and made available on all table maps and as a separate exhibit. This list included projects in the City’s CIP list, as well as projects identified through this planning process that would involve participation from neighboring jurisdictions, such as the City of Santa Barbara. The top projects were organized as individual exhibits on easels around the room, as well as identified on the table maps. The following comments summarize the major points of discussion: 1. The area encompassing Fairview Avenue, the 101 overpass, and Calle Real is dangerous and needs attention. 2. Provide separated bicycle facilities and multi-use paths throughout the major corridors. 3. Create safe and enjoyable bicycle loops within the City. 4. Improve signal timing for pedestrians and install higher visibility crosswalks at major intersections. 5. Include visionary policies to guide future bicycle and pedestrian projects.
June 21, 2017 Workshop table map comments
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
69
ONLINE SURVEY AND MAP RESULTS An online survey and crowdsourcing map were created at the beginning of the project’s planning process to give people a variety of options to provide feedback. Printed versions of both the survey and map were also available at all community workshops. The online survey asked a variety of walking and bicycling infrastructure questions and allowed people to provide both general and specific comments. The survey also directed people to the online map that allowed them to place comments about specific locations, such as street corridors and intersections. The survey was first announced at the pop-up workshops and was publicly available until it closed on February 20, 2017. The City was delighted to hear the survey closed with more than 1,600 participants. This record-setting number for the City was an indication of how important the walking and bicycling environment is for the Goleta community. The online map generated over 550 comments as of February 20, 2017. The survey and map data were used for gaining a general understanding of the existing pedestrian and bicycle issues, as factors for several GIS analyses, and guiding project prioritization. The complete list of survey results and online comments can be found in the Appendix of the final document.
Figure 3-2: Online Map Comment Points
70
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 3-3: Survey Heat Map
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
71
SURVEY RESULTS
How do you currently travel throughout Goleta?
The survey questions were designed to develop a general understanding of the community’s current and future state of mind regarding active transportation. A total of twelve questions were asked, many of which included the option to provide additional comments related to the question.
85.6% 69.6% 51.4%
Printed and online surveys were available at local civic spaces and through online platforms. The City and the TAC worked together to distribute surveys using the City’s website, stakeholder email listservs, the Monarch Press, and public workshops.
20.6%
With over 1,600 survey responses, the following robust results helped to highlight the most important issues used later in the prioritization process. The entire survey results summary can be found in the Appendix A.
Bike
Public Transit
Car
5.4%
Electric Car
Passing Through
Where would you like to see better bicycle and pedestrian facilities near?
47.7%
62.1%
Resident of Goleta
72
Resident of Unincorporated County
Resident of Santa Barbara
Resident of Carpinteria
UCSB Student
UCSB Faculty
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Other
33.7%
Beach
32.9%
UCSB
0.25%
Community Centers
6.9% Parks
6.3%
Schools
26.8%
Shopping Centers
18.2%
17.2%
44.7%
43.2%
Transit Stops
47.1%
23.4%
62.2%
Old Town
How Would You Best Describe Yourself?
Walk
3.7%
Poor Walkway Conditions
Work
Regularly
Worship Events
Rarely
School
71.8% 4.4% 23.8%
16.8%
47.3% 35.9%
41.1% 41.5%
44.5% 28.2%
17.3%
Minor Obstacle
Not an Obstacle
Work
Walk Pet
Regularly
Worship Events
Rarely
Visit Family or Friends
Lack of Work Amenities
60.6% Personal Safety
Major Obstacle
60.6%
11.8%
60.6%
60.6% 60.6%
60.6% 60.6% 60.6%
60.6%
Lack of Secure Bike Parking
11.8%
Darkness
60.6%
60.6% 60.6% 60.6%
Weather
60.6% 60.6% 60.6%
60.6% 60.6%
11.8%
29.4% 29.4% 29.4%
29.4% 7.8% 29.4%
29.4% 7.8%
29.4%
29.4%
What keeps you from bicycling more often for short trips?
7.8% 29.4%
29.4% 7.8% 7.8%
49.6% 19.7% 30.7%
38.8% 46.0% 15.2%
21.8% 4.9%
73.4%
To Get to Transit
Air Pollution
Never
Poor Bike Facilities Conditions
Shopping/ Errads
Need to Transport People/Things
Personal Safety
Major Obstacle
Typical Trip Purposes (Bicycling)
Leisure
Darkness
Visit Family or Friends
11.8%
School
60.6%
To Get to Transit
60.6%
Shopping/ Errads
60.6% 60.6% 60.6%
Leisure
Weather
27.4%
59.9% 20.9%
7.8% 32.3%
42.7% 36.3%
29.4% 29.4% 29.4%
29.7% 37.8% 32.5%
11.8% 22.8%
18.4%
40.9%
40.7%
62.1%
65.5%
What keeps you from walking more often for short trips?
26.9% 11.0%
10.0% 22.9%
34.1% 39.2% 26.7%
25.0% 14.4%
60.6%
67.1%
Typical Trip Purposes (Walking)
Need to Air Pollution Transport People/Things
Minor Obstacle
Not an Obstacle
Never
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
73
Comfortable Walking Distances
Comfortable Bicycling Distances 35.1%
30.6% 24.3%
25.3%
15.8%
16.7%
13.1%
7.9%
7.6%
6.7%
Up to 1/4 mile
23.4%
22.6%
3.7% Up to 1/2 mile
Up to 1 mile
Up to 1.5 miles
Up to 2 miles
More than 2 miles
I don’t bikeU
nder 1 mile
1-3 miles
4-5 miles
6-10 miles
11-20 miles
More than 20 miles
SUMMARY OF OUTREACH RESULTS From the initial pop-up workshop at the Lemon Festival to the last TAC meeting, public participation has been extremely insightful and active. Community members took advantage of all ten opportunities to voice their thoughts and make suggestions on how to improve the walking and bicycling environment in the City. The following is a summary of the major topics and issues discussed at the previous workshops and meetings: 1. The City has a good “foundation” of bicycle infrastructure. The City needs to focus on closing gaps and improving specific sections along corridors. 2. All of the freeway overpasses and underpasses need to be improved. There are several dangerous conditions for both pedestrians and bicyclists. 3. The Fairview Avenue/ 101 overpass received the largest number of comments from people at all workshops, online sur-
74
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
vey, and online map. 4. Install missing sidewalks. 5. Major intersections would benefit from: a. Enhanced crosswalk markings b. Improved signal timing c. Pedestrian lighting d. Address flooding issues 6. Upgrade existing bicycle infrastructure. 7. Upgrade bicycle lanes to buffered bicycle lanes or separated bicycle lanes where possible. 8. Continue adding green bicycle markings through intersections and conflict zones. 9. People prefer to use protected bicycle facilities, such as multi-use paths or protected bicycle lanes. 10. The City would benefit from better wayfinding and traffic signage.
LESSONS LEARNED
The BPMP experienced great success in reaching out to a large number of community members and stakeholders. However, there were challenges engaging the City’s Spanish-speaking community. For future planning efforts, it is advised that additional outreach specific to the Spanish-speaking community is conducted. Identifying a community champion at the very beginning of the planning process that is well-connected with the residents may help ensure equitable community feedback.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) TAC meetings were scheduled throughout the planning process at important milestones. TAC members discussed topics such as coordination with the City’s existing and future land use and transportation plans, making sure pedestrian facilities were given a balanced attention in the study, and robust community outreach. Following TAC meetings were held to discuss the project’s status, public outreach results to date, and the next steps in the planning process. For example, one TAC meeting was focused on reviewing workshop results and the draft document outline. At another meeting, TAC members discussed the importance of including visionary goals and projects, and policy changes that would improve the future of Goleta’s active transportation network. Subsequent TAC meetings were focused on specific topics, such as reviewing the proposed project list and gathering feedback on how to best prioritize the projects, as well as compiling and reviewing draft policies.
TAC MEMBER LIST 1. Various City of Goleta Departments 2. City of Santa Barbara 3. County of Santa Barbara 4. UCSB 5. SBCAG 6. MTD 7. Goleta Chamber of Commerce 8. County Health Department 9. SBBike 10. COAST 11. Community Environmental Council 12. Isla Vista Community Services District 13. Goleta Unified School District Board 14. Community Associations
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
75
4
RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
77
RECOMMENDATIONS OVERVIEW This chapter discusses the physical improvements recommended to enhance bicycling and walking in Goleta, beginning with a discussion of the route types in use throughout California and the United States, followed by how the City developed and assessed projects for feasibility and priority. The recommended improvements list includes both short-term and long-term improvements, and is meant to serve as a guide to help the City in allocating funds as they become available through various sources. The chapter contains maps and tables that communicate details such as location, extent, and type. It is important to note that the success of recommended projects is closely tied to programs and adopted standards, codes, and policies. Though beyond the scope of this plan, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and Evaluation programs can be used to leverage investments in these projects. Similarly, the effectiveness of bicycle and pedestrian programs is maximized by actual project implementation. Likewise, changes to City standards, codes, and policies may be needed to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Project implementation may, in turn, facilitate changes to City standards, codes, and policies.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS While not universally applied, in general, pedestrian travel in urban areas has long tended to be accommodated with features like sidewalks, crosswalks, dedicated signals, and curb extensions. The proposed pedestrian treatments in the BPMP address a wide variety of issues identified in the analysis and community engagement process. The recommendations include enhanced connectivity to transit, school zones, senior zones, activity centers, parks, and other community destinations. The pedestrian recommendations are critical to ensuring equitable multi-modal transportation because it serves the populations that may not be able to bike, and instead rely on transit and walking. Newer innovations like pedestrian scrambles, modified signal timing, flashing beacons, and other pedestrian improvements are explained in this chapter in addition to standard pedestrian treatments. A focus on providing safer, less stressful bicycle travel has occurred more recently across the United States, with significant transformation in the state of practice for bicycle travel over the last five years. Much of this may be attributed to bicycling’s changing role in the overall transportation system. No longer viewed as an “alternative” mode, it is increasingly considered as legitimate transportation that should be actively promoted as a means of achieving community environmental, social, and economic goals. While connectivity and convenience remain essential bicycle travel quality indicators, recent research indicates the increased acceptance and practice of daily bicycling will require “low-stress” bicycle routes, which are typically understood to be those that provide bicyclists with separation from high volume and high speed vehicular traffic. The route types the Public Works Department recommends in this plan, and described in the following section, are consistent with this evolving state of practice.
78
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
SIX KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES Also included in this chapter are six key performance measure goals that will guide the City in meeting their mode share goals. The icons associated with these performance measure goals are found throughout the chapter to help communicate which proposed walking and bicycling improvements will help the City reach their goals.
Complete the current list of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) bicycle and pedestrian projects by 2035 Increase walking and bicycling mode share to 15% by 2025 and 20% by 2030
Reduce driving alone commute by 10% (to 60%) by 2030
Reach an “Overall Score” of “3” in the PlacesForBikes City Ranking by 2025
Ensure a variety of infrastructure improvements are implemented by 2025 Percentage of School-aged Children Walking & Bicycling to Schools – 13% combined; 15% increase by 2030 CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
79
CONVENTIONAL BICYCLE TREATMENTS
There are four conventional bicycle route types recognized by the CA Department of Transportation. Details of their design, associated wayfinding, and pavement markings can be found in the CA MUTCD and CA Highway Design Manual.
Class I: Multi-Use Paths Class I multi-use paths (frequently referred to as “bicycle paths”) are physically separated from motor vehicle travel routes, with exclusive rights-of-way for non-motorized users like bicyclists and pedestrians. Class II: Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes are one-way route types that carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as the adjacent motor vehicle traffic. They are typically located along the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge, or parking lane.
Multi-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
80
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Class III: Bicycle Routes A bicycle route is a suggested bicycle path of travel marked by signs designating a preferred path between destinations. They are recommended where traffic volumes and roadway speeds are fairly low (35 mph or less). Class IV: Separated Bikeways (Cycle Tracks) Separated bikeways are bicycle-specific routes that combine the user experience of a multiuse path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bicycle lane. Separated bikeways are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and designed to be distinct from any adjoining sidewalk. The variety of physical protection measures can include raised curbs, parkway strips, reflective bollards, or parked vehicles. Separated bikeways can be either one-way or two-way, depending on the street network, available right-of-way and adjacent land use, but the safety of two-way separated bikeways must be carefully evaluated, especially if they cross motor vehicle routes. This is because few motor vehicle drivers are accustomed to two-way Separated bikeways and they may tend to look to the left only when deciding whether it is safe to proceed across the separated bikeways.
Bicycle Route
Separated Bikeway
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
81
PROJECT SPOTLIGHT : HOLLISTER AVENUE CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH - SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS PROJECT The Hollister Avenue Class I Multi-Use Path Safe Routes to Schools project was completed in late 2017 along the south side of Hollister Avenue between Pacific Oaks Road and Ellwood Elementary School. The project included reconfiguring Hollister Avenue to accommodate the new path within existing City right-of-way and includes a 14-foot-wide concrete path with a five foot landscape buffer adjacent to Hollister Avenue. The existing five foot Class II bicycle lanes were retained along both sides of Hollister Avenue. The path is located in a residential area where school children and families want to bicycle to school safely. Previously, of the 481 kids who attend the school, only 25 rode their bicycles while over 300 walked. With the completion of this project, the City and Ellwood Elementary School hope to see many more students and families walking and bicycling to school. The path will also serve commuters, UCSB students, recreational riders, and tourists.
82
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
ENHANCED BICYCLE TREATMENTS
While the conventional bicycle route types can be found throughout the United States, there has been a distinct shift towards further enhancement. For example, the CA MUTCD has approved the installation of buffered bicycle lanes, while Shared Lane Markings or “Sharrows” have been in use since 2008 throughout the State. These enhancements are low cost, easy to install, and provide additional awareness about the likely presence of bicyclists. In many instances, installation of these bicycle route enhancements can be coordinated as part of street resurfacing projects. The use of green paint has also become a simple and effective way to communicate the likely presence of bicyclists. It is also used to denote potential conflict zones between bicyclists and vehicles.
Buffered Bicycle Lane
Buffered Bicycle Lanes Buffered bicycle lanes provide additional space between the bicycle lane and traffic lane, parking lane, or both, to provide a more protected and comfortable space for bicyclists than a conventional bicycle lane. The buffering also encourages bicyclists to avoid riding too close to parked vehicles, keeping them out of the “door zone” where there is the potential danger of drivers or passengers suddenly opening doors into the bicyclists’ path. Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”) The shared lane marking is commonly used where parking is allowed adjacent to the travel lane. It is now common practice to center them within the typical vehicular travel route in the rightmost travel lane to ensure adequate separation between bicyclists and parked vehicles. Many cities install sharrows over a green background to enhance visibility.
Shared Lane Marking (“Sharrow”)
Bike Boxes A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists a safe and visible way to wait ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. This positioning helps encourage bicyclists traveling straight through not to wait against the curb for the signal change.
Bike Box CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
83
LOW STRESS BICYCLE TREATMENTS
There are a number of other non-conventional route types that the City may find useful in specific situations. In many cases, the conventional bicycle route types previously mentioned may not meet the community’s perceptions of safe and comfortable bikeways. Protected, low-stress streets, and bicycle-prioritized routes are constantly revised and improving to meet the communities needs. The improvements described in this section have been implemented in other states in the United States as well as other countries with great success and are quickly becoming standard recommendations. Details of these route types and other treatments can be found in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide or AASHTO Guide of the Development of Bicycle Facilities.
Bicycle Boulevard
Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle boulevards provide a convenient, low-stress cycling environment for people of all ages and abilities. They are installed on streets with low vehicular volumes and speeds and often parallel higher volume, higher speed arterials. Bicycle boulevard treatments use a combination of signs, pavement markings and traffic calming measures that help to discourage through trips by motor vehicle drivers and create safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterial streets. Signage and Wayfinding Signage and wayfinding on all streets and bicycle routes are intended to identify routes to both bicyclists and drivers, provide destination information and branding, and to inform all users of changes in roadway conditions.
Signage and Wayfinding
Colored Bicycle Facilities
84
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Colored Bicycle Lanes Colored pavement increases the visibility of bicycle routes, identifying potential areas of conflict, and reinforces bicyclists’ priority in these areas. Colored pavement can be used as a corridor treatment, along the length of a bicycle lane or within a protected bikeway. Additionally, it can be used as a spot treatment, such as crossing markings at particularly complex intersections where the bicycle path may be unclear. Consistent application of color across a bikeway corridor is important to promote clear understanding for all roadway users. Examples within the City include Calle Real near the Fairview Avenue intersection. Green Intersection Conflict Striping Intersection crossing markings indicate the intended path of bicyclists. Colored striping can be used to highlight conflict areas between bicyclists and vehicles, such as where bicycle lanes merge across motor vehicle turn lanes.
Green Transition Striping at Intersections
Protected Intersections Protected intersections maintain integrity (low-stress experience) of their adjoining separated bicycle lanes by fully separating bicyclists from motor vehicles. Hallmark features of these protected intersections include a twostage crossing supported by an advance queuing space, protective concrete islands, special bike-cross markings (parallel with crosswalks), and special signal phasing. Two-Stage Turn Queue Box Two-stage turn queue boxes can provide a more comfortable left-turn crossing for many bicyclists because they entail two simple crossings, rather than one complex one. They also provide a degree of separation from vehicular traffic, because they do not require merging with vehicle traffic to make left turns. Bicyclists wanting to make a left turn can continue into the intersection when they have a green light and pull into the green bike box. Bicyclists then turn 90 degrees to face their intended direction and wait for a green light to continue through.
Protected Intersection
Two-Stage Turn Queue Box CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
85
Bicycle Signals This category includes all types of traffic signals directed at bicyclists. These can include typical green/yellow/red signals with signage explaining the signal controls, or special bikeway icons displayed within the signage lights themselves. Near-side bicycle signals may incorporate a “countdown to green” display, as well as a “countdown to red.” Bicycle Detection Bicycle detection is used at intersections with traffic signals to alert the signal controller that a bicycle crossing event has been requested. Bicycle detection occurs either through the use of push buttons or by automated means.
TRAFFIC CALMING
Bike Signal
Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and/or cut-through motor vehicle traffic volumes. The intent of traffic calming is to alter driver behavior and to improve street safety, livability, and other public purposes. Other techniques consist of operational measures such as police enforcement and speed displays. The following examples are traffic calming measures that may apply to Goleta.
Roundabouts / Traffic Circles A roundabout is a circular intersection with yield control at its entry that allows a driver to proceed at controlled speeds in a counter-clockwise direction around a central island. Roundabouts are designed to maximize motorized and non-motorized traffic through their innovative design that includes reconfigured sidewalks, bikeway bypasses, high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian flashing beacons, and other traffic measures. Roundabouts can be implemented on most streets, but may require additional right-of-way.
Bicycle Detection, LED Blank Out Sign
A traffic circle is a traffic calming measure commonly applied at uncontrolled intersections throughout low volume, local residential streets. They lower traffic speeds on each approach and typically avoid or reduce right-of-way conflicts because the overall footprint is smaller compared to roundabouts. Traffic circles may be installed using simple markings or raised islands, but are best accompanied with drought-tolerant landscaping or other attractive vertical elements. Traffic Circle
86
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Signals and Warning Devices Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are special signals used to warn and control traffic at unsignalized locations to assist pedestrians in crossing a street via a marked crosswalk. Either of these devices should be installed at locations that experience high pedestrian volumes and that connect people to popular destinations such as schools, parks, and retail. Signals and warning devices should be paired with additional pedestrian improvements, where appropriate, such as curb extensions, enhanced crosswalk marking, lighting, median refuge islands, and corresponding signage. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
87
Speed Tables/Raised Crosswalk Speed tables are flat-topped road humps, often constructed with textured surfacing on the flat section. Speed tables and raised crosswalks help to reduce vehicle speeds and enhance pedestrian safety. Speed Displays Speed displays measure the speed of approaching vehicles by radar and inform drivers of their speeds using an LED display. Speed displays contribute to increased traffic safety because they are particularly effective in reducing the speed of vehicles traveling ten or more miles per hour over the speed limit. Chicanes Chicanes are a series of narrowings or curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other forming an S-shaped path. Chicanes reduce drivers’ speeds by causing them to shift their horizontal path of travel.
Speed Table
Traffic Diverters A traffic diverter is a roadway design feature placed in a roadway to prohibit vehicular traffic from entering into or exiting from the street, or both. On-Street Edge Friction Edge friction is a combination of vertical elements such as on-street parking, bicycle routes, chicanes, site furnishings, street trees, and shrubs that reduce the perceived street width, which has been shown to reduce motor vehicle speeds. Speed Display
Traffic Diverter
88
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Chicanes
PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS
Many streets in Goleta already have sidewalks, especially within newer neighborhoods. However, it is important to evaluate the network to determine if appropriate sidewalk widths and ADA compliant curb ramps are present. While many intersections are signalized and crosswalks exist, there are some segments with long blocks without convenient crossing places. Providing crossing treatments will help reduce “jaywalking” and unsafe crossings between intersections.
Enhanced Crosswalk Markings Enhanced crosswalk markings can be installed at existing or proposed crosswalk locations. They are designed to both guide pedestrians and to alert drivers of a crossing location. The bold pattern is intended to enhance visual awareness. Curb Extensions Also called bulb-outs or neck-downs, curb extensions extend the curb line outward into the travel way, reducing the pedestrian crossing distance. Typically occurring at intersections, they increase pedestrian visibility, reduce the distance a pedestrian must cross, and reduce vehicular delay. Curb extensions must be installed in locations where they won’t interfere with bicycle lanes or separated bikeways. If both treatments are needed, then additional design features such as ramps, or halfsized curb extensions should be considered.
Enhanced Crosswalk Markings
Refuge Island Refuge islands provide pedestrians and bicyclists a relatively safe place within intersection and midblock crossings to wait if they are unable to complete their crossing in one movement. Refuge Island
Curb Extensions CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
89
Mid-block Crossings Mid-block crossings provide convenient locations for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross thoroughfares in areas with infrequent intersection crossings or where the nearest intersection creates substantial out-of-direction travel. Mid-block crossings should be paired with additional traffic-control devices such as PHBs, RRFBs, LED enhanced flashing signs, and/or refuge islands. Lighting Pedestrian-scale lighting provides many practical and safety benefits, such as illuminating the path and making crossing walkers and bicyclists more visible to drivers. Lighting can also be designed to be fun, artistic, and interactive. Pedestrian Scramble Pedestrian scrambles stop vehicular traffic flow simultaneously in all directions to allow pedestrians to cross the intersection in any direction. They are used at intersections with particularly heavy pedestrian crossing levels.
