OCTA District 5 Bikeways Strategy by KTUA

March 2015

KOA Corporation KTU+A

TABLE E OF CONTENTSS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMA ARY ................................................................ .................................................................................. 1 I.I Backkground ................................................................................... .................................................................................. 1 I.II Facilitation Effortts ...................................................................... .................................................................................. 2 ors .................................................................. .................................................................................. 4 I.III Reggional Corrido I.IV Near-Term Actiion Plan .......................................................... .................................................................................. 9 I.V Funding Strategiees ..................................................................... .................................................................................. 9 ograms ..................................................................................... .................................................................................. 9 I.VI Pro 1.0 INTRO ODUCTION N ....................................................................... ................................................................................ 10 1.1 Bacckground ................................................................................. ................................................................................ 10 1.2 Straategy Overvieew ................................................................... ................................................................................ 12 1.3 Bikeeways Classiffications .......................................................... ................................................................................ 12 1.4 Jurisdictional Go overnance ...................................................... ................................................................................ 13 TING COND DITIONS ......................................................... ................................................................................ 15 2.0 EXIST 2.1 Con ntext ....................................................................................... ................................................................................ 15 2.2 Rattionale ...................................................................................... ................................................................................ 15 2.3 Acttivity Levels and Collision Analysis A ................................. ................................................................................ 16 3.0 REGIO ONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS ................................... ................................................................................ 23 3.1 Reggional Corrido ors .................................................................. ................................................................................ 23 3.2 Evaluation and Ranking R ............................................................ ................................................................................ 43 4.0 ACTIO ON PLAN.............................................................................. ................................................................................ 52 4.1 Pottential Near-T Term Efforts.................................................. ................................................................................ 52 4.2 Pro ogrammatic Recommendattions ....................................... ................................................................................ 56 5.0 BICYC CLE FACILITY Y TOOLKIT........................ . ........................ ................................................................................ 65 5.1 Intrroduction ................................................................................ ................................................................................ 65 5.2 Bicyycle Facility Selection ......................................................... ................................................................................ 69 5.3 Shaared-use Pathss ...................................................................... ................................................................................ 74 5.4 Path h/Roadway Crossing C .......................................................... ................................................................................ 83 5.5 Sep parated Bikew ways ................................................................. ................................................................................ 88 GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.6 Sep parated Bikew ways at Interseections .................................. ................................................................................ 96 5.7 Sign nalization................................................................................. ............................................................................. 107 5.8 Shaared Roadwayys ..................................................................... ............................................................................. 112 5.9 Bikeeway Signing ......................... . ................................................ ............................................................................. 118 5.10 Reetrofitting Exiisting Streets to Add Bikew ways ............... ............................................................................. 121 5.11Biccycle Support Facilities ....................................................... ............................................................................. 124 5.12 Bikeway Facilityy Maintenance ............................................. ............................................................................. 131 6.0 FUND DING STRAT TEGIES ............................................................ ............................................................................. 137 6.1 Fed deral Program ms ..................................................................... ............................................................................. 138 6.2 Statte Programs ........................................................................... ............................................................................. 139 6.3 Reggional & Local Programs .................................................... ............................................................................. 141 6.4 Privvate Programs ...................................................................... ............................................................................. 142 7.0 APPEN NDICES .................................................................................. ............................................................................. 144 A. Sample Letter of Support ......................................................... ............................................................................. 144 B. Facilitation Effortss....................................................................... ............................................................................. 145 C. Outtreach....................................................................................... ............................................................................. 146 D. Corrridor Rankingg Criteria....................................................... ............................................................................. 156 E. Corrridor Cost Esstimates – Deetailed Summaary .................. ............................................................................. 163 F. List of o Referencess ....................................................................... ............................................................................. 166

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

LIST OF O FIGUR RES Figure ES..1: Project Co orridor Overrview....................................... .................................................................................. 6 Figure 1.1: OC Supervvisorial Districcts ........................................... ................................................................................ 11 Figure 1.2 2: Caltrans Bikkeway Classiffications ................................. ................................................................................ 14 Figure 2.1: Bicycle Com mmute Mode Share by Citty1 ................... ................................................................................ 17 Figure 2.2 2: Causes of Bicyclist-Invol B ved Crashes by Year ......... ................................................................................ 22 Figure 2.3 3: Bicyclist-Invvolved Crashees by Year ............................ ................................................................................ 22 Figure 3.1: South OC Regional R Bikeeway Corrido ors ................... ................................................................................ 24 Figure 3.2 2: Corridor A: A Pacific Coasst Highway ........................... ................................................................................ 26 Figure 3.3 3: Corridor B: Laguna Canyyon ........................................ ................................................................................ 28 Figure 3.4 4: Corridor C: C El Toro/Aliccia/Laguna Caanyon ............. ................................................................................ 30 Figure 3.5 5: Corridor D: D Portola/San nta Margarita ........................ ................................................................................ 32 Figure 3.6 6: Corridor E:: Aliso Creekk ............................................... ................................................................................ 34 Figure 3.7 7: Corridor F:: Muirlands/C Cabot/Camino o Capistrano . ................................................................................ 36 Figure 3.8 8: Corridor G: G Oso Parkw way ........................................... ................................................................................ 38 Figure 3.9 9: Corridor H: H Antonio/La Pata/Pico ............................. ................................................................................ 40 Figure 3.10: Corridor I: San Juan Crreek ........................................ ................................................................................ 42 Figure 4.1: Near-Term m Corridor Im mprovements ........................ ................................................................................ 55 Figure B.1: PDT Identiffied Potential Bikeway Corridors .......... ............................................................................. 147

LIST OF O TABLE ES Table ES.1: Corridor Scoring S ............................................................ .................................................................................. 8 Table ES.2 2: Corridor Ranking R ........................................................... .................................................................................. 8 Table 2.1:: Bicycle Tren nds in Districtt 5 .......................................... ................................................................................ 18 Table 2.2:: Bicycle Colliisions in District 5, 2007-2 2011 ............... ................................................................................ 21 Table 3.1:: Criteria Weeighting Facto or Adjustmentts .................... ................................................................................ 43 Table 3.2:: Criteria Deescription and d Weighting Summary S ........ ................................................................................ 44 Table 3.3:: Corridor Co ost Estimatess ............................................... ................................................................................ 46 Table 3.4:: Corridor Sccoring .............................................................. ................................................................................ 47 Table 4.1:: Proposed Near-Term N Im mprovements ......................... ................................................................................ 52 Table 5.1:: National and d State Design Guides ............................... ................................................................................ 69

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

iii

EXEC CUTIVE SUMM MARY

I. EXE ECUTIV VE SUMM MARY This repo ort summarizees the resultss of a collabo orative effortt to identify aand prioritizee potential reggional bikeways throughout south Orangge County (SSupervisorial District 5). Through exxtensive facilittation efforts, nine regional bikeway b corridors were id dentified and ranked. Thee rankings serrve as the bassis for a subsequ uent feasibilityy study for th he top three corridors. T The remainingg six corridorrs may by asssessed at a later date, as agencies work tow ward obtainin ng funding forr the complettion of each ccorridor. While thee Orange County Council of Governm ments (OCCO OG) and the O Orange Counnty Transporttation Authorityy (OCTA) havve commissio oned this rep port, implemeentation of biikeway corrid dors will be lled by the agenccy’s that havee jurisdiction. In some casees, roadways are managedd by Caltranss, such as portions of Pacific Coast Highw way (State Ro oute 1) or att freeway inteerchanges. W While OCCO OG and OCTA A will promote the implemeentation of co orridors reco ommended inn this report, final design, constructionn, and maintenan nce of the corridors c will be coordiinated and cconducted byy the respecctive jurisdicctions. Additionaally, the citiess or the County may need to coordinnate with various landownners such as utility companies, rail operato ors, and OCT TA for right-o of-way acquissition. The Distrrict 5 Bikewayys Strategy aims to enhan nce communitty interactionn and expand travel choicees for residents and bicyclistss of all skill leevels througho out south Orrange Countyy. The integraated planning effort establishees bikeways that cross jurisdictional bo oundaries andd serve majorr destinations and employyment centers. The T coordinated efforts by OCTA and memberr agencies support imprroved road ssafety, reduced automobile a trrips, reduced fuel consump ption and air emissions, annd improved community hhealth outcomess within Disttrict 5. The feasibility study will incl ude an assessment of w what is needeed to complete or enhance the corridorrs, recommen nded designss, preliminaryy drawings, and cost estim mates. These asssessments an nd recommen ndations are intended to help advancee local project implementtation and provide the basis to t apply for sttate and fedeeral grants.

I.I Backgground The Distrrict 5 Bikewayys Strategy was w developed d as part of O OCTA’s regio onal bikewayss planning pro ocess, which invvolves OCTA A, local jurisdictions, and public p stakeh olders. Thiss process beggan in 2011 w with a pilot efforrt for Superviisorial Districct 4 in northeern Orange C County, then ffor Superviso orial Districts 1 & 2 in central and western n Orange Co ounty in 2012 2. It is fundeed by a federral grant receeived by OCC COG, with a 20 0% local matcch provided by b OCTA. There T are tw wo phases of the regional bikeways plaanning process. Phase 1 is th his bikeways strategy, whiich identifies the regional “backbone” bikeway corrridors that conn nect to majo or activity centers. c The regional bi keway corridors are ideentified baseed on communitty and agencyy input and ranked based on criteria c onsistent witth regional trransportation goals and objecctives (see Taable ES.1 and d Chapter 3)). In Phase 22, the top-raanking corridors are studied in more deetail with th he developm ment of a feasibility f stuudy, which provide planning-level d design recommendations to the t local jurisd dictions.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

EXEC CUTIVE SUMM MARY

Regional bikeway b plann ning supportss the goals co ontained in exxisting countyywide transpo ortation planss, such as the Lo ong Range Trransportation n Plan, OCTA A Commute r Bikeways SStrategic Plann (CBSP), and the Orange County C Sustaiinable Comm munities Strategy. These g oals are interrelated and include expaanding travel cho oices, improviing safety, and d supporting the viability o of bicycle trannsportation. Building on o these broaad goals, a seet of goals, objectives, o andd strategies w were developped by the project team for District 5. These T goals an nd objectives recognize th e physical chaallenges facing District 5, w which include high speed an nd high volu ume arterial roadways, laarge intersecctions, flood control chaannels, railroads, and freewayss, and hilly teerrains. Therre are four m main goals estaablished in acccordance witth the District 5 local contex xt:    

Goal G #1: Increease the use of o bicycles as a viable alter native to the automobile Goal G #2: Coorrdinate region nal bikeways planning and constructionn among individual cities Goal G #3: Build a bicycle transportation network n by p lanning, desiggning, and maintaining trransportation n facilities thatt will meet th he needs for aall types of biccyclists Goal G #4: Impro ove bicycling safety in the district

I.II Facilitation Effo orts Preparatio on of this rep port was a co ollaborative effort e betweeen OCTA, lo ocal agencies, bicycle advo ocates, and the general g public. The pro ocess for faccilitating discuussions betw ween the varrious stakeho olders including the t project development team t and the bicycling com mmunity is deetailed below:

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

EXEC CUTIVE SUMM MARY

The follow wing summarrizes the pro ocess for facillitating the reegional bikew way discussion in preparinng the Strategy:  A project deveelopment team m (PDT) wass organized w with planning aand engineeriing representtatives frrom each locaal jurisdiction n (county and d city) within Supervisoriaal District 5. These includ de the County C of Orange and thee cities of Alisso Viejo, Danna Point, Irvinne, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laaguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, W Lake Forest, Misssion Viejo, Rancho Sannta Margaritaa, San Clemente, C San n Juan Capistrrano, and Calttrans Districtt 12. OCTA staff and the project consultant teeam participatted on the PD DT. The PDT T met on muultiple occasio ons to discusss project goals and objectives, op pportunities and a constrain nts, preliminaary corridor alignments, and draft raanking crriteria. 

Fo ocus group meetings m werre conducted d with smalleer working groups of PD DT representaatives. During D the foccus group meeetings, large--format boardds were printted for brainstorming pottential biikeways corridors. The boards b presen nted informattion to help fframe bikewaays demand, nneeds, an nd opportunities. This inccluded the id dentification o of flood control channels and rail corrridors, th he transportaation networkk, existing and proposed bbikeways, maajor destinatio ons, and otheer key feeatures for co onsideration and a collaboraative brainstorrming.



Two T communiity roundtablee discussions were held to o provide an opportunity ffor public inpput on th he project. The T first rou undtable occcurred in Maay 2014 durring National Bike Monthh. A presentation on o the draft regional r bikew way corridorss was made aand public inpput was requuested on corridor concepts, raanking evaluaation criteriaa, and their top three d desired corrridors. Approximately A y 30 attendeees included public stakehholders from m the bicycle advocacy, hhealth, saafety, and soccial justice secctors, bicycle shop ownerrs, as well as eelected officiaals and comm munity reesidents. Pressentations deescribing the planning pro cess and largge-format boaards displayinng the proposed corrridors were provided. Th he second ro oundtable occcurred in Sepptember 2014 and was w attended by approxim mately 50 peo ople with boaards showing the top threee ranked regional biikeway co orridors. A presentation described the t niine corrido ors and key k ch hanges sincce the firrst ro oundtable wiith a focus on o prioritizing th he top thrree co orridors. Atttendees at the t ro oundtable discussed d the t raanking analyssis results and provided feed dback on the t reecommended d top thrree co orridors. Pro omotion of the t

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

EXEC CUTIVE SUMM MARY

ro oundtables was w conductted by meaans of direect emails tto over 1,0000 stakeho olders, ad dvertisements on OCTA and a city webssites, OCTA’ss “On the Mo ove” blog, and d social mediaa. 



A project webpage was w created d on OC CTA’s website (www.o octa.net/Sharee-theRide/Bike/Dist R trict-5-Bikewaays-Roundtab ble). It incluuded a projecct overview that was uppdated reegularly with h project maaterials, inclu uding meetinng materials,, meeting daates, and co ontact in nformation. An A online queestionnaire was w promoted online andd distributed at the first public round dtable assking respond dents to gaugge attendees’ level of bicyycling comforrt and gatherr input aboutt their



biicycling preferences and frrequency. Alm most 200 que stionnaires w were completed. A second quesstionnaire waas distributed online and aat the secondd roundtable to solicit feedback on the propossed corridorrs. It includeed a map of the proposeed corridors. Participants were assked to rank the top threee corridors. There T were 150 questionnnaires compleeted.

I.III Regional Corrridors As shown n in Figure ESS.1, a total off nine regional bikeway co orridors are proposed to o help improvve the viability of bicycling and d cross-jurisd dictional bikew way connecti vity througho out south Orrange County. The proposed corridors prrovide connections to oth her regional bbikeway corri dors established in neighbboring supervisorial districts and between n major poin nts of interesst. These corrridors are ccomprised off both existing bikeway facilities and new proposed seggments. The eexact corrido or alignmentss may change upon more detailed analysis during the feeasibility study phase. For example, corrridors may bbe realigned tto use parallel or adjacent sttreets that prrovide a morre feasible ro oute. The pro oposed corridors and corrridor alignmentts evaluated in n this Strategyy are the follo owing: 

Corridor C A – Pacific Coast C Highw way (PCH) – This 20-m mile north-south corridorr runs so outh along PC CH from the southern Neewport Beachh city boundaary, along Deel Prado to G Golden Laantern Streett, down to Dana D Point Haarbor Drive, along Park LLantern to Coast Highwayy, and fin nally along El Camino Reall to the south hern San Juann Capistrano ccity limit.



Corridor C B – Laguna Canyon C – This T 8.8-milee north-southh corridor rruns along LLaguna Canyon C Road from the Su upervisorial District D 5 bo oundary in Irvvine at the I-405 Freewaay and co ontinues to PCH. P



Corridor C C – El Toro/Alicia/Laguna a Canyon – This 15.3-mille corridor exxtends along Alicia Paarkway from Santa Margaarita, onto Paseo P de Valeencia, to El T Toro Road, tthen along LLaguna Canyon C Road (State Route 133) to Broaadway Street, and ending aat PCH in Lagguna Beach.



Corridor C D – Portola/S Santa Marg garita – Thi s 6.7-mile co orridor extends along Po ortola Paarkway from the Supervissorial Districct 5 boundary ry at the wesstern city lim mit of Lake Forest, west w of Palom ma, and continues along Santa S Margariita Parkway tto Avenida EEmpresa, ending at Antonio A Parkw way. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

EXEC CUTIVE SUMM MARY



Corridor C E – Aliso Cree ek – This 20.3-mile corriddor runs alonng Santiago C Canyon Road from th he Supervisorrial District 5 boundary in Modjeska Canyon at aapproximatelyy Bolero Loo okout Road, R to El Toro Road at Ridgeline Ro oad, continuees along the Class I Aliso o Creek bikee path paarallel to El Toro T Road and ends at PCH.



Corridor C F – Muirlandss/Cabot/Cam mino Capisstrano– Thiss 18-mile co orridor runs along Muirlands M Bou ulevard from the Supervisorial Districct 5 boundarry east of Baake Parkway,, then allong the Alisso Creek Bikke Path at Lo os Alisos Bo oulevard. It continues alo ong the bikee path paarallel to Paseo de Valenccia, then on Paseo P de Valeencia at Lagunna Hills Drivee, and onto C Cabot Road R and the Cabot-Forbees bike path at a Rapid Falls Road. From m there, it exttends along FForbes Road R to the Laaguna Niguel Metrolink Staation, crossinng over to Caamino Capistrrano, continuing to Laa Zanja Streeet, then onto Avenida De La Vista. It ppicks up from m there on thhe Trabuco C Creek Trail, T to the Saan Juan Creekk Trail along Camino Capiistrano to acccess San Juan Creek Road, then allong a proposed bikeway currently in developmentt that would connect to A Avenida Califfornia, co ontinue alongg Via Californ nia and Via Fo ortuna to Via Sacramento, then along C Camino Capisstrano to o Palisades Drive and dow wn to PCH.