Mid-block Crossing
Modified Traffic Signal Timing Adjusting the time needed to cross high-volume and wide streets provides additional safety and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists. Senior Zones Potential future City designated senior zones can be enhanced with street signage, increased crossing times at traffic signals, benches, bus stops with shelters, and pedestrian lighting. Transit Stop Amenities Transit stop amenities such as shelters with overhead protection, seating, trash receptacles, and lighting are essential for encouraging people to make use of public transit.
Pedestrian Scramble
MTD Bus Stop
90
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
PLACEMAKING
The inclusion of urban elements such as parklets and community gardens encourages walking and provides usable space for all ages. In many cities, these urban elements have helped to transform urban villages and downtowns into walkable destinations. Coordinating with local Goleta businesses and organizations may provide collaborative design and funding opportunities between the City, its businesses, residents, and visitors.
Parklets Parklets are small, outdoor seating areas that take over one or two parking spots, reclaiming the space for the community, and improving the urban environment’s aesthetics and streetscape. Community Gardens Community gardens provide fresh produce and plants, and assist in neighborhood improvement through a sense of community and connection to the environment. They are typically managed by local governments or non-profit associations.
Parklets
Furnishings and Public Art Transit shelters, bicycle racks, seating, and public art provide important amenities for functionality, design and vitality of the urban environment. They announce that the street is a safe and comfortable place to be and provide visual detail and interest.
Furnishings and Public Art
Community Gardens
Lighting CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
91
CORRIDORS OF IMPORTANCE: LONG-TERM VISION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LOW-STRESS NETWORK The City undertook a thorough discussion between multiple groups including City staff, the TAC, the community, and stakeholders to developing a list of potential improvements. Thanks to the iterative planning process, the team developed a list of recommended bicycle and pedestrian improvements that are both specific to the City of Goleta as well as relate to the adjacent jurisdictions and the region. This section begins with a discussion of the long-term vision of the corridors of importance that address the creation of a comprehensive low-stress active transportation network. A low-stress active transportation network is one that provides ample options for residents, visitors, and anyone in the region to get to and from their destinations in a safe, comfortable, and enjoyable manner by walking, bicycling, or a combination of both. A complete low-stress network can be comprised of multi-use paths, separated bikeways, bicycle boulevards, safe crossings of roadways, freeways, rail lines, and creeks, wide sidewalks (where appropriate), lighting, street trees, trails, bus shelters, and any other feature that contributes to a safer, more comfortable experience. The following six corridors of importance are critical in creating a comprehensive low-stress network in Goleta. These improvements are supported by 37 additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements. These proposed improvements reflect the corridors that have been identified as critical for improving safety and comfort, as well as connecting major neighborhoods, activity centers, schools, parks, and transit stops. Implementing these corridors is critical to the future of balanced mobility and active transportation in Goleta.
92
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
FAIRVIEW AVENUE/101 OVERPASS
The overpass’ existing layout was designed to maximize vehicular throughput, which creates great discomfort for pedestrians and bicyclists that rely on this overpass for traveling to and from their destinations. Pedestrians and bicyclists must use it because crossings of US 101 and the rail line are both limited and spaced apart.
to Berkeley Crosstown Route
to Cathedral Oaks Road
The Fairview Avenue/101 overpass is widely considered to be Goleta’s least bicycle and pedestrian-friendly location. This corridor received the overwhelmingly highest number of comments about the community’s various mobility concerns.
The City will pursue grant opportunities to complete a study that dives deeper into understanding this corridor’s constraints and opportunities. The study will coordinate planning efforts for the Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Plan, as well as determine the best solution to get people safely and comfortably across US 101 when the bridge is replaced.
The lack of a sidewalk on the east side of the overpass, the narrow sidewalks on the west side, the lack of high-visibility crosswalks, the high traffic volume and vehicular speeds, the lack of buffered or fully separated bikeways, and intimidating transitions at the ends of the overpass all lead to uncomfortable and less safe conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Long-term, the vision includes a complete realignment and roadway reconfiguration. This will require additional right-of-way and coordination with local and State agencies
to bridge at Sandspit Road
A Class I, multi-use path and narrowing of the travel lanes are recommended to improve the walking and bicycling environment in the short/intermediate term. Improving the transition at the beginning and end of the overpass will also aid in improving the negative conditions currently experienced. Although the recommended Class I multi-use path is an attempt to mitigate how uncomfortable the corridor is, it is only intended to be an interim solution that takes advantage of the current overpass configuration and available roadway width to create a more comfortable route at a relatively low cost, especially compared to
a separate bicycle/pedestrian-only bridge over the freeway, or long-term bridge alignment and roadway reconfiguration. Improvements should also consider the intersections of Calle Real at Fairview Avenue and Encina Road at Fairview Avenue. This entire corridor should be analyzed holistically to determine the most appropriate improvements.
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
93
STORKE ROAD/GLENN ANNIE ROAD
The Stoke Road/Glenn Annie Road corridor is also considered as one of the City’s least bicycle and pedestrian-friendly areas. The corridor travels through the City in a north-south direction, with Dos Pueblos High School at the northern terminus, and Isla Vista Elementary School and UCSB at the southern terminus. There are several intersections throughout this corridor that received a high number of comments and concerns, such as the intersection of Storke Road and Hollister Avenue, and the US 101 on-off ramp intersections. The recommendations for these intersections, found later this chapter, address short-term solutions, but this Plan recommends additional studies to be completed to comprehensively design and implement additional improvements. This project is considered a high priority because it lies within a high volume corridor used by students, families, and employees for getting to and from their destinations. As a future opportunity, this plan recommends a separate study to be completed to analyze the opportunities and constraints of having a fully protected and separated bikeway, as well as pedestrian-friendly intersections. In addition, coordination with UCSB and Santa Barbara County will be critical to successfully implementing such recommendations.
94
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
“GOLETA LOOP”
The “Goleta Loop” future opportunity project was created from discussions between the City, community, and TAC. This project would be the culmination of a successfully integrated, separated loop around the northern half of Goleta using Cathedral Oaks Road, Hollister Avenue and the proposed San Jose Creek Path. This loop includes City CIP No. 9061, which calls for a Class I multi-use path on the north side of Cathedral Oaks Road between Glen Annie Road and San Pedro Creek. Public Works also envisions the need for a continuous route along Hollister Avenue from the western end of Goleta all the way to Stearn’s Wharf in Santa Barbara.
Improvements have been made on Hollister Avenue by the City and County since the BPMP’s inception. This loop would also improve connections to the southern half of Goleta by making connections to UCSB, the coast, and other regional bikeways. Inter-agency coordination will be needed to fully implement this project because several sections cross jurisdictions, such as Hollister Avenue between Los Carneros Road and Fairview Avenue.
ithin City
Portion w
of Santa
A loop that families feel safe riding, walking, and jogging on, and that they can use to get to major destinations, is an achievable goal.
Barbara
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
95
GOLETA BEACH/UCSB ACCESS
Throughout the planning process, people shared how much they enjoyed the Coast Route Bike Path. UCSB students, faculty, and staff, as well as Goleta residents and visitors, have a great appreciation for this Class I multi-use path located along the coast and Atascadero Creek. Public Works identified a long-term vision project that addresses observed patterns along this segment of Fairview Road and have been trying to coordinate a future ATP grant application. Research revealed a Class I multi-use path in a 1970’s County Plan along this segment. Workshop attendees expressed a desire for a multi-use path or a separated on-street bikeway on Fairview Avenue that provides a safe and direct connection between Goleta, Goleta Beach Park, and UCSB. Improvements along this corridor would address the lack of safe pedestrian crossings from the airport to the northbound bus shelter on the eastern side of Fairview Avenue, as well as the lack of sidewalks. This project would also provide a great connection to the “Goleta Loop.” This project crosses several jurisdictions, so coordination with UCSB, City of Santa Barbara, and Santa Barbara County will be critical for successful implementation.
96
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
e Bike Coast Rout
Path
CALLE REAL
The Calle Real future opportunity project involves the creation of a low-stress, separated on-street bikeway that connects the community to the multiple destinations accessible from Calle Real. This east-west corridor would also provide a useful connection between Goleta and Santa Barbara. Careful attention is needed at the Calle Real and Patterson Avenue intersection due to the difficulty crossing the corridor safely. Traffic calming to address vehicular speeds would be necessary as well, especially near commercial centers between Vega Drive and Kellogg Avenue.
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
97
RAILROAD/HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE PATH
Multi-use paths constructed along railroad and freeway rights-of-way have found great success in many parts of California and in the country. The Highway 101 right-of-way may be an option for multi-use pathway routing, and Public Works has identified a potential future opportunity to construct a multi-use path along the railroad right-of-way that parallels Highway 101 through the middle the City in an east-west direction.
98
The City and SBCAG were awarded a grant from the Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) to fund a new train station that will include walking and bicycling improvements with the potential to serve as a great access point for the proposed multi-use path. In-depth coordination would be necessary with several agencies and jurisdictions, includ-
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
ing the Union Pacific Railroad, the County and City of Santa Barbara, and Caltrans, to implement this project so that it connects western Goleta with Downtown Santa Barbara and other destinations.
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
99
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONS This section addresses the physical improvements component of a comprehensive suite of recommendations to help improve Goleta’s bicycling and walking environment. These built improvements include all of the treatment types referenced in the “BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS” section at the beginning of this chapter, as well as more detailed recommendations for areas around Goleta’s schools. To round out this plan’s overall recommendations, subsequent sections address associated policies and programs.
PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
Project prioritization was an iterative process that combined data-driven analysis consisting of cumulative scores derived from the various inputs (criteria), with City and stakeholder feedback to determine initial project priority. The inputs used for the prioritization process were as follows:
Table: 4-1 lists the proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects including information such as location, route type, length, extent, and ranking. Figures 4-1 through 4-5 depict proposed projects and their relationship with adjacent jurisdictions.
»» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »»
100
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Number of Attractors (points of interest) Number of Schools Number of Parks Reported Collisions Public Transportation to Work Walk to Work Bike to Work Households Without Vehicles 2010 Population Density (Residents/acre) 2010 Employment Density (Employed per Residents 16) Seniors over 65 Active Transportation Network/ Gap Closure Number of Comments Received from Community Engagement Process Grant Competitiveness
The prioritization process used a default weighting score to produce an initial list of ranked projects. The initial list was then reviewed by City staff and stakeholders, and subsequently modified to address additional criteria, and to adjust some criteria weighting to closer reflect local conditions. The project list with assigned weighting is included in the appendix. The numbering used to identify projects in the following section does not necessarily imply which project should be built first. Implementing the proposed improvements has no specific time line, since the availability of funds for implementation is variable and tied to the priorities of the City’s capital projects. If there is desire, recommended projects can be implemented at whatever interval best fits funding cycles, or to take into consideration the availability of new information, new funding sources, updated collision statistics, updated CIP lists, etc.
Table 4-1: POTENTIAL PROJECT LIST Notes
Class I
Add Class I Multi-purpose path to separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic. Conduct feasibility study to closely analyze corridor. Corridor requires complete street type improvements.
Class I or IV
Difficult to cross at Cathedral Oaks and Hollister. Install multi-use path (continuous). Install curb ramps and high-visibility crosswalks. Part of the long-term vision plan for Hollister Avenue.
Moreton Bay Ln
Class II
Install buffered bicycle lanes, narrow the travel lanes, high-visibility crosswalks, and decrease curb radii on north side. Corresponds with road resurfacing work.
Eastern City Limit
Class I or IV
Coordinate with Complete Streets Project. Construct a multi-use path along Hollister Avenue between Fairview Avenue and SR 217.
Type
Project Name
1
Bike/ Ped
Class I Multi-Use Path Fairview Avenue
2
Bike/ Ped
Class I Multi-Use Path along Hollister Avenue – Western End
3
Bike/ Ped
Bike Lane Improvements Encina Road
Encina Rd
Fairview Ave
4
Bike
Class I Multi-Use Path along Hollister Avenue – Old Town
Hollister Ave
Fairview Rd
5
Bike/ Ped
Bike Lane Improvements Glen Annie Road
Glenn Annie Rd
Cathedral Oaks Rd
US 101 Overpass
6
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements Kellogg Avenue
Kellogg Ave
Armitos Ave
Kellogg Way
Class II
Install Class II bike lanes on Kellogg Avenue, intersection and signal modifications. General Plan TE item.
7
Bike/ Ped
Intersection Crossing Improvements – Storke and Hollister
Storke Rd at Hollister Ave
Hollister Ave
-----
Crossing Improvements
Insufficient crossing time. Construct high-visibility crosswalks and modify signal timing.
Bike
Class I Multi-Use Path along Fairview Avenue South
Fairview Ave
Class I
Potential joint grant application/project between all three agencies and possibly UCSB. Construct a multi-use path along Fairview Avenue between Hollister Avenue and Sandspit Road.
Ped
Crossing Improvements – Cathedral Oaks Road & Dos Pueblos High
Dos Pueblos High School
RRFB or PHB
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) at road/driveway between Alameda Avenue and Glen Annie Road.
Bike
Class I Multi-Use Path Cathedral Oaks Road – San Pedro Creek to Eastern City Limit
Class I or IV
Class II lanes exist. Construct a multi-use path along Cathedral Oaks Road between San Pedro Creek and the eastern City limit near Cambridge Drive.
8
9
10
Segment
Infrastructure Type
Rank
Fairview Ave
Hollister Ave
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Between
Calle Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Hollister Ave
Cathedral Oaks Rd
San Pedro Creek
Hollister Ave
Elderberry Dr
Sandspit Rd
-----
Eastern City Limit
Lots of students ride/walk through here. Install buffered bicycle lanes (where possible), intersecBuffered Class II tion crossing markings, bike boxes, signal timing modifications, and high-visibility crosswalks.
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
101
TABLE 4-1: POTENTIAL PROJECT LIST (CONT.) Rank
Type
Project Name
Segment
11
Ped
Crossing Improvements – Berkeley Road at Kellogg Avenue
Berkeley Rd at Kellogg Ave
Ped
Crossing Improvements – Calle Real/ Fairview Avenue to Kellogg Avenue
Bike
Class I Multi-Use Path along Fairview Avenue North
Bike/ Ped
Crossing Improvements Hollister Avenue at Palo Alto Drive
Bike/ Ped
Bike Lane Improvements Los Carneros Road and Hollister Avenue
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements Patterson Avenue South
Ped
Crossing Improvements – Fairview Avenue at Cathedral Oaks
Fairview Ave at Cathedral Oaks
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements Cathedral Oaks Road – West Connection
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Paseo Del Piñon
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
102
Calle Real
Fairview Ave
Hollister Ave at Palo Alto Dr
Los Carneros Rd
Patterson Ave
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Infrastructure Type
Between Kellogg Ave
Fairview Ave
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Palo Alto Dr
Hollister Ave
More Rd
-----
Crossing Improvements
Notes Install high-visibility crosswalks on Berkeley Road at Kellogg Avenue.
Crossing Improvements
Reduce curb radii, install curb extensions, high-visibility crosswalks, modify signal timing on Calle Real from Fairview Avenue to Kellogg Avenue. Corresponds with road resurfacing projects.
Class I or IV
CIP 9060 project will construct sidewalk and Class II bicycle lanes through parts of this section. Construct a multi-use path along the rest of Fairview Avenue from Calle Real north to Cathedral Oaks Road.
Mid-block Crossing
Install crosswalk with a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) and high-visibility striping. May have reduced need with new Class I multi-use path; Re-evaluate following Class I multi-use path installation.
Class II
Install bicycle lanes on southbound Los Carneros at intersection, high-visibility crosswalks, bicycle crossing markings southbound to intersection, reduce curb radii, and modify signal timing. GTIP improvements include bicycle lanes.
Class II
Potential asphalt curb and re-striping to add Class II bike lanes on Patterson Avenue south from More Road (Cottage Valley Hospital) and the Coast Route. Coordinate with County on scope of work and distance.
-----
Crossing Improvements
Pedestrian crossing improvements for students are requested. Construct enhanced crosswalks, modify signal timing for pedestrians, re-locate utility poles in sidewalk, trim hedges, and signage and striping.
King Daniel Ln
Class II
Construct buffered bicycle lanes or convert to Class I multi-use or IV bike paths.
Kellogg Ave
Calle Real
-----
City limit at south
City limit
TABLE 4-1: POTENTIAL PROJECT LIST (CONT.) Infrastructure Type
Rank
Type
Project Name
Segment
Between
19
Bike/ Ped
Class I Multi-Use Path Overcrossing US 101/ Mendocino Drive
Mendocino Dr at US 101
20
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements Carlo Drive
Carlo Dr
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Calle Real
Class III
21
Bike/ Ped
Intersection Crossing Improvements – Cathedral Oaks at Alameda Avenue
Cathedral Oaks at Alameda Ave
Alameda Ave
-----
Crossing Improvements
-----
-----
Overcrossing
Notes Bike/ped bridge overcrossing. Not a selected alternative in 101 Crossing Project analysis. Construct a multi-use path overcrossing at Mendocino Drive. Install sharrows, add wayfinding signage, and striping. Potential for SBBike to add wayfinding signage as part of overall South Coast Wayfinding Program. Safer crossing desired. Install enhanced crosswalks, curb extensions, signage, and striping.
22
Bike/ Ped
Class I Multi-Use Path along Phelps Ditch
Univ Village Park /Flood Control
Hollister Ave
Ellwood Mesa Open Space
Class I
Construct a multi-use path along Phelps Ditch to connect to other Class I paths and trails. Public Works identified scope and public comments recommend connecting Hollister Class I to the Open Space and UCSB multipurpose trail system.
23
Bike/ Ped
Covington Way Class I Multi-Use Path Bridge Replacement
Convington Way at San Pedro Creek
San Pedro Creek
-----
Bridge and Signage
Add 4-way stop signs on streets at both ends of bridge. Replace with wider bridge to accommodate a multi-use path crossing San Pedro Creek.
24
Bike/ Class I Multi-Use Path in Ped Evergreen Park
Evergreen Acres Park
Brandon Elementary School
Waldorf School
Class I
Construct a multi-use path through Evergreen Park to connect schools, park, and residences. General Plan TE.
25
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements Ellwood Station Road
Ellwood Station Rd
San Blanco Dr
Calle Real
Class II
Construct Class II bike lanes on Ellwood Station Road between Calle Real and San Blanco Drive. General Plan TE item.
26
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements San Milano Drive
San Milano Dr
Evergreen Park Trailhead
San Blanco
Class II
Construct Class II bike lanes on San Milano Drive between Evergreen Park and San Blanco Drive. General Plan TE item.
27
Bike/ Ped
Class I Multi-Use Path Sperling Preserve
Sperling Preserve Northeast Edge
Class I
Construct a Class I multi-use path on Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve to coincide with the currently proposed Coast Route and Juan De Fuca trails.
Bike
Class I Multi-Use Path Calle Real/Los Carneros East
28
Calle Real
Ellwood Beach Dr
Los Carneros Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Eastern City Limit
Class I or IV
Existing Class II. City is restriping east of Fairview Avenue. Coordinate eastern end with County. Construct a multi-use path along Calle Real between Los Carneros Road and the eastern City limits.
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
103
TABLE 4-1: POTENTIAL PROJECT LIST (CONT.) Rank
Notes
Class III
Better connection to Ellwood Beach. Install way-finding signage and sharrows. Potential for SBBike to add wayfinding signage as part of overall South Coast Wayfinding Program.
Los Carneros Rd
Class II
Potential improved bike connection through business park on Cortona Avenue between Hollister Avenue /Marketplace across Los Carneros Road and continuing toward the Goleta Train Depot (Amtrak).
-----
-----
Crossing Improvements
Barling Terrace
Stow Canyon Rd
Covington Way/ Berkeley Rd Bridge
Class III
Install bicycle route signage and wayfinding to make clear this is a bicycle route for students. Private street within HOA.
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements Mendocino Drive/Dos Pueblos High
Mendocino Dr
Dos Pueblos HS
Calle Real
Class II or III
Install Class II or III features, install bicycle signal at Calle Real. Already residential area. Evaluate most used routes to schools for students.
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements Lindmar Road/Robin Hill Road
Lindmar Rd
Robin Hill Rd
La Patera
Class II
Bike connection to Goleta Train Depot (Amtrak) station. Connection goes through private property (Raytheon).
Bike/ Ped
Roundabout Signage and Striping Improvements – Los Carneros
Los Carneros Rd at Calle Real
-----
Markings and Signage
Add signage to let bicyclists know they can ride on sidewalk. Install yield sharks teeth striping and signage around the traffic calming circle and green-backed sharrows through roundabout.
Bike
Signage and Wayfinding Improvements – Covington Way/ Berkeley Road
Convington Way/ Berkeley Rd
Eastern City Limit
Class IIIB - Bike Boulevard
Add signage to brand as a bicycle boulevard. Potential for SBBike to add wayfinding signage as part of overall South Coast Wayfinding Program.
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements Hollister Avenue/ Storke Road
Project Name
Segment
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements at Santa Barbara Shores Drive/Hollister Avenue
Santa Barbara Shores Dr
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements at Cortona Road/ Hollister Avenue
Cortona Rd
Hollister Ave
31
Ped
Intersection Crossing Improvements – Marketplace Drive/ Storke Road
Marketplace Dr at Storke Rd
32
Bike
Bike Lane Improvements Barling Terrace/Stow Canyon
29
30
33
34
35
36
37
104
Infrastructure Type
Type
Hollister Avenue
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Between
Hollister Ave
-----
Los Carneros Rd
Storke Road
Trailhead to Ellwood Beach
Los Carneros
Install enhanced crosswalks, modify signal timing, and striping. Partial component of CIP 9062.
Install buffered Class II bicycle lanes on Hollister Avenue from Storke Road to Los Buffered Class II Carneros. Partner with City of Santa Barbara Airport to continue east on Hollister Avenue to Fairview Avenue.
Figure 4-1: City-wide Project List Key Map CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
105
Figure 4-2: Project List Northwest Map 106
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 4-3: Project List Northeast Map CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
107
Figure 4-4: Project List Southwest Map 108
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 4-5: Project List Southeast Map CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
109
SCHOOL-ZONE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS Although the City does not formally have Safe Routes to School (SRTS) routes, SRTS planning is still one of the primary factors used for recommending pedestrian improvements in this plan. A GIS analysis of the existing conditions and community feedback were used to identify issues regarding the safety and comfort of walking to and from schools. A GIS-based methodology was used to define Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Zones, defined as quarter-mile walkable zones (walksheds), based on the schools’ entrances and their surrounding street network. These zones are the locations where walking improvements should be prioritized. The City has partnered with the Coalition for Sustainable Transportation (COAST) and the Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition (SBBIKE) on several Safe Routes to School programs and projects. Both of these groups are dedicated to providing advocacy, education, and community engagement for multi-modal transportation in the County Santa Barbara. More information can be found in the “Programs” section of this chapter. Although the City does not have dedicated SRTS staff, the recommendations in the BPMP can lead to the creation of SRTS programs, as well as future partnering possibilities with COAST and other local advocacy groups. The following pages communicate the initial recommendations for each of the schools identified in this plan. The recommendations are preliminary and should be used as a starting point for a more in-depth SRTS-specific project. Each school map is supported by a summary of the recommendations, both unique to each school and in general for the zone, as well as a map with the locations of the proposed recommendations. Please note that several maps include more than one school due to their proximity to one another.
110
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Brandon Elementary School is located in northwest Goleta in a residential neighborhood with several park and open space amenities nearby.
Recommendations 1. Install missing ADA curb ramps and tactile domes 2. Install high-visibility crosswalks 3. Install missing sidewalks 4. Install RRFB at Cathedral oaks and Brandon Drive.
Figure 4-6: Brandon Elementary SRTS Map CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
111
DOS PUEBLOS HIGH SCHOOL
Dos Pueblos High School is located in northwest Goleta in a residential neighborhood with several park and open space amenities nearby. It is the only high school serving the City, so addressing its multi-modal transportation is a high priority. Although outside of the 1/4 mile school zone, improvements to the Storke Road corridor are recommended because the corridor is used by students traveling to and from school.
Recommendations 1. Install missing ADA curb ramps and tactile domes 2. Install high-visibility crosswalks 3. Install missing sidewalks 4. Install 4-way stop sign at Del Norte Drive and Mendocino Drive
Figure 4-7: Dos Pueblos High School SRTS Map 112
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
ELLWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Ellwood Elementary School is located in western Goleta in a low-density residential and commercial neighborhood. The school will benefit greatly from the recently installed multi-use path on the south side of Hollister Ave, connecting families and students throughout the corridor.
Recommendations 1. Install missing ADA curb ramps and tactile domes 2. Install high-visibility crosswalks 3. Install missing sidewalks 4. Extend multi-use path to western City boundary
Figure 4-8: Ellwood Elementary SRTS Map CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
113
GOLETA VALLEY JR. HIGH SCHOOL, SB CHARTER SCHOOL, MONTESSORI CENTER, AND COASTLINE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY
Goleta Valley Junior High School, SB Charter School, Montessori Center School, and Coastline Christian Academy are located in northeast Goleta in a primarily residential neighborhood. The schools are within walking and bicycling distance of the Berkeley Road-Covington Way Cross-Town Route (bicycle boulevard) and the recent bicycle-pedestrian improvements on Cathedral Oaks Road, all of which provide safe and comfortable options for travel. Although outside of the 1/4 mile school zone, improvements to the Fairview Avenue - 101 overpass corridor are recommended because the corridor is heavily used by students traveling to and from school.
Recommendations 1. Install missing ADA curb ramps and tactile domes 2. Install high-visibility crosswalks 3. Install missing sidewalks 4. Near Class I multi-use path along Cathedral Oaks Road
Figure 4-9: Goleta Valley Jr. High, SB Charter School, Montessori Center, and Coastline Christian Academy SRTS Map 114
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
KELLOGG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Kellogg Elementary School is located in north-central Goleta in a primarily residential neighborhood. Several parks are found nearby such as Berkeley/Emerald Terrace Park and Kellogg Open Space. It is also adjacent to the North Goleta Cross-Town Route (bicycle boulevard) that provides the community a safe and comfortable option for travel.
Recommendations 1. Install missing tactile domes 2. Install high-visibility crosswalks 3. Install missing sidewalks
Figure 4-10: Kellogg Elementary SRTS Map CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
115
LA PATERA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
La Patera Elementary School is located in northern Goleta in a residential neighborhood with several park and open space amenities nearby, most notably Lake Los Carneros Park and Stow Grove Park. It is also adjacent to the Berkeley Road-Covington Way Cross-Town Route (bicycle boulevard) which provides the community a safe and comfortable option for travel.
Recommendations 1. Install missing curb ramps and tactile domes 2. Install high-visibility crosswalks 3. Install missing sidewalks 4. Adjacent to Class I multi-use path along Cathedral Oaks Road
Figure 4-11: La Patera Elementary School SRTS Map 116
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
ST RAPHAEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
St Raphael Elementary School is located in eastern Goleta. It is adjacent to Hollister Avenue and SR 217 in a neighborhood with mixed land uses that include residential, commercial, and agricultural uses.
Recommendations 1. Install missing tactile domes 2. Install high-visibility crosswalks 3. Install missing sidewalks
Figure 4-12: St. Raphael Elementary SRTS Map CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
117
WALDORF SCHOOL SANTA BARBARA Waldorf School Santa Barbara is located in northwest Goleta in a residential neighborhood with several park and open space amenities nearby, most notably Evergreen Park and Bella Vista Park.
Recommendations 1. Install missing ADA curb ramps and tactile domes 2. Install high-visibility crosswalks 3. Install missing sidewalks 4. Install RRFB at Cathedral Oaks Road and Evergreen Drive
Figure 4-13: Waldorf School Santa Barbara SRTS Map 118
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
ISLA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
(Outside City limits - Included for collaboration/information purposes) Isla Vista Elementary School is located within the unincorporated community of Isla Vista, adjacent to UCSB, just south of Goleta’s city boundary. It is uniquely located at the intersection of Storke Road and El Colegio Road, one of the main entrances to the UCSB campus. The school is surrounded by high-density university housing to the north and open space to the south. Recent walking, bicycling, and traffic changes were made immediately in front of the school.
Recommendations 1. Install high-visibility crosswalks 2. Improve signal timing
Figure 4-14: Isla Vista Elementary School SRTS Map CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
119
PEDESTRIAN INTEGRATION WITH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION To ensure that the proposed improvements are well integrated with the City’s transit system, an analysis of the pedestrian environment within a five minute walk of transit stops was performed. Existing and proposed sidewalk data acquired from the City were overlaid to assess how well the transit catchment areas serve pedestrians. The analysis employed GIS software that modeled the roadway network and generated catchment areas for an average walker traveling five minutes to or from a transit stop. Results help highlight areas that may or may not be well served by the existing or proposed sidewalk infrastructure. This map provides guidance to areas that may need to be prioritized for pedestrian improvements to transit. Planned sidewalks were derived from the Goleta General Plan, Figure 7-5, Pedestrian System Plan.
f ity o in C ra With Barba a t San
Transit Catchment Area
Figure 4-15: Pedestrian Integration with Public Transportation Map 120
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
BICYCLE INTEGRATION WITH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Similar to the pedestrian-transit analysis, an analysis of bikeways within a 15 minute ride of transit stops was performed. Existing and proposed bikeways from previously proposed plans and this BPMP were overlaid to assess how well the transit catchment areas serve bicyclists. Multi-use paths and bicycle lanes, all of which are visibly separated from the roadway, were used for this assessment. The analysis employed GIS software that modeled the road network and generated catchment areas for the average bicyclist traveling 15 minutes to or from a transit stop. Results indicate that most transit stops are accessible by these bikeways. Note that although the transit stops can be accessed by the bikeways, this does not define the level of comfort. Additional recommendations in this BPMP will ensure that existing and proposed bikeways provide safe and comfortable means of transportation to transit stops.
Transit Catchment Area
Figure 4-16: Bicycle Integration with Public Transportation Map CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
121
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED PROJECTS - CIP BUDGET LIST Table 4-2 and Figure 4-17 describe the City’s previously planned efforts to address multi-modal needs. The City identified these as CIPs and under a general City improvement list. The development of the proposed improvements in this plan was supported by the CIP list by ensuring that new connections and corridors were consistent and logical. City Council establishes and prioritizes the CIP list as in the Public Works Department Capital Improvement Program TwoYear Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-19.
Figure 4-17: Previously Proposed Projects—CIP Map
122
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Table 4-2: CIP LIST Infrastructure Type
CIP #
Type
Segment
Between
Notes
9001
Bike
Hollister Ave
Fairview Ave
SR 217
Class II
Hollister Complete Streets Corridor Plan and Future Hollister Construction Project
9002
Bike
Ekwill St and Fowler Rd Extension
Fairview Ave
Kellogg Rd
Class II
Ekwill Street Extension, Fowler Rd improvements, 2 roundabouts at SR 217 on/off ramps
9006
Bike/Ped
San Jose Creek Path
Hollister Ave
Coast Route
Class I
San Jose Creek Bike Path - South Segment
9007
Bike/Ped
San Jose Creek Path
Calle Real
Hollister Ave
Class I
San Jose Creek Bike Path - Middle Segment
9012
Bike
Armitos Avenue
Kellogg Ave
Dearborn Ave
Class II
Armitos Avenue Bridge; One traffic lane each direction, and pedestrian and bicycle route types
9027
Bike
Ellwood Station Rd
US 101
Hollister Ave
Class II
101 Overpass Project; vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle overpass
9031
Ped
Old Town
Varies
Varies
Sidewalks
Old Town Sidewalk Improvements Project
9033
Bike
Hollister Ave
Fairview Ave
SR 217
Sidewalks
Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project
9042
Bike
Storke Rd
Phelps Rd
Southern City Limit
Class I, II, or 4
9044
Bike
Hollister Ave
Storke Rd
280’ west of Glen Annie
Class II and sidewalk
9058
Ped
Calle Real
Kingston Ave
Kingston Ave
PHB
PHB on mast arms over travel lanes
9058
Ped
Hollister Ave
Chapel St
Chapel St
RRFB
RRFB on mast arms over travel lanes
9060
Bike/Ped
Fairview Ave
Goleta Library
Stow Canyon Rd
Class II and sidewalk
9061
Bike/Ped
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Glen Annie Rd
San Pedro Creek
Class I
9062
Ped
Marketplace Dr at Storke Rd
-----
-----
Intersection improvements
9070
Bike/Ped
Fairview Ave
US 101
Calle Real
Class II and sidewalk
9072
Bike/Ped
La Patera at US 101
Goleta Amtrak Depot
Calle Real
Bridge over/ under UPRR/ US 101
Class I/II/IV part of Storke Rd Widening, Phelps Road to City Limits Hollister Ave widening
Add northbound travel lane, bicycle lane, and new sidewalk Class I on north side of Cathedral Oaks Road Enhance crosswalks, modify signal timing, restriping Reconstruct 160 feet of sidewalk on north side of S. Fairview, close existing bicycle and pedestrian ramp leading to Calle Real Install bike/ped bridge. La Patera Road Overcrossing/ Undercrossing
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
123
TABLE 4-2: CIP LIST (CONT.) Infrastructure Type
CIP #
Type
Segment
Between
Notes
9073
Bike
La Patera Ln
US 101 (Amtrak Station)
Hollister Ave
Class II and sidewalk
Class II bicycle lanes and sidewalk infill
9078
Ped
Rancho La Patera
N. Los Carneros Rd
Covington Way
Sidewalk
Pedestrian path repairs and new paths
9079
Bike/Ped
La Patera Ln
Goleta Train Depot
Hollister Ave
Class II and Sidewalk
9088
Bike
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Multiple Intersections
-----
RRFBs
9091
Bike/Ped
Calle Real
La Patera Ln
Los Carneros Rd
Sidewalks
9092
Bike/Ped
Fowler Road
Fairview Ave
Technology Dr
Class II and sidewalk
9095
Bike/Ped
Storke/Glen Annie
US 101
-----
9097
Bike/Ped
Fairview Ave
Calle Real
Hollister
Class II
9098
Ped
S. Kellogg Ave
Hollister/Kellogg Park
-----
Crosswalk
Crosswalk with curb extensions, RRFB on S. Kellogg at Hollister/Kellogg Park
9099
Ped
Calle Real
Fairview Center
-----
Crosswalk
Crosswalk and PHB on Calle Real west of Fairview Ave at Fairview Center
9100
Bike/Ped
Hollister Ave
Fairview Ave
-----
Roundabout/ Intersection Improvements
9811
Bike/Ped
Ellwood-Devereux Open Space
-----
-----
Trails
Class II lanes, sidewalk infill and bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure at Goleta Train Depot Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Improvements at school crossings (3) Construct approx. 3,190 feet of sidewalk Fowler Road extension to James Fowler/Fairview Ave Study: Storke/Glen Annie Interchange analysis Study: Class I multi-use path along Fairview Ave
Roundabout and intersection improvements including bicycle and pedestrian elements Study: Ellwood Trails and Restoration Design. Includes De Anza Trail and Coastal Trail connections
Potential City-wide Improvements Traffic Signals and Bike Detection
124
Hollister Ave at Pacific Oaks Rd
Install bicycle signal on westbound Hollister Ave
Berkeley Rd at Fairview Ave
Traffic signal does not respond to bicyclists. Install/replace bicycle detectors
Lighting
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Hollister Ave
Pavement Maintenance
City-wide
Replace and maintain road surface, including Class I path surfaces and sweeping bicycle lanes
Bike Parking
City-wide
Install more bicycle parking. Future City-wide analysis to determine optimum locations
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Eastern City Limit
Install lighting
CIP 9811: ELLWOOD-DEVEREAUX OPEN SPACE TRAILS STUDY This CIP addresses the Ellwood-Devereux Coast Open Space. The accompanying map illustrates planned unpaved trail routes and access points, some of which will coincide with other recommended infrastructure in this BPMP. In particular, Trails 6 and 22 together would form a continuous off-street connection between Hollister Avenue at Santa Barbara Shores and the intersection of El Colegio and Storke.
Figure 4-18: Ellwood-Devereux Open Space Trails CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
125
FUTURE NETWORK One of the main goals of this Plan was to create a vision for the future of Goleta’s active transportation needs. As part of the planning process, everyone involved provided valuable feedback and contributed to trying to accomplish the goal. This map depicts the future of Goleta’s active transportation network if all previously proposed and newly proposed projects were to be implemented. The map depicts how every major corridor contains a bicycle route, that missing pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks have been addressed, and that separated and protected bikeways would be installed in some of the most important corridors that connect students, employees and families alike to their destinations. This map depicts achieving the goal of the community, City, and TAC of a fully walkable and bikeable Goleta.
Figure 4-19: Future Active Transportation Network Map 126
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
PROGRAMS OVERVIEW This section includes a diverse list of programs intended to support the bicycle and pedestrian projects recommended in this plan. Due to a long history of routine accommodation for pedestrians (i.e. sidewalks, crosswalks, dedicated signals, etc.), programs targeting walking are relatively uncommon. Conversely, the historic lack of routine accommodation for bicyclists has fostered confusion about the role of bicyclists in the overall transportation system and has necessitated a diverse list of bicycle-related programs.
EVOLVING STATE OF PRACTICE IN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
There has been a shift away from the traditionally compartmentalized “Six Es” approach developed by the League of American Bicyclists (Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Equity, and Evaluation and Planning), and instead toward a fully integrated and complementary menu of initiatives. By offering such a menu, rather than a prescriptive list, active transportation programming can more accurately address existing conditions and desired outcomes of a given context. In addition to active transportation program content and organization changes, there has also been a shift in implementation strategies. Physical projects represent the most visible and perhaps most tangible evidence of a great place for bicycling or walking. Programs are increasingly targeted to occur in conjunction with the construction of specific bicycle and pedestrian projects to take advantage of the opportunity that capital project implementation represents for a city to promote bicycling and walking as attractive transportation options. A new multi-use path, for instance, represents a great opportunity to reach out to the area’s walkers and parents of school-age children, as well as the neighborhood‘s “interested, but concerned” bicyclists. These target groups will be most benefited by directly linking route improvements and supportive programs. In this way, bundling bicycling and walking programs with projects represents a much higher return on investment for both.
Education, Encouragement, & Marketing
Education & Enforcement
The programs recommended for the City of Goleta are organized as a menu of initiatives, each listed under a broad category to the right. These categories are not definitive, but are merely intended to offer some level of organization to the many program initiatives, most which fall into at least one category. Monitoring & Evaluation
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
127
EXISTING PROGRAMS
The City hosts several bicycle, pedestrian, and transportation-related programs created by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), the Santa Barbara Bike Coalition (SBBIKE), and the Coalition for Sustainable Transportation (COAST).
SBCAG PROGRAMS
SBCAG has developed several county-wide programs that offer commuters services through its dedicated transportation division called Traffic Solutions. Its mission is to “reduce traffic congestion, vehicle miles driven, and polluting emissions by offering programs and services that encourage sustainable transportation. We focus on transit use, bicycling, carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, compressed workweeks, and flexible schedules.” Its objectives include transportation demand management (TDM), providing information about transportation choices through public outreach and education, helping the county develop programs, and promoting cooperative relationships with local business, organizations, and government agencies, and promoting new rail commuter services.
SmartRide One of Traffic Solutions’ main tools is the SmartRide.org website. The website provides resources on commuting options that include carpool, vanpool, telecommute, transit, and active transportation. People can create a per-
128
sonalized trip planner that tracks their commutes, learn about local events and incentives, check real-time traffic status, and create an event rideshare page, all through their personalized dashboard.
Emergency Ride Home Traffic Solutions provides Santa Barbara County residents reimbursements for emergency rides home of up to $55 for up to four times a calendar year on days the person used a “sustainable transportation” option to get to work.
PARTNERSHIPS
Traffic Solutions partners with local organizations to leverage shared resources to enhance everyday life for residents. Collaborative programs are scheduled throughout the year with the help of community, corporate, and government sponsors. Programs include Cycle MAYnia, Open Streets events, the Green Business Program of Santa Barbara County, Love Your Ride, Santa Barbara Car Free, and Safe Routes to School. Detailed information regarding these programs can be found in the Traffic Solutions website under the Partnerships section.
Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition (SBBIKE) SBBIKE is a 501 (c)-3 nonprofit organization based in the City of Santa Barbara that strives to make Santa Barbara County a safe and fun place to ride a bicycle. SBBIKE is comprised of a Board of Directors and staff that work closely with the community, city administrators, local agencies, educators, planners, and businesses. Their advocacy and educational objectives have led to the creation and participation in regional programs such as Vision Zero, CycleMAYnia, and bicycle clubs. Their efforts have been rec-
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
ognized by the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) which awarded SBBike a Platinum-level Bicycle Friendly Business designation.
Bici Centro- Bike Kitchens Bike Kitchens are commonly formed as grass roots initiatives by community members to provide bicycles, helmets, maintenance, and safety instructions to people as a means of expanding their transportation options.
Bici Centro is SBBIKE’s bike kitchen, a community bicycle workshop and thrift store that residents can use for DIY repairs, educational workshops, and purchases of refurbished bicycles and bicycle parts. Bilingual staff and volunteers are available to help educate and empower bicyclists with their everyday needs. There are three Bici Centros located in the County: City Santa Barbara, City of Santa Maria, and Santa Barbara Community College. Goleta could support the creation of a Bike Kitchen within its City boundaries and leverage its resources in coordination with the bicycle route types prioritized in this plan. This combination will help 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.
Connecting Our Community Connecting Our Community is SBBIKE’s campaign to close gaps in the County’s bicycle infrastructure network. The campaign includes advocating and helping to develop a variety of local and regional projects in cities and towns such as Goleta, Guadalupe, Santa Maria, Carpinteria, Lompoc, and the Santa Ynez Valley. Spanish Language Outreach Committee (SLOC) The SLOC is dedicated to bringing equitable access to bicycling throughout the County. The committee explores new outreach and participation methods with the Spanish-speaking community. Their efforts include having a fully bilingual bicycle shop in Santa Barbara and their annual bicycle light giveaway event called Iluminando La Noche (Light Up the Night).
Safety and Education SBBIKE has created both youth and adult education campaigns as well as videos and self-quizzes to teach residents how to safely ride their bicycles. Topics include “Learn Your Bike,” “Confident City Cycling,” “Group Rides,” bicycle safety courses in elementary schools, summer camps, “Pedal Power,” and Bici Familia educational rides. Bicycle Valet SBBIKE offers free bicycle valet services for major events throughout the region. According to their records, they have parked over 7,000 bicycles county-wide since 2007. Offering free bicycle valet for events encourages residents to commute by bicycle knowing they have a safe place to store their bicycle during their event.
Bici Centro
Coalition for Sustainable Transportation (COAST) The Coalition for Sustainable Transportation (COAST) is a local group dedicated to providing advocacy, education, and community engagement for multi-modal transportation in Santa Barbara and Ventura regions. They are regularly involved in encouraging and improving walking, bicycling, and transit and rail ridership.
Bicycling Education
Santa Barbara Walks Santa Barbara Walks is a program dedicated to making walking safer, more comfortable, and convenient. Through this program, COAST raises educates and raises awareness for pedestrian-related necessities and improvements such as crosswalks, lighting, curb extensions, and signage.
Coalition for Sustainable Transportation Logo
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
129
130
Safe Routes to School COAST facilitates the Safe Routes to School program for the City of Goleta. The program aims to reduce school zone traffic, encourage healthy physical activity, decrease reliance on motor vehicles and teach students how to be safe when walking and biking. The age-appropriate curriculum taught by COAST’s Instructors includes parking lot safety, neighborhood safety walks, bike rodeos and sixth grade bike rides to the junior high. The program also encourages students in K-12 to walk and bike to school- and other places. The encouragement aspect of the program features International Walk to School Day in the fall and National Bike to School Day in the spring, as well as weekly and monthly walk and bike events and an annual “Walk & Roll Challenge.” These encouragement events include help setting up ‘walking school buses’ and ‘bike trains.’ Low cost helmet distributions are a popular SR2S program offering. Students choose a “cool” helmet to purchase and are also taught how to fit their own helmet. COAST collects data from school mobility surveys which is made available to government agencies for grant applications.
Safe Routes for Seniors COAST also facilitates a Safe Routes for Seniors initiative that began in 2012. The goal of this was to bring awareness and to improve pedestrian infrastructure for seniors and mobility-challenged seniors in Goleta and unincorporated eastern Goleta Valley. Through extensive community engagement, COAST developed a needs assessment study for the government agencies that included missing or broken, sidewalks, traffic signal crossing timing, curb ramps, and other pedestrian infrastructure data. COAST encourages collaboration between the agencies to ensure these types of improvements are completed.