Corridor C G – Oso Park kway – Thiss 8.9-mile co orridor runs along Pacificc Park Drive from Woodfield W and d continues along a Oso Paarkway to itss eastern endd at Bend Ro oad/Coto De Caza Drive. D



Corridor C H – Antonio/L La Pata/Pico – This 18--mile corrido or runs alongg Antonio Parrkway frrom Avenida De Las Florees and continu ues along La Pata Avenue,, then onto A Avenida Pico down to o El Camino Real. R



Corridor C I – San Juan Creek C – This 8.6-mile co orridor extennds along Sann Juan Creekk Trail frrom Antonio Parkway dow wn to PCH.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

V U SR-241

PROJECT CORRIDOR OVERVIEW OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative BIKEWAY CORRIDORS

m n O

m n

COUNTY

m n

PIAD

or o

R GUE MAR

HIL NA GU LA D

IE JO

O DE COL PASE I

pis

TRABUCO CREEK TR TRA

WN VA LL

CRO

tra no

Sulphur Creek Reservoir

m n

PACIFI

A LV

C COAS

cifi

1.25

2.5

5 Miles

SAN

DE L

DANA POINT m n

nSTON m

oas

m n

N DA

T O IN AP

n Da H

m n

A AVENIDA L PATA ICO AVENIDA P

VIS

OSA

HE RM

m n

SAN CLEMENTE

LEGEND

m n

¤ n

Pico

TA H

ERM

OSA

RELLA

Palisades Reservoir

AVENIDA VISTA

MA RES

n m m n

CAMINO VERA CRU

CA M IN D O E LOS

M BL

nia

I-5

ISL AN D IL EH

Pacific Ocean

§ ¦ ¨

CAMINO DE EST

L AVIO

M IN O

m n C

Via Sacramento

m n

AR BO R

PA CIF

CAP

YRE

AM IN

NNE

LaLA PA PaTtA a

O RI

Krum Reservoir

NO MI CA

GUEL NI

ST RE FO

m n

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

m n

Trail

ALIPAZ

m n

ISTRANO

HOUSE LUB C

ara Poin t bo r

AC O N

HIL

DEL OBISPO

m n

Creek

m n

m mn n

Cr Tra ee bu k co Tr ai l m mn n

S a n Ju an

AR I

NDS LA IGH

NA HILLS

Rd LAGUNA NIGUEL

m n m n

REE

Inm m nn m

JUA

m n

VI EJ O

m n

COUNTY

TA LE GA

m n

PA TA

RA N

Ave. Califor

PA R

m n

rai kT

m n

ee m n Y

n m m n

m nn m C

m n

LAGUNA BEACH

GLE

Pkw

AVERY

m n

W OO D

Hwy

nio

ALISO V

nto

Z PA

GLENW OO

n m m n

m n

yon Rd

m nn m

m n

Ali

gu una C Lag

EGA

m n m n

m n

m mn n

Coast

Pkn m w

m n

Pacific

San Juan Creek Corridor

ia nc

F CI PA

m n

Antonio/La Pata/Pico Corridor

e Vale

COUNTY

C Sp

m n

Oso Parkway Corridor

m n

m n m n

FELIPE

IT E

Pa s

D eo

HILLS

m nn m ALISO VIEJO

Muirlands/Cabot Corridor/ Camino Capistrano

TE ROU GE

RID

AR M NT A SA

ANYON

VALEN

T El

SR-73

AC GUN LA

§ ¦ ¨

seo De Valen ci a

m n

V U

m n

d on R ny

Aliso Creek Corridor

m n

n Lagu

SU NN Y

Portola/Santa Margarita Corridor

m n

N TO UL

m nn m

m n

I-5

LAGUNA WOODS Lagunas

m n

CARL OTA

RID

m n

IRVINE

m MISSION n m VIEJO n

m n

ELIN E Sand Canyon Reservoir

m n

Reservoir

m n

m n O

RI DG

m nn m Veeh

Laguna Reservoir

Muirlands

AD E LA

EL TO

TRONG

m n

JE R O

m n

AVE NID

F KE

QUAIL HI LL

m n

TON

C LI

m n

KFIE

YM OL

El Toro Reservoir

ROC

m n

n m m DO n

El Toro/Alicia Corridor

ORT

LISOS LOS A

m n

TOLE

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA

TR ABU

Laguna Canyon Corridor

Lake Mission Viejo

m n

EN AV

m n

LAKE FOREST

Pacific Coast Highway Corridor

EA IDA DE LAS BA

m n

MA ALD

MarSgANTA M ARIT aritaARG

ONIO AntANT onio Pkwy

EL IN DA

Santa

NDERAS

m n

CHO

RANCHO

RAN

LAS

Ali

Portola

FLO RES

PO RTOLA

SR-241

m n

N AVE

Cre

m n

U V

m n

EN GL

SR-261

m n

IDA DE

Tra il

U V

m n N CH RA

m n m n m n

Rail

m n

m n m n n m

O CAMINO CAPISTRAN

Coast Hwy

Transportation Center

m n

Schools

m n

Colleges Parks / Open Space

El EL C CaAMIN mi O R noEAL Re a m n

m n

Waterbody l

§ ¦ ¨

City Boundary

I-5

Supervisorial District 5

Source: OCTA

Figure ES-1

EXEC CUTIVE SUMM MARY

Each corrridor was evaaluated using criteria consistent with District 5 go oals and objecctives and buuilding from criteria specified d in OCTA’s 2009 CBSP and Districtt 1, 2 and 4 Bikeways C Collaborativess. The criteria co onsider a rangge of opportunities, consttraints, and otther factors aaffecting dem mand and feasibility. The evalu uation criteriaa include the following f cateegories:        

Trip T Demand Leevel of Trafficc Stress (LTS)) Reported R Collisions Public Supportt Physical Consttraints Completes C thee Corridor Completes C thee Network Ecconomic Efficciency

Table ES.1 summarizees the rankingg evaluation, with raw annd weighted scores shown. Raw scorees for each cateegory were calculated c using a method dology descri bed in Chappter 3.2. Thee weighted sscores account fo or normalizin ng between 0 and 100 and the weightingg of each critterion. The regio onal corridors were ran nked to help p guide impllementing aggencies in prrioritizing bikkeway improvem ments. The evvaluation proccess determin ned which co orridors would provide thhe greatest reelative potential benefit to biccyclists in terms of regionaal connectivitty, access to key destinatio ons, and improved safety, wh hile also possessing significcant public su upport and lim mited physicaal constraintss that could hhinder implemen ntation. The following f top ranked corridors will be further studied for feasibbility in the seecond phase of the t District 5 Bikeways Strrategy:   

Corridor C A: Pacific Coast Highway Corridor C C: El Toro/Aliciaa/Laguna Can nyon Corridor C F: Muirlands/Ca M bot/Camino Capistrano C

he District 5 cities, the County C of Orrange, and Caaltrans have jjurisdiction o over portionss of at Each of th least one of these threee corridors. While feasibility review is not immeddiately being provided forr all of the otherr six corrido ors, cities may advance the t study off any corrido or where thhere is intereest in continuingg the efforts of o the Strateggy. nking results for the ninee proposed ccorridors witthin District 5 and Table ES.2 summarizees criteria ran shows thee distance of each corridor and range of o cost.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

EXEC CUTIVE SUMM MARY

Score

Table ES S.1: Corrido or Scoring Crriteria

Level of Reported Ec conomic Traffic Collisions Effficiency Stress

T Trip Dem mand

Public Inputt

Completes the Network

P Physical Constraints

Co omple etes th he Co orrid dor

Tot. T RS WS

RS R

RS W WS RS WS RS WS

100 4.0

3.0

6.4

343.66

110

1.7

A PCH Corridor C

2800

110

B Lagunaa Canyon

2099

El Toro o/Alicia/ Lagunaa Canyon

2899

Portolaa/Santa Margarrita

3177

261

3444

G Oso Paarkway

2777

Antonio/La Pata/Pico

2455

I San Juaan Creek

3133

Best B Possib ble Score

E Aliso Creek C

Muirlan nds/Cabot / Camino o Capistrano

Note: RS = Raaw Score; WS = Weeighted Score

Table ES S.2: Corrido or Ranking Corridor ID A C F D B E G H I TOTAL

Corrid dor Name PCH El Toro/Aliciaa/Laguna Canyon Muirlands/Caabot/Camino Capistrano Portola/Santaa Margarita Laguna Canyo on Aliso Creek Oso Parkwayy Antonio/La Pata/Pico P San Juan Creek

Rank

Weigh hted Score

Length (miless)

19.0

Cost R Range (millio ons) $11.5 – $14.1

15.3

$12.2 – $15.0

17.9

$7.4 – $9.0

4 5 6 7 8 9

59 54 50 48 44 38

6.7 8.8 20.3 8.9 18.0 8.6 123.5

$6.5 – $8.0 $8.4 – $ $10.3 $8.2 – $ $10.0 $5.5 – $6.8 $11.1 – $13.5 $3.8 – $4.6 $74.6 – $91.3

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

EXEC CUTIVE SUMM MARY

I.IV Neaar-Term Action A Plan In an effo ort to build momentum m to t complete the regional bikeway nettwork, the D District 5 Bikeeways Strategy recommendss potential near-term n prrojects. Thesse potential near-term pprojects along the proposed corridors can be implemented requiring mini mal construction costs, low right-o of-way acquisition, and minim mal environm mental review w as funds become available. Exampples of nearr-term projects may m include restriping r a street s to implement a Claass II bike lanne or providiing signage along a street to designate it as a a Class III bike b route. Each jurissdiction will lead funding and implem mentation effo orts for projects in theirr respective areas. OCTA caan provide su upport to theese jurisdictio ons through eefforts such aas providing ggrant notificaations, grant application guidance, and design solutions. Coordinatio n between juurisdictions is highly encouuraged to implem ment linkages simultaneoussly.

I.V Fund ding Strateegies Funding assistance can be provided through fedeeral, state, annd local goverrnment agenccy programs aaimed at improvving bicycle in nfrastructure. It is importaant that comm munities are made aware of funding so ources and that the t proper prrocedures aree followed in applying for the grants. B Because only a portion of public transportation funding is allocated toward t bicycle policy deveelopment andd infrastructuure, there is sstrong competition between jurisdictions j to t successfullyy secure fundding. Most fedeeral funding requires r that funds be maatched by staate and/or loccal municipalities. State fuunding often requires similar funding f matches from locaal agencies. T To facilitate thhe acquisitionn and coordinnation of funding, a full-timee bicycle co oordinator with w extensivee knowledgee of funding sources is often appointed d. Bicycle coo ordinators sh hould also havve a strong ccapability to ddevelop a com mpetitive pro oposal, specifying the project details d and jurisdictional neeeds and oppportunities for bicycle improvements. A summaary table byy source typ pe has been n provided w with details regarding eligibility, usee, and requiremeents associatted with fund ding sources, to supportt agency effo orts in findinng outside fuunding sources to o implement improvementts along the proposed p corrridors (Chappter 6).

I.VI Programs Non-infraastructure biccycle program ms, such as ed ducation, enco ouragement ((public outreaach), enforceement, and evaluaation (four off the “Five Es” of bicycle planning p - withh the fifth beiing engineerinng), work toggether through policy p develo opment and engineering e implementatio on to enhancce the bicyclle network ffor all users. Baased on comm munity input and coordinaation with aggency staff, prrogrammatic recommendaations are provided in this Strategy S to co omplement the infrastruc ture recomm mendations asssociated witth the proposed corridors.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

1.0 0 INTRODUCT TION

1.0 IN NTRODU UCTION N This docu ument summaarizes the reccommendatio ons and near--term action plan for the implementatiion of regional bikeways b thro oughout soutth Orange Co ounty. The o bjective of thhe District 5 Bikeways Strrategy (“the Strrategy”) is to o coordinatee planning and a funding efforts betw ween the vaarious entitiees for implemen nting regionallly-beneficial bikeways. Th he recommeendations aree the result of a collabo orative effort bettween the lo ocal agencies and community stakehollders. The SStrategy focuuses on identtifying potential regional bikew ways that cou uld best servee bicyclists off varying skill levels. A neaar-term actionn plan was estab blished to outtline potential next steps fo or completingg the regionaal bikeway nettwork.

1.1 Backkground The Distrrict 5 Bikewayys Strategy was w developed d as part of O OCTA’s regio onal bikewayss planning pro ocess: involving OCTA, local jurisdictions, and public stakeholders. s . The Countty of Orange,, Caltrans, annd the cities of Aliso A Viejo, Dana D Point, Irvvine, Laguna Beach, Lagunna Hills, Lagunna Niguel, Lagguna Woods,, Lake Forest, Mission M Viejo, Rancho Santta Margarita, San Clementte, and San Juan Capistraano were invo olved. This proccess began in 2011 with a pilot effort for f Superviso orial District 4 in northerrn Orange Co ounty, then for Supervisorial S Districts 1 & 2 in west ceentral Orangge County in 2012. It is fuunded by a feederal grant received by thee Orange Co ounty Council of Governm ments (OCC COG), with a 20% local m match provided by the Orrange Countty Transporttation Autho ority (OCTA A). Figure 1.1 illustratess the Superviso orial District 5 boundaries. Regional bikeway plan nning efforts support the goals contained in existting countyw wide transporttation plans, succh as the Lon ng Range Traansportation Plan and thee Orange Co ounty Sustainable Commuunities Strategy. These goals include expaanding travel choices, impproving safetyy, and supporting sustainaability. They also o build on thee 2009 Comm muter Bikeways Strategic PPlan (CBSP) w which outlinees OCTA’s ro oles in bikeways planning, as follows: f    

Su uggesting regional prioritiees for optimal use by local jurisdictions; Assisting A in coordinating plaans between jurisdictions; Providing plann ning and desiggn guidelines;; and Paarticipating in n outreach effforts to encourage bicyclee commuting.

“ prio ority location ns”, includingg colleges annd universities, transporttation The CBSSP outlines “regional centers, and a major em mployment arreas. These regional r priorrities served as the basis for developinng the potential District 5 reegional bikew way corridors. While thhis planning pprocess has been initiated d and coordinatted by OCTA A, local jurisdictions will bring projeccts from conncept to construction, through coordinattion with Calttrans and OC CTA as needeed.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

ORANGE COUNTY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative DISTRICT INFORMATION DISTRICT 1 Y G A C

Fountain Valley (Portions of) Garden Grove Santa Ana Westminster

W CAN EIR YO N

O M IR FA

ESPERANZA G

OOD

NIDA AVE L DE F ORE S LAS

WESTW

EG A

JU SE NIP RR E A RO O

CAMIN O LOS MA DE RE S

SAN JU CREE AN K

AVENID A LA PATA

PAC CO IFIC AS T

EL C AM REA INO L

COAST

SE L

PACIF IC COAS T

NIGU

A BO BAL

A VIST OSA HERM

VIA LIDO D

32N

TA L

MARGU ER IT E MAR IN HILLS A

COAST

V C R ER A U Z

AP ICO

RID RO G E UT E

EL TOR

NEWPORT C OAST

DE L OBISPO

YALE BO CA NITA NY ON

MARGUER ITE

IRVINE L ITA SP

TA VIS A ID SA EN O AV ERM H

AVE NID

SHADY CANYON

LAKE

YALE

ALIC

SAND CANYO

JEFFREY

YALE HARVARD

CULVER

JAMBOREE

BIRCH

M SA IG N UE L

ACON BE ILL H CLUB HOUSE

L D E IO R

ALTO

BROWNING BROWNING

ONG ARMSTR

RED HILL

SANTA ANA

NEWPORT

MAIN

LL VA

17TH

UI AQ JO S N ILL SA H

Aliso Viejo Dana Point Irvine (Portions of) Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods Lake Forest Mission Viejo Rancho Santa Margarita San Clemente San Juan Capistrano