Vision Zero COAST advocates for Vision Zero planning in the region. Vision Zero is an international traffic safety project that aims to achieve no fatalities and minimize serious injuries in road traffic. COAST and SBBIKE helped champion a Vision Zero policy in the City of Santa Barbara. Public Works has a CIP No. 9086 to create a Vision Zero program for the City of Goleta.
LCIs are certified to teach Smart Cycling classes to children as well as adults. Their goal is to help people feel more secure about getting on a bicycle, to create a mindset that bicycles are treated as a vehicle, and to ensure that people on bicycles know how to ride safely and legally.
EDUCATION/ENCOURAGEMENT/ MARKETING
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, these classes would be taught by SBBIKE. In addition, city personnel that are certified as League Cycling Instructors (LCIs) can teach these classes.
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
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
rolling to school embodies the two main goals of former 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.
Participate in National Bike Month Since 1956, communities from all over the country have celebrated National Bike Month as a chance to showcase the many benefits of bicycling as well as to encourage people of all ages and backgrounds to bicycle more often. The biggest event that takes place during National Bike Month is Bike to Work day. Local business, nonprofits, and entire city agencies participate by either hosting pit stops where bicyclists can stop to gather healthy food and drinks, or by simply bicycling to work. Goleta has participated in National Bike Month. Host a Ciclovia, Open Streets, 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 a temporary event where a street(s) is closed to vehicles for use by people and non-motorized transportation. Ciclovias and open streets 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. Ciclovias have gained considerable popularity in the United States in the past five years. While all open streets events are alike in their 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
EDUCATION/ENFORCEMENT
Potential Police Department Education Programs Regarding Bicycle and Pedestrian Concerns The Police Department can take agency specific training from bicyclists and pedestrians through The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) or League of American Bicyclists League Certified Instructor (LCI) training. Appropriate training regarding pedestrian issues and solutions could be provided as well.
Bike to Work Day Pit Stop
throughout the entire summer. Some cities reuse routes, while others, like Los Angeles, host the events in different locations around the city. Open streets events often have a theme of health, exercise and active transportation, and include groups promoting free, healthy activities stationed along the route. The routes can incorporate new bikeways and preferred routes, encouraging their use. The County of Santa Barbara has participated in several open streets events through the Santa Barbara Open Streets ¡Calles Vivas! Committee. The City can coordinate with the committee to schedule an open streets event to highlight Goleta’s improvements.
Pilot Project Program Many cities have found success in conducting pilot project studies to temporarily test proposed improvements. Pilot projects provide the opportunity for the City to analyze the impact and reaction the community may have with a proposed project, especially if the project type is new to the City. Pilot projects can be combined with open streets events previously described, and can stay in place for a couple of weeks to several months.
Potential Law Enforcement Liaison Program Responsible for Bicycle & Pedestrian Concerns The City can consider creating a liaison position who would be the main contact for Goleta residents concerning bicycle and pedestrian related incidents. This potential liaison could perform the important role of communicating between the law enforcement agency and bicyclists and pedestrians. The potential liaison could oversee the supplemental education of law enforcement officers regarding bicycle and pedestrian rules, etiquette and behavior. The City could consider allocating funding for the training and support of this duty, as well as for necessary bicycle equipment. Focus Group Strategies Many law enforcement departments employ focus group strategies to educate drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians about applicable traffic laws and the need to share the road. These focus group strategies are an effective way to expand mobility education. These strategies could be in the form of a brochure or tip card explaining each user’s rights and responsibilities. Focus group strategies may help mitigate the following traffic safety problems: CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
131
Distribute Bicycle Helmets and Lights If law enforcement officers observe a bicyclist riding at night without the proper reflectors or lights, they may give the bicyclist 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 safety-oriented grant. Many cities have targeted the end of daylight savings as an ideal time to perform this function. 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 patrol when an officer sees a child riding helmetless.
Temporary Cycle Track installation
132
»»
Speeding in school zones
»»
Illegal passing of school buses
»»
Parking violations – bus zone, crosswalks, residential driveways, time zones
»»
Risks to bicyclists during drop-off / pickup times
»»
Lack of safety patrol/crossing guard operations
»»
Unsafe cycling and pedestrian practices
»»
Other school zone traffic law violations
»»
Three-foot passing law
Bicycle Diversion Program A Bicycle Diversion Program allows for adult bicyclists who commit traffic violations to receive reduced fines in exchange for taking a bicycle education class. In 2015, California 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. The Bill is intended to promote equity because, in reducing fines, it effectively makes cycling more affordable. The Bill is expected to encourage cycling by treating violations as opportunities to educate people and impart confidence and skills. AB 902 went into effect in 2016, but it will be up to each city and its law enforcement department to adopt diversion programs.
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Law Enforcement Referral Process Design a communication process that encourages students and parents to notify the school and police of the occurrence of a crash or nearmiss during school commute trips involving auto, bus, pedestrian, or bicycle transportation. Including not only the Police Department, but also the Planning Department and SRTS stakeholders in this reporting system helps to improve the data collected and generated. The City may be able to enlist the help of law enforcement with many traffic safety duties. Los Angeles has a successful program called the LA Bike Map that allows bicyclists to submit incidents, see them displayed instantly, and study the overall pattern, dynamically, in one place. A similar program could be created for the SBCAG region to analyze patterns and determine solutions.
Enforcement of Traffic and Parking Laws Through Citations and Warnings The City could coordinate targeted enforcement of problem areas throughout the year, such as during the first two weeks of school. Targeted enforcement is an intensive, focused effort that communicates the need of following traffic and parking laws that may otherwise pose danger to walking and bicycling.
Bicycle Safety Class
Helmet Giveaway
Police Bicycle Patrol in Torrence, CA
Participation in Traffic Safety Programs: Traffic Garden, SRTS Task Force, etc. The City of Goleta is one of the sponsors of Safety Town of Santa Barbara. This program is for students entering kindergarten in the fall, or just completing kindergarten. The program teaches basic safety skills. The City could support the creation of a traffic garden, also referred to as a traffic park or safety village. A traffic garden is a specially-designed park or schoolyard where children can learn traffic laws and how to safely navigate streets as either pedestrians, bicyclists, or drivers. Children that participate in traffic gardens can use bicycles or pedal-powered cars to navigate the mock streets. Teachers, parents, and instructors alike provide guidance on how to safely cross the street, how to interact with bicyclists and pedestrians, and how to navigate a traffic circle. The City of Goleta could partner with the Goleta Union School District to create a traffic garden in a parks, or in an elementary or middle school yard. Creating a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Task force would aid in developing programs and projects that foster the want and need for safely and comfortably walking to and from
school. The task force can be comprised of parent champions, school members, City staff, or local advocates such as SBBIKE or COAST. Their primary mission would be to work alongside the community, appropriate city officials, and the school district to implement SRTS programs and projects. Finally, bicycling and walking safety education and promotion programs may reduce the need for heavy investments in enforcement. Enforcement should be viewed as another component of an education program and as a effective way to reduce the number of bicyclist and walker accidents and injuries. For example, posted speed limits should be enforced because high motor vehicle speeds make bicyclists and pedestrians feel unsafe, discourage people from bicycling or walking, and increase collision severity.
TRACKING AND MONITORING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAVEL
Create City Staff Mobility Coordinator/ Grant Coordinator Position The City could create an Active Transportation Coordinator position, continuing to demonstrate the City’s commitment to cycling, walking, and creating complete streets. An active transportation coordinator can help coordinate between City departments to ensure projects planning consistency and cooperation. A coordinator would manage programs and implement projects listed in the bicycle and pedestrian 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
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
133
returned since this position usually is responsible for finding, evaluating, securing and tracking reporting requirements for State and federal funding for active transportation projects.
Create a Transportation Safety Advisory Committee The City could create a Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Some cities have created bicycle and pedestrian or active transportation advisory committees. A TSAC may support the City with implementation of projects, policies, and programs for all modes of transportation. The TSAC may help City staff, volunteers, and advocates to continue efforts to improve walking and cycling throughout Goleta. This group may act as a community liaison and address issues concerning local bicycling and walking. Conduct Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts and Review Collision Data The City could conduct regular bicyclist and pedestrian counts to determine baseline mode share and subsequent changes. Conducting counts would allow the City to collect information on where the most bicycling and walking occurs, which helps in prioritizing and justifying projects when funding is solicited and received. Counts can also be used to study bicycling and walking trends throughout the City and would support performance measures and metrics tracking. Having count data would provide opportunities for the following analyses to be conducted:
134
»»
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
»»
Direction of travel
Counts should be conducted employing National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD) protocols. Employing NBPD methodology allows cities to be able to estimate existing and future bicycle and pedestrian demand and activity in a consistent manner to those employed for motor vehicle counts. For consistency, counts should be conducted at the same locations and at the same times every year. Specific locations should be determined by Public Works, Police Department, and advisory committee input such as members from SBCAG, Santa Barbara County, and UCSB. California Active Transportation Program (ATP) program administrators have expressed interest in having grant recipients verify that physical improvements have resulted in increased bicycling and walking, and funding for counts could be included as part of grant funding applications. Conducting counts during different seasons within the year may be beneficial to understanding the differences in bicycle and pedestrian traffic volumes based on seasonal weather. In addition, bicycle and pedestrian counts should be collected as part of any existing traffic counts. Results should be regularly recorded for inclusion in the bicycle and pedestrian report card. The Goleta Police Department collects and tracks collision data. Regular traffic collision reports should be presented to Public Works and the Transportation Safety Advisory Committee. Traffic collisions involving bicyclists
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
and pedestrians should be reviewed and analyzed regularly to develop plans to reduce their frequency and severity. Any such plans should include Police Department involvement and should be monitored to determine their effectiveness. Number of collisions results should be recorded in the bicycle and pedestrian report card which is further discussed below.
Improve PlacesForBikes City Ranking “Overall Score” The PlacesForBikes City Rating Score is based on five factors: Ridership, Safety, Network, Reach and Acceleration. Each city’s score is determined using publicly available data and new research tools developed by PeopleForBikes. The rating includes data from the following sources: »»
PlacesForBikes Community Survey
»»
PlacesForBikes City Snapshot
»»
PlacesForBikes Bike Network Analysis (BNA)
»»
U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS)
»»
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
»»
Sports Marketing Surveys Bicycle Participation (SMS)
Goleta’s current Overall Score of 1.5 can be improved through a combination of implementing the projects in the City’s CIP list, as well as the proposed projects, programs, and policies outlined in the BPMP.
crash numbers go up simply because cycling and walking increases, at least initially. Instead, measure crashes as a percentage of an estimated overall mode share count.
GOLETA, CA | CITY SCORECARD OVERALL SCORE The overall score is based on Ridership, Safety, Network, Reach and Acceleration. It includes publicly available data and data gathered from our Community Survey, City Snapshot, and Bike Network Analysis.
1.5
A major portion of the 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 and pedestrian network identified in this document.
RIDERSHIP
Measures how many people are riding.
1.0
Bicycle commuting
0.6
Recreational bike riding
1.9
Perceptions of bike use
‡
SAFETY
NETWORK
Measures how safe it is and feels to ride a bike.
Measures how well the bike network connects people to destinations.
1.6
All mode fatalities and injuries
2.0
Bicycle fatalities and injuries
2.0
Perceptions of safety
1.6
‡
REACH
Measures how well the bike network serves everyone equally.
3.5
Demographic gap in BNA
3.6
Bicycle commuting rates by gender
3.0
Bicycle Network Analysis (BNA)
2.0
‡
Perceptions of network quality
ACCELERATION
Measures the city's commitment to growing bicycling quickly.
‡
Growth in bike facilities and events Perceptions of progress
‡ ‡
‡ Data unavailable
Develop a Bicycle and Pedestrian Report Card The City could develop a bicycle and pedestrian 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 used to identify the magnitude of accomplishments in the previous year and general trends. The report card could include, but not be limited to, keeping track of system completion, travel by bicycle or on foot (counts), and safety.
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 or on foot would be viewed as a success, regardless of the specific increase in the number of bicyclists or walkers. Safety should be considered relative to the increase in bicyclists and walkers. Sometimes
The report card could be developed to use information collected as part of annual and ongoing evaluations, as discussed in the previous sections. The report card is not intended to be an additional task for Public Works staff, but rather a means of documenting and publicizing the City’s efforts related to bicycle and pedestrian planning. If an Transportation Safety Advisory Committee is appointed by the City, it can be a committee task to review the report card and adjust future goals accordingly. The report card can also be used as a tool to track Vision Zero progress. In addition to quantifying accomplishments related to the bicycle and pedestrian master plan, the City should strive to quantify other 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 and pedestrian report card. Some cities publish their report cards online.
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
135
INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE
Bicycle and pedestrian use does not impact pavement nearly as heavily as motor vehicles do. However, bicyclists and pedestrians are more sensitive to pavement irregularities than drivers and require a smooth surface. Pavement maintenance should focus on maintaining a surface free of potholes, cracks and lifts, such as those often caused by adjacent tree roots along Class I multi-use paths, especially asphalt paths. Besides maintaining pavement quality, debris will need to be periodically removed from separated bikeways. As the City’s active transportation system is implemented, especially Class I multi-use paths and Class IV cycletracks, specialized maintenance equipment will be needed to fit within them because they are usually narrower than standard vehicle lanes. Most cities employ compact street sweepers designed for this purpose, with adjustable pickup brushes that can be aligned to match the width of specific bikeways. Cleaning schedules should be evaluated based on typical use levels and adjacent trees. Eucalyptus trees, for example, shed leaves and bark throughout the year, which can accumulate against the curbs along Class IV cycle tracks.
136
Specialized compact sweeper
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING GUIDELINES Wayfinding is a fundamental part of a functional and comprehensive bicycling, walking, and trail network. Effective wayfinding systems create well-structured corridors and pathways that help travelers to: 1. Identify their location 2. Assure that they are traveling in the desired direction 3. Navigate junctions and other decisionmaking points 4. Identify their destination upon arrival The following wayfinding system guidelines address active transportation corridors and pathways and how it can improve the experience for people already riding and walking as well as to help encourage people to begin riding and walking altogether. Wayfinding signage design is intended to readily orient users to their location. It is likely that wayfinding signage will occur along the network’s existing and proposed routes, as well as within zone with high usage such as shopping centers, schools, and parks. The guidelines closely follow San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) “Best Practices in Developing and Implementing Bicycle Wayfinding Signage” (October 2014) and “Way-
finding Design Guidelines” (October 2015). Although these two documents are intended primarily for bicycling wayfinding, the principles discussed can be applied to create a successful wayfinding signage program for both pedestrians and cyclists. The content discussed in SANDAG’s guidelines can also be applied to any city wishing to begin a wayfinding signage programs as the principles and ideas in the document are generally universal and supported by professionals and other municipalities.
DESTINATION DRIVEN
Wayfinding signage guides users to the destinations displayed on the signage. Destinations noted on wayfinding signage should be immediately recognizable and meaningful to the majority of users. As users approach a given sign, it presents a set of destinations accessible from that point. Destinations also serve a broader role by painting a general picture of the route, the areas it serves, and the terminus. Signage also provides useful orientation information for people are not going to the destination. They can use the signage to approximate their path to their own destination.
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
137
DESTINATION HIERARCHY
Destinations should be assigned a hierarchal level based on their regional significance. Major destinations such as cities should be listed in the highest level meanwhile local destinations such as parks and community centers should be in the lowest levels.
Tier I 1. Up to five miles 2. Cities
Tier II 1. Up to two miles a. Airports, colleges, neighborhoods/ districts, transit centers, regional landmarks, etc.
Tier III 1. Up to one mile a. Major bikeways, high schools, regional parks, hospitals, etc.
Tier IV 1. Up to one-half mile a. Community Centers, elementary/ middle schools, local parks, public facilities, etc.
NAMING ROUTES
Naming routes simplifies navigation. Routes such as bikeways that follow only one street can be named after the street, but corridors with many turns often require a broader name. One approach is to name routes based on key attributes such as level of difficulty or the terminus.
138
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
INFORMATION HIERARCHY
Because our eyes tend to scan information from top to bottom and left to right, wayfinding signs should be arranged as a hierarchical information flow that takes this into account. This means that the most important information should be near the top and left and displayed in the largest size. Information of lesser importance is placed below that and in smaller sizes, located toward the right and bottom portions of the sign.
THE FOUR D’S
In the context of a route wayfinding signage system, fundamental information includes designation, destination, direction, and duration. Each individual sign should first designate itself as a piece of route wayfinding information, typically with a recurring and prominent icon or text, such as the City’s active transportation or parks logo. This information is displayed prominently at the top of the sign. People using a sign first need to identify the destination most relevant to them before they proceed to direction or distance information. Destination information is generally presented along the left side of the sign. Direction and distance information are shown on the same line as the destination. Directional arrows should be prominent.
SIGN TYPES
There are four basic route wayfinding sign types: confirmation, decision, turn and offroute. Each type has a unique purpose, location, and message. The first three sign types direct people along a designated route network. The fourth sign type directs them onto the route network from adjacent streets.
Confirmation: 2. Indicates to users which designated corridor or pathway they are on 3. Includes destinations and distance or time, but no arrows 4. May be stand-alone or be combined with decision signs
Decision: 1. Marks junctions of two or more corridors or pathways 2. Informs users of designated routes to access desired destinations 3. Displays both destinations and arrows 4. Intended to be used in sets or combined with confirmation signs 5. When combined, confirmation signs should be mounted above decision signs. Decision signs should be mounted in order of distance from destinations listed, with closest first
Turn: 1. Indicates where a corridor or pathway turns, either from one street onto another street or through a difficult or confusing area
Off-route: 1. Informs people that are currently not on a designated corridor or pathway that one exists nearby A large key map that displays all routes in the network can also be implemented. The map can be combined with “You Are Here” labels to help users orient themselves or help them decide on a new destination. These maps can be located at major intersections, where two or more corridors or pathways meet, or at popular local destinations such as community centers and parks. On a street, wayfinding signs are placed in both directions unless the street is one-way or the route only travels in one direction. Typically, a mile of route will include four to five wayfinding signs in each direction.
PREDICTABILITY AND REDUNDANCY
Users should become familiar with the signs’ position, shape, color, and font. Consistently repeating these features helps users anticipate where signs will be placed and the messages the signs will convey. The City’s logo and colors should consistently be applied across the network’s signage system.
DESIGNING FOR HUMAN SCALE
Signs need to be designed for immediate legibility from the perspective of a person riding a bicycle or walking. Factors like a rider’s intended lane position or height can inform sign design. However, the cardinal design consideration is speed. Based on guidance from Portland, Oregon, people riding bicycles should be able to see an upcoming sign from about 100
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
139
feet away. Cyclists should not have to stop to read a sign, so signs must clearly convey their message, ideally within a seven second envelope. The following principles help to achieve this goal:
TEXT
Signs should be visible from roughly 100 feet away, so capital letters should be 2 to 2.5 inches tall. Signs should be mixed-case rather than all upper case, and minimize the number of lines of text (five maximum recommended).
CONTRAST AND PROXIMITY
There should be high contrast between text and background colors. Related pieces of information should be grouped and assigned similar sizes and shapes.
CONSISTENCY AND REPETITION
Signs should maintain a consistent color, font, and iconographic scheme. City should strive to position signs at consistent heights and locations on standard mounting devices.
SIMPLICITY AND LEGIBILITY
Signs should use the shortest, most concise phrasing whenever possible. Consider using icons to supplement text for people not fluent in English.
DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS
Confirmation, decision, and off-bike route signs should convey distances measured spatially (miles) or temporally (minutes), or both.
SIGN DESIGN AND COLOR
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) establishes standards for traffic signs and related traffic control devices and MUTCD-compliant signs are familiar to nearly all roadway users. The MUTCD should therefore govern sign design and placement technical aspects, such as dimensions, font size and ground clearance. However, signs do not have to be bland to accomplish this goal. Route wayfinding signs often include some aesthetic cues and place a stronger emphasis on graphic design.
SIGN MATERIALS
Signs can be manufactured from a variety of substrate materials, including wood, metals, plastics and fiberglass. The message or artwork is usually either painted or printed (usually by silk screening) or applied as adhesive vinyl film. Some commonly used substrates are described below, but in general, most small to medium sized directional signs are now made of aluminum substrate panels covered with printed adhesive vinyl overlay, on one or both sides, which are often digitally printed.
Aluminum Common substrate for routine, small signs. Message usually silk screened onto substrate. Easily and significantly damaged by bullets and other forms of vandalism, but has good weather resistance. Medium initial and replacement costs. Aluminum-clad plastic Similar in character to aluminum signs. The plastic core adds strength. This substrate is highly durable and light weight, making it ideal for kiosk panels or other signs mounted with a backing. Moderate cost. 140
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Aluminum-clad plywood Similar in character to aluminum signs. Plywood backing adds support to the aluminum to provide stability/rigidity for larger size signs. Moderate to high initial and replacement costs. Porcelain enamel on steel This material is highly resistant to scratches, impacts and weathering. Most often used on interpretive signs, it offers a very appealing appearance, but at a high initial and replacement cost. It lends itself well to graphic displays. High cost, but has a lifetime of 20 years or more. Fiberglass embedment In this process, an image is embedded in a fiberglass/epoxy-resin panel. While initial image cost is high, additional copies can be cheaply made at the time of the original and put aside for later embedment at relatively low cost to replace a damaged or stolen original. The fiberglass resists scratching, impact and weathering very well. High initial cost, but long lived. Metal Engraved or acid etched metals, aluminum and stainless steel have a long service life, are generally good or very good in their resistance to weather, and fair or poor in their resistance to scratching or impact. Medium to high initial and replacement cost. High-density overlay (HDO) plywood Marine-quality, 3/4-inch plywood with one side covered with a high density, slick material (the overlay), to which adhesives cling quite strongly. Commonly used as the substrate for pressedon materials such as reflective vinyl. It weathers well, and holes in the vinyl can be easily repaired.
Plastics Sign making can involve a variety of plastics:
1. Acrylic, or Plexiglas, is a hard, rigid material that withstands abrasion well but breaks easily. It is often used as a clear protective covering over another sign. 2. Polycarbonate, or Lexan, is similar to the acrylic panel but is softer, with a greater flex. Its softness makes it more likely to be marred by dust and blowing sand. 3. Polyethylene and polypropylene are fairly common materials suitable for most routine sign applications. They are soft materials that have sufficient rigidity to stand up as small signs, but not so rigid that they are easily broken. They come in basic colors, and accept paint (silk screening) well. Generally, they weather well, but their softness makes them easy prey to vandals wielding sharp or pointed instruments. Initial and replacement costs are low.
Carsonite Carsonite is a patented material that combines fiberglass and epoxy resins to make a strong but flexible substrate. Used most often in a thin, vertical format that may be useful for confirmation signs between destinations. Its hard, impervious surface is best used as a substrate for decals, although silk screening is possible. Very resistant to impact and weather with low initial and replacement costs.
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
141
SIGN MOUNTING AND PLACEMENT
As a general rule, signs should be mounted in consistent, conspicuous locations. Clear sightlines, free of vegetation and other obstructions, need to be maintained between the path of travel and the signs. Along roadways, best practice is to mount wayfinding signs on their own poles. It is recommended that there be a minimum seven foot clearance between the ground and the bottom of the sign. Signs should never be mounted to traffic signals, lighting, utility or transit stop poles.
SIGN IMPLEMENTATION
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Chapter 9B should be consulted for shared-use path signage placement guidance. For consistency, signage on other facilities, such as natural surface trails, should also generally follow these guidelines.
1. Define the route network to be signed, including trunk and connecting routes, as well as route names (if desired) 2. Establish a master list of destinations and assign each to a hierarchical level, if needed 3. Establish signage design and placement guidelines 4. Display destinations and route network together on maps 5. Divide the routes into segments bookended by major destinations. These destinations will be used as control locations (termini) when creating signs 6. Identify junctions, turns and other decision points where turn or decision signs will be necessary 7. Prepare signage plan, including placement and content of individual signs. Ideally, create a GIS database to manage content and location details for each sign, and to support future system management 8. Prioritize implementation 9. Implement signs
142
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
5
POLICIES CHAPTER 5: POLICIES
143
POLICIES Policies supporting Goleta’s mobility vision are an integral part of the BPMP development. The policies were developed to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, to reflect the General Plan’s focus on mobility for all users and abilities, and to support mobility planning processes. The BPMP policies were developed and refined to reflect Goleta’s unique characteristics and the BPMP’s comprehensive scope. This refinement process was a collaboration between the City team, the BPMP Technical Advisory Committee, the consultant, as well as input from Council, Planning Commission, and the community over several months, and was the primary focus of several TAC meetings. Action Items are included with many Policy Statements listed in this chapter. The City may implement the Action Items as future resources allowed.
VISION STATEMENT
As an integral part of policy development, the team crafted a vision statement specific to the BPMP:
To support Goleta’s long-term vitality, the City envisions a future where transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities help sustain and improve Goleta’s healthy, active, family-friendly, outdoor lifestyle, and provide access to jobs, schools, and recreation. This is envisioned through well-connected, safe, accessible bikeways, and walking routes that provide equitable benefits to all road users. This BPMP vision statement was intended to complement the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (Bullet No. 13):
Goleta’s Vision: The Good Land. This General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan builds on Goleta’s current distinguishing qualities and character by envisioning the future city as a community: Where all forms of transportation, including walking, bicycling, bus, train, and automobile, operate efficiently and safely. The resulting policies are subdivided into eight major goal categories, with associated actions listed immediately following their applicable policies.
144
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
GOAL 1: COMPLETE NETWORK Develop comprehensive bicycling and walking network and infrastructure to provide safe, fun, convenient, healthy, and environmentally-friendly travel throughout the City for all ages and abilities.
Policy 1.1 The City shall strive to develop an ongoing bicycling and walking improvement planning process to review facilities installed, assess future needs, potential funding sources and make recommendations to update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Policy 1.2 The City shall strive to forecast future bicycling and walking travel needs for all ages and abilities to close both actual and perceived gaps in the network. Action 1.2.1 Establish specific standard locations throughout the City for annual vehicle, bicycling, and walking movement counts. Action 1.2.2 Coordinate with regional agencies and institutions on bicycling and walking counts being conducted for other studies for locations within the City. Action 1.2.3 Conduct annual or biannual counts of bicycling and walking volumes in the vicinities of schools during peak morning arrivals and afternoon departures, as well as to and from UCSB. Action 1.2.4 Conduct annual or biannual counts of bicycling and walking volumes in the vicinities of high priority projects along existing and planned regional corridors, Old Town, freeway crossings, and activity centers that are identified in this plan.
Action 1.2.5 Routinely collect walking and bicycling volumes and movements by including them with all intersection turning movement and freeway overcrossing counts. Action 1.2.6 Evaluate performance measures for planned and completed bicycling and walking projects that may include: • Total miles of bicycle routes built or striped • Linear feet of new walkways built • Number of ADA ramps upgraded/replaced • Number of transit accessibility improvements built • Bicycling, walking, and multimodal Levels of Service (LOS) • Percentage of transit stops accessible via sidewalks and curb ramps • Rate of reported crashes, injuries, and fatalities by mode • Rate of children walking or bicycling to school • Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Policy 1.3 The City shall strive to implement new or complementary policies to evaluate alternative performance measures for active transportation modes, such as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reductions.
Policy 1.4 The City shall strive to develop an integrated multi-modal public transportation system with an emphasis on the ability to use bicycles as a viable means for commuting so that commuters are not as reliant on automobiles. Action 1.4.1 Work with Santa Barbara MTD to outfit new buses and retrofit older buses to include bicycle racks with increased bicycle loading capacity, and that the transportation center provides a sufficient amount of bicycle racks, lockers, restroom, and changing facilities, and drinking fountains. Action 1.4.2 Ensure safe walking access to bus stops. Policy 1.5 The City shall, as funds become available, strive to develop bicycling and walking connections within the City limits that integrate with neighboring jurisdiction’s planning to provide regional bikeway and trail connections. Action 1.5.1 Collaborate with SBCAG and neighboring agencies on planning, design, funding, and implementation of significant regional corridors. Policy 1.6 The City shall, as funding becomes available, strive to plan, upgrade, and expand bicycling and walking network improvements consistent with the vision of this plan.
CHAPTER 5: POLICIES
145
Action 1.6.1 Ensure bicycling and walking facilities in all new Specific Plans and the General Plan Element Updates are consistent with this Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan. Policy 1.7 The City shall strive to include small scale projects, such as signing and striping, in upcoming City paving projects when appropriate. Policy 1.8 The City shall strive to provide safe bicycling and walking infrastructure between major destinations such as retail, entertainment, and services, employment centers, neighborhoods, transit, schools, and parks – consistent with this plan, and the City’s Transportation Element. Action 1.8.1 Develop a series of connected and safe bicycling and walking loops that connect to local and regional destinations for residents, employees, students, and tourists. Action 1.8.2 Install pedestrian scale lighting at key crossing locations, especially uncontrolled crosswalks. Action 1.9.3 Improve street crossings and close gaps (both actual and perceived) in the sidewalk and bikeway systems through development review and capital improvement projects. Action 1.8.4 Encourage active transportation planning of safe walking and bicycling crossings over Highway 101. Action 1.8.5 Prioritize bicycling and walking improvements around schools, parks, along transit corridors, and Train Depot.
146
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
GOAL 2: DESIGN Maintain the walking and bicycling infrastructure allowing all users of all ages and abilities access to commercial and employment centers, neighborhoods, parks, and schools. Policy 2.1 The City shall strive to implement best practices for community-supported design of walking and bicycling improvements. Action 2.1.1 Based on available City staff resources, establish and administer an active, inclusive Active Transportation Advisory Committee (ATAC) with representatives from Goleta neighborhoods, community-based organizations, and transportation stakeholders to review projects, funding, and implementation, and to collect input and recommendation on proposed designs for bicycling and walking projects before plans are brought before decision-makers. Action 2.1.2 A future Active Transportation Advisory Committee (ATAC) team should explore the feasibility of developing a volunteer program for organizations, businesses, and private citizens to contribute towards maintenance by adopting a bikeway or multi-use path, as well as generating publicity for the group’s service. Policy 2.2 The City shall strive to design streets using a “centerline outward” approach that considers all users (i.e. provide only as many travel lanes as needed, and only as wide as needed).
Policy 2.3 The City shall strive to consider designs to benefit bicycling and walking travel. Action 2.3.1 Ensure all new streets and street maintenance projects include “Complete Streets” improvements for vehicle, transit, bicycling, and walking modes, where feasible. Action 2.3.2 Incorporate “Complete Streets” design standards into the City’s Street Design Standards and Specifications for new and rehabilitated street improvements. Action 2.3.3 Identify locations where walking signals need to be re-programmed to allow for longer walking phases to accommodate slower walkers. Action 2.3.4 Ensure sidewalks meet ADA standards and are maintained regularly. Action 2.3.5 Wherever applicable, implement planted parkways zones to provide additional separation between the sidewalk and travel lanes, particularly along higher speed arterials. Action 2.3.6 Install innovative bikeway safety features, as appropriate, such as separated bikeways, and bicycle loop detection devices, and eliminate on-street parking conflicts.
Action 2.3.7 When re-striping or implementing planned bicycle lanes, provide buffering where space permits. In general, buffering from vehicle parking should take precedence over buffering from the adjacent travel lane. Action 2.3.8 Install Shared Lane Markings, or “sharrows” when installing Class III signed bicycle routes. Action 2.3.9 New or modified traffic signals along City streets with designated Class II or Class III bikeways shall include bicycle detection systems. Action 2.3.10 Determine crosswalk spacing criteria according to the walking network, built environment, and observed desire lines. A 600-foot maximum separation is generally recommended. Action 2.3.11 On streets where vehicle volume, speed, or collisions are impacting bicycling and walking travel, consider remedies such as signage, striping, or other traffic calming measures. Action 2.3.12 Ensure traffic calming street facilities such as curb extensions, traffic circles, and roundabouts, are designed to safely accommodate bicyclists and walkers.
CHAPTER 5: POLICIES
147
Action 2.3.13 Where competing demands for right-of-way present unique challenges that traditional facilities may not wholly meet (e.g., space constraints or potential conflicts between user groups), the City may consider alternative design treatments such as, but not limited to, colored pavement, bike boxes and buffered bicycle lanes.
Policy 2.6 To the extent possible, design storm drain inlets that minimize the flow line depression extending into the bicycle lanes, by creating more capacity at the inlet or by-pass flow.
Action 2.3.14 Improve bikeway safety by ensuring facilities are designed to reduce conflicts with vehicles. Policy 2.4 The City shall strive to design new and rehabilitated streets with the standards set forth in the City’s General Plan Transportation Element (“Complete Streets” concepts), state and national trends in addressing a variety of transportation needs including vehicle, transit, bicycling, and walking modes. Policy 2.5 The City shall strive to incorporate the latest in safety design standards/best practices, signage, and traffic control techniques approved and accepted by Caltrans, FHWA, or City, into City regulations to ensure a high level of safety for bicyclists, walkers, and motorists (e.g. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide) Action 2.5.1 Reference and incorporate the latest advances in bicycling, walking, transit, and urban greening infrastructure design for existing and future projects.
148
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Action 2.6.1 New drainage inlets shall not be installed in Class II bicycle lanes unless absolutely necessary. If so, they shall at minimum be equipped with “bicycle-friendly” grates. Action 2.6.2 Ensure bicycle lanes and buffered bicycle lanes comply with City design standards including minimum widths, and are not impacted by storm drain inlet designs (depressions in the bicyclist’s path of travel).
GOAL 3: NETWORK MAINTENANCE Maintain the walking and bicycling infrastructure allowing all users of all ages and abilities access to commercial and employment centers, neighborhoods, parks, and schools.
Policy 3.1 The City shall strive to maintain the a smooth pavement surface of bikeways free of potholes consistent with Section 1003.6 (2) and Table 1003.6 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.
Action 3.1.2 Prepare a report identifying the problems, recommended action, priority, and time frame for correction. The report should include recommendations for bikeway signage.
Action 3.1.1 inspect bikeways and bikeway connections on a routine basis, such as biennially, to identify maintenance issues, including but not limited to:
Action 3.1.3 Maintain a reporting button on the City’s website to aid the public in reporting problems.
• Potholes, • “Alligator” cracks, • Longitudinal and transverse cracks, • Steps in the pavement surface, • Hazardous drainage grates, • Sunken or raised utility trenches or covers, • Encroaching vegetation, • Faded or missing bicycle lane striping, pavement symbols or signs, • Poor street repairs (uneven surfaces), and • Signal actuation, bicycle placement/positioning stencil.
Policy 3.2 The City shall strive to ensure the City’s pavement management system maintains safe, clean bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and other bicycling and walking infrastructure facilities. Action 3.2.1 Explore development of a comprehensive asset management system to log the City’s critical infrastructure and maintenance tracking, including pavement, sidewalks, bridges, ADA ramps, lighting, bicycling, walking, signage, bikeway surfaces, and other facilities. Action 3.2.2 Maintain clean, smooth bicycle riding surfaces throughout the City. Action 3.2.3 Sweep Class II bikeways along arterial streets and highways on a routine basis to remove road debris and litter.
CHAPTER 5: POLICIES
149
GOAL 4: BICYCLIST AND WALKER SAFETY Develop bicycling and walking safety and monitoring programs to encourage non-motorized travel within the City.
Action 4.2.3 Continue to encourage third-party bicycling and walking education programs, such as Street Skills clinics and employee workshops, while also continuing to work with regional, state, national, and community partner organizations to provide bicycling and walking education.
Policy 4.1 The City shall strive to develop a multi-modal network focused on bicycling and walking safety. Action 4.1.1 Update the City’s Street Design Standards and Specifications to implement current safety design standards and methodology such as incorporating separated bikeways or buffered bicycle lanes or enhanced crosswalks. Action 4.1.2 Integrate walking safety into the City’s Street Design Standards Specification and Details. Action 4.1.3 Install pedestrian scale lighting along sections of multi-use paths away from streets for security and comfort for path users.
Action 4.2.4 Support Traffic Solutions’ incentives for employers to offer bicycle safety training workshops and take advantage of existing resources such as Traffic Solutions training workshops. Policy 4.3 The City shall strive to improve safety conditions for bicyclists and walkers through law enforcement efforts focused on drivers, bicyclists, and walkers.
Policy 4.2 The City shall strive to work with community partner organizations to develop a comprehensive bicycling and walking safety training program. Action 4.2.1 Collaborate with community partner organizations to develop a bicycle safety outreach campaign on an ongoing basis. Action 4.2.2 Develop bicycling and walking safety materials to distribute at schools, City facilities, County Social Services Department, Housing Authority, and other venues, in English and Spanish.
150
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Action 4.3.1 Develop an annual bicycling and walking safety training program for educators and enforcement staff with help of the Goleta Police Department and Goleta Public Schools, with assistance from community partner organizations. Action 4.3.2 Implement a focused enforcement effort to reduce bicycling and walking collisions.
Policy 4.4 The City shall strive to conduct City-wide monitoring and evaluation of collisions involving bicyclists and walkers. Action 4.4.1 Develop a comprehensive monitoring program for bi-annual review and analysis of bicyclist- and walker-involved collisions to identify and implement safety strategies and priority projects for all road users. Action 4.4.2 Monitor safety metrics such as vehicle speeds and changes in collision types before and after implementation of on-street walking safety or bicycle improvements. Action 4.4.3 Study bicyclist- and walker-related collision records and implement design solutions where applicable.
GOAL 5: BICYCLING AND WALKING SUPPORT RESOURCES Develop bicycling and walking resources that meet both commuter and recreation needs.
Policy 5.1 The City shall strive to encourage public walking improvement projects to help to create and maintain a comfortable environment that encourages walking and bicycling. Action 5.1.1 Create seating opportunities (e.g. benches, raised planters, low walls, etc.) in areas where walkers congregate. Action 5.1.2 Provide walking environment improvements such as street trees, lighting and directional signs. Action 5.1.3 Develop guidelines for placing walking resources (e.g. trash cans, drinking fountains, etc.) in areas with high levels of walking traffic. Action 5.1.4 Locate walking and bicycling support resources where they will not interrupt walking and bicycling traffic flow. Policy 5.2 The City shall strive to evaluate including public art in public projects as those policies are developed and adopted.
Policy 5.3 The City shall strive to develop a citywide “end-of-trip” bicycle parking strategy to increase the number of secure, convenient, and attractive bicycle parking and storage facilities such as at transit stops and Train Depot.
Policy 5.4 The City shall strive to work with local businesses and employment centers to install secure bicycle parking in public right-ofway as development and redevelopment opportunities present themselves.
Action 5.3.1 Develop an inspection and maintenance tracking system (Asset Management) for bicycle racks and lockers within the public right-of-way and public property, and ensure that they are inspected and maintained annually, and kept in a safe, clean condition.
Action 5.4.1 Collaborate with the Goleta Old Town Community Association to install bicycle racks in the Old Town area where acceptable locations are identified or become available and to develop a “Racks with Plaques” bicycle rack donor program.
Action 5.3.2 Develop design criteria for new bicycle rack or locker facilities in the public right-of-way and property with input from community partner organizations. Action 5.3.3 Coordinate with the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District and SBCAG to provide resources at existing and future transit stops such as shelters, seating, and lighting.
Action 5.4.2 Consider updating the City’s zoning regulations to require bicycle storage and support facilities including bicycle racks, bicycle lockers, rest areas, changing facilities, showers, and drinking fountains, based on the scale and type of new development. Action 5.4.3 Develop standards that encourage bicycle accommodations (such as parking, lockers, and showers) in new or significantly rehabilitated non-residential developments. Policy 5.5 The City shall strive to coordinate with other City departments, local non-profits, schools, and community organizations to maximize signage efficiency at strategic locations.
CHAPTER 5: POLICIES
151
GOAL 6: BICYCLING AND WALKING ENCOURAGEMENT Develop programs to increase awareness of bicycling and walking benefits and to encourage residents to bicycle and walk to work, shopping, school, and for recreation. Policy 6.1 As a designated Bicycle Friendly Community, the City shall strive to continue to make measurable progress to enhance Goleta’s image as a “bicycle-friendly” City. Action 6.1.1 Support a volunteer “Bike Valet” program with community partners for local events to provide a safe place to park bicycles while attending events such as the Farmer’s Market, California Lemon Festival, and Christmas Parade. Action 6.1.2 Collaborate with the business community to develop a “bicycle-friendly” business reward program to encourage businesses to offer benefits to customers and clients that ride their bicycle to their business. Action 6.1.3 Coordinate with hotels and local businesses to survey customers on their walking and bicycling experiences within the City. Policy 6.2 The City will strive to coordinate with SBCAG and the Active Transportation Advisory Committee (ATAC) to develop programs that encourage alternative transportation for commuters by collaborating with regional partners.
152
Policy 6.3 The City shall strive to promote programs that reduce bicycle theft and support efforts to recover stolen bicycles.
Action 6.6.2 Implement the regional Employer Bike Share program to make bicycles available to employers for free use by employees.
Policy 6.4 The City shall strive to develop a wayfinding and signage program for existing and new bikeways.
Policy 6.7 The City shall strive to plan, operate, and maintain bicycling facilities to support equal access to transportation facilities and services for all demographic groups.
Action 6.4.1 Coordinate with the SBCAG on the Regional Bicycle Wayfinding and Signage Strategy for infrastructure planning, branding, and implementation. Policy 6.5 The City shall strive to ensure consistent enforcement of the rules of the road to decrease bicyclist and motorist traffic law violations. Policy 6.6 The City shall strive to ensure equitable access to the bikeway network for all Goleta residents, and support bicycling as an attractive, convenient transportation choice for all demographic groups.
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Action 6.6.1 Develop a “Bike Library” program in coordination with non-profit organizations such as SBBIKE, for residents to use free, donated bicycles for residents that do not own a bicycle .
Policy 6.8 The City shall strive to ensure that public engagement and outreach programs are multi-lingual, paying particular attention to communities with more speakers of English as a second language. Action 6.8.1 Conduct inclusive outreach that engages Goleta residents of all income levels, backgrounds, and ethnicities. Action 6.8.2 Support a community-based program to educate and inform residents of the environmental and health benefits of bicycle riding and to reinforce bicycle riding as a fun and exciting activity and sport.
$
GOAL 7: BICYCLING AND WALKING PROJECT PARTNERING AND FUNDING
Coordinate City bicycling and walking improvement plans with interagency transportation plans and funding programs.
Policy 7.1 The City shall strive to seek and allocate adequate funding to enhance the bicycling and walking network, in alignment with the City’s community development and transportation goals. Action 7.1.1 Continue to use Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds designated for bicycling and walking projects and programs on bicycling and walking projects. Action 7.1.2 Coordinate with regional agencies for inter-regional improvements, and to jointly apply for federal, state, and regional bicycle infrastructure improvement grants. Action 7.1.3 Coordinate with the Community partner organizations to identify and apply for available funding sources such as Caltrans’ Active Transportation Program (ATP). Action 7.1.4 Ensure that the Goleta BPMP projects are included in the Capital Improvement Program and Council prioritizes the list of projects.
Action 7.1.5 Pursue Safe Routes to School grant funding for bicycling and walking improvements. Action 7.1.6 Pursue new funding sources for multi-modal safety improvements, education, and infrastructure consistent with the City’s long-term transportation targets, policies, and implementation strategies. Action 7.1.7 Depending on available staff resources, designate a Transportation Coordinator to administer and coordinate implementation of this BPMP. This position may also function as Public Works’ part time Grant Coordinator. This coordinator should be encouraged to join the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). Policy 7.2 The City shall strive to collaborate with local, regional, state, federal agencies, and private entities to ensure the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is consistent with regional transportation plans and agency regulations.
Policy 7.3 The City shall strive to update its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan every five years to maintain eligibility for State-administered active transportation grant funding. Policy 7.4 The City shall consider requiring that development contribute its share toward the costs of bicycling and walking facilities and programs. Policy 7.5 The City shall strive to continue to prioritize funding towards transportation congestion relief projects including high priority bicycling and walking projects. Policy 7.6 The City shall strive to work with local organizations to pursue additional funding for bicycling safety education programs. By providing support to grants and other funding applications, the City can help organizations that conduct education to increase their resources and reach more City bikeway users. Policy 7.7 The City shall strive to use grant funding to the maximum extent feasible to pay for bicycling and walking projects and programs.
CHAPTER 5: POLICIES
153
GOAL 8: ECONOMIC GROWTH Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth and tourism by developing bicycling and walking facilities and improving existing infrastructure in commercial and tourist areas.
Policy 8.1 The City recognizes the bicycling and walking networks as an integral part of economic development and quality of life.
Policy 8.3 The City shall strive to support incentives to workers to promote bicycling and walking to work.
Policy 8.4 Continue to recognize the importance of bicycling and walking as ways to enhance local tourism.
Policy 8.2 The City shall strive to encourage safe bicycling and walking to stimulate economic vitality.