LA PA TA

RA VI CH EJ O O

SP YG HI LAS LL S

DISTRICT 5

TRABUCO CREEK

W CA OOD NY ON

N OW CR

NO O MI AN CA STR PI CA

LIS IE O JO

PACIFIC ISLAND

DY SHA ON Y CAN

SE AP OI N

Z PA LA

RANC HO

CA B

E RTL T U CK RO

LIN

PR AIR IE

RT WPO NE ER NT CE

PACIFIC UT VIEW

A SANT UZ CR BAYSIDE

WALN

16TH

O BIS

ALO BUFF

V ER

TH 17

TO MIL HA

EY EL RK BE

F EASTBLUF

TIA

KE LA

A NT LA AT

SIT

D FOR

WESTCLIFF

DIA

AVENIDA DE LA CARLOTA

UL TO

LAGUNA CANYON

E AR W LA DE

ORANGE

T 19

P NA

RID

22ND SANTIA GO

RIA

YALE

PALM

ILS

TO VIC

QUA IL HILL

ER IV

Anaheim (Portions of) Brea Buena Park (Portions of) ullerton La Habra Placentia

OSO

MESA DEL MAR UNIVE RSITY

COAS T

MACARTH

KIO

GT IN

AC IM IR RR FA ME

N W TO RK YO

VON KARM

L AR

D AR SH BU

ND LA W NE

PACI FIC

AY AD LL HA

D AR W

GIS

MUIRLAN

BRISTOL

DISTRICT 4

JERONIMO

RO CK F

L TO IS BR

ND LA

ORTEG

CAMPUS

M VE ESA RD E

TECH NO LO

LAKE FOREST

R LE

A S A NT I TA M A R G AR

NIO ANTO

T NEWPOR

W VIE IR FA UT SO

EASTWOOD

ME M

R DA AN ST

ITT RA

TRAB UCO

TOLED O

IRVINE CENTE

BARRANCA

T AS CO

MAIN

LT HO

D AN GR

ER RN

LIS

WARNER

O ARIN UL PA

LO ALIS S O

CT YO

RY BU MA

ER W N LO TO NF AN SU

M RO

L IS EL

BERT TAL

UIN NQ

E LB TA

ER AT SL

GO AL K

O RO YB SA

A IC CH

M AR I N

A W

TRABUCO

CREEK

LO IL BR RK PA

CH AY EN DW FR OA BR

ST ER

AR W ED

A LS BO

SEAL BEACH A

S OL

BRYAN EL CAM INO REAL

WAL NU

N ST H TU ANC R

D AR W

E AL GD RIN SP HE

RANCHO

OLA RT PO

E AD AN PL ES

G SE

ER RK PA

BRYAN

RANC HO

PORT O LA

Anaheim (Portions of) Irvine (Portions of) Orange Tustin Villa Park Yorba Linda

IRVINE

ON MICHELS

OLD IRVINE

GLENN RANCH

BORWOOD AR OOD MEADOW

SYCAMORE

UT TN ES CH

DISTRICT 3 O AN O PL BUC A TR

AD AN

E NT CE

R BO JAM

PL ES

ANAHEIM SHORES

RID

ALT

IN CA

F H

AM AL

D FA MC

S LO

SA NT IAG O

NA IC AA CIV NT ST 1 SA

UR KH OO BR

RD ZA HA

D EL

X LE

OM O ES

ORY

H AC BE

RAMPART

W VIE

ER LD HO

I NN DE

MEM

AR CL

HILL OT E DG DO

TE OT

EY LL VA

N LITA

OD WO GE AN

RO MET

N VE HA

N SA

N MA AP CH

W KN

R KE AL W

IT RR CE

ST HA

TA VE LA

IR FA

TA VE LA

A LL TE KA

R BE

E NG

E TH Y CIT

LL BA GIL

N TO US

NE GE TRY AU ANAH EIM

N NT CE ES CR

VIA TA BA

AY W

E TIN EN EM CL

D AN YL NE DIS UT LN WA

TO AN ST

O BR

LN WA

LIN

HEST

KASS

OS IT ELL HOW RR CE

S IN LL CO

CRAWF O CANYO RD N

N G MA RIN AP SP CH

LN WA

HE IM

S LA UG DO

AN A

MANC

ND BO

FT TA

Y HAND K CREE

N YO AN EW VI

TUSTIN RANCH

E AS

TA VIS T IS NK SU

SAN CA TIAG NY ON O

RK PA

DA AN W

RIO

LE DA

ER AK HIT W

SIA TE AR

A LL VI

CARLSON

D EIM

ER GN WA

V RO

LA MIR ADA E STAG

TS EA

NEWPORT

RI V

AN AN TIA YO GO N

CA NN ON

FT TA

AG O

OLIV

IA ER

SAN TI

ANGE

AN LR OH

S C

A ER

E EG

BL GU UE M

LM PA LA

SERRA NO

A VI OLA SC

M IL LE R

OR Y

LL CO

E TH OW

E AT ST

LRO ME

T ON FR

IA NC LE VA

M H S AN H

TIA

YM RA

LV MA

D AN HL HIG

T ER

LT EA W ON

N ER

D OO W

Buena Park (Portions of) Costa Mesa Cypress Fountain Valley (Portions of) Huntington Beach La Palma Los Alamitos Newport Beach Seal Beach Stanton

NA AA N NT YO SA ANR C O O YA AK

RA MI MA LO

ISON

LB PIO

NC LE VA

BEACH

S AN CR SE

PAR KS ER NE

N MA AP CH

E L EY

MAD

PLAC

H AC BE

O AH ID I

T NU

IL EI L

PALM

A IST AV ALT

DISTRICT 2 A

RIC

Y UR CH

N NYO CA IM R

FAIRMONT

A ST VI

N TA

G LOG KEL

W VIE

A EN BU

TED CIA SO AS

S BA

A BR HA

DA LIN

A RB YO

CIA EN

BREA

A ND CIE HA CY MA

L VA

Y RR BE

TIE

RIA

T ER MB LA

HIT

LM PA

W L EL SS RU

D OL G

T N

CIA TE D CH BIR

L RA NT CE

VIE

EY LL VA

CA OA N

BREA CANY ON

E AG LL ER VI NT CE

CA C A R BO NY N ON

P NY SUM ON

Pacific Ocean

8 Miles

Source: OCTA

Figure 1-1

1.0 0 INTRODUCT TION

1.2 Straategy Overrview The Strategy identifiess nine regionaal corridors to t serve as thhe backbone bikeway netw work for citiees and unincorpo orated areas within soutth Orange County. C Theese corridorss and the rrationale for their alignmentts are described in Chapteer 3. The repo ort includes aan overview o of current co onditions, highhlights of attracttions along the corridor, and the ideentification off opportunitiies (e.g. existting flood chhannel maintenan nce roads and d available ro oad right-of-w way) and consstraints (e.g. ssignificant incclines/ declinees and complex intersections) i ). ort describes each of the eight criteriaa used to asssess and rankk the regionaal corridors. T These The repo criteria are a based on n goals and objectives deeveloped witth input from m the local agencies and the communitty. The top th hree corridorrs have been selected for a follow-up ffeasibility stud dy that will innclude planning-level design recommendaations for keey sections o of each corriidor. The feasibility study will provide the informatio on and data required for local jurisdicctions to preepare grant appplications fo or the design and d constructio on of sectionss of each corrridor. ort to facilitatte project im mplementation n, a high-leveel near-term action plan for all nine o of the In an effo corridors is outlined in this reportt. The plan recommends implementingg items that are relativelyy lowcost and with few maajor constrain nts such as slope, s enviro onmental conncerns, or lacck of right-off-way. Local governmental agencies are alrready workingg on many off the items ideentified in thee plan. The Strattegy also con nsists of a dettailed discusssion of the vvarious types of bike faciliities that couuld be used along these corridors in south hern Orange County. C Facillities coveredd in this sectio on range from m bike lanes and shared-use markings or “sharrows” to separatedd paths, cyclee tracks, com mplex interseection treatmentts, signage, and a street markings. m Secctions of thee corridors w where thesee facilities maay be appropriaate are identiffied. The Strategy outlines educational e approaches for bicyclists annd motorists.. Classes for cchildren and aadults as well as public outreaach are review wed. Finally, th he Strategy outlines o fundiing strategiess and points to a varietyy of public, aas well as prrivate, sources of o funds for bike infrastructture and educcational projeects.

1.3 Bikeeways Classsifications Througho out this reporrt, reference is made to fo our classes o r categories o of bikeways. Until recently, the ways. Howevver, a Californiaa Departmentt of Transpo ortation (Calttrans) used tthree categorries for bikew fourth caategory, separated bikewaays or cycle tracks, has recently beeen added to the classificcation. Californiaa Streets and Highways Code C (SHC) Section S 890.44 defines the four bikewayy. These bikkeway classificatiions are illusttrated in Figurre 1.2 and summarized be low:

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

1.0 0 INTRODUCT TION

 



Class C I – Off-SStreet Paved Bike B Paths: facilities on a sseparate rightt-of-way from m roadways, uusually sh hared by bicyclists and ped destrians. Class C II – On-Road Striped d and Signed Bicycle B Laness: on-street faacilities that uuse painted stripes an nd stencils to o delineate thee right-of-wayy assigned to o bicyclists and motorists, and to provid de for more m predictable movemen nts by each. Class C III – On-Road O Shaared-Lane Signed Bicyclee Routes: siigned on-strreet facilitiess that acccommodate vehicles and d bicycles in the same traavel lane. Bicycles are ppermitted on most ro oadways; how wever, for saffety purposess, signed bicyycle routes are often founnd on streetss with lo ower speeds and a traffic volumes. Class C IV Bikew ways - Separatted Bikeways (Cycle Trackks): exclusivee bike facilitiees that combinne th he user experrience of a separated path with the on--street infrasttructure of co onventional bike laanes.

ore detailed description is in i Chapter 5 (Bicycle Facillity Toolkit). A mo

1.4 Jurissdictional Governanc G ce While OC CCOG and OCTA O commissioned this report, the i mplementatio on of bikewayy corridors w will be led by the cities or th he County of o Orange, whomever w hass jurisdiction.. In some caases, roadwayys are managed by Caltrans,, such as po ortions of Paacific Coast Highway (Sttate Route 1), or at freeeway interchangges. While OC CCOG and OCTA O promo ote the implem mentation of corridors reccommended in this reportt, final design, co onstruction, and a maintenaance of the corridor c wouuld ultimatelyy need to bee accepted bby the respectivee jurisdictionss as outlined above. Addittionally, the ccities or the C County of Orrange may neeed to coordinatte with various landownerrs such as uttility compan ies, rail operrators, and O OCTA for rigght-ofway acquiisition.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

1.0 0 INTRODUCT TION

Figure 1.2: Caltran ns Bikeway Classificatio ons

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.0 EX XISTING G COND DITIONS 2.1 Con ntext The 2009 9 OCTA CBSP notes that t much of o south Orrange Countty was deveeloped as plaanned communitties over thee last 30 yearrs. The roadw way networkks are generaally wider and more circuuitous than in Central C Countty. The advan ntage to thesse roads is thhat many of them were d designed withh bike lanes alon ng the shoulders. Howevver, these ro oads typicallyy have higherr speed limitts, more elevvation change, and a alignmen nts through low-density communitiess with housing separated d from workk and shopping centers. Thiss layout often results in lon nger trips, annd the lower densities connsequently ressult in fewer job b opportunitiies near the residential communities. c The higher speed limitss and wider roads result in more challen nges for bicycclists desiringg to share annd cross the roadways. N Nonetheless, many opportunities still existt, such as pro oviding improved access annd facilities att transit statio ons. Accordingg to the 201 13 American Communityy Survey (U.SS. Census Buureau), less tthan 1 perceent of Orange County’s C popu ulation comm mutes by bicyycle. The vastt majority of commuters ccommute to work by drivingg alone. This shows how automobile-d a dependent Orrange Countyy currently iss and why maany of the streeets and freew ways are at, or close to,, maximum ccapacity. Thee Orange Co ounty Projecctions, produced by the Cen nter for Dem mographic Reesearch (outt of California State Univversity, Fullerton), estimates Orange Cou unty’s 2013 population p of 3.114 millionn to grow byy nearly 600,0000, more thhan 19 percent, by b 2035, whiich will only put more deemand on traansportation infrastructurre. See 2014 Long Range Traansportation Plan (www.o octa.net/LRTP P/).

2.2 Rationale Implemen nting bikeway facilities can result in decreased levelss of traffic conngestion, fuel consumptionn, and air pollutiions, and imp proved air qu uality and heealth. Biking is a viable transportationn option for short trips. It so olves first mile/last mile isssues for tran nsit riders. A bicycle com mmuter who rrides four miles to work, fivee days a weeek, avoids 2,0 000 miles of driving and ((in the U.S.) about 2,000 pounds of caarbon dioxide emissions e eacch year, whicch is approximately 5% o of the averagee American’ss carbon foo otprint (www.datta.worldbank..org). Serious obesity and diaabetes issues exist in the US. U Orange County is no ot immune. T The overall obesity rate in the County is over o 33%, with most cities in southernn Orange Co ounty having rrates in the lo ow to mid 20's (www.publichealthadvocaacy.org). As the graphic on the follo owing page shows, over 77% of people in Orange Cou unty suffer fro om diabetes, with an increeasing numbeer of them beeing children (from the Oran nge County Health H Care Agency, 2014-2016 OC C Health Impprovement Pllan). Encouraging bicycling and a other ph hysical activities may help reduce diabeetes. Accordding to the Centers for Disease Control and a Preventio on, children 6 to 17 yearrs of age sho ould get one hour of exeercise per daay and adults abo out 30 minutees per day. Bicycling B can provide p muchh of this benefficial exercisee. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

ho bike on a regular basiss, bicyclists neeed to feel saafe on However,, to increase the number of people wh the roads and bikewayys. Accordingg to pedbikeinfo.org, “Bicyycle trips acco ount for onlyy 1% of trips in the United Sttates. In 2012, there weere 726 bicyyclist fatalitiees and 49,0000 bicyclist iinjuries. Thiss data representts 2.2% of all traffic fataalities during the year. S ixty-nine perrcent of the bicyclist fattalities occurred in urban areas. In Califorrnia, there weere 124 bicycclist fatalities, representingg 4.3% of thee total 2,857 trafffic fatalities in n 2012”. (Naational Highway Traffic Saffety Administtration Trafficc Safety Facts 2012 Data, pub blished in Aprril 2014). Bikee safety has become b an inccreasing conccern over thee years.

Orange Coun nty Heath Care Agency, 2014-2016 OC Health Improve ement Plan

hat touch all portions of south Orangge County's 55th District. They The Strattegy identifiess corridors th are intended to be designed d for and used byy bicyclists o of all skill levvels and help improve hhealth, environmental, social, safety, and ecconomic cond ditions. The ccorridors willl connect neigghboring citiees and districts; within those boundaries, connect maajor points off interest, including emplloyment and retail centers. This T effort willl require coo ordination am mong associateed entities to o implement.

2.3 Actiivity Levelss and Collision Analyysis 2.3.1 Bic cycle Com mmute Mod de Share by y City Bicycle co ommute mode share by citty is determin ned using Am merican Comm munity Surveey (ACS) dataa from the US Census C Bureaau. Figure 2.1 illustrates that t the bicyycle mode shhare for all w work trips rranges between 0% and 2.7% % within the District 5 cities. c The staate and counnty average is 1.0%, whille the national average a is 0.6% %.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.1:: Bicycle Co ommute Mo ode Share b by City1 3.0%

2.7%

2.5% 2 2.0% 2 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0 0.0% 0

0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0

0.8%

00.7%

0.6%

6% 0.6 0.1%

% 0.2%

0.3%

% 0.2% 0.0%

0.1%

U Census Bureau: 2009-2013 Amerrican Community Survey, 5-Year Est stimates 1: US Notte: Only the tractss within Superviso orial District 5 of Irvine (mix of land uses)

2.3.2 Estimated Commuter and Utilita arian Bicyclists In order to recognizee the multiple benefits off these regio onal bikeway corridors, inncluding improved health, less traffic con ngestion, and maintenancee of ambient air quality leevels, the nuumber of bicyyclists needs to be maximizeed. A better understandin ng of the num mber of exissting bicycle ttrips is needed to achieve these goals of o the Strateggy. The U.SS. Censusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; AC CS provides useful data for understaanding bicycling rates r across different d popu ulations and geographies, g aas shown in FFigure 2.1, buut they only rreport the modees which resid dents use for commuting to o and from w work. The follow wing estimatees include additional utilitaarian trips, suuch as those trips made fo for daily activvity by populations other than n adults comm muting to wo ork. As show wn in Table 2.1, there are about 25,0000 daily trips by bicycle estimatted in Districct 5. It is imp portant to no ote that this is simply an o order-of-magnnitude estimate, based on avaailable data an nd does not in nclude recreaational trips.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Table 2.1: Bicycle Trends T in District 5 Variable e

Va alue

Sou urce

Existing Employed Pop pulation

290 0,934

20009-2013 ACS, B08101 5-Y Year Estimatess

Existing Bike-to-Work B k Mode Share

0.8 8%

20009-2013 ACS, B08101 5-Y Year Estimatess

Existing Number N of Bikke-to-Work Commuteers

1,4 460

(Exxisting Employyed Populatio on) x (Existingg Bikke-to-Work M Mode Share)

Existing Work-at-Hom W me Mode Sharre

8.7 7%

20009-2013 ACS, B08101 5-Y Year Estimatess

Existing Number N of Work-at-Home W e Population

25,288

(Exxisting Employyed Populatio on) x (Existingg Wo ork-at-Home Mode Share))

Existing Number N of Work-at-Home W e Bicyclists

1,2 264

Asssumes 5% of population w working at hom me makkes at least o one daily bicyccle trip

Existing Transit-to-Wo T ork Mode Shaare

1.1%

20009-2013 ACS, B08101 5-Y Year Estimatess

Existing Transit-to-Wo T ork Commuteers

3,3 335

(Exxisting Employyed Populatio on) x (Existingg Traansit-to-Work Mode Sharee) Asssumes 2% of ttransit riders access transit by bicyycle

Existing Transit T Bicyclee Commuterss

67 6

Existing School Childreen, Ages 5-14 4 (Grades K-8) K

41,405

Existing School Childreen Bike Modee Share

2.0 0%

Nattional Safe Ro outes to Scho ools surveys, 2010

Existing School Childreen Bike Commuteers

82 28

(Exxisting School Children) x (Existing Scho ool Ch ildren Bicyclinng Mode Sharre)

20009-2013 ACS, B01001 5-Y Year Estimatess

Existing Number N of Co ollege Students

35,137

20009-2013 ACS, B14001 5-Y Year Estimatess

Existing College C Bicycling Mode Shaare

25.0%

Nattional Bicyclinng & Walkingg Study, FHW WA, Casse Study No. I, 1995).

Existing College C Bike Commuters C

8,7 784

(Exxisting Numbeer of College Students) x (Esttimated Colleege Bicycling Mode Share)

Existing Total T Numberr of Bike Commuteers

12,403

Tottal bike-to-wo ork, school, ccollege and util itarian trips. Does not incclude recreation

Total Da aily Bicyclingg Trips

24,807

Tottal bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.3.3 Im mpact of E-B Bike Techn nology E-bikes arre gaining po opularity in th he US with sales s expecte d to double over the nexxt 5 years. Inn hilly areas such as much off southern Orange O Countty, e-bikes w will make it eaasier for people to make short trips by bike versus car as well as use a bike for exercise and recreation. A recent survey based d study titled “Electric Bikkes (E-Bikes) in the Unitedd States” by JJohn MacArthhur at Portland State S Universsity suggests that people who w are likelyy to use e-bikes include tthose who (1) are older, (2) those comm mute over 5 miles, (3) live in hilly areeas, (4) have physical limittations that m makes bicycling difficult, (5) people who don't want to t sweat or wear speciall clothes to commute, annd (6) people who need d to carrry or haul items. http://ppmss.otrec.us/media/project_fiiles/Ebikes_in_ _North_Amerrica.pdf “II live in a hilly town and wouuld never comm mute to work oon a standardd bike --I woulddn't be able to make it up the hills. My M electric assiist bike makess commuting by bike possiblee.” –Survey R Respondent Accordingg to the surveey the major reasons peop ple bought e-bikes or convverted a standard bike weere (1) to replacee some car trrips, (2) healtth - to increasse physical fittness, (3) livee or work in a hilly area annd (4) ride with less effort. The study also showed that the bigggest uses fo or e-bikes weere commutiing to work/scho ool and for lo ocal trips. Th he third largesst use was forr recreation. The studyy shows that of the surveyy respondentts 55% rode ttheir standarrd bike weeklly or daily prior to the e-bikee purchase; th his went to up p to 93% afteer purchase. The increeased popularity of e-bikees will help drive the nuumber of peo ople who usse bike facilitties in Southern Orange Cou unty. As show wn by the Po ortland State University Survey the e-bbikes will likeely be used largeely for comm muting and forr short trips to t local storees and restaurants. This w will further inccrease the deman nd for bike faacilities wheree all levels of bicyclists feell comfortablee. At the prresent time in n the State of o California anyone a operaating an electtric bike is suubject to all o of the rules and regulations governing g op peration of a bicycle as o utlined in Caalifornia Vehicle Code Secctions 21200-21212. In addition all users must m be at leaast 16 years o of age and weear a helmet (California V Vehicle Code 240 016). At the present p time electric bikess cannot be o operated on bbicycle paths o or trails, bikeeways, equestrian n trails, or hiiking or recreeational trailss, unless it is within or addjacent to a rroadway or uunless the local authority orr governing body b of a pub blic agency hhaving jurisdicction over suuch paths or trails permits, by b ordinance,, such operattion (Californ nia Vehicle C Code section 21207.5). T The laws goveerning the use of o electric bikees are curren ntly being reaassessed. Theerefore, revieew of the latest laws goveerning the use off electric bikees as outlined d in the Califo ornia Vehicle C Code must bbe conducted..

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.3.4 Co ollision Ana alysis Personal safety is a main m concern n for all new w and existinng bicyclists. A bikeway perceived as too dangerouss or too closse to heavy veehicular traffiic will discou rage the majo ority of cyclissts from usingg that facility. In Orangge County, between b Junee of 2013 an nd May of 22014, 17 bicyyclists were struck and killed (Californiaa State Widee Integrated Traffic Reco ords System) . Part of this study is id dentifying pottential improvem ments that willl help preven nt or minimizee these collisiions and resuulting fatalitiess. The Strattegy has assesssed the corrridors for phyysical constraaints, includinng freeways, cchannels, railrroads, curb parkking, slope, an nd roadway right-of-way to o help identiffy the routes that would bbe most usefuul and enjoyable to the rider, while minimizing threats to t their safety ty. The analyysis of bicyclisst-involved crrash data in District D 5 fro om 2007-2011, obtained frrom the California Statewidee Integrated Traffic T Record ds System (SW WITRS) show ws there weree 428 total crrashes in the study area in th he five-year peeriod. Table 2.2 presentss the total craashes in Distrrict 5 by violaation categorry and party at faault. As show wn in Figure 2.2, 2 excludingg "unknown ccauses", over two-thirds of the crashes were the resultt of four majo or causes listeed below. 1. Right-of-way R violation v repreesents nearlyy one quarterr of all crashees. A good exxample would d be a caar pulling out in front of a bicyclist. 2. Riding R or driving on the wrrong side of the t road reprresents 18% o of all crashes.. Statewide, this is th he number one o cause of bicyclist-cau used crashes and fatalitiess. This is an area wherre the ed ducation of bicyclists can make m a majorr difference inn their safety.. 3. The T third is im mproper turn ning, which accounts a for 14% of all ccrashes. An example of tthis is when w a motor vehicle driveer or a bicyclist turns in fro ont of the othher. 4. The T fourth is unsafe u speed, accounting fo or 12% of all crashes. Many peo ople assume that running stop signs and d stop lights iss a cause of bbike-related ccrashes. In District 5, this is the t cause of less than 10% % of all crashes. In this caategory moto or vehicle driivers and bicyyclists are almosst equally at faault. As shown n in Figure 2.3, bicyclist-involved crashees per year rranged from 74 in 2007 to o 100 in 2011, the most receent year for which w compleete data are available. a As sseen statewidde, this upwarrd trend in crrashes coincides with an incrrease in the number n of peeople riding bbikes. Thus w while the num mber of crashes is increasingg, the overall rate of crash hes may in faact be decliniing although at the presennt time thosee data are not avvailable.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Table 2.2 2: Bicycle Collisions C in District 5, 2007-2011 2 Total

% Exclu uding unknown

24% %

18% %

Unknown

Improper Turning2

14% %

Unsafe Speeed

12% %

Traffic Sign nals and Signs

8% %

Other Imp proper Driving

7% %

Other Hazzardous Violation

5% %

Other Thaan Driver

3% %

Under the Influence

3% %

Unsafe Laane Change3

2% %

Unsafe Starting or Backin ng

1% %

Improper Passing P

1% %

Pedestrian ROW

<1%

Lights

<1%

Violation n Category

Bicycle

Vehicle

Automobile ROW1

Wrong Sid de of Road

Pedestrian n

Pedestrian Violation Following Too T Closely

2 1

Impeding Traffic T Other Equ uipment Total

1 1 240

186

428

1 http://www w.nolo.com/legal-en ncyclopedia/free-b books/beat-ticket-b book/chapter7-5.hhtml 2 http://www w.nolo.com/legal-en ncyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticket-b book/chapter7-4.hhtml 3

http://www..nolo.com/legal-en ncyclopedia/free-bo ooks/beat-ticket-b book/chapter7-8.httml

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2 Causes of Bicyclist--Involved Figure 2.2: Crashess by Year

Figure 2. 3: Bicyclist--Involved Crrashes by Y Year

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20007

2008

2009

2 2010

2011 1

2.3.5 Re ecent Agen ncy Efforts to Improv ve Bicycle P Planning & Infrastruccture Within th he 5th District, there are many plannin ng and engineeering effortss currently leed by the cities to improve bicyclist b safetty, enhance in nfrastructure,, and supportt increased bicycling withiin Orange Co ounty. The plann ning of bicyccle infrastructure through h general plaan updates o or bicycle maaster planninng has occurred in San Clemente, Dana Point, P Irvine, Laguna Beachh, Rancho Sannta Margaritaa, and the adjjacent communitties in Newport Beach. Many M cities have applied fo for or obtaineed ATP Cycle 1 grant funnds to implemen nt new or imp proved bicyclee facilities. Lo ower-cost bikke facilities suuch as Class III bike lane sttriping have been n implementeed by many citties. Major bikke design and d construction projects arre currently iin progress bby cities suchh as San Clem mente and Danaa Point. For example, thee City of San Clemente is currently in the design sttages of imprroving the existing Class II bike lanes and constructingg a Class I bikke path alongg El Camino Real from Caamino Capistrano to Avenidaa Estacion. In Dana Point, the city is in the planningg stage to pro ovide roadwaay and signal imp provements, along a with prroviding Classs I and II faci lities along PPacific Coast Highway, including Del Prado, from the northerly city limits to Camino Caapistrano. T The City of Laguna Beach has developed d an assessm ment report for f Laguna Canyon C Road between El Toro Road to Canyon A Acres Drive to improve mo obility for alll uses. The Rancho Misssion Viejo ddevelopment plan has adopted sustainable circulation to address biicycle and neiighborhood eelectric vehiclle components.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.0 RE EGIONA AL BIKE EWAY CORRID C ORS As shown n in Figure 3.1, the following nine regio onal bikeway corridors arre proposed ffor District 55. The corridors connect to one o another and to bike facilities f to thhe north in O OCTA Superrvisorial Distrricts 2 and 3, as well w as to thee south in San n Diego Coun nty. They pro ovide key connnections to ppopular attracctions such as beeaches, parks, schools, sho opping, emplo oyment, and ttransit centerrs.

3.1 Regional Corrridors Regional corridors weere developed d through a series of foccus group meeetings and P PDT meetingss. At PDT Meeeting #2, the team agreed d to split thee region into three focuseed areas: cenntral cities, coastal cities, and d northern arrea cities. Eacch focus grou up identified itts own preferrred corridorrs. OCTA annd the consultant then consolidated the co orridors identtified by the tthree groups.. At PDT Meeeting #3, thee draft regional corridors c werre presented and modified d based on th e collaborativve input. In aaddition, the public input through online surveys or local events were obtai ned and thee results and d comments were presented d at the PDT meetings. The follow wing provides a detailed discussion d of each regionaal corridor w within Districtt 5. The corrridors are labeleed in no partticular order. The rankingg analysis of tthe nine corrridors, using specific criteeria, is presented d in Section 3.2 for prioritiization. Efforts haave been mad de to identifyy conceptual alignments o of each corriddor; howeveer, refinementts are expected as feasibilityy studies aree conducted to provide an improveed analysis and review o of the constraintts and opporrtunities of eaach corridor.. Therefore, flexibility in tthe alignmentt of each corrridor should bee expected to help achievee regional con nnectivity and continuous llinkage.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

V U SR-241

SOUTH OC REGIONAL BIKEWAY CORRIDORS OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative BIKEWAY CORRIDORS

m n O

m n

COUNTY

m n

PIAD

or o

R GUE MAR

HIL NA GU LA D

IE JO

O DE COL PASE I

pis

TRABUCO CREEK TR TRA

WN VA LL

CRO

tra no

Sulphur Creek Reservoir

m n

PACIFI

A LV

C COAS

cifi

1.25

2.5

5 Miles

SAN

DE L

DANA POINT m n

nSTON m

oas

m n

N DA

T O IN AP

n Da H

m n

A AVENIDA L PATA ICO AVENIDA P

VIS

OSA

HE RM

m n

SAN CLEMENTE

LEGEND

m n

¤ n

Pico

TA H

ERM

OSA

RELLA

Palisades Reservoir

AVENIDA VISTA

MA RES

n m m n

CAMINO VERA CRU

CA M IN D O E LOS

M BL

nia

I-5

ISL AN D IL EH

Pacific Ocean

§ ¦ ¨

CAMINO DE EST

L AVIO

M IN O

m n C

Via Sacramento

m n

AR BO R

PA CIF

CAP

YRE

AM IN

NNE

LaLA PA PaTtA a

O RI

Krum Reservoir

NO MI CA

GUEL NI

ST RE FO

m n

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

m n

Trail

ALIPAZ

m n

ISTRANO

HOUSE LUB C

ara Poin t bo r

AC O N

HIL

DEL OBISPO

m n

Creek

m n

m mn n

Cr Tra ee bu k co Tr ai l m mn n

S a n Ju an

AR I

NDS LA IGH

NA HILLS

Rd LAGUNA NIGUEL

m n m n

REE

Inm m nn m

JUA

m n

VI EJ O

m n

COUNTY

TA LE GA

m n

PA TA

RA N

Ave. Califor

PA R

m n

rai kT

m n

ee m n Y

n m m n

m nn m C

m n

LAGUNA BEACH

GLE

Pkw

AVERY

m n

W OO D

Hwy

nio

ALISO V

nto

Z PA

GLENW OO

n m m n

m n

yon Rd

m nn m

m n

Ali

gu una C Lag

EGA

m n m n

m n

m mn n

Coast

Pkn m w

m n

Pacific

San Juan Creek Corridor

ia nc

F CI PA

m n

Antonio/La Pata/Pico Corridor

e Vale

COUNTY

C Sp

m n

Oso Parkway Corridor

m n

m n m n

FELIPE

IT E

Pa s

D eo

HILLS

m nn m ALISO VIEJO

Muirlands/Cabot Corridor/ Camino Capistrano

TE ROU GE

RID

AR M NT A SA

ANYON

VALEN

T El

SR-73

AC GUN LA

§ ¦ ¨

seo De Valen ci a

m n

V U

m n

d on R ny

Aliso Creek Corridor

m n

n Lagu

SU NN Y

Portola/Santa Margarita Corridor

m n

N TO UL

m nn m

m n

I-5

LAGUNA WOODS Lagunas

m n

CARL OTA

RID

m n

IRVINE

m MISSION n m VIEJO n

m n

ELIN E Sand Canyon Reservoir

m n

Reservoir

m n

m n O

RI DG

m nn m Veeh

Laguna Reservoir

Muirlands

AD E LA

EL TO

TRONG

m n

JE R O

m n

AVE NID

F KE

QUAIL HI LL

m n

TON

C LI

m n

KFIE

YM OL

El Toro Reservoir

ROC

m n

n m m DO n

El Toro/Alicia Corridor

ORT

LISOS LOS A

m n

TOLE

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA

TR ABU

Laguna Canyon Corridor

Lake Mission Viejo

m n

EN AV

m n

LAKE FOREST

Pacific Coast Highway Corridor

EA IDA DE LAS BA

m n

MA ALD

MarSgANTA M ARIT aritaARG

ONIO AntANT onio Pkwy

EL IN DA

Santa

NDERAS

m n

CHO

RANCHO

RAN

LAS

Ali

Portola

FLO RES

PO RTOLA

SR-241

m n

N AVE

Cre

m n

U V

m n

EN GL

SR-261

m n

IDA DE

Tra il

U V

m n N CH RA

m n m n m n

Rail

m n

m n m n n m

O CAMINO CAPISTRAN

Coast Hwy

Transportation Center

m n

Schools

m n

Colleges Parks / Open Space

El EL C CaAMIN mi O R noEAL Re a m n

m n

Waterbody l

§ ¦ ¨

City Boundary

I-5

Supervisorial District 5

Source: OCTA

Figure 3-1

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.1.1 Co orridor A: Pacific Coa ast Highwa ay Overview w The Paciffic Coast Higghway Corrid dor runs along Pacific Coast Higghway through a combin nation of on-- and offstreet bikke facilities. The T corridorr is approxim mately 19 miles1 lon ng, with 14.1 miles of exissting bike facilities and 6.9 miles of proposed bike facilities.

Jurisdictions:

Attractions:

     

County o of Orange Laguna Beeach Dana Poinnt San Clem mente Beach citiies Museums, theaters, parkss, shopping  Dana Covve  San Clem mente Metrolink  Beach ressorts

The corriidor directly connects to OCTA Distrrict 2 and $11.55-$14.1 million passes th hrough the following f jurrisdictions: County C of Cost: Orange, Laguna L Beach h, Dana Poin nt, and San Clemente. C Itt also includdes or intersects the follo owing Caltrans facilities: f Coaast Highway 1, State Routee 133, and Intterstate 5 Freeeway. The ccorridor has direct links to o other regional r bikkeway corrridors incluuding Lagunna Canyon,, Aliso C Creek, Muirlandss/Cabot/Camiino Capistran no, San Juan Creek, and Antonio/La PPata/Pico. Figgure 3.2 illusttrates Corridor A. Leng gth of Bikeway y Facilities (Miles)

Class I Class III Class III

Existin ng

1.6

Propossed

0.8 0

Existin ng

4.6 4

Propossed

5.7 5

Existin ng

7.9 7

Propossed

0.4 0

Total Bikeway Miles M

21.0 2

Corrridor Length (m miles)

19.0

Opportunitie O es, Constra aints, and Esstimated Co osts Th he majority of the Pacifiic Coast Higghway Corrid dor is lo ocated in coasstal beach citties and attraacts avid and social bicyclists of al l levels of exxperience. W With some no otable xceptions, itss relatively flat terrain makes the corrridor ex eaasily accessiblle and ride-abble. The corrridor providees key reegional connnectivity, linkking to fivee other reggional bikeway corriddors. At maajor junction points along the co orridor, suchh as at the Interstate 5 Freeway, thee bike facility is separrated from automobile trafffic.