Action 8.3.1 Promote incentives between businesses and customers to encourage walking and bicycling to businesses.
Action 8.4.1 Promote bicycling and walking as an incentive to increase tourist expenditures.
Action 8.2.1 Require bicycling and walking resources in new commercial development to create comfortable travel conditions for all users.
Action 8.3.2 Encourage partnerships between businesses to provide employees discounts on equipment needed to bicycle or walk to work.
Action 8.2.2 Encourage the business community to promote bicycling and walking in commercial areas and nearby neighborhoods to stimulate economic activity.
Action 8.3.3 Encourage bicycling and walking to work as a way to reduce parking requirements for employers and businesses.
Action 8.2.3 Encourage businesses to provide employees with incentives to offset any additional costs that may result from bicycling or walking to work.
154
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Action 8.4.2 Promote bicycling events and charity runs such as walk-a-thons, fun-runs, and marathons to attract bicyclists and runners from out of town. Action 8.4.3 Work in coordination with Cycle California Coast to support and increase bicycle tourism in the City.
SIX KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES- REVISITED The six key performance measure goals that were introduced in Chapter 4 are listed once again below. The proposed physical improvements and the programs presented Chapter 4, as well as the policies presented in this chapter will help guide the City in meeting their mode share goals. These elements could be considered as the necessary steps needed to implement the BPMP and guide the reporting process that will be used to keep the City and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan.
Complete the current list of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) bicycle and pedestrian projects by 2035 Increase walking and bicycling mode share to 10% by 2025 and 15% by 2030
Reduce driving alone commute by 10% (to 60%) by 2030
Reach an “Overall Score” of “3” in the PlacesForBikes City Ranking by 2025
Ensure a variety of infrastructure improvements are implemented by 2025 Percentage of School-aged Children Walking & Bicycling to Schools – 13% combined; 15% increase by 2030 CHAPTER 5: POLICIES
155
6
FUNDING CHAPTER 6: FUNDING SOURCES
157
POTENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING SOURCES Federal, state, and local government agencies invest billions of dollars every year in the nation’s transportation system. Only a fraction of that funding is used to develop policies, plans, and projects to improve conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. Even though appropriate funds are available, they are limited and often hard to find. Desirable projects sometimes go unfunded because communities may be unaware of a fund’s existence or may apply for the wrong type of grant. In addition, there is competition between municipalities for the limited available funds. 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 similar terms. Almost every implemented active transportation or complete street program and infrastructure in the United States has had more than one funding source and it often takes a good deal of coordination to pull the various sources together. According to the publication by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), An Analysis of Current Funding Mechanisms for Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs at the Federal, State and Local Levels, where successful local bicycle infrastructure programs exist, there is usually an active transportation coordinator with extensive understanding of funding sources. Cities such as Seattle, Portland, and Tucson are prime examples. City staff are often in a position to develop a competitive project and detailed proposal that can be used to improve conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians within their jurisdictions. Some of the following information on federal and state funding sources was derived from the previously mentioned FHWA publication. Table 6-1 identifies potential funding opportunities that may be used from design to maintenance phases of projects. Due to trends in Low Impact Development (LID) and stormwater retention street designs, funding sources for these improvements not only increase the chances for first and last mile improvements, but can also be incorporated into streetscape and development projects. The funding sources are arranged into federal, State, local, and private categories. The right side of the table lists both typical and atypical approaches to address each funding source. Many funding sources can be accessed through atypical project approaches such as including an urban forestry, LID, or culture and history component.
158
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Table 6-1: FUNDING SOURCES FINDING, FRAMING AND FUNDING A PROJECT
FUNDING USES Atypical Approaches
Implementation
FUNDING ORIGIN
Maintenance and Operations
FUNDING SOURCE
CIP Development
Typical Approaches
First and Last Mile
Urban Forestry
Back to Nature
Low Impact Development
•
•
Culture and History
Federal Funding Sources Land and Water Conservation Fund (LCWF)
U.S. National Park Service/ California Department of Parks and Recreation
Urban Community Forestry Program
U.S. National Park Service
Surface Transportation Program (STP) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/ Caltrans
Transportation Alternative Program (TAP)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Recreational Trails Program
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/ Regional agency may also contribute
EPA Brownfields Clean Up and Assessments
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• • • • •
• • •
• • •
•
•
•
•
•
• • • • •
Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentive Program Urban Revitalization and Livable Communities Act
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
•
Community Development Block Grants ACHIEVE, Communities Putting Prevention to Work, Pioneering Communities
Center for Disease Control and Prevention
•
•
• • • •
• •
• •
•
CHAPTER 6: FUNDING SOURCES
159
TABLE 6-1: FUNDING SOURCES (CONT.) FINDING, FRAMING AND FUNDING A PROJECT
FUNDING USES
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
• •
Implementation
Maintenance and Operations
Atypical Approaches
First and Last Mile
Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing
•
•
•
Safe Routes to School, Minigrants
National Center for Safe Routes to School and Caltrans
• • • • • • •
• •
• • • • • • •
FUNDING SOURCE Urban and Community Forest Program Community Forest and Open Space Conservation
FUNDING ORIGIN
Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Urbanized Area Formula Grants Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grants Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Formula Grants for Rural Areas TOD Planning Pilot Grants
160
CIP Development
Typical Approaches
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
• • • •
• •
Urban Forestry
• •
Back to Nature
Low Impact Development
•
•
• •
• •
• •
•
Culture and History
TABLE 6-1: FUNDING SOURCES (CONT.) FINDING, FRAMING AND FUNDING A PROJECT
FUNDING USES
State Funding Sources Land and Water Conservation Fund (LCWF) Statewide Park Program Prop 84 Round 2 Recreational Trails Program Proposition 117 - Habitat Conservation Nature Education Facilities
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
Watershed Program Stormwater Flood Management Prop. 1E Roberti-Z’Berg-Harris (RZH) Grant Program - Prop 40 Aquatic Center Grants
Department of Boating and Waterways
Community Based Transportation Planning, Environmental Justice and Transit Planning Active Transportation Planning Grants (ATP) Regional Improvement Program Safe Routes to School Programs(SR2S)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Atypical Approaches
Implementation
FUNDING ORIGIN
Maintenance and Operations
FUNDING SOURCE
CIP Development
Typical Approaches
First and Last Mile
Urban Forestry
Back to Nature
Low Impact Development
•
•
• • • • • •
• •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • •
•
•
•
• • •
• • •
• • •
•
• •
• • •
• • •
Culture and History
•
CHAPTER 6: FUNDING SOURCES
161
TABLE 6-1: FUNDING SOURCES (CONT.) FINDING, FRAMING AND FUNDING A PROJECT
FUNDING USES
162
•
• • •
Traffic Safety Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety
Local Partnership Program Competitive and Formulaic
California Transportation Commission (SB 1 funds)
Coastal Conservancy Grants
California Coastal Conservancy
•
Non-point Source Pollution, Watershed Plans, Water Conservation (Props 13, 40, 50 and 84)
State Water Resources Control Board
• •
Sustainable Communities Planning, Regional SB 375
Strategic Growth Council/ Dept of Conservation
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEMP)
California Natural Resources Agency and Caltrans
California River Parkways and Urban Streams Restoration Grant
California Natural Resources Agency/ Department of Water Resources
Strategic Growth Council Urban Greening Program
California Natural Resources Agency
California Cap and Trade Program
Cal EPA, Air Resources Board
Urban Forestry Program (Leafing Out, Leading Edge and Green Trees Grants)
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Atypical Approaches
Implementation
FUNDING ORIGIN
Maintenance and Operations
FUNDING SOURCE
CIP Development
Typical Approaches
First and Last Mile
• •
•
Back to Nature
Low Impact Development
Culture and History
•
• •
•
•
• •
•
• •
•
• • •
Urban Forestry
• • •
•
•
• • •
• • •
• •
•
•
• •
•
•
TABLE 6-1: FUNDING SOURCES (CONT.) FINDING, FRAMING AND FUNDING A PROJECT
FUNDING USES
Local Funding Sources Special Habitat Conservation Programs Special Parks and Recreation Bond Revenues
Regional MPOs/Local Cities
Special Transportation Bonds and Sales Tax Initiatives * Advertising Sales/Naming Rights ** Community Facilities District (CFD) ** Infrastructure Financing District (IFD) ** Facilities Benefit Assessment District (BFA) Easement Agreements/ Revenues **
Local Jurisdictions
Equipment Rental Fees ** Facility Use Permits Fees Fees and Charges/ Recreation Service Fees Food and Beverage Tax **
Atypical Approaches
Implementation
FUNDING ORIGIN
Maintenance and Operations
FUNDING SOURCE
CIP Development
Typical Approaches
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
First and Last Mile
Urban Forestry
Back to Nature
Low Impact Development
• • •
• • • •
• • •
• • •
•
•
•
•
• • • •
•
• • • •
Culture and History
• • • • • • • •
* Measure A Sales Tax ** Not currently available in City of Goleta
CHAPTER 6: FUNDING SOURCES
163
TABLE 6-1: FUNDING SOURCES (CONT.) FINDING, FRAMING AND FUNDING A PROJECT
FUNDING USES
General Fund**** General Obligation Bonds ** Intergovernmental Agreements Lease Revenues Mello Roos Districts Residential Park Improvement Fees **
Local Jurisdictions
Park Impact Fees Traffic Impact Fees In-Lieu Fees Pouring Rights Agreements Private Development Agreements Surplus Real Estate Sale Revenues ** Not currently available in City of Goleta **** Property Tax is split 50/50 with the County of SB
164
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
• • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • •
Atypical Approaches
Implementation
FUNDING ORIGIN
Maintenance and Operations
FUNDING SOURCE
CIP Development
Typical Approaches
• • •
• • • • • • • •
First and Last Mile
• • • • • • • • • • • •
Urban Forestry
• • • • • • • • • • • •
Back to Nature
• • • • • • • • • • • •
Low Impact Development
• • • • • • • • • • • •
Culture and History
• • • • • • • • • • • •
TABLE 6-1: FUNDING SOURCES (CONT.) FINDING, FRAMING AND FUNDING A PROJECT
FUNDING USES
Revenue Bond Revenues Sales Tax Revenues *** Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues
Local Jurisdictions
Wastewater Fund Reserves Utility Taxes Business Improvement Districts (BID) ** Maintenance Assessment Districts (MAD) Property Based Improvement Districts (PBID) Landscape Maintenance District (LMD)
Non-profits, Business Organizations or City
Various Sports Field Grants
Various Agencies, Foundations and Corporations
Community Health Initiatives
Kaiser Permanente
America’s Historical Planning Grants
National Endowment for the Humanities
Atypical Approaches
Implementation
FUNDING ORIGIN
Maintenance and Operations
FUNDING SOURCE
CIP Development
Typical Approaches
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • •
First and Last Mile
• • • • • • • •
Urban Forestry
• • • • • •
Back to Nature
• • • •
Low Impact Development
• • • • • •
•
Culture and History
• • • • •
•
** Not currently available in City of Goleta *** Split 30/70 with County of Santa Barbara
CHAPTER 6: FUNDING SOURCES
165
TABLE 6-1: FUNDING SOURCES (CONT.) FINDING, FRAMING AND FUNDING A PROJECT
FUNDING USES
Corporate Sponsorships Private Corporations Private Sector Partnerships Non-Profit Partnerships
Non-Profit Corporations
Foundation Grants
Private Foundations
Private Donations Private Individuals Irrevocable Remainder Trusts Targeted Fund-raising Activities
166
Local Jurisdictions
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
• • • • • • •
• • • • • • •
Atypical Approaches
Implementation
FUNDING ORIGIN
Maintenance and Operations
FUNDING SOURCE
CIP Development
Typical Approaches
• • • • • • •
First and Last Mile
Urban Forestry
Back to Nature
•
•
•
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
Low Impact Development
• • • • • • •
Culture and History
• • • • • • •
A
APPENDIX PRIORITIZATION RESULTS
APPENDIX A- PRIORITIZATION RESULTS
1
PRIORITIZATION PROCESS Project prioritization was an iterative process that combined data-driven analysis consisting of cumulative scores derived from the various inputs (criteria), with City staff and stakeholder feedback to determine initial project priority. The inputs used for the prioritization process were as follows: »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »»
2
Number of Attractors (points of interest) Number of Schools Number of Parks Reported Collisions Public Transportation to Work Walk to Work Bike to Work Households Without Vehicles 2010 Population Density (Residents/acre) 2010 Employment Density (Employed per Residents 16) Seniors over 65 Active Transportation Network/ Gap Closure Number of Comments Received from Community Engagement Process
The prioritization process used a default weighting score to produce an initial list of ranked projects. The initial list was then reviewed by City staff and stakeholders, and subsequently modified to address additional criteria, and to adjust some criteria weighting to closer reflect local conditions. The final project list table with assigned weighting is included on the following pages. The numbering used to identify projects in the following section does not necessarily imply which project should be built first. Implementing the proposed improvements has no specific time line, since the availability of funds for implementation is variable and tied to the priorities of the City’s capital projects. If there is desire, recommended projects can be implemented at whatever interval best fits funding cycles, or to take into consideration the availability of new information, new funding sources, updated collision statistics, updated CIP lists, etc.
Grant Competitiveness
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Goleta Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan - Potential Improvements List
Hollister
6
Bike/ Ped
Hollister
Cathedral Oaks
7
Bike/ Ped
Storke at Hollister
8
Bike/ Ped
Glenn Annie
9
Bike/ Ped
Los Carneros at Calle Real
10
Bike
Cathedral Oaks
5 5
3
27
3
2020
Crossing Community Input, 11-50 Improvements Collision Data
2 4 1 1
3
3 5
3
22
12
2021
Safer crossings desired. Narrow bridge.
2 2 1 1
3
3 3
5
20
23
2022
Coast Route
Class II
Community Input 11-50
2 4 1 4
5
1 1
2
20
15
2025
Elderberry
Class I or IV
Community Input 11-50
2 4 1 4
3
5 5
4
28
2
2025
Crossing Community Input, 51-99 Improvements Collision Data
3 4 1 3
3
3 3
3
23
7
2030
2
24
5
2024
1
14
5
21
Seniors Over 65
Grant Competitiveness
US 101 Overpass
3
5 1
Markings/ Signage
Community Input 11-50
2 2 1 1
3
3 1
3
5 3
Class II
Class I or IV
Analysis Community Input
1-10 1-10
Source
1 2 1 1 1 3 1 5
5
Gap Closure
2 5 1 5
Safety
Between
Community Input, 11-50 Collision Data
Collisions
King Daniel Eastern City Limit
Buffered Class II
5 1
5
School Proximity
Community Input 11-50
Aggregate Census Data
Bridge and Signage
Importance
Type
Notes: * Combination of:
Fairview Rd
3
3 3
26
35
18 4
2020
2025
2028-27
Response
Safer crossings desired. Add Conduct feasibility study to closely analyze Caltrans and Class I path to separate corridor. Corridor requires Complete Street City of Santa Barbara people from vehicle traffic. improvements.
2 4 1 4
# of Comments
Hollister ***
Paseo Del PiĂąon
Yes
Class II
Infrastructure Type
Bike
Segment
11
Cathedral Oaks
2019-20
Hard to cross, stop sign not respected by drivers, speeding
3
City of Santa Barbara
Hard to transfer form Hollister bike lane to Los Carneros path. Add bike lanes on southbound Los Carneros.
`
Buffer bike lanes, narrow lanes, enhanced crosswalks, decrease curb radii on north side. Corresponds with road resurfacing. Reduce curb radii, install curb extensions, enhanced crosswalks, modify signal timing. Corresponds with road resurfacing projects. Add 4-way stop signs on streets at both ends of bridge. Replace with wider bridge. Enhanced crosswalks, crossing markings southbound to intersection, reduce curb radii, buffer bike lane, modify signal timing. GTIP improvements include Class II bike lanes.
Difficult to cross at Cathedral Upgrade Class II bike lane to Class I multi-use Coastal Zone Permitting Oaks and Hollister. Install path. Install curb ramps, enhanced crosswalks. continuous path. Long-term vision plan for Hollister Avenue. Safer crossings desired. Insufficient crossing time.
Enhanced crosswalks, modify signal timing. Hilton Garden Inn to improve ROW conditions.
Heavy student bike and walk Buffer bike lanes where possible, intersection traffic, safer crossings crossing markings, bike boxes, modify signal desired. timing, enhanced crosswalks Install yield sharks teeth, signage that lets Add signage to let bicyclists cyclists know they can ride on sidewalk around know they can ride on the traffic calming circle, green-backed sharrows sidewalk. through roundabout.
ROW Acquisition
Los Carneros
1
Community Input, 11-50 Collision Data
5 5 1 4
Estimated Timeframe**
Bike/ Ped
28
Comments
Community Input, 200+ Collision Data
Prioritization Ranking
5
4
Joint Jurisdiction
Class I
Composite Score
Convington Way at San Pedro Creek
ROW Acquisition
Bike/ Ped
Estimated Timeframe**
4
Prioritization Ranking
Kellogg
Composite Score
Fairview
Grant Competitiveness
Calle Real
Seniors Over 65
Ped
School Proximity
3
Aggregate Census Data
Moreton Bay
Collisions
Fairview
Gap Closure
Encina
Hollister
Safety
2
Bike/ Ped
Calle Real
Importance
Segment Fairview
Source
# of Comments
Type Bike/ Ped
Infrastructure Type
ID # 1
Between
Buffer bike lanes, or convert to Class I or IV.
Consider as part of Hollister City of Santa Barbara Corridor.
Coordinate with Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Project.
Joint Jurisdiction
Bike to work (1=up to 8.5 residents, 3=8.6-17 residents, 5=17.1-25.5 residents) Walk to work (1=up to 6.5 residents, 3=6.6-13 residents, 5=13.1-19.5 residents) Public Transit to work (1=up to 3.5 residents, 3=3.6-7 residents, 5=7.1-10.5 residents) Households with no vehicles (1=2+ vechicles; 3=1 vehicle; 5=0 vehicles) Page 1 of 7 Z:\2016\016-040 BPMP\working_files\Projects\Goleta BPMP Projects List_Final **Goleta Preferred City timeline. Actual delivery needs to match City budget. *** Hollister Ave Complete Streets Corridor Plan analysis is not included in this document. Detailed information can be found in the Hollister Ave Complete Streets Corridor Plan project. **** Project ID #22 was removed and combined. Total of 37 projects. Original ID list not renumbered. Projects are organized by prioritization ranking in BPMP.
APPENDIX A- PRIORITIZATION RESULTS
3
Prioritization Ranking
Estimated Timeframe** 2028-37
Calle Real
Class I or IV
Community Input
1-10
1 3 1 3
3
5 3
3
22
13
2025-35
Hollister
Sandspit
Class I
Community Input
1-10
1 5 1 5
3
1 1
5
22
8
2025-35
Cathedral Oaks
San Pedro Creek
Eastern City Limit
Class I or IV
Community Input
1-10
1 3 1 2
3
5 3
5
23
10
2030-40
Cortona
Hollister
Los Carneros
Class II
Community Input
1-10
1 1 1 3
3
3 3
1
16
30
2030-40
Overcrossing
Community Input
1-10
1 1 1 5
3
5 3
1
20
19
TBD
13
Bike
Fairview
Cathedral Oaks
14
Bike
Fairview
15
Bike
16
Bike
17
Bike/ Mendocino at US 101 Ped
19
Bike
Carlo
Cathedral Oaks
Calle Real
Class III
Community Input
1-10
1 2 1 3
3
5 3
2
20
20
2020-25
20
Bike
Convington Way/ Berkeley
Los Carneros
Eastern City Limit
Class III - Bike Boulevard
Community Input
1-10
1 1 1 1
1
5 3
2
15
36
2020-30
21
Bike Santa Barbara Shores
Hollister
Trailhead to Ellwood Beach
Class III
Community Input
1-10
1 1 1 1
3
5 3
3
18
29
2020-25
23
Bike
Barling Terrace
Stow Canyon
Covington Way/ Berkeley Bridge
Class III
1-10
1 1 1 1
3
5 3
1
16
32
N/A
24
Ped
Fairview at Cathedral Oaks
Crossing Improvements
Community Input
1-10
1 3 1 1
3
5 3
25
Bike
Mendocino
Infrastructure Type
Community Input
Class II or III
Community Input
1-10
1 1 1 1
3
5 3
Notes: * Combination of:
Dos Pueblos HS
Calle Real
Between
Source
4
1
21
16
17
33
2020-25
2030-40
Class II already. City restriping east of Fairview. Coordinate eastern end with County. CIP 9060 to add sidewalk and Class II through ` parts of this section. Potential joint grant application/project between all three agencies and possibly UCSB.
Not a selected alternative in 101 Crossing Project analysis. Identified connection goes through private property (Raytheon). Potential for SBBike to add wayfinding signage Sharrows, add wayfinding as part of overall South Coast Wayfinding signage. Program. Add wayfinding signage to Potential for SBBike to add signage as part of brand as a bike boulevard. overall South Coast Wayfinding Program. Install signage and sharrows. Potential for Better connection to Ellwood SBBike to add wayfinding signage as part of Beach. overall South Coast Wayfinding Program. Bike/ped bridge overcrossing. Bike connection to train station.
Yes
Private/HOA
Install bike route signage and wayfinding to make clear this Private street within HOA. is a bike route for students.
ROW Acquisition
2020-25
Pedestrian crossing improvements for students are desired. Install Class II or 3, install bike signal at Calle Real.
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Enhanced crosswalks, modify signal timing for pedestrians, re-locate utility poles in sidewalk, trim hedges. Already residential area. Evaluate most used routes to schools for students.
Joint Jurisdiction
Bike to work (1=up to 8.5 residents, 3=8.6-17 residents, 5=17.1-25.5 residents) Walk to work (1=up to 6.5 residents, 3=6.6-13 residents, 5=13.1-19.5 residents) Public Transit to work (1=up to 3.5 residents, 3=3.6-7 residents, 5=7.1-10.5 residents) Households with no vehicles (1=2+ vechicles; 3=1 vehicle; 5=0 vehicles) ** Preferred City timeline. Actual delivery needs to match City budget. Page 2 of 7 Z:\2016\016-040 Goleta BPMP\working_files\Projects\Goleta BPMP Projects List_Final *** Hollister Ave Complete Streets Corridor Plan analysis is not included in this document. Detailed information can be found in the Hollister Ave Complete Streets Corridor Plan project. **** Project ID #22 was removed and combined. Total of 37 projects. Original ID list not renumbered. Projects are organized by prioritization ranking in BPMP.