A major chall enge to com mpleting the corridor invvolves installing Clas s II and IIII on-street bikeways, ass the interaction bettween autom mobiles and biicyclists may deter novice cyyclists from using u the facility. The higgh number off street intersections and d segments hhaving limited rigght-of-way orr on-street paarking pose in ncreased riskss to cyclists uusing the corrridor. Estimated d construction n costs for th he Pacific Coaast Highway ccorridor including new annd updated C Class II bike laness, a new Classs I bike path along PCH in the City off Dana Point,, one bridge ccrossing, and eight major inteersection cro ossings, rangee from $11.5 to $14.1 mi llion. Adjacennt streets cann be used, suuch as Cliff Drivee and Glenneeyre Street, ass alternative routes r to usinng PCH.

Major Regional R Destinations Aside from m San Juan Creek, C parks, and beaches along the co orridor, the PPacific Coast Highway Corrridor would alsso link to th he Laguna Art Museum and a South C Coast Theatrre, Dana Cove, San Clem mente Metrolinkk Station, and beach resortts. 1

Corridor lenggth and total miles of o bikeway facilities along a corridor oft ften differ as segme nts of the corridor m may have more thaan one type of facilitty, such as both a classs I off road facility and a class II bike lanes. Total corridor leength is measured inn center line miles.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

CORRIDOR A: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY D

OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative LEGEND

LT ON

AN T O

N IO

LAGUNA HILLS

PLANNED CORRIDOR

EXISTING BIKEWAYS

Z PA

EEK

EG AT AL VI EJ O

LA N

Class III NID

IN M

ICO

Parks / Open Space

RMO

MIN

VIST A HE

SAN CLEMENTE

to C orr

CAMINO MIRA COSTA

ido r

AVE N

AVENIDA VAQUERO

IDA

Conn ectio n

District 5 Boundary

AV E

OS ST

do r

S LA

NID

RE MA

BL AS

I EH

O IN

CAMINO DE ESTRELLA

DANA POINT

rido Cor

CA M

DEL OBISPO

to n io ct ne

C on

ISL

IFIC

i orr oC nt Connectio

n to ectio

PA C

C COAS

F nn Co

PACIFI

YRE

DOHENY PARK

NNE

VI LA

N MI

City Boundary

AL IPA Z

LL HI N GLE

E Corridor E

Connection to Corridor C

CLU

SE HOU

NIGUEL

Connection to Corridor B

Transportation Center Rail

LAGUNA NIGUEL

OR ST FOR FORE

B R O A DWAY

AP ATA

O RI

COUNTY

Schools

AV E

SAN JU

HIG

AN CR

NEWPORT BEACH

Class II

EEK

LAGUNA BEACH

Class I

OVIA

PROPOSED BIKEWAYS

R SE R JU

COUNTY

Class III

Class II

IP ER

YO N

PA TA

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

CROWN VALLEY

ALIC

LAG

WO O

Class I LA

N ID

IC IF

R PA

Proposed Bikeway

COUNTY

TRABUCO CR

K EE

PASEO DE COLINAS

C PA

AVERY

AV E

ALISO VIEJO

FI E LD

OR O

EE GR

EL T

IRVINE

Existing Bikeway

OR TE

MISSION VIEJO

CABOT

LAGUNA WOODS

A LV SE

EL OR

PA C

IFIC

L DE CO

O AD

N OI

N DA

Pacific Ocean

Source: OCTA

Corridor A Bikeway Corridor Details

1.6 miles of existing Class I 4.6 miles of existing Class II 7.9 miles of existing Class III

Schools within 1/4-mile Served

Parks within 1/4-mile Served

53K

People within 1/4-mile Served (approx.)

miles

Of Total Corridor Length

$11.5-14.1

million

Estimated Project Cost

Figure 3-2

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.1.2 Co orridor B: Laguna L Ca anyon Overview w The Lagun na Canyon Corridor C runss north-south h near the west bou undary of Disstrict 5, with h the majority of the corridor running alongg State Routee 133 (Laguna Canyon Road). The corridor is approxim mately 8.8 miles m long, comprised d of mostly existing Class III bike facilities.

Jurisdictions:

Attractions:

   

Irvinee Counnty of Orange Lagunna Beach Bomm mer and Shady Canyo ons Park  Lagunna Coast Wilderrness Park  Lagunna College of Arrt and Desiggn  Downntown Laguna Beach

The corriidor directly connects to OCTA Distrrict 3, and $88.4-$10.3 millionn runs with hin the follow wing jurisdictio ons: Irvine, County C of Cost: Orange, and a Laguna Beach. B It also o intersects the t followingg Caltrans faccilities: Intersstate 405 Freeeway, State Rou ute 73, State Route 133, and a Coast Higghway 1. Thee corridor haas direct linkss to other reggional bikeway corridors c including the El Toro/Alicia T and Pacific Co oast Highway corridors. Figure 3.3 illusttrates Corridor B.

Leng gth of Bikeway y Facilities (Milles)

Class I

Class II I

Class III

Existting

0.0 0

Propo osed

0.0 0

Existting

1.0

Propo osed

6.8

Existting

7.8

Propo osed

0.0 0

Total T Bikeway y Miles

15.6 1

Op pportunitiees, Constraiints, and Estimated Co osts Th he majority o of the Lagunaa Canyon Co orridor proviides a sceenic and larrgely uninterrrupted ridinng experience for biccyclists wantinng to travel lo ong distancess. The corrido or has Claass III bike fa cilities along its full lengthh. To upgradee to a Claass II bike faacility would require maajor improvem ments succh as roadw way wideninng and consstruction of new sid dewalks, curbb, and gutterr, and signingg and stripingg. At maajor junction points, suchh as at Statee Route 73, there exists adequatee right-of-wayy to provide bbike lanes.

A challenge fo r the Lagunaa Canyon Corridor are short seggments withh grades grreater than 5%, whichh are ority of the ccorridor beingg located on State considereed more difficcult to bicyclee or walk. Also, the majo Route 13 33 and havingg a posted speed limit of o 50 MPH may pose addditional autto-related rissks to bicyclists. Co orridor Length (miles) (

8.8 8

Most of the t cost asso ociated with the Laguna Canyon Corrridor is associated with installing Class II bikeways on the segm ment between n Hwy 73 an nd Canyon A Acres Drive, w which requirres widening some segments of the roadw way. Estimated d constructio on costs for thhe Laguna Caanyon corrido or, including sstreet widening, range from $8.4 $ to $10.3 million.

Major Regional R Destinations The Laguna Canyon Corridor C wou uld link to sttate parks inncluding Bommer and Shaady Canyons Park, oast Wilderness Park, Cryystal Cove Staate Park, and the Laguna C College of Arrt and Design.. Laguna Co GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

CORRIDOR B: LAGUNA CANYON OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative 133

SAND CANYON

JEFFREY

LAKE

CREEK

ALT

IR V

ROC IN

AV E N

405 QUA

ID A

LA C

ARL

MU IR LA

MISSION VIEJO

ILL

PLANNED CORRIDOR

OTA

E OR

LAK

IL H

LEGEND

NDS

BAK

L YA

LAKE FOREST

KFIE

LOS ALISOS

ANCA

Existing Bikeway

FELIPE

BARR

D RI

Proposed Bikeway

ELS

TY SI

EXISTING BIKEWAYS Class I

ILL

GU N

LAGUNA HILLS

Class II Class III PROPOSED BIKEWAYS

Class I

LA PA

UL TO

COUNTY

T BO CA

LAGUNA WOODS

R TO

N TO

INE

GEL

NT A

OR ITT

RID

AV NT

IV UN

MICH

NCIA

DE VALE

OSO

PASEO

Class II

IRVINE

GA OR T E

RANC HO

District 5 Boundary LA

VIEJO

IP JU N

LD GO

ANYO

T OF

SE R

DC WOO

SAN

COUNTY

JUAN

NEW POR T COA

CREE

N ER

HIL

SAN MIGU

OVIA

HIL

LA N

PA TA

Parks / Open Space

City Boundary

to Corridor C

TA C NI BO

Conn e

L VAL

ction

R PA

CRO

IC IF

Rail

C PA

ALISO VIEJO

Transportation Center

AVERY

YON

Y CAN

SHAD

Schools

O CREE

TRABUC

ALISO VIEJO

PASEO DE COLINAS

ILL

T UR

Class III

ON NY CA

ALICIA

NA GU LA

LV E

NIG

NEWPORT BEACH

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

HIG

COUNTY

S RE MA MIN

V IO LA

5 NO

NNE

YRE

S LA

SAN CLEMENTE

or A

AS T

ILL

DANA POINT

IFIC

ISL

PA C

GLE

to Cor rid ection

OS OD

O AC BE

MI CA

IFIC

Conn

CLU

C PA

AST

PACIFIC CO

FOREST

B R OA D WAY

LAGUNA BEACH

DEL OBISPO

LAGUNA NIGUEL

AL IPA Z

Source: OCTA

Corridor B Bikeway Corridor Details

1 mile of existing Class II 7.8 miles of existing Class III

Schools within 1/4-mile Served

Parks within 1/4-mile Served

7.5K

People within 1/4-mile Served (approx.)

8.8

miles

Of Total Corridor Length

$8.4-10.3

million

Estimated Project Cost

Figure 3-3

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.1.3 Co orridor C: El Toro/Alicia/Laguna Canyon Overview w The El To oro/Alicia Corridor runs diagonally from m near the no orth boundary of District 5 to Laguna Beach. The T corridorr is approximately 15.3 miles long, com mprised of 0.5 miles of exissting Class I, 10 0.5 miles of existing e Class II bike facilitiies, and 4.3 m miles of Class III. The corridor c passses through h the follow wing jurisdictio ons: County of Orange, Mission Viejjo, Laguna H Hills, Laguna Woods, W Aliso Viejo, V and Lagguna Beach. It also interseects the follow wing Caltranss facilities: Intterstate 5 and d State Routte 7, and part of o the corrido or is State Hiighway 133. The T corridor has direct links to other regional bikeeway corrido ors including the ds/Cabot/Cam mino Portola/Saanta Margaritta, Aliso Creeek, Muirland Capistrano, PCH, and d Laguna Caanyon. Figure 3.4 illustraates Corridor C.

Leng gth of Bikeway y Facilities (Miiles)

Class I

Class II I

Class III

Jurisdiictions:

Attracctions:

Cost:

      

C County of Orannge A Aliso Viejo Laguna Beach Laguna Woods Laguna Hills Mission Viejo Rancho Santa Margarita

 SShopping centerrs  SSaddleback Mem morial Medical Center  Laguna Hills Higgh SSchool  Lake Mission Vieejo  SState and local pparks aand beaches $12.2-15.2 milliion

Ex xisting

0.5

Opportunit O ties, Constra raints, and E Estimated C Costs

Pro oposed

0.0

Ex xisting

10.5

Pro oposed

1.4

Ex xisting

4.3

Pro oposed

0.0

The T majorityy of the EEl Toro/Aliciia/Laguna Caanyon Corridor C is located among residentiaal and comm mercial uses u that couuld appeal to avid and cassual bicyclistss. The majority m of thhe corridor is already in place, makinng the corridor c an eestablished ro oute that willl only increaase its ridership r oncce improvem ments are mad de. The corrridor intersects or overlaps witth five other regional corrridors, expanding e its network.

Total Bikew way Miles

15.8

Corridor Lenngth (miles)

15.3

The T corridorr crosses seveeral major inttersections; a large number of o collisions have h been reccorded alongg the route. D Due to this, enhanced bikkeway featurees are recommended. The co orridor crossses five major intersectionns and Intersstate 5, and w will require sspecial treatmentts at these lo ocations. Thee segment alo ong Laguna C Canyon is narrrow with relatively high speed traffic. Currently C imp provements are a planned for the nortthbound I-5 and eastbound Alicia Parrkway on/off-ram mp including widening w the sidewalk from approximaately four feett to eight feeet and adding ADA curb ramp ps from the bridge b to the adjacent Targget driveway. Estimated d construction n costs for th he El Toro/Aliicia/Laguna C Canyon corriddor including ffreeway and major intersectio on crossing im mprovementss, range from $12.2 to $155.2 million.

Major Regional R Destinations The El To oro/Alicia/Lagguna Canyon Corridor wo ould link to sstate and loccal parks incluuding Aliso W Wood Canyons Wilderness W Park, P Lake Mission Viejo, and a the Saddleeback Memorial Medical C Center, downntown Laguna Beeach, and the adjacent beach areas.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

PL AN

D CA N YO N

CORRIDOR C: EL TORO / ALICIA / LAGUNA CANYON S FLO

RANCHO PORTOLA

Conn

ection

D or rid to Cor

N ID DA

EM PR

CO MM E

ENT

Existing Bikeway Proposed Bikeway

LAKE FOREST

SOUTHWOOD

EXISTING BIKEWAYS

BAKE

Co nn

PAS E

RR SE

CR OWN

NIP JU

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO L DE

MO ER

RES MA LOS

Parks within 1/4-mile Served

A LV

MOS

INO

HER

CAM

BL M

ISTA

RA S

Source: OCTA

50.4K 15.3

miles

People within 1/4-mile Served (approx.)

SAN CLEMENTE

Corridor C Bikeway Corridor Details

CAMINO DE ESTRELLA

ILL

ON ST

CAMINO MIRA COSTA

AVENIDA VAQUERO

DANA POINT

DOHENY PARK

ISL

BO A BAL

Schools within 1/4-mile Served

DEL OBISPO

FOREST

IFIC

LA PA TA

AVENIDA PICO

PA C

ORANGE GE EA C CO O

AVION

O DEL

CAMIN

GLE

NEY R ion to Corr idor A E Connect

VERA CR

DOVER

COAST

AL IPAZ

LAGUNA BEACH

AV EN

V IST AH

AVOC ADO

ON HI

BEAC

ID E

0.5 miles of existing Class I 10.5 miles of existing Class II 4.3 miles of existing Class III

VIA

A OS TA R

NEWPORT BEACH

LIDO

LAGUNA NIGUEL NIG

SA N

COUNTY

S LL HI

HIG

N TA

WESTCLIFF

N UI AQ JO

N SA

LA NO

COUNTY

SAN MIGUEL

SPYG LA

FA LO

RD FO

22ND

B AYS

BU F

EASTBLUFF

VA LLE Y

AT A

BIS

LA P

O CREE

VIE

TRABUC

B or

O DE C O L IN

VIE

d rri

R PA

ISO

AVERY

FIE

LAGUNA HILLS Z PA LA

n I IF

Parks / Open Space

tio

C PA

District 5 Boundary

BO NI TA

ALISO VIEJO

N YO

City Boundary

LS HIL NA GU

O O W N

LAGUNA WOODS

ON CA N Y DY SHA

MESA

LO L OS S AL ALI LIIS SO SO OS

SANTA VITTORIA

NT A

MO UL TO

Rail

LE RT TU

SAN

on C

Connection to Corridor E

CARLSON

JAMBOREE

SIT

NIV

CA M PU

Transportation Center

T BO CA

G EL I

oC nt tio ec

L IA LI LICIA ALIC

M AN VON KAR

COUNTY

R ID

orrid

VA L

COUNTY or F

FELIPE

LAG MICHELSO

PA SE O

TA LE GA

I L QUAIL H L

Schools

OTA

CRE

ARL

Class III

OSO

JUAN

LA C

C RE E K

YALE

ITE

IDA

GUER

KFIE

AVE N

IRVINE

Class I MAR

ROC

PROPOSED BIKEWAYS

Class II Conn ectio n

BARRANCA

LAKE

EL TO

R ID G

I MO

Corridor E ction to nne Corridor F

CULVER

JERON

RED HILL

MUIRLANDS

E RO UTE

ST RE FO KE LA

HARVARD

ON G ARMSTR

IRVINE CE N TE R

405

Class III

TECHNOLOGY

Class II

TOLEDO

VALEN CIA

TO AL

MISSION VIEJO

TON

JEFFREY

WAL NU T

SAND CAN YON

SYCAMORE

Class I

D P IA

TRABUC

YM OL

ORTE

133

TUSTIN

16TH

IDA V

REAL

PLANNED CORRIDOR ES

AVEN

BRYA N

EASTWOOD

WESTWOOD

BROWNING

NORTHW OOD

EL CAMINO

LEGEND

IR VINE

BIRCH

AV E

TA IT GAR MAR

TA SAN

ALMA ALDEA

D OO

W M E A DO

LIN

TUSTIN RANCH

B OR

CITRUSGLEN

CAN YON WOO

N EW P ORT HO

OLD IRVINE

LA PROMESA

241 261

D E PA

IDA D

E LA

AL A S

AVEN

H NC

RES

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA

OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative

TUSTIN

COUNTY

Of Total Corridor Length

$12.2-15.2

million

Estimated Project Cost

Figure 3-4

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.1.4 Co orridor D: Portola/Sa anta Marga arita Overview w The Porto ola/Santa Marrgarita Corrid dor runs diaggonal near the north boundary of District 5. The co orridor is approximately 6.7 miles long, with h 6.5 miles of o existing Class II biike lanes and 0.6 miles of proposed Cllass I bike paths.

Jurisdictions:

 Lake Forest  Missio on Viejo  Ranchho Santa Margarrita

Attractions:

 Shoppping centers  Emplo oyment centers  Elemeentary and High Schoo ols  State and local parks

$6.5-$8.0 million The corriidor directly connects to Supervisoriaal District Cost: 3, Lake Forest, Misssion Viejo, and Ranch ho Santa Margarita, and interseects State Ro oute 241. Th he corridor hhas direct linnks to otherr regional bikkeway corridors including thee Aliso Creekk, El Toro/Alicia/Laguna C Canyon, and A Antonio/La Paata/Pico corrridors. Figure 3.5 5 illustrates Corridor C D.

Leng gth of Bikeway y Facilities (Miiles)

Class I

Class II

Class IIII

Existting

0.0

Propo osed

0.6

Existting

6.5

Propo osed

0.0

Existting

0.0

Propo osed

0.0

Total Bikewa ay Miles

7.1

Corridor Lengtth (miles)

6.7

Opportunit O ties, Constra raints, and E Estimated C Costs Corridor C D covers majo or residentiaal and comm mercial areas a in the nnorthern porrtions of Disttrict 5. Thiss is an appealing a asppect of thiss corridor aand could aattract commuter c annd recreationnal riders. C Class II bike lanes already a existt along a m majority of tthe corridor with connections c to eleven intersections with existinng or proposed p bikkeway facilitiess, providing m many links forr local cyclists. c Thee corridor inttersects or overlaps with three other o regionaal corridors, eexpanding its network.

A majority off the street ssegments havee high speed limits and Classs II bike laness, thus many bicyclists mayy not feel co omfortable orr safe riding nnext to high speed traffic. The T corridor also crosses the State Ro oute 241 freeeway with Cllass II bike laanes provided d; this may deterr some riderss and require special impro ovements. Estimated d constructio on costs for the Portola//Santa Margaarita corridor including m major interseection crossing improvements, range from m $6.5 to $8.0 0 million.

Major Regional R Destinations The Porto ola/Santa Margarita Corridor would link to state aand local parrks, Aliso Crreek Trail, Seerrano Creek Trail, Trabuco Hills H High Sch hool, and Tijeeras Creek Eleementary Schhool.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

CORRIDOR D: PORTOLA / SANTA MARGARITA OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative

PL O

LEGEND PLANNED CORRIDOR Existing Bikeway

COUNTY

Proposed Bikeway

AS F

DE L

NC RA

Class I Class II

AVE N

IDA

EXISTING BIKEWAYS

AN T O

N IO

LOR

COUNTY

PO RT

ALMA ALDEA

Class III

241

OLA

LA PROMESA

PROPOSED BIKEWAYS Class I Class II

241

Class III Schools Transportation Center

LIN

RANC

tEoL TC OR oOr rid or

rH oC or rid o

Parks / Open Space

COUNTY

EST

LAK

MARUERITE

IRVINE

District 5 Boundary

ANT ONIO

MISSION VIEJO

BA NT

AVENIDA DE LAS BANDERAS

Conn ectio n

ON ALT

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA

Conn ectio nt

ITA

to Corridor C

GA R

Co nn ect i

City Boundary

TA M

LOS ALISOS

ORANGE CO

N ID

SA N

Rail

E AV

LAKE FOREST

241 IR VI NE

COUNTY

AL TR AB UC O

Source: OCTA

Corridor D Bikeway Corridor Details 6.5 miles of existing Class II

Schools within 1/4-mile Served

Parks within 1/4-mile Served

26.7K

People within 1/4-mile Served (approx.)

6.7

miles

Of Total Corridor Length

$6.5-8.0

million

Estimated Project Cost

Figure 3-5

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.1.5 Co orridor E: Aliso A Creek Corridorr Overview w The Aliso o Creek Corrridor runs north-south n from the north bou undary of Diistrict 5 to Pacific P Coast Highway. The corriidor is approx ximately 20.3 3 miles long, with 13.5 miles of existing Classs I bike paaths and 2.0 miles of C II bike laanes. existing Class District 3 The corridor directly connects c to Supervisorial S and runs within the following jurrisdictions: County C of Orange, Lake Forestt, Mission Viejo, V Laguna Woods, H Aliso Viejo, V Lagunaa Niguel, and Laguna Laguna Hills, Beach. Itt also interseccts the follow wing Caltranss facilities: State Rou ute 133 and 241, 2 Interstatee 5, and Statee Route I. The corriidor has direect links to other o regional bikeway corridors including the Porttola/Santa Margarita, M Muirlandss/Cabot/Camiino Capistran no, El Toro/A Alicia, Oso Parkway, and Pacific Coast C Highwayy corridors. Figure F 3.6 illustratess Corridor E. Len ngth of Bikewa ay Facilities (M Miles) Class I

Class II

Class IIII

Existting

13.5

Propo osed

6.3

Existting

2.0

Propo osed

0.0

Existting

0.0

Propo osed

0.0

Total Bikewa ay Miles

21.8

Corridor Lengtth (miles)

20.3

Jurisdictions:

       

Attractions:

 Shoppping centers  Emplo oyment centers  Elemeentary and High Schoo ols  State and local parks  Beachh

Cost:

Counnty of Orange Lake Forest Missio on Viejo Lagunna Woods Lagunna Hills Aliso Viejo Lagunna Niguel Lagunna Beach

$88.2-$10.0million

Opportunitie O es, Constrain nts, and Estiimated Costss Corridor C E covers majo or residential and comm mercial areas a with acccess to scho ools and locaal and state parks. This T corridorr is largely co omprised of exxisting Class I bike paths, p which is an appealiing aspect off the corrido or and attracts a numeerous users every day. Class I bike paths exist e along a majority of the corridorr with connecctions to t several iintersections with existting or propposed bikeway b facillities, providding additional links for local cyclists. c Thee corridor inntersects or overlaps with five other o regionnal corridorss, expanding its networkk and choice c of rouutes. The corrridor also crrosses State R Route 241 2 and 73 frreeways, alongg with the Intterstate 5 freeeway, all a providing C Class I facilitiees traveling uunder the freeeway.

As outlineed in the Straategy, the co orridor conneects through Aliso and W Wood Canyons Wildernesss Park with a Claass 1 connecttion to Aliso Beach Countty Park. How wever, at the present time the lower po ortion of Aliso Creek C Canyon is privately owned by vaarious landow wners and ho osts a nine-ho ole golf coursse and small hoteel. Due to th he narrownesss of the canyyon and propeerty easemennt issue, a wayy to accommodate both the golf g course an nd the bike co orridor has not n been reso olved. Estimated d construction costs for the Aliso Crreek corrido or including ggrading/retainning walls and the constructtion of propossed Class I facilities, range from $8.2 to o $10.0 millio on. Major Re egional Desttinations The Aliso o Creek Corridor links to o state and lo ocal parks, LLaguna Hills C Community C Center and SSports Complex,, Aliso Viejo Middle M Schoo ol, Aliso Nigueel High Schoo ol, and Woodd Canyon Elem mentary Scho ool.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

CORRIDOR E: ALISO CREEK OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative S

VI EW

ORANGE

CA NY

SANTIA

OD WO

D PORT OLA

ERC

ENT

Class III PROPOSED BIKEWAYS

NT AA

P IA

BAKE

ISOS

EL TO

E RO R ID G

to n io ct

HIL

on ne

AR M

SANTA VITTORIA

D O O W N

ALISO VIEJO

A RR SE O ER JU

NIP

VAL LEY

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

SAN

CR OWN

EL D

O RI

ERM

TA H

RES MA INO CAM

AS BL M RA S LA O IN M

L HIL

ON ST

A LV

CAMINO DE ESTRELLA

DOHENY PARK

ISL

CAMINO MIRA COSTA

PA TA

SAN CLEMENTE AVENIDA PICO

IFIC

to C orrid or A

DANA POINT

AVENIDA VAQUERO

PA C

Conne ction

BOA B AL

DEL OBISPO

FOREST

ND 32

DEL AV

ER NT

ION

CAMINO

GLE NNE YRE

VERA CR

LOS

AL IPA

HILL

LAGUNA BEACH

AV EN ID

OS A

NIG

A OS NT AR SA

N CA

IT A BO N

EASTBLUFF

FA IR

DOVER

SUPERIOR

O CREE

PIS

ORANGE CO

VIA LIDO

BEAC

COAST

PA TA

L A NO VIA

MIN

NEWPORT BEACH

S ID E B AY

L ITA SP

LAGUNA NIGUEL

T OR

AVOC ADO

WP NE

TIA

16TH

N UI AQ JO

COUNTY

N SA

COUNTY

S LL HI

HIG

WESTCLIFF

PACIFIC COAST

TRABUC

L HI L

N TA

T 19

HUNTINGTON BEACH

VIE

R IA

SPYG LA

SAN MIGU

ILS

AIR

ALO BU FF

BIS

RD FO

22ND

VIC

ME E

O DE COL IN

ER D

P AS E

R PA

AVERY LD

JO IC IF

FIE

VIE C PA

ion

ISO

N YO

ect

Z PA

nn Co

ON CANY DY

LAG AG LAGUNA HILLS

TA LE G

DEL MAR

M DA

BIRCH

MESA

Parks / Open Space

O GT

V IE IR FA

L IN

SHA

COSTA MESA AR

o C

rri d

LE RT TU

AC M

UL TO

T AS

o nt tio ec nn

SU PU S

CARLSON

JAMBOREE

LAGUNA WOODS

ITY

CA M

District 5 Boundary

T BO CA

COUNTY

VA L

rF 5 rido Cor

C ALIC ALICIA

MAN VON KAR

KA KIO

R IN

ID G EL I

NT A

PA SE O

ITT

MICHELSO N

Corridor C

City Boundary COUNTY FELIP

IRVINE LAG

U PA

OTA

LAKE

ARL

405

LA C

CREE

CULVE R YALE

N SU

LL QUAIL HI

Rail

OSO

ITE

OW FL

IDA

Transportation Center GUER

D LA

KFIE

AVE N

Schools

C MAR

L HA

RED HILL

CREEK

ROC N

TO AL

ER OW FL

IMO

Con nec tion to Corri dor F

BARRANCA

JERON

r Connection to Cor idor C

MUIRLANDS DS S

LOS AL

ST RE FO KE LA

HARVA RD

ARMSTR

IR VIN E C E N TE R

ER DY

U TE

SAND CANY ON

JEFFREY

TECHNOLOGY

AN ST

VALENC IA

Class III

N TO

Class II

TOLEDO

SANTA ANA AR W

MISSION VIEJO

Class I

YM OL

AN N

JUAN

WAL N UT

GR DE

ORTE

BU AD CF

TRABUC

V IS

R PA

133 O

Class II

LAKE FOREST

SOUTHWOOD

SYCAMORE

TUSTIN

MOSA

O IL L T

Class I PR

STA HER

IDA VI

BRYAN REAL

EASTWO OD

WESTWOOD

BROWNING

NORT HWOO

EL CAMINO

N ID

IR VIN E

ME S

A TA T ARIT ARG TA M SAN

EXISTING BIKEWAYS

LIN

Corr idor

AV E

Proposed Bikeway

Co RANCHO

OLD IRVIN E

Existing Bikeway

ALMA ALDEA

B OR

MEADO

CITRUSGLEN

OOD CANY ONW

n ctio

A NT

261

DE PA

LA PROMESA

241 n ne

A CL

TUSTIN RANCH

NE W P ORT

H UT

FLORE

I FA

IAG

N RA

AVEN

S WE HE

TUSTIN

AL AS

LAS

N VE HA

H OT

ILL

SA NT

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA

IDA DE

COUNTY

PLANNED CORRIDOR

AVEN

FO R D CA N Y ON

RIN

C R AW

LEGEND

GO CA N YO N

241

NNON CA

VILLA PARK

Source: OCTA

Corridor E Bikeway Corridor Details 13.5 miles of existing Class I 2 miles of existing Class II

Schools within 1/4-mile Served

Parks within 1/4-mile Served

57.2K 20.2

miles

People within 1/4-mile Served (approx.)

Of Total Corridor Length

$8.2-10.0

million

Estimated Project Cost

Figure 3-6

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.1.6 Co orridor F: Muirlands/C M Cabot/Cam mino Capisstrano Overview w The Mu uirlands/Cabo ot/Camino Capistrano Corridor runs diagonallyy north – so outh starting at the nortthern boundaary of District 5 adjacent to Irvine and so outh to Paciffic Coast Higghway. The corriidor is approximately 17.9 9 miles long, including 4.4 miles of existing Class I bikke paths, 6.5 miles of exiisting Class I I bike lanes, and d 2.6 miles off proposed Class C I bike paaths. The corrridor connects to Superviso orial District 3 on the no orth end, to PPacific t I-5 Freew way at Coast Higghway on thee south end, and crosses the multiple lo ocations. Thee corridor haas direct linkss to other reegional bikeway corridors c including the Alliso Creek, El E Toro/Aliciaa, Oso Parkway, San Juan Crreek, and Paccific Coast Highway H corrridors. Figure 3.7 7 illustrates Corridor C F.

Jurissdictions:

Attrractions:

Cosst:

         

Lake Forest Mission Viejo Laguna Woodss Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel San Juan Capisttrano Dana Point Shopping centeers Employment ceenters Elementary and d High Schools  State and local parks $77.4-$9.0 million

Oppo ortunities, C Constraints, a and Estimate ed Costs Corriidor F coverss a major porrtion of Distrrict 5 and pro ovides Existting 4.4 conne ections to some of t the densest t residential and Class I Propo osed 2.6 comm mercial areas in south Orrange Countyy. It parallels the Existting 6.5 Metrolink staations. Metro olink rail corrridor with acccess to two M Class III Propo osed 1.5 A larg ge portion o or is already in place, providing f the corrido Existting 1.6 Class III Class I bike paths and Class II b bike lanes alo ong the majorrity of Propo osed 2.0 the corridor. c It provides m many connec ctions to seeveral Total Bikewa ay Miles 18 8.6 interssections withh existing or proposed bikeway faccilities. Corridor Lengtth (miles) 17 7.9 The corridor c inteersects or ovverlaps with ffive other reggional corridors, expanding itts network. The T corridor crosses the IInterstate 5 frreeway at thrree locations along the entiree corridor. There T are many significantt constraints for this corrridor: (1) cro ossing the I-5 at La Paz Road, (2) using th he LOSSAN railroad r rightt-of-way alongg Camino Caapistrano, souuth of the M Mission Viejo Mettrolink station n, and (3) con nnection from m San Juan Crreek to the C Coast Highwayy, and others. Length h of Bikeway Facilities F (Mile es)

At La Pazz Road, Muirlaands Boulevard (on the no orth side of I -5) and Cabo ot Road (on tthe south sidee of I5) are sep parated by on nly a few hun ndred yards. However, tthe connectio on currently rrequires navigating the I-5 un ndercrossing of o La Paz Roaad, which has very high traaffic volumes. To avoid thhis difficult cro ossing an alternaate route hass been propo osed that wo ould go southh on Los Alisos Boulevarrd, connect tto the Aliso Creeek Bikeway to cross und der the I-5, with w a conneection to Passeo De Valenncia, then baack to Cabot Ro oad. This mo ore circuitous route adds about a 1.5 mil es and severaal hills to thee corridor. D During the feasib bility phase other o alternattives will be examined inncluding (1) iimprovementts to LaPaz aat the freeway on/off o ramps and (2) adding a Class 1 facility adjaacent to the railroad righht-of-way bettween Muirlandss Boulevard and Cabot Road at La Paz Road. Right--of-way issuess on Camino Capistrano w will be reviewed during the t feasibiliity study phase. Esttimated co onstruction costs for the Muirlandss/Cabot/Camiino Capistran no corridor, including majo or intersectio on crossing im mprovementss, new Class I bikke path facilities, and impro ovements to Class II bikew ways, range frrom $7.4 to $ $9.0 million. Major Re egional Desttinations The Muirrlands/Cabot/C Camino Capiistrano corrid dor would linnk state and local parks, Aliso Creek Trail, Los Alisoss Intermediatte School, Ralph A. Gates Elementary SSchool, Lagunna Hills Comm munity Centeer and Sports Co omplex, Valencia Elementtary School, Laguna L Nigueel/Mission Vieejo Metrolinkk Station, Sann Juan Capistrano Metrolink Station, S San Ju uan Hills Golff Club, and Paalisades Elem mentary Schoo ol.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

CORRIDOR F: MUIRLANDS / CABOT / CAMINO CAPISTRANO NIMO

To Corridor E

261

ROC KF

IELD

405

LA C

AR L OTA

ILL QUAIL H

AR M

A NC I

ILL S

ALE DE V

NA H

Connection to Corridor E

LE NW

O O

LAGUNA WOODS

IRVINE

MO UL TO N

PASE O

ILL

Transportation Center RE D

City Boundary HO NC RA

Parks / Open Space

RE OF TH

EG A

TA L LOS

LA MB RA

SAN CLEMENTE

Connection to Corridor A

CAM C AMINO I DE EST

RELLA L UE

A LV SE

C COAS

MI NO

MI RA

ID A

PA TA

CR UZ

ST A

PACIFI

ON ST

AV EN

ILL EH

Y PARK

DANA POINT

DOHEN

AV EN ID A VAQ U

ISL AN

S LA

E PA CIF IC

ER CAMINO V A CRUZ

CA MI NO

ST INO CAM EY R

VION EL A

CA MI NO

DEL OBISP

RE GL EN N

ion

HOUS E

BROADWAY

N HILL ACO BE

AVENIDA PICO

UB CL

LAGUNA BEACH

AR I M

ALIPAZ

LAGUNA NIGUEL

COAST

to C orridor I

COUNTY

ND HLA HI G

SS HILL

COUNTY NEWPORT BEACH

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

HER MO S

VIST A

HER MO SA

AVENIDA VISTA

MAR ES

JUAN

A YGL SP

NEWPORT COA

CROWN

VIA

CRE

I LA NO

SAN

CA NY

VALLEY

WO OD

District 5 Boundary PA TA

SAN

CREEK

JO VIE

TRABUCO

L CO PA S EO DE

O EJ

R PA

IN QU J OA

Rail

AVERY

K EE

LL HI

Class III Schools

VI I

Class II A

ISO AL C PA

C FI

Class I

LAGUNA HILLS

K ROC

CULVER

A SH

PROPOSED BIKEWAYS

EG ORT

ALISO VIEJO

Class III COUNTY

73 ANYO DY C

Class II

C to

Co n nect

LE RT TU

tio ec nn

Class I

T BO CA

ALICIA A

DG EL IN E

ON NY CA

Conn ection to Corridor C

NT A

NA GU

SANTA VITTORIA

Y IT RS VE

EXISTING BIKEWAYS ONIO ANT

ELSON MICH

Proposed Bikeway

G IPE FEL

T OU

MISSION VIEJO

Existing Bikeway

or rid or

IDA

LA PAZ

AVE N

F KE

C idor Connection to Corr

ALTON

I UN

PLANNED CORRIDOR

SAND CANYON

JEFFREY

NC A

LEGEND TE UERI

YAL E

LAKE FOREST

G MAR

RA BAR

MUIRLANDS

L O S AL

JERO

IRVINE CENTER

ISOS

OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative

EL CAMI NO REAL

Source: OCTA

Corridor F Bikeway Corridor Details 4.4 miles of existing Class I 6.5 miles of existing Class II 1.6 miles of existing Class III

Schools within 1/4-mile Served

Parks within 1/4-mile Served

62.6K 17.9

miles

People within 1/4-mile Served (approx.)