4
Response
Bike connection through business park to Marketplace and Goleta Train Depot.
Yes
Estimated Timeframe**
34
Comments
Class II bike lanes exist.
Prioritization Ranking
14
Joint Jurisdiction
County and City of Santa Barbara, UCSB
Composite Score
1
Grant Competitiveness
1 1
Seniors Over 65
3
School Proximity
1 2 1 4
Aggregate Census Data
1-10
Gap Closure
Community Input
Collisions
Class II
Safety
La Patera
Importance
Robin Hill
# of Comments
Lindmar
Segment
Bike
Type
18
ROW Acquisition
Composite Score
28
Seniors Over 65
17
School Proximity
Grant Competitiveness
Aggregate Census Data
2
Gap Closure
5 3
Los Carneros
Collisions
1
Calle Real
Safety
1 2 1 2
Bike
Importance
1-10
12
# of Comments
Infrastructure Type
Community Input
Segment
Class I or IV
Type
Eastern City Limit
ID #
Source
Between
Community Input
1-10
1 3 1 1
3
5 3
3
20
21
2020-30
Safer crossing desired.
28
Ped
Dos Pueblos HS
RRFB or PHB
Community Input
1-10
1 3 1 3
3
5 3
4
23
9
2020-30
Install RRFB or PHB at road/driveway between Alameda Ave and Glen Annie.
29
Ped
Marketplace at Storke
Crossing Improvements
Community Input
1-10
1 3 1 2
3
1 1
3
15
31
2020-21
Enhance crosswalks, modify signal timing. Partial component of CIP 9062.
30
Bike
Patterson
Class II
Previous City Planning
1-10
1 3 1 4
3
3 3
3
21
16
2022-30
31
Ped
Berkeley at Kellog
Crossing Improvements
Community Input
1-10
1 3 1 2
3
5 3
5
23
11
2018-25
32
Bike
Univ Village Park /Flood Control
Class I
Previous City Planning
1-10
1 1 1 2
3
5 3
5
21
22
2022-30
1 1 1 3
3
5 2
4
20
24
2022-30
Install Class I path to connect General Plan TE. schools and park.
0 3 1 3
3
5 2
2
19
25
2022-30
General Plan TE.
0 1 2 3
3
5 2
26
2022-30
General Plan TE.
0 2 3 3
3
1 2
5
3 3
3
3 3
Aggregate Census Data
19
34
Type
33
Cathedral Oaks
More
Hollister
Ellwood Mesa Open Space
Bike/P Brandon Elem Waldorf School Evergreen Acres Park School ed Bike
Ellwood Station
San Blanco
Hollister
Type
Notes: * Combination of:
Storke
Los Carneros
Between
Class II
Buffered Class Community Input II
0 3 5 3
1-10
Source
2 2 1 1
Safety
Bike
Kellogg Wy
3 3 2 3
17 24 18
27 6
37
2025-35 2022-30
2022-30
ROW Acquisition
Armitos
Class I
Previous City Planning Previous City Planning
Estimated Timeframe**
Kellogg
Cannon Green
Previous City Planning
Comments
Enhance crosswalks, intersection crossing markings. Install Class I path to connect County Flood Control to other Class I paths and trails.
Prioritization Ranking
Bike
Class II
Joint Jurisdiction
County of Santa Barbara
Composite Score
37
San Blanco
Gap Closure
Sperline Preserve Northeast Edge
Class II
Collisions
36
Bike/ Ped
Calle Real
Community Input, 1-10 Previous City Planning Previous City Planning
# of Comments
San Milano
Class I
Infrastructure Type
Bike
Segment
35
Evergreen Park Trailhead Ellwood Beach
38
Coast Route
ROW Acquisition
Estimated Timeframe**
Crossing Improvements
Grant Competitiveness
Prioritization Ranking
Cathedral Oaks at Alameda
Seniors Over 65
Composite Score
Bike/ Ped
School Proximity
Grant Competitiveness
27
Seniors Over 65
Need better N/S crossings on Install mid-block crossing with PHB and Hollister Ave between Pebble enhanced crosswalk. May be reduced need with ` following installation. Beach and Ellwood. new Class I. Re-evaluate
School Proximity
2020-30
Importance
Aggregate Census Data
14
Gap Closure
22
Safety
3
Collisions
5 3
Importance
3
Source
# of Comments
1 3 1 3
Infrastructure Type
Mid-block Community Input, 1-10 crossing Collision Data improvements
Segment
Bike/ Hollister at Palo Alto Ped
ID # 26
Between
Response
Enhanced crosswalks, curb extensions.
Potential asphalt curb and re-striping Coordinate with County. Improve crosswalks, signage and striping. PWD identified and public comments to connect Hollister Class I to Open Space and UCSB multipurpose trail system.
General Plan TE. General Plan TE. General Plan TE.
Joint Jurisdiction
Bike to work (1=up to 8.5 residents, 3=8.6-17 residents, 5=17.1-25.5 residents) Walk to work (1=up to 6.5 residents, 3=6.6-13 residents, 5=13.1-19.5 residents) Public Transit to work (1=up to 3.5 residents, 3=3.6-7 residents, 5=7.1-10.5 residents) Households with no vehicles (1=2+ vechicles; 3=1 vehicle; 5=0 vehicles) ** Preferred City timeline. Actual delivery needs to match City budget. ***Goleta Hollister Ave Complete Streets Corridor Plan analysis is not included in this document. Detailed information can Page 3 of 7 be found in the Hollister Ave Complete Streets Corridor Plan project. Z:\2016\016-040 BPMP\working_files\Projects\Goleta BPMP Projects List_Final **** Project ID #22 was removed and combined. Total of 37 projects. Original ID list not renumbered. Projects are organized by prioritization ranking in BPMP.
APPENDIX A- PRIORITIZATION RESULTS
5
ROW Acquisition
Estimated Timeframe**
Prioritization Ranking
Composite Score
Grant Competitiveness
Seniors Over 65
School Proximity
Aggregate Census Data
Gap Closure
Safety
Collisions
Importance
Source
# of Comments
Infrastructure Type
Segment
Type
Identification #
Between
Joint Jurisdiction
Comments
Response
Potential Improvements Identified in Capital Improvement Program (CIPs)
9007
Bike/ San Jose Ped Creek Path
Cathedral Oaks
Coast Route
Class I
9012
Bike
Armitos nue
Kellogg
San Jose Creek Path
Class II
9027
Bike
Ellwood Station
US 101
Hollister
Class II
9031
Bike
School Bus/ Technology
Pine
School Bus/ Kellogg
Class II
9033
Bike
Holister
Fairview
SR 217
Class II
9042
Bike
Storke
9044
Bike
Hollister
Storke
280' west of Glen Annie
Class II and sidewalk
9058
Ped
Calle Real
Kingston
Kingston
PHB
Hollister
Chapel St
Chapel St
RRFB
Ped
Segment
9058
Notes: * Combination of:
Camino Real Southern Marketplace City Limit Entrance
Between
Class I or IV
Previous City Planning Previous City Planning Previous City Planning
County of Santa Barbara
San Jose Creek Bike Path - South Segment.
2019-20
County of Santa Barbara
San Jose Creek Bike Path - Middle Segment.
2020-21
Armitos Avenue Bridge; One traffic lane each direction, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
2020-21
101 Overpass Project; vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle overpass. New road project; partially Old Town Sidewalk Improvements Project and Ekwill Street Extension Project. Hollister Complete Streets Corridor Plan, Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, and Future Hollister Construction Project.
2019-20
2019-20
Community 1-10 Input
Bigger vision plan for Hollister Corridor.
2020-21
Source
2019-20
2018-19
2018-19
Class II bikes lanes part of Storke Road Widening, Phelps Road to City Limits, and future Class I or IV project. Hollister Widening
PHB on mast arms over travel lanes
Joint Jurisdiction
RRFB on mast arms over travel lanes.
Bike to work (1=up to 8.5 residents, 3=8.6-17 residents, 5=17.1-25.5 residents) Walk to work (1=up to 6.5 residents, 3=6.6-13 residents, 5=13.1-19.5 residents) Public Transit to work (1=up to 3.5 residents, 3=3.6-7 residents, 5=7.1-10.5 residents) Households with no vehicles (1=2+ vechicles; 3=1 vehicle; 5=0 vehicles) Page 4 of 6 /Volumes/Projects/2016/016-040 Goleta BPMP/working_files/Document/Tables/Goleta BPMP Projects List Final.xlsx ** Preferred City timeline. Actual delivery needs to match City budget. *** Hollister Ave Complete Streets Corridor Plan analysis is not included in this document. Detailed information can be found in the Hollister Ave Complete Streets Corridor Plan project. **** Project ID #22 was removed and combined. Total of 37 projects. Original ID list not renumbered. Projects are organized by prioritization ranking in BPMP.
6
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
`
2020-21
ROW Acquisition
Class I
Estimated Timeframe**
Coast Route
Prioritization Ranking
Cathedral Oaks
Composite Score
Bike/ San Jose Ped Creek Path
Ekwill Street Extension.
Grant Competitiveness
9006
2020-21
Seniors Over 65
Class II
Hollister Complete Streets Corridor Plan, Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, and Future Hollister Construction Project.
School Proximity
SR 217
2019-20
Aggregate Census Data
Fairview
Ekwill
Gap Closure
Bike
Collisions
9002
Previous City Planning Previous City Planning Previous City Planning Previous City Planning Previous City Planning Previous City Planning Previous City Planning Previous City Planning
Safety
Class II
Importance
SR 217
# of Comments
Fairview
Infrastructure Type
Bike Holister ***
Type
9001
`
Bike
La Patera
US 101 (Train Depot)
9078
Ped
Rancho La Patera
N. Los Carneros
9079
Bike/ Ped
La Patera
Goleta Train Depot
9088
Bike
Cathedral Multiple Oaks Intersections
9091
Bike/ Ped
Calle Real
La Patera
9092
Bike/ Ped
Fowler Road
Existing Fowler
9095
Bike/ Storke/ Ped Glen Annie
9097
Bike/ Ped
9098
Ped S. Kellogg
9099
Ped
Calle Real
at Fairview Center
9100
Bike/ Pde
Holister
Fairview
9811
Bike/ Ped
Ellwood Devereux Open Space
Fairview
US 101
Calle Real at Hollister/ Kellogg Park
Class II and sidewalk
Joint Jurisdiction
Comments
Response
2018-19
Add northbound travel lane, bike lane, and new sidewalk.
2021-22
Class I on north side of Cathedral Oaks Road. Enhance crosswalks, modify signal timing. Partial component of 9062. Reconstruct 160 feet of sidewalk on north side of S. Fairview, close existing bicycle and pedestrian ramp leading to Calle Real.
2020-21 2018-19
2021-22
2021-22
Install bike/ped bridge.
La Patera Road Overcrossing/Undercrossing.
Class II bike lanes and sidewalk infill.
Pedestrian path repairs and new paths. Class II lanes, sidewalk infill and other bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure at Goleta Train Depot
Previous City Planning
/Volumes/Projects/2016/016-040 Goleta BPMP/working_files/Document/Tables/Goleta BPMP Projects List Final.xlsx
ROW Acquisition
9073
Previous City Planning Previous San Pedro City Class I Creek Planning Intersection Community 1-10 improvements Input Previous Class II and City Calle Real sidewalk Planning Bridge Community over/under La Patera Input UPRR/US 101 Previous Class II and Hollister City sidewalk Planning Previous Covington Sidewalk City Way Planning Previous Class II and City Hollister sidewalk Planning Previous RRFBs City Planning Previous Los City Sidewalks Carneros Planning Previous Class II and Technology City sidewalk Planning Previous City Planning Previous Technology Class II City Planning Previous Crosswalk City Planning Previous Crosswalk City Planning Roundabout/ Previous Intersection City Improvements Planning Stow Canyon
Estimated Timeframe**
Bike/ La Patera at Goleta Train US 101 Depot Ped
Prioritization Ranking
9072
US 101
Composite Score
Fairview
Seniors Over 65
Bike/ Ped
Grant Competitiveness
9070
School Proximity
Marketplace at Storke
Aggregate Census Data
Ped
Gap Closure
9062
Safety
Glen Annie
Collisions
Cathedral Oaks
Importance
Bike/ Ped
Source
# of Comments
9061
Infrastructure Type
Type
Fairview
Goleta Library
Segment
Identification #
9060
Bike/ Ped
Between
2017-18
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Improvements at school crossings.
2020-21
Construct approx. 3,190 feet of sidewalk.
2020-21
Folwer Road Extension.
2020-21
Storke/Glen Annie Interchange analysis.
2020-21
Study: Class I multi-use path along Fairview Ave.
2020-21
Crosswalk with curb extensions, RRFB on S. Kellogg at Hollister/Kellogg Park.
2020-21
Crosswalk and PHB on Calle Real west of Fairview Ave at Fairview Center.
2020-21
Roundabout and intersection improvements including bicycle and pedestrian elements.
Open space trails restoration design
Page 5 of 6
APPENDIX A- PRIORITIZATION RESULTS
7
`
ROW Acquisition
Estimated Timeframe**
Prioritization Ranking
Composite Score
Seniors Over 65
Grant Competitiveness
School Proximity
Aggregate Census Data
Gap Closure
Safety
Collisions
Importance
Source
# of Comments
Infrastructure Type
Segment
Type
Identification #
Between
Joint Jurisdiction
Comments
Response
Potential City-wide Improvements Community Input, 1-10 Collision Data
Install bike signal on westbound Hollister Ave.
Community 1-10 Input
Traffic light does not respond to cyclists. Install/replace bike detectors.
Community 1-10 Input
Install street lighting.
Pavement City-wide Maintenance
Community 1-10 Input
Replace and maintain road surface, including Class I path surfaces and sweeping bike lanes.
Bike Parking City-wide
Community 1-10 Input
Install more bicycle parking.
Hollister at
Traffic Pacific Oaks Signals and Bike Berkeley at Detection Fairview
Street Lighting
Cathedral Oaks
Hollister
Eastern City Limit
Future City-wide analysis to determine best locations.
Long-term Vision (Future Opportunities) Fairview at 101
Previous Class I and or City IV; bridge; Planning/ 200+ Intersection Community improvements Input
2030-40
Re-building of interchange to more equitably serve all uses and to better connect segments of Goleta north and south of US 101.
"Goleta Loop" (Cathedral Oaks/Hollister Class I/Class IV)
Class I and/or IV
Previous City Planning/ 1-10 Community Input
2022-30
Complete off-street, low-stress loop incorporating Cathedral Oaks and Hollister.
Goleta Beach/UCSB Access (Fairview Class I/Class IV)
Class I and/or IV
Previous City Planning/ 1-10 Community Input
2024-35
Off-street, low-stress route connecting "Goleta Loop" and beach/UCSB.
Calle Real (Los Carneros to Patterson Class1/Class IV)
Class I and/or IV
Previous City Planning/ 1-10 Community Input
2005-35
City and County of Santa Barbara
Low-stress route with multiple destinations, also connecting Goleta and Santa Barbara
Class I or IV
Previous City Planning/ 1-10 Community Input
2025-35
UCSB, City of Santa Barbara
Class II bikes lanes part of Storke Road Widening, Phelps Rd to City Limits, and future Class I or IV project.
Class I or IV
Previous City Planning/ 1-10 Community Input
2025-35
County, UCSB
UCSB/Marketplace Connection (Storke Rd Class I)
Los Carneros Class I (Cathedral Oaks to Phelps)
/Volumes/Projects/2016/016-040 Goleta BPMP/working_files/Document/Tables/Goleta BPMP Projects List Final.xlsx
8
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Page 6 of 6
Future Class I or IV bike lanes on Los Carneros from Phelps Rd to Cathedral Oaks.
APPENDIX
B
TOP TEN PROJECTS PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX B- TOP TEN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
1
Project 1: Fairview Avenue Multi-Use Path
Demolition
Items Remove Curb and Gutter (includes grading) Concrete Pavement Removing Traffic Stripes (Grinding Only)
Paving
Items Curb Ramps
Bicycling Facilities, Markings, and Signage Items
Unit Cost $15.00 $15.00 $2.00
Unit LF SF LF
Unit Cost
Unit EA
$3,200
Unit Cost
Multi-use Path (Raised Curb)
$100
Unit LF
Regulatory Signs (Stop signs, etc)
$350
EA
QTY 2,640 13,200 18,480 Demolition Totals:
Items
Cost $32,000
Paving Totals:
$32,000
QTY 2,640
$264,000
14
$4,900
Cost
$268,900
Unit Cost
Unit
QTY
Cost
Travel Lane Striping, Thinmill
$0.60
LF
18,480
$11,088
Centerline Striping Double Yellow with reflectors
$1.50
LF
2,640
$3,960
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
$2,800
EA
8
$22,400
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
Bicycle Activated Signal
2
$36,960 $274,560
QTY 10
Signage Totals:
Road Striping
Cost $39,600 $198,000
Unit Cost
Unit
2,500.00
EA
$37,448
QTY 4
Cost $10,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$10,000
Base Line Cost:
$622,908
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $155,727 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (10%): GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN $62,291 Total Construction Cost: $218,018
Travel Lane Striping, Thinmill
$0.60
LF
18,480
$11,088
Centerline Striping Double Yellow with reflectors
$1.50
LF
2,640
$3,960
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
$2,800
EA
8
$22,400
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
Bicycle Activated Signal
Unit Cost
Unit
2,500.00
EA
$37,448
QTY 4
$10,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$10,000
Base Line Cost:
$622,908
Contingency (25%): Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (10%): Total Construction Cost:
Cost
CONSTRUCTION COST $155,727 $62,291 $218,018
DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (15%):
$93,436
Environmental Clearance (5%):
$31,145
Permitting (2%):
$12,458
Bid Support Services (3%): Project Management (5%): Traffic Management Services (5%):
$18,687 $31,145 $31,145 $218,018
Total Soft Cost:
Planning-Level Estimated Cost:
$1,058,944
APPENDIX B- TOP TEN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
3
Project 2: Hollister Avenue Multi-Use Path Paving
Items
Unit Cost Curb Ramps
Bicycling Facilities, Markings, and Signage Items
$3,200
Unit Cost
Unit EA
QTY 6
Cost $19,200
Paving Totals:
$19,200
Multi-use Path (Raised Curb)
$100
Unit LF
Green Transition Striping
$12
LF
Pavement Markings (Arrows, School Xing, etc)
$250
EA
Bike Lane, Solid 6" White Thinmill
$1.00
LF
$0
Bike Buffer Paint
$7.00
LF
$0
Regulatory Signs (Stop signs, etc)
$350
EA
QTY 1,848
Items
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
12
5
Items
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon/Pedestrian Signal
4
$3,000
$1,750 $189,550
Unit Cost
Unit
QTY
Cost
$2,800
EA
4
$11,200
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures
$184,800 $0
Signage Totals:
Road Striping
Cost
Unit Cost $22,250
Unit EA
$11,200
QTY 2
Cost $44,500
Safety Measure Totals:
$44,500
Base Line Cost:
$264,450
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $66,113 GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $19,834 Total Construction Cost: $85,946
Road Striping
Items
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
Unit Cost
Unit
QTY
Cost
$2,800
EA
4
$11,200
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon/Pedestrian Signal
Unit Cost $22,250
Unit EA
$11,200
QTY 2
Cost $44,500
Safety Measure Totals:
$44,500
Base Line Cost:
$264,450
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $66,113 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $19,834 Total Construction Cost: $85,946 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (15%):
$39,668
Environmental Clearance (4%):
$10,578
Permitting (2%):
$5,289
Bid Support Services (3%): Project Management (3%): Traffic Management Services (3%):
$7,934 $7,934 $7,934 $79,335
Total Soft Cost:
Planning-Level Estimated Cost:
$429,731
APPENDIX B- TOP TEN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
5
Project 3: Encina Road Bike Lanes and Pedestrian Improvements
Demolition
Items Removing Traffic Stripes (Grinding Only)
Paving
Items Bulb-out/Curb Extension Truncated Dome
Unit Cost $2.00
Unit LF
Unit Cost
Unit EA
QTY 4
EA
4
$30,000 $400.00
QTY 850 Demolition Totals:
Paving Totals:
Bicycling Facilities, Markings, and Signage Items
Unit Cost
$1,700 $1,700 Cost $120,000 $1,600 $121,600
Bike Lane Marking (MMA)
$400
Unit EA
Pavement Markings (Arrows, School Xing, etc)
$250
EA
5
$1,250
Bike Lane, Solid 6" White Thinmill
$1.00
LF
1,700
$1,700
Regulatory Signs (Stop signs, etc)
$350
EA
4
$1,400
QTY 6
$2,400
Signage Totals:
Road Striping
Items
Centerline Striping Double Yellow with reflectors Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
6
Cost
Cost
$6,750
Unit Cost $1.50
Unit LF
QTY 850
Cost $1,275
$2,800
EA
6
$16,800
Striping Totals:
$18,075
Base Line Cost:
$148,125
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $37,031 $11,109 GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLANBonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): Total Construction Cost: $48,141
Regulatory Signs (Stop signs, etc)
$350
EA
4 Signage Totals:
Road Striping
Items
Centerline Striping Double Yellow with reflectors Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
$1,400 $6,750
Unit Cost $1.50
Unit LF
QTY 850
Cost $1,275
$2,800
EA
6
$16,800
Striping Totals:
$18,075
Base Line Cost:
$148,125
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $37,031 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $11,109 Total Construction Cost: $48,141 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (15%):
$22,219
Environmental Clearance (4%):
$5,925
Permitting (2%):
$2,963
Bid Support Services (3%): Project Management (3%): Traffic Management Services (3%):
$4,444 $4,444 $4,444 $44,438
Total Soft Cost:
Planning-Level Estimated Cost:
$240,703
APPENDIX B- TOP TEN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
7
Project 4: Hollister Avenue Separated Bikeway
Demolition
Items Removing Traffic Stripes (Grinding Only)
Bicycling Facilities, Markings, and Signage Items
Unit Cost $2.00
Unit LF
Unit Cost
QTY 220
$88,000
QTY 43,824 Demolition Totals:
Bike Lane Marking (MMA)
$400
Green Transition Striping
$12
LF
5,000
$60,000
Separated Bikeway (Raised Curb)
$84
LF
43,824
$3,681,216
Regulatory Signs (Stop signs, etc)
$350
EA
150
$52,500
Items
Cost
$3,881,716
Unit Cost
Unit
QTY
Cost
Travel Lane Striping, Thinmill
$0.60
LF
132,000
$79,200
Centerline Striping Double Yellow with reflectors
$1.50
LF
2,000
$3,000
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures
Items
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon/Pedestrian Signal
Unit Cost $22,250
Unit EA
High Visibility Pedestrian Beacon/HAWK
$60,000
EA
Bike Detector in Lane
4,000.00
EA
QTY
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
$82,200 Cost $0 $0
28
$112,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$112,000
Base Line Cost:
8
$87,648 $87,648
Unit EA
Signage Totals:
Road Striping
Cost
$4,163,564
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $1,040,891 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $312,267 Total Construction Cost: $1,353,158
Centerline Striping Double Yellow with reflectors
$1.50
LF
2,000 Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures
Items
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon/Pedestrian Signal
Unit Cost $22,250
Unit EA
High Visibility Pedestrian Beacon/HAWK
$60,000
EA
Bike Detector in Lane
4,000.00
EA
QTY
$3,000 $82,200 Cost $0 $0
28
$112,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$112,000
Base Line Cost:
$4,163,564
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $1,040,891 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $312,267 Total Construction Cost: $1,353,158 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING
NOTE: This estimate includes the section of Hollister Avenue currently being studied in the Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Project
Engineering / Design (15%):
$624,535
Environmental Clearance (4%):
$166,543
Permitting (2%):
$83,271
Bid Support Services (3%): Project Management (3%): Traffic Management Services (3%): Total Soft Cost:
Planning-Level Estimated Cost:
$124,907 $124,907 $124,907 $1,249,069
$6,765,792
APPENDIX B- TOP TEN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
9
Project 5: Glenn Annie Road Buffered Bike Lanes and Pedestrian Improvements
Demolition
Items Remove Curb and Gutter (includes grading) Concrete Pavement Removing Traffic Stripes (Grinding Only)
Paving
Items
Unit Cost $15.00 $15.00 $2.00
Unit LF SF LF
Unit Cost
QTY 8,800
$105,600
4
$72,000
Sidewalk
$12.00
Unit SF
Curb Reconstruction
$18,000
EA
QTY 300 1,300 11,500 Demolition Totals:
Paving Totals:
Bicycling Facilities, Markings, and Signage Items
Unit Cost
$23,000 $47,000 Cost
$177,600
Bike Lane Marking (MMA)
$400
Unit EA
Green Transition Striping
$12
LF
420
$5,040
Pavement Markings (Arrows, School Xing, etc)
$250
EA
6
$1,500
Bike Lane, Solid 6" White Thinmill
$1.00
LF
4,646
$4,646
Bike Buffer Paint
$7.00
LF
4,646
$32,522
Regulatory Signs (Stop signs, etc)
$350
EA
8
$2,800
QTY 26
$10,400
Signage Totals:
Road Striping
Items
Cost
$56,908
Unit Cost
Unit
QTY
Cost
Travel Lane Striping, Thinmill
$0.60
LF
9,100
$5,460
Centerline Striping Double Yellow with reflectors
$1.50
LF
2,400
$3,600
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
$2,800
EA
2
$5,600
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
10
Cost $4,500 $19,500
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Bike Boxes
Unit Cost 1,350.00
Unit EA
QTY 3
$14,660 Cost $4,050
Items
Unit Cost
Unit
QTY
Cost
Travel Lane Striping, Thinmill
$0.60
LF
9,100
$5,460
Centerline Striping Double Yellow with reflectors
$1.50
LF
2,400
$3,600
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
$2,800
EA
2
$5,600
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
$14,660
Bike Boxes
Unit Cost 1,350.00
Unit EA
QTY 3
$4,050
Bicycle Activated Signal
2,500.00
EA
3
$7,500
Radar Speed Control Sign
3,000.00
EA
2
$6,000
$5,000
EA
14
$70,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$87,550
Base Line Cost:
$383,718