Of Total Corridor Length

$7.4-9.0

million

Estimated Project Cost

Figure 3-7

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.1.7 Co orridor G: Oso Parkw way         

Overview w

Aliso Viejo Lagunna Niguel Lagunna Hills Missio on Viejo Ranchho Santa Margarrita Counnty of Orange Shoppping centers Middle and High Scho ools State and local parks

The Oso Parkway Corridor runs east-west e from east of Jurisdictions: Aliso Creeek Road to South Bend Road/Coto De Caza Drive. The T corridorr is approxim mately 8.9 miles m long, with 1.7 miles m of existing Class I bike paths and 8.8 miles Attractions: of existin ng Class II bike b lanes. The T corridorr directly connects to Aliso Viiejo, Laguna Niguel, Lagu una Hills, $5.5-$6.8 million Mission Viejo, Ranch ho Santa Margarita, M Co ounty of Cost: Orange, and a intersectss State Routee 73 and the Interstate 5 freewayy. The corrido or has directt links to otheer regional b ikeway corriddors including the Aliso C Creek, Muirlandss/Cabot, and Antonio/La A Pata/Pico corrridors. Figure 3.8 illustrates Corridor G G.

Len ngth of Bikewa ay Facilities (M Miles)

Opportuniities, Constrraints, and Estimated Costs

Corridor G covers majorr residential aareas in the central portion of D District 5. Thhe entire corrridor is alreaady in Prop posed 0.0 place providding Class II bike lanes allong a majorrity of Exissting 8.8 the corridorr with conneections to approximately seven Class II I Prop posed 0.0 intersectionss with exissting or proposed bikkeway Exissting facilities, pro oviding manyy links for lo ocal cyclists. The 0.0 Class III corridor in tersects or overlaps w with three other Prop posed 0.0 regional cor rridors, expan nding its netw work. Becausse the Total Bikew way Miles 10.5 corridor haas some segm ments with an average slope Corridor Lenggth (miles) 8.9 greater than 5%, some cyyclists may no ot feel comfortable or willing to ride alongg portions of this corridorr. The corriddor also crossses the State Route 73 and 241 freeways along with the t Interstatee 5 freeway with w Class II bike lanes pprovided; thiss may deter some riders and d special imprrovements are needed. Class I

Exissting

1.7

Estimated d construction costs for the t Oso Parkkway corrido or including uupgrading Claass II bike lannes to separated d bikeway facilities, range from $5.5 to $6.8 $ million.

Major Regional R Destinations The Oso Parkway corrridor connectts state and local parks, A Aliso Creek Trail, Mission V Viejo Golf Co ourse, Serrano Creek C Trail, Las L Flores Mid ddle School, Tesoro T High School, and W Wagon Wheeel Sports Parkk.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

CORRIDOR G: OSO PARKWAY OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative IR

LEGEND

241

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA

OLY

TRA

MPIA

BUC

PLANNED CORRIDOR

Existing Bikeway

TOLEDO

UTE

ALT

Proposed Bikeway EXISTING BIKEWAYS

IS OS

RIDG

E RO

LAKE FOREST

Class II

LOS AL

BAKE

BARRANCA

Class I

NIMO

JERO

Class III

Connectio

LA K E

F OR

MISSION VIEJO MUIR

LAN

OSO

PROPOSED BIKEWAYS

r ido orr n to C

EST

IRVINE

Class I Class II

ROC

LD FELIPE

IRVINE CENTE

Class III

KFIE

AV EN

ID A

LA C

AR LO

Schools

Transportation Center

Rail City Boundary

NT A

Parks / Open Space

VA L

District 5 Boundary

ON ANT

PA S

ALICIA

COUNTY

LA PA Z

TT OR

CIA

ALL NV

HIL

id rr

NT A

n tio ec nn Co

LAGUNA HILLS

LAGUNA WOODS

UL TO

ORTE

EEK

O CR

ALIS

EK NC

TA PA

UA NJ

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

V IE

TRABUCO CREEK

IST

IC IF

C PA

MIN

COUNTY

PASEO DE COLINAS

LAGUNA NIGUEL

ALISO VIEJO

AVERY

IEL

LAGUNA BEACH

o rid Connection to Cor

Source: OCTA

Corridor G Bikeway Corridor Details 1.7 miles of existing Class I 8.8 miles of existing Class II

Schools within 1/4-mile Served

Parks within 1/4-mile Served

22.4K

People within 1/4-mile Served (approx.)

8.9

miles

Of Total Corridor Length

$5.5-6.8

million

Estimated Project Cost

Figure 3-8

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.1.8 Co orridor H: Antonio/La a Pata/Pico o Overview w

      

Ranchho Santa Margarrita Counnty of Orange San Juuan Capistrano San C Clemente Shoppping centers Emplo oyment centers Elemeentary, Middle annd High Schools  State and local parks $11.1-$13.5 millionn

The Anto onio/La Pata/P Pico Corridor runs diagon nally from Jurisdictions: near the north bound dary of Distrrict 5 to Paciific Coast Highway. The corrido or is approximately 18 miles m long, with 13 miles m of existing Class II biike lanes and 1 mile of Attractions: existing Class I bikke paths. The corridorr directly connects to Rancho Santa Margaritta, County of Orange, Cost: San Juan Capistrano, and San Clemente, and intersects i State Rou ute 241. Thee corridor has h direct lin nks to otherr regional bikkeway corrid dors includinng the Portola/Saanta Margaritta, Oso Parkw way, San Juan n Creek, and Pacific Coastt Highway co orridors. Figurre 3.9 illustratess Corridor H.. Leng gth of Bikeway y Facilities (Milles)

Op pportunitiees, Constraiints, and Esttimated Co osts

Co orridor H covvers major reesidential and d commercial areas in the eastern portions of D District 5. A major portiion of thee corridor is already in plaace providingg Class II bikee lanes witth connectio ns to approxximately ten intersectionss with existing or pro oposed bikeway facilitiess, providing many links for local bicyclists. T The corridor also interseccts or Corridor Lenggth (miles) 18.0 overlaps with thhree other reegional corrid dors, expanding its urb width witth high trafficc demand. A An opportunnity to network. Avenida Picco has limited curb to cu utilize thee flood channeel parallel to Avenida Pico o to create a C Class I bike laane has been explored. Exissting Prop posed Exissting Class II I Prop posed Exissting Class III Prop posed Total Bikew way Miles Class I

1.0 0.2 13.0 3.5 0.5 0.0 18.2

The corridor is relatively flat with h only two segments s havving an averaage slope of 5% or higheer. A segment of o the corrido or is missing and needs inffrastructure tto complete tthe corridor. The corrido or also crosses the t State Route 241 freeeway with Class C II bike lanes providded. The otther challengge for Corridor H is the high h speed and high volume arrterial roadw way. Estimated d construction n costs for th he Antonio/Laa Pata/Pico co orridor includding major inttersection cro ossing improvem ments, improvving the existting Class II bike lanes, aand the new Class I bike paths, range from $11.1 to $13.5 $ million..

Major Regional R Destinations The Anto onio/La Pata//Pico corrido or provides connection to state and local parkks, Trabuco Mesa Elementarry School, Santa Margaritaa Catholic High School, R Rancho Santa Margarita Inttermediate Scchool, Tijeras Crreek Elementtary School, Las L Flores Middle School, Rancho Misssion Viejo Ho orse Park, Sann Juan Hills High h School, Vissta Hermosaa Sports Parkk, San Clem mente High SSchool, and tthe San Clem mente Metrolinkk Station.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

CORRIDOR H: ANTONIO / LA PATA / PICO OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative PL

LEGEND

DE LAS FL OR ES

PORTOLA

HI GU

MO U

G or or rid

orridor I

to C O

EJ O

EG A

TA L

5 Q

L A PATA

A P IC O

AVEN ID

IDA V IS

K PAR

A LV SE

ID A

ENY

COAS

TA HE

R AM B LA

DOH

ILL EH ON ST

AV EN

DANA POINT

Y LE PACIF IC

S LA

O MIN CA

AVION DEL

CRUZ

RMOS

CAMINO VERA

AVEN

NHILL

ID A

A VISTA H

ERM

OS A

DE L

OUSE

L VA

I R

HIL

RI NA

UB H CL

SAN CLEMENTE

IPA Z

A M

OW CR

ST RE

GLE NN EY R

BE A

M N SA

LAGUNA BEACH

NIG U

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

DEL OBISPO

AVOCADO

NEWPORT BEACH

OVIA

COUNTY

DS AN HL HIG

SHILL

COUNTY

COAS

LA N

LAGUNA NIGUEL

PA TA

RA NC H

CA NY O N

UANonnec CRE tion EK

OO D

SA NJ

PA CI F W

N E W P O R T C O AS T

O NY CA

R UE

IN A

BO NIT AC AN YO N

O EJ

TRABUCO CREEK

O D E CO L

O IS AL

AVERY

RK PA

LIS

E BAYSID

BO BAL

73 IC

PA SE

NYON

A UN LAG

U L

LAGUNA HILLS

PA CIFIC ISLAND

M CA

CK RO

EASTBLUF F

LA PA

S PU

GL E

NW O

CARLSON

LE RT

JAMBOREE

BE OAQU IN HI LLS

BO CA

Parks / Open Space

ALICIA

SA NT A

M A

District 5 Boundary

A CI EN

VITTORIA

A RI

ALISO VIEJO

BIS

SAN J

ME LIN DA

City Boundary

Y CA

SP YG L

Rail

VA L

LT ON

SHAD

Transportation Center COUNTY

G PASEO DE

LAGUNA WOODS

Schools

OTA

TA SAN

INE

Class III

RIDG E

CREEK

LAKE

SOS

SAND CANYON

CULVER

ROU

HARVARD

LOS ALI

WESTW

JEFFREY

BAKE

ARL

GA TE OR

IRVINE

RO C KFIE LD IDA DE LA C

Class II

ction Conne

OSO

AVE N

QUAIL HILL

JERON IMO

E ERIT RGU

RID GE L

MISSION VIEJO

FELIP

NDS

S RE

MAIN

PROPOSED BIKEWAYS Class I

O ONI AN T

MUIRLA

Class III

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA

BARRANC

R TH

Class I

BUC

OGY

405

RD FO

EXISTING BIKEWAYS

TRA

TOLED O

IRVINE CEN TE R

YALE

M AC A

EM PR E

D PIA YM OL

WARNER

Connect ion to Corridor D

LAKE FOREST

TECHNO L

Proposed Bikeway

Class II

EL TO RO

OOD

TUSTIN RANCH

EASTWOOD

WALNUT

ID A

IRVINE

EDINGER

MICHELS

Existing Bikeway

AV EN

A GARIT M AR

A NT SA

133

ALTON

ALMA ALDEA

241 RANCHO

TUSTIN

BRYAN

PLANNED CORRIDOR

DA ENI AV

GL EN N

261

OOD ORW ARB WOOD MEADO

NC RA

241

EL CAM INO

rido Connectio to Cor n

RE AL

Source: OCTA

Corridor H Bikeway Corridor Details 1 mile of existing Class I 13 miles of existing Class II 0.5 miles of existing Class III

Schools within 1/4-mile Served

Parks within 1/4-mile Served

40.8K

People within 1/4-mile Served (approx.)

miles

Of Total Corridor Length

$11.1-13.5

million

Estimated Project Cost

Figure 3-9

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.1.9 Co orridor I: San S Juan Crreek Overview w

Jurisdictions:

     

Lake Forest Missio on Viejo Ranchho Santa Margarrita Shoppping centers Emplo oyment centers Elemeentary and High Schoo ols  State and local parks

The San Juan Creekk Corridor runs diagonaally from Antonio Parkway justt north of Saan Juan Capisstrano to Doheny State beach in Dana Po oint. The co orridor is Attractions: approximately 8.6 milees long, com mprised of 5.8 8 miles of existing Class C I bike paths and 2.8 2 miles of proposed Class I bikke paths. Thee corridor co onnects to the County Cost: $3.8-$4.6 million of Orangge, San Juan Capistrano, Dana Po oint, and intersectss the Interstate 5 freewaay. The corrridor also haas direct links to other regional bikkeway corridors including th he Antonio/Laa Pata/Pico, Muirlands/Caabot, and Paccific Coast H Highway corrridors. Figure 3.10 illustrates Corridor C I. Length of Bikewa ay Facilities (M Miles)

Opportunit O ties, Constra aints, and E Estimated C Costs

Corridor C I provides connections to resideential, and recreattional areas in the souuthern commercial, c portions p of D District 5. Thhis corridor consists of C Class I bike b paths alo ong the majorrity of the co orridor, whichh is an appealing a asp ect of this co orridor and attracts numerous users u every dday. The majjority of the ccorridor is allready in place, provviding Class I bike lanes aalong a majorrity of the corrid dor with con nnections to four streets with existin g or proposed bikeway ffacilities, providing access to local and reegional bicyclists. The co orridor interssects or overrlaps with thrree other reggional corridors, expanding its network. Because thee corridor is completely off-street without interseection crossings or travel alongside vehiclees, many bicyyclists will feeel more comfo fortable or saafe riding alonng this corridor. The corrido or also crossees under the Interstate 5 Freeway. T There is an oppportunity to o pave the south h/east bank of o the trail and connect to t the new developmentt area of thee City of Sann Juan Capistrano. Existting Class I Propo osed Existting Class III Propo osed Existting Class III Propo osed Total Bikewa ay Miles Corridor Lengtth (miles)

5.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 8.6

Estimated d construction costs for the San Juan n Creek corrridor includinng major intersection cro ossing improvem ments, new Class C I bike paaths, and a new pedestriaan/bicycle briddge where Saan Juan Creeek and Trabuco Creek C meet, providing acccess to the east e side of thhe San Juan C Creek, range from $3.8 to o $4.6 million.

Major Regional R Destinations The San Juan J Creek Corridor C wo ould provide connections and access to state and local parks, Saint Margaret’s Episcopal School, S City of San Juan Capistrano C C City Hall, andd Doheny Staate Beach in Dana Point.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

CORRIDOR I: SAN JUAN CREEK OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative H

IO e ON onn

MISSION VIEJO

PLANNED CORRIDOR

cti

Existing Bikeway

rr Co

idor

Proposed Bikeway EXISTING BIKEWAYS

ORT

PASEO DE COLINAS

EGA

IEL

COUNTY

TRAB

Class I LA PA TA

UCO

Class II

CRE

LA PA

Class III

CREE

O VIE

AVERY

LTO N

ALISO

ALIS

MOU

PAC

73 IFIC PAR K

LEGEND

T AN

LAGUNA HILLS

PROPOSED BIKEWAYS ST RE

Class I

RR SE

ER N

OVIA

Rail

SAN

City Boundary O

NID

Cor rido

BEACON HILL

CLU

DEL OBISPO

S HOU

SAN CLEMENTE

NIG UEL

S LA

COA

DANA POINT

ILL

Con

A LV SE

PA C

IFIC

AS T

T IN

R LP

nect

ion

to C

orridor A

CAMINO MIRA COSTA

VISTA

AVEN IDA VAQU ERO

DOHENY PARK

PAC IFIC ISLAND

CAMINO DE ESTRELLA

MIN

AV IO

HERM

OSA

LAGUNA BEACH

PATA

AV E

tio

AVENIDA LA

ICO

AL IPA Z

Co nne c

Parks / Open Space

d rri

CROW

District 5 Boundary

to Co

N VALL EY

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

H IG

ct io

C on ne

A HILL

MARIN

Transportation Center

JUAN

TA H

COUNTY

Schools

CRE

LAGUNA NIGUEL

Class III

LA N

VIS

N NYO

TA L

D CA

Class II

WOO

ALISO VIEJO

EL C

AMIN

O RE

R O RB HA

Source: OCTA

Corridor I Bikeway Corridor Details 5.8 miles of existing Class I

Schools within 1/4-mile Served

Parks within 1/4-mile Served

18.2K

People within 1/4-mile Served (approx.)

8.6

miles

Of Total Corridor Length

$3.8-4.6

million

Estimated Project Cost

Figure 3-10

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.2 Evaluation and d Ranking 3.2.1 Crriteria and Weighting g Each of the t proposed d regional bikeway corrid dors were evvaluated baseed on criterria consistentt with District 5 goals and ob bjectives. Usin ng the Districct 1 and 2 criiteria as a basseline, the criteria were reefined through discussions d with w PDT mem mbers, and through publi c feedback rreceived durinng Roundtable #1. The criteria and weigh hting factors for f District 5 have been aaltered basedd on the inputt from Round dtable #1 and th he PDT meeetings. The criteria below w were usedd to accountt for a rangee of opportunities, constraintts, and other factors that could c influencce the usage aand implemenntation of eacch corridor. The criteria were devveloped and presented to o the PDT m members during the PDT Meeting #3. The criteria were w refined based b on the feedback from m the PDT m members and then used to o evaluate and d rank the regional corridorss. During th he Roundtable #1 meetingg, the regionnal corridor evaluation annalysis results weere presented to the PDT T members and a the publicc. The evaluuation criteriaa was then reefined and severral weighting factors weree adjusted baased on the feedback fro om the PDT members annd the public during the Rou undtable #1 meeting. m Fo or example, tthrough Rounndtable #1, m most stakeho olders agreed that the safety factor (repo orted collision ns) needed to o have a highher weightingg factor due tto the high speed d and high vo olume roadwaay characterisstic of Districct 5. Table 3.1: Criteria Weighting W Factor F Adju ustments Criteria Level of Traffic Strress Reported Collisions Econo omic Efficie ency Trrip Demand d Pu ublic Support Physical Constrain nts Comple etes the Nettwork Comple etes the Corrridor

Initial I Weight W Factor F 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Adjusted Weight Factor 1.0 1.0 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25

Refinemeents to thhe criteria and included the weightingg factors refinemennt of the crriteria descrription and analyysis methodo ology. Weigghting factors w were adjusteed to allocaate a higher w weight on some criteria more than othhers, based on the feedback from the PDT membeers and the ppublic. The critteria weightiing factors were adjusted aas shown in T Table 3.1.

The regio onal corridorss were evaluated and ranked using theese criteria tto help guidee the implemeenting cities in prioritizing p bikkeway improvements in order o to com mplete and/or improve thee corridor bikkeway facilities. The evaluattion processs determined which corrridors would provide thee greatest reelative potential benefit to biccyclists in terms of regionaal connectivitty, access to key destinatio ons, and improved safety, wh hile also haviing significantt public supp port and limitted physical constraints tthat could im mpede implemen ntation. The top t ranked proposed p corrridors will bee further studdied for feasibbility in the seecond phase of the t District 5 Bikeways Collaborative. C Cities may individually aadvance the sstudy of a corrridor where theere is interestt and desire to t continue th he efforts of tthe strategy. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

Table 3.2 below summ marizes the crriteria and weeighting utilizeed in the rankking analysis aand in determ mining the top raanked corrido ors to be furtther studied for feasibilityy. Please refeer to Appendix D for addiitional details reggarding the crriteria. Table 3.2 2: Criteria Description n and Weigh hting Summ mary CRIITERIA

Level of Traffic Stress

Reported Collision ns

Economic Efficiency

Trip Dem mand

Public Su upport Physical Constraints Complettes the Networkk

Complettes the Corridor

DESCRIPT TION

WE EIGHT

Addresses perceive p safetty related to eexisting bikew way type and posted speeed limits. Theere are four leevels of traffic stress. Corrridors with higher level of trafficc stress are sscored higherr and represent a higher priorrity for treatm ment. Addresses safety s through h five years off reported crrash data, normalized by crashes peer mile. Unlikke motor vehhicle crash daata, the lower volum me of bike craashes and lackk of robust, lo ong term expposure data (i.e. num mber of bicycclists using eaach corridor) means that tthis dataset is no ot as statisticaally sound. Ho owever, it is still commonnly reported and easily undeerstood. Corrridors with hhigher collisio ons per mile are sco ored higher. Measures th he financial beenefits associaated with thee corridor, normalized by the numbeer of anticipatted users (whhich is in turnn a product of the t facility typ pe, populationn density alonng the corrido or and length), and divided by pllanning level cconstruction costs estimattes. Based on the Bicycle Prio ority Index (B BPI). The BPI, which was developed by b OCTA and d accounts forr various facttors that influuence bicycle usage including po opulation andd employmentt density, land d use, local schools and transit. Incorporates public priorrities throughh a Public Dem mand Index. T The public input was acquired d through thee Roundtable #1 and online surveys. A tally of ph hysical constraaints such as right-of-way,, on-street paarking, freeway ram mps, and other “chokepoinnts”. Fewer co onstraints ressult in a higher sco ore as the corrridor will be easier to impplement. Regional corrridors which h connect to other regionaal and local bikeways to help complete the bikewaays network. Measured byy the number of intersections with other exxisting and prroposed bikew ways. Existing bikeeway would be b weighted m more heavily. Proximity to o the bikeway nettwork is also included in thhe BPI. Proportion of the corridor that is alreeady built to at least minim mum Caltrans staandards for th he bikeway tyype that is beiing proposed. This helps to prio oritize corridors which aree already parrtially built. Thhis factor is also o part of the LTS Index.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

1.0

00.75

00.5 00.5

00.25

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.2.2 Co ost Estimatte Assump ptions Planning level cost esstimates werre prepared for each co rridor for uuse in the ecconomic efficciency criterion. The costs uttilized in the ranking analyysis include hi gh-level estim mates based o on cost averagges of similar faacilities. Estim mates includee costs for sign installat ations at inteersections, m major interseection improvem ments, gradingg and retainin ng walls, and d other anticiipated constrruction costss including brridges, but do not include environmentall clearance, design, d utilityy impacts, orr maintenancce costs. Reffer to Appendix x D for detaileed cost estimate assumptio ons for each ccorridor. The follow wing are key assumptions utilized durin ng the preparaation of the ccost estimatess by facility tyype: Class I (off--street bike path): Existin ng Facilities

Upgrade U way-finding signs on o existing ro outes, including additional bike lane signnage 

Propossed Facilities

 



Construction C of o new Class I bike path withh 10-foot-widee pavement annd 2-foot-widee shoulders on each e side, per Caltrans C standdards. While C Caltrans allowss 8-foot-wide Class C I bike facilities, input fro om cities durinng the projectt indicated thatt the additionaal width w allows fo or better accom mmodation off maintenance vehicles and pprovides enhanced space allocation n for heavily utilized corrido ors. It also mo ore readily acccommodates bboth bicycle b and ped destrian usage,, which public input has sugggested is an im mportant factor. Signage S for bikee path and wayy-finding Street S crossinggs were assumed to be at-grrade either using nearby exissting signalized d in ntersections or o a new crosswalk (enhanceed crosswalks assumed in lim mited locationns); no n new traffic signals s assumeed. Bridges B over flo ood control ch hannels were assumed, wheere appropriatte Class C II (on--street bike lanes):

 Existin ng Facilities

  

Propossed Facilities  

Upgrade U way-finding along existing routtes, including additional bikke lane signagge (particularly att intersection ns). Upgrade U Classs II striping to o include a buuffer betweenn vehicle traveel lanes and tthe bike b lane on existing e facilities where feaasible. Stripe S new Claass II on-streett bike lane withh standard whhite stripe at lo ocations wheree curbside c travel lane is greater than 16 feet wide; buffer o or colored lanes also assumeed. Widening W of sttreet by 4 feet to accommoddate new Classs II on-street bbike lane with sttandard whitee stripe at locattions where curbside travel lane is less than 16 feet wid de; with w cost repreesented on peer linear foot bbasis assuming general costs for widening aand right-of-way r accquisition. Signage S for bikee lane and for way-finding Where W on-streeet parking exiists, initial costt assumes rem moval of on-strreet parking in nstead of streeet widening. The feasibility o of removing paarking will be m more a component c of the next phase of corridor aanalysis. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

Class C III (on-street bike routes): Existin ng Facilities Propossed Facilities



Upgrade U way-finding along existing routtes, including additional bikke lane signagge, sharrows, and d signage for regional r corriidor.

 

Im mplementatio on of sharrow ws, bike routee signage, andd way-finding signage. Enhanced E bikke boulevard treatments such as trafffic circles, rroundabouts, and bikeway b channels were not included in cost estim mates pendinng more detailed feeasibility revieew. Class IV V (cycle traccks)

Existin ng Facilities Propossed Facilities



N/A N



In nstallation of raised islandss serving as bbuffers betweeen a curbsidee bike lane and vehicular v traveel lanes Narrowing N of vehicular lanes by restripiing



Table 3.4 summarizes the t results off the criteria ranking for thhe nine propo osed corridorrs within Disttrict 5 with len ngth and range of costs sho own. Table 3.3 3: Corridor Cost Estim mates Corridor ID A B C D E F G H I TOTAL

Corridorr Name PCH Laguna Canyo on El Toro/Aliciaa/Laguna Canyon n Portola/Santaa Margarita Aliso Creek Muirlands/Caabot/Camino Capistrano Oso Parkwayy Antonio/La Pata/Pico P San Juan Creek

Length (mile es)

Costt Range (millio ons)

19.0 8.8 15.3 6.7 20.3 17.9 8.9 18.0 8.6 123.5

$11.5 – $14.1 $8.4 – $10.3 $12.2 – $15.0 $6.5 – $8.0 $8.2 – $10.0 $7.4 – $9.0 $5.5 – $6.8 $11.1 – $13.5 $3.8 – $4.6 $74.6 – $91.3

Note: The costts shown above are high-level estimates based on averagees of similar facilitiess. Costs include cossts for sign installatiions at intersectionss, major intersection im mprovements, gradinng and retaining walls, and other anticippated construction costs including bridgges, but do not incluude environmental clearance, design, utility impacts, or maintenance cossts.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.2.3 Re esults of Crriteria Ranking Table 3.3 3 summarizess the detaileed ranking evvaluation, wiith raw and weighted sccores shown. The weighted scores accou unt for normaalizing betweeen 0 and 100,, and weightinng of each criterion.

Rank

Critteria

Score

4: Corridor Scoring Table 3.4 Level of o Reported Economic Trip Traffic c Collisions Efficiency D emand Stresss RS

RS WS RS WS RS WS

100 4.0

20 0

3.0

6.4

3433.6 15

1.7

3.8

19 9

2.9

0.9

2800.1 12

0.8

0.0

3.9

20 0

2.4

1.5

2888.8 13

1.0

0.0

2.3

12 2

1.1

6.4

3433.6 15

0.9

0.3

3.9

20 0

1.1

0.6

3177.1 14

1.7

0.0

B Laguna Canyon C

4.0

20 0

1.4

0.3

2099.2

0.6

0.0

E Aliso Creek

1.1

0.1

4.5

2600.8 11

1.0

0.3

G Oso Parkkway

3.7

19 9

0.4

1.0

2777.3 12

1.0

0.0

H Antonio//La Pata/Pico 8

3.4

17 7

0.9

0.6

2455.1 11

0.5

0.2

I San Juan Creek

0.7

0.0

5.2

3122.6 14

0.9

0.3

A PCH Corridor El Toro/A Alicia/ Laguna Canyon C Muirland ds/Cabot / F Camino Capistrano Portola/SSanta D Margaritaa C

ComComPhysical pletes pletes Conthe tthe straints Network Corrridor

Tot. RS WS W

Be est Possiblle Score

R RS

Pub blic Input

Note: RS = Raaw Score; WS = Weeighted Score

The corridor evaluatio on process determined d that t corridorrs A, C, and F would pro ovide the greeatest relative potential beneefit to bicyclissts in terms of regional cconnectivity, aaccess to keyy destinationss, and improved safety, whilee also possesssing significaant public su pport and lim mited physicaal constraintss that could imp pede implemeentation.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

The follow wing section describes d thee performancee of corridorrs for each criiterion.

Sa afety: Co orridor C reeceived the hhighest score with reggard to the ssafety criterrion. This indicates thaat this corriddor exhibiteed a relatively higher number of collisions per m mile, and prio ority for treeatment.

Level L of Tra affic Stresss Corridor C B reeceived the highest scorre with reegard to Levvel of Trafficc Stress. Thiis in ndicates thatt the corrido or had relativvely hiigher postedd speeds andd lack of designated biicycle facilities.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

Trrip Demand: Bicycle Priority Index (BPI) Co orridor F recceived the hhighest BPI sccore indicating thee most poteential demand for bicyclee demand. So ome of the m most denselyy populated aand major em mployment ccenters in so outh Orange County aree in clo ose proximitty to Corridor F.

Economic Efficciency Corridor F receeived the higghest score ffor economic efficiiency and exxhibited the most benefiit for the cost to co omplete/enhhance the co orridor. The majority of Corridor F is alrready in placce and would d require relattively minimaal work to ccomplete, buut serve the mostt potential ddemand.

Pub blic Support Corrridor A recceived the hiighest score for public support. Pacificc Coast Highhway is one of the mostt icon nic bicycling routes in C California and d is reco ognized thro oughout Oraange Countyy as a populaar and d scenic bicyccling destinaation.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

Constrain nts Corridor E received thhe highest score for having the least am mount of connstraints. The Aliso Creeek corridor is entirely off--street and hhas minimal aatgrade crosssings. It is alsso aligned along a naturaal water bodyy with minim mal slope.

Complete e the Corriidor Corridorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s B, G, D, andd C received d the highestt ompleting thhe corridor. score with regard to co This indicattes that thesse corridors are relatively the most co omplete andd already in pplace and would requuire only gapp closures to o complete.

Complete e the Netw work Corridor D received thhe highest sccore exhibitting the most connectionss to other bike facilities. This indicattes that Co orridor D seerves as a kkey connection point in thee overall bikee network.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

3.0 REGIONAL BIKEW WAY CORRID DORS

3.2.4 To op Ranked Corridors As shown n in Table 3.3 the three top ranked corridors are:   

Corridor C A: Pacific Coast Highway; Corridor C C: El Toro/Aliciaa/Laguna Can nyon; Corridor C F: Muirlands/Ca M bot/Camino Capistrano C

Each of th he District 5 cities, c the Co ounty of Oran nge, and Caltrrans have juriisdiction overr portions of these three corridors. cific Coast Highway H Co orridor, whicch extends frrom the nortth side of Lagguna Beach tto San The Pac Clementee received thee highest sco ore. This sco ore was driveen by the levvel of traffic sstress (19 out of a possible 20 2 points), reeported collissions (20 outt of 20 possibble points), trrip demand ((12 out of 155) and strong public input (10 0 out of 10). w extendss from the baase of the Sannta Ana Mountains El Toro/Alicia/Laguna Canyon Corridor, which in Mission n Viejo to thee beach in Lagguna Beach, received r the ssecond highest score. Thiss score was d driven by the levvel of traffic stress s (20 ou ut of a possib ble 20 points)), reported co ollisions (16 out of 20 po ossible points), an nd trip deman nd (13 out off 15). ds/Cabot/Ca amino Capistrano Corridor, whichh extends from just north of the I-5 inn Lake Muirland Forest SE E to San Juan n Capistrano o and the Daana Point/Sann Clemente Border, was the third highest ranking co orridor. Thiss score was driven d by eco onomic efficiiency (15 outt of a possibble 15 points)), trip demand (15 out of 15 possible poin nts), trip dem mand (12 out of 15) and to a lesser exxtent level of traffic stress (12 2 out of 20 po ossible points). These three corridorrs will be furrther studied d for feasibiliity in the seecond phase of the District 5 Bikeways Collaborativve. The feassibility analysses may deteermine that segments of certain corrridors should bee shifted to parallel p roadw ways, depend ding upon circcumstances aand/or constrraints. Therefore, the nine corridors c iden ntified in this report are only o conceptuual and their eexact alignmeents may channge in subsequen nt stages of planning p and design. d This design d flexibi lity will ensurre that the beest possible rroutes are includ ded in transpo ortation planss and applications for consstruction fundds.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

4.0 AC CTION PLAN 4.1 Poteential Nearr-Term Effforts This section identifies potential neaar-term projeects that can be implemennted by each o of the cities w within District 5 to begin im mplementation n of the prop posed corrido ors. Potential near-term pprojects are those that are expected e to have h a low co onstruction cost c and can be implemennted in a relattively short pperiod of time as a funds beccome available. Implemeentation and funding of these projeccts would be the responsib bility of each jurisdiction. OCTA would assist local jurisdictionss in obtainingg funding for these projects by providingg letters of support, grrant notificattions and guuidance, and design soluutions. Coordination betweeen jurisdictio ons is high hly encouragged to impplement bikeeway connecctions simultaneously. Each of the t nine reggional bikewaay corridors has been rreviewed at a conceptual level to id dentify “potentiall near-term” projects expeected to requ uire minimum m capital invesstment, little or no right-o of-way acquisition, and may require min nimal environ nmental revieew. These ttypes of pro ojects may innclude restriping a street to implement a Class C II bikew way, signing a street to dessignate it as a Class III bikkeway, or signingg and striping an existing paved p off-streeet path or m maintenance ro oad of sufficieent width to serve as a Classs I off-streett bikeway. For F existing Class II bikee lanes, if theere is enouggh roadway w width, enhancingg the existing Class