Pedestrian Lighting
Cost
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $95,930 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $28,779 Total Construction Cost: $124,708 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (15%):
$57,558
Environmental Clearance (4%):
$15,349
Permitting (2%):
$7,674
Bid Support Services (3%): Project Management (3%): Traffic Management Services (3%): Total Soft Cost:
Planning-Level Estimated Cost:
$11,512 $11,512 $11,512 $115,115
$623,542
APPENDIX B- TOP TEN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
11
Project 6: Kellogg Avenue Bike Lanes
Demolition
Items Removing Traffic Stripes (Grinding Only)
Bicycling Facilities, Markings, and Signage Items
Unit Cost $2.00
Unit LF
Unit Cost
QTY 34
$13,600
QTY 10,620 Demolition Totals:
Bike Lane Marking (MMA)
$400
Bike Lane, Solid 6" White Thinmill
$1.00
LF
7,100
$7,100
Regulatory Signs (Stop signs, etc)
$350
EA
16
$5,600
Items
Cost
$26,300
Unit Cost $1.50
Unit LF
QTY 3,540
Cost $5,310
Parking Stripes, Solid 6" White Thinmill
$0.80
LF
7,100
$5,680
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
$2,800
EA
8
$22,400
Centerline Striping Double Yellow with reflectors
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
12
$21,240 $21,240
Unit EA
Signage Totals:
Road Striping
Cost
$33,390
Bike Boxes
Unit Cost 1,350.00
Unit EA
QTY 2
$2,700
Bicycle Activated Signal
2,500.00
EA
2
$5,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$7,700
Base Line Cost:
$88,630
Contingency (25%): Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Total Construction Cost:
Cost
CONSTRUCTION COST $22,158 $6,647 $28,805
Parking Stripes, Solid 6" White Thinmill
$0.80
LF
7,100
$5,680
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
$2,800
EA
8
$22,400
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
$33,390
Bike Boxes
Unit Cost 1,350.00
Unit EA
QTY 2
$2,700
Bicycle Activated Signal
2,500.00
EA
2
$5,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$7,700
Base Line Cost:
$88,630
Cost
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $22,158 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $6,647 Total Construction Cost: $28,805 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (10%):
$8,863
Environmental Clearance (4%):
$3,545
Permitting (2%):
$1,773
Bid Support Services (3%): Project Management (3%): Traffic Management Services (3%):
$2,659 $2,659 $2,659 $22,158
Total Soft Cost:
Planning-Level Estimated Cost:
$139,592
APPENDIX B- TOP TEN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
13
Project 7: Storke Road at Hollister Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycling Improvements Paving
Items
Unit Cost
Curb Ramps on Existing Sidewalks Truncated Dome
$3,200.00 $400.00
Unit EA
QTY 2
EA
3 Paving Totals:
Bicycling Facilities, Markings, and Signage Items
Unit Cost
Green Transition Striping
$12
Unit LF
Regulatory Signs (Stop signs, etc)
$350
EA
Items
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
Items
14
$7,600
$10,920
4
$1,400
Cost
$12,320
Unit Cost
Unit
QTY
Cost
$2,800
EA
6
$16,800
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures
$6,400 $1,200
QTY 910 Signage Totals:
Road Striping
Cost
$16,800
Bike Boxes
Unit Cost 1,350.00
Unit EA
QTY 4
$5,400
Bike Detector in Lane
4,000.00
EA
4
$16,000
Signal Timing / Pedestrian Crossing Time Analysis
5,000.00
LS
1
$5,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$26,400
Base Line Cost:
$63,120
Cost
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $15,780 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $4,734 Total Construction Cost: $20,514 GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
$16,800
Bike Boxes
Unit Cost 1,350.00
Unit EA
QTY 4
$5,400
Bike Detector in Lane
4,000.00
EA
4
$16,000
Signal Timing / Pedestrian Crossing Time Analysis
5,000.00
LS
1
$5,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$26,400
Base Line Cost:
$63,120
Cost
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $15,780 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $4,734 Total Construction Cost: $20,514 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (15%):
$9,468
Environmental Clearance (4%):
$2,525
Permitting (2%):
$1,262
Bid Support Services (3%): Project Management (3%): Traffic Management Services (3%):
$1,894 $1,894 $1,894 $18,936
Total Soft Cost:
Planning-Level Estimated Cost:
$102,570
APPENDIX B- TOP TEN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
15
Project 8: Fairview Avenue Multi-use Path
Demolition
Items Remove Curb and Gutter (includes grading) Concrete Pavement Removing Traffic Stripes (Grinding Only)
Paving
Items Curb Ramps
Bicycling Facilities, Markings, and Signage Items
Unit Cost $15.00 $15.00 $2.00
Unit LF SF LF
Unit Cost
Unit EA
$3,200
Unit Cost
Multi-use Path (Raised Curb)
$100
Unit LF
Regulatory Signs (Stop signs, etc)
$350
EA
QTY 2,425 10,300 29,600 Demolition Totals:
Items
Cost $57,600
Paving Totals:
$57,600
QTY 7,285
$728,500
22
$7,700
Cost
$736,200
Unit Cost
Unit
QTY
Cost
Travel Lane Striping, Thinmill
$0.60
LF
14,800
$8,880
Centerline Striping Double Yellow with reflectors
$1.50
LF
14,800
$22,200
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
$2,800
EA
5
$14,000
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon/Pedestrian Signal Prefabricated Bike-Ped Bridge 16
$59,200 $250,075
QTY 18
Signage Totals:
Road Striping
Cost $36,375 $154,500
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
$45,080
Unit Cost $22,250
Unit EA
QTY 4
$89,000
$1,500
LF
180
$270,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$359,000
Cost
Items
Unit Cost
Unit
QTY
Cost
Travel Lane Striping, Thinmill
$0.60
LF
14,800
$8,880
Centerline Striping Double Yellow with reflectors
$1.50
LF
14,800
$22,200
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
$2,800
EA
5
$14,000
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon/Pedestrian Signal Prefabricated Bike-Ped Bridge
$45,080
Unit Cost $22,250
Unit EA
QTY 4
$89,000
$1,500
LF
180
$270,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$359,000
Base Line Cost:
Cost
$1,447,955
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $361,989 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $108,597 Total Construction Cost: $470,585 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (15%):
$217,193
Environmental Clearance (4%):
$57,918
Permitting (2%):
$28,959
Bid Support Services (3%): Project Management (3%): Traffic Management Services (3%):
$43,439 $43,439 $43,439 $434,387
Total Soft Cost:
Planning-Level Estimated Cost:
$2,352,927
APPENDIX B- TOP TEN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
17
Project 9: Dos Pueblos High School Pedestrian Improvements Paving
Items Truncated Dome
Road Striping
Items
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
Unit Cost $400.00
Unit EA
QTY 11
Cost $4,400
Paving Totals:
$4,400
Unit Cost
Unit
QTY
Cost
$2,800
EA
8
$22,400
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
Pedestrian Lighting
Unit Cost $5,000
Unit EA
$22,400
QTY 12
Cost $60,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$60,000
Base Line Cost:
$86,800
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (20%): $17,360 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $6,510 Total Construction Cost: $23,870 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING
18
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Engineering / Design (10%):
$8,680
Environmental Clearance (4%):
$3,472
Permitting (2%):
$1,736
Bid Support Services (3%): Project Management (3%): Traffic Management Services (3%):
$2,604 $2,604 $2,604 $21,700
Total Soft Cost:
Planning-Level Estimated Cost:
$132,370
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
Pedestrian Lighting
Unit Cost $5,000
Unit EA
QTY 12
Cost $60,000
Safety Measure Totals:
$60,000
Base Line Cost:
$86,800
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (20%): $17,360 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $6,510 Total Construction Cost: $23,870 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (10%):
$8,680
Environmental Clearance (4%):
$3,472
Permitting (2%):
$1,736
Bid Support Services (3%): Project Management (3%): Traffic Management Services (3%):
$2,604 $2,604 $2,604 $21,700
Total Soft Cost:
Planning-Level Estimated Cost:
$132,370
APPENDIX B- TOP TEN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
19
Project 10: Cathedral Oaks Road Multi-use Path
Demolition
Items Remove Curb and Gutter (includes grading) Concrete Pavement
Paving
Items Curb Ramps
Bicycling Facilities, Markings, and Signage Items
Unit Cost $15.00 $15.00
Unit LF SF
Unit Cost
Unit EA
$3,200
Unit Cost
Multi-use Path (Raised Curb)
$100
Unit LF
Regulatory Signs (Stop signs, etc)
$350
EA
QTY 6,336 30,000 Demolition Totals: QTY 8
Cost $25,600
Paving Totals:
$25,600
QTY 6,336
$633,600
20
$7,000
Signage Totals:
Road Striping
Items
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
Items
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon/Pedestrian Signal
$640,600
Unit
QTY
Cost
$2,800
EA
10
$28,000
Unit Cost $22,250
Unit EA
$28,000
QTY 2
$44,500
Safety Measure Totals:
$44,500
Base Line Cost:
20
Cost
Unit Cost
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures
Cost $95,040 $450,000 $545,040
Cost
$1,283,740
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $320,935 GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $96,281 Total Construction Cost: $417,216
Road Striping
Items
Crosswalk Striping, Continental, 12" Solid Thermoplastic
Unit Cost
Unit
QTY
Cost
$2,800
EA
10
$28,000
Striping Totals:
Enhanced Safety Measures Items
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon/Pedestrian Signal
Unit Cost $22,250
Unit EA
$28,000
QTY 2
$44,500
Safety Measure Totals:
$44,500
Base Line Cost:
Cost
$1,283,740
CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (25%): $320,935 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $96,281 Total Construction Cost: $417,216 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (15%):
$192,561
Environmental Clearance (4%):
$51,350
Permitting (2%):
$25,675
Bid Support Services (3%): Project Management (3%): Traffic Management Services (3%):
$38,512 $38,512 $38,512 $385,122
Total Soft Cost:
Planning-Level Estimated Cost:
$2,086,078
APPENDIX B- TOP TEN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
21
22
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX
C
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION, NOTICE OF EXEMPTION, & LETTER OF SUPPORT
APPENDIX C- CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION & LETTERS OF SUPPORT
1
2
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX C- CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION & LETTERS OF SUPPORT
3
4
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
● ●
October 12, 2018 Mayor Perotte & Councilmembers City of Goleta City Hall 130 Cremona Dr. #B Goleta, CA 93117 Support Goleta Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Adoption with Increased Targets Mayor Perotte & Councilmembers, The Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition (SBBIKE), Coalition for Sustainable Transportation (COAST), and the Community Environment Council (CEC) support adoption of the Goleta Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP). The BPMP is an important first step to making Goleta a state and national leader in active transportation. During the impressive public outreach process to inform the BPMP’s development, community member made it clear that visionary projects and programs to create a more walkable and bikeable Goleta are a community priority. As members of the BPMP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), we appreciate staffs’ responsiveness to our questions and concerns throughout the planning process. City staff’s work to incorporate both TAC and community input is evident in the BPMP’s evolution from a list of infrastructure projects to a more substantive plan that includes policies and goals. Now it is time to adopt the plan – with one important change: the BPMP needs to include stronger mode share targets that will move projects forward from inception to physical realities so more Goleta residents can confidently bike and walk their communities. The current BPMP targets would increase the combined mode share for walking and biking to 10 percent by 2025 and 15 percent by 2030. As noted in the BPMP, Goleta’s current combined mode share for walking and bike is already 8 percent, so the 2025 target only aims to achieve a small 2% increase in bicycling and walking trips over the next 7 years. The 2030 target wouldn’t even double the current mode share. In a comment letter submitted to City Council on October 17, 2017, our organizations advocated for stronger targets that are more consistent with the long-term vision articulated in the BPMP. We urge the City to adopt the following mode share targets:
A 15 percent combined mode share for walking and biking by 2025, which would nearly double the share of bicycling and walking trips over the next 7 years A 20 percent combined mode share for walking and biking by 2030
These proposed Goleta targets are attainable and would position the City as a statewide and national leader in active transportation. A higher mode share target will also reinforce community values, support Goleta’s implementation of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) implementation, and build progress towards the City’s STAR objectives (see the attached). To ensure swift and effective implementation of the Goleta BPMP, we encourage the City to devote the necessary funding and staff time to deliver key BPMP projects and programs. To provide this funding, we anticipate future actions that are consistent with the BPMP’s designation as a “living document”, including updates to the General Plan Transportation Element and Goleta Transportation Improvement Program plans (GTIP). We also support the implementation of the BPMP Action Measure 7.1.7 to designate a coordinator who can work to swiftly and effectively implement priority projects - especially the Fairview Avenue and Storke Road corridor studies and projects. The BPMP coordination could support the Hollister Avenue Complete Streets project to ensure that it is consistent with BPMP implementation and lead development of the Vision Zero implementation study, which should become a priority project after BPMP adoption. The addition of strong targets to an already robust list of BPMP projects and policies will help the City secure plentiful grant fuding to support the staff coordinator’s work. We recognize that Goleta of is entering a period of institutional changes that has the promise to further improve the City’s local government services, capacity, and infrastructure improvements. By their nature, BPMP projects and programs require collaboration across different departments and engagement with the community. With sufficient resources and staff time, the City can implement the BPMP in ways that will increase interdepartmental collaboration and support the institutional improvements that are underway. Since the transportation sector is in a period of fast-paced change, the City can also use BPMP implementation to establish processes and project delivery pipelines that will be crucial for deftly integrating the new transportation technologies and shared mobility options that are rapidly emerging. Thank you for your work on the BPMP, which is pivotal to the future of the Goodland’s transportation and high quality of life. We look forward to continuing our partnership with the City and supporting implementation of programs and projects in the BPMP. Consistent with that, we strongly advocate that you vote to adopt the BPMP with the needed change for a bike and pedestrian mode share goal of 15% by 2025 and for 20% by 2030. Let’s recognize the hundreds of Goleta residents who took the time to inform the BPMP plan and support the vision for a multimodal transportation system that serves all road users. Sincerely, Edward France, for the Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition
APPENDIX C- CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION & LETTERS OF SUPPORT
5
Attachement: STAR Objectives Based on our organizations’ assessment, BPMP implementation will help the City increase its scores for the following STAR objectives: Michael Chiacos, for the Community Environmental Council
●
● Joanna Kaufman, for the Coalition for Sustainable Transportation (COAST) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
6
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Built Environment 3: Compact & Complete Communities - Concentrate development in compact, human-scaled, walkable centers and neighborhoods that connect to public transit, offer diverse uses and services, and provide housing options for families of all income levels Built Environment 7: Transportation Choices - Promote diverse transportation modes, including walking, bicycling, and public transit, that are safe, low-cost, and reduce vehicle miles traveled Climate & Energy 2: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation - Achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions throughout the community Climate & Energy 3: Greening the Energy Supply - Transition the local energy supply for both transportation and non-mobile sources toward the use of renewable, less carbon-intensive, and less toxic alternatives Education, Arts, & Community: Community Cohesion - Promote socially cohesive neighborhoods where residents are connected, have a sense of place, and feel committed to their community Business & Economy 3: Green Market Development (via Bicycle Tourism) Equity & Empowerment 3: Environmental Justice (via increased access to affordable, clean, and safe mobility options) Equity & Empowerment 4: Equitable Services & Access - Establish equitable spatial access to foundational community assets within and between neighborhoods and populations Health & Safety 1: Active Living - Active Living: Enable adults and kids to maintain healthy, active lifestyles by integrating physical activity into their daily routines Health & Safety 7: Safe Communities (via reduced traffic collision injuries and fatalities through enforcement and Vision Zero) - Prevent and reduce crime and increase perceptions of safety through interagency collaboration and with residents as empowered partners
APPENDIX
D
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN & CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST
APPENDIX D- ATP & CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST
1
CALIFORNIA CODES STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE 891.2. A city or county may prepare a bicycle transportation plan, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements: (a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the plan. See Chapter 2 (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 (c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. See Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 (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 2 (e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels. See Chapter 2 (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 Chapter 2 (g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists. See Chapter 4
2
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
(h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan, including, but not limited to, letters of support. See Chapter 3 (i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting. See Chapter 1 (j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation. See Chapter 4 and Appendix A (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. See Appendix B and Appendix E
Source: California Streets and Highways Code (SHC), Article 3. California Bicycle Transportation Act.
APPENDIX D- ATP & CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST
3
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS An active transportation plan prepared by a city or county may be integrated into the circulation element of its general plan or a separate plan which is compliant or will be brought into compliance with the Complete Streets Act, AB 1358 (Chapter 657, Statutes of 2008). An active transportation plan must include, but not be limited to, the following components or explain why the component is not applicable: a) The estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and pedestrian trips resulting from implementation of the plan. See Chapter 2 and Chapter 4
b) The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan. See Chapter 2
c) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, and other destinations. See Chapter 2
d) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities, including a description of bicycle facilities that serve public and private schools and, if appropriate, a description of how the five Es (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation) will be used to increase rates of bicycling to school. See Chapter 2 and Chapter 4
e) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. See Chapter 2
f) A description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public locations, private parking garages and parking lots and in new commercial and residential developments. See Chapter 5
4
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
g) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These must include, but not be limited to, bicycle parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels. See Chapter 2
h) A map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities, including those at major transit hubs and those that serve public and private schools and, if appropriate, a description of how the five Es (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation) will be used to increase rates of walking to school. Major transit hubs must include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings. See Chapter 2 and Chapter 4
i) A description of proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations. See Chapter 4
j) A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, ADA level surfaces, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting. See Chapter 5
k) A description of bicycle and pedestrian safety, education, and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the law impacting bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the resulting effect on collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians. See Chapter 4
l) A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities. See Chapter 3
m) A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan. See Chapter 1
APPENDIX D- ATP & CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST
5
n) A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation. See Chapter 4 and Appendix Z
o) A description of past expenditures for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and future financial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area. Include anticipated revenue sources and potential grant funding for bicycle and pedestrian uses. See Appendix A and Appendix E
p) A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan. See Chapter 4
q) A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county or district. If the active transportation plan was prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution See Appendix C (Pending)
Source: Caltrans Local Assistance Program Guidelines: Chapter 22
6
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX
E
CITY’S PAST EXPENDITURES ON BICYCLE FACILITIES
APPENDIX E- CITY’S PAST BIKEWAY EXPENDITURES
1
CITY’S PAST BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES The City’s annual budget and past budget reporting identify the items and amounts the City has expended on bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs. The funding sources include General Fund, Measure A Local, Measure A grants, Transportation Development Account, Development Impact Fees [including the Goleta Transportation Impact Program (GTIP)], and state and federal grant programs such as the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The information can be found on the City’s website, including past City budgets, at http://www.cityofgoleta.org/city-hall/finance/finance-administration-budget. Source: City of Goleta Public Works Department
2
GOLETA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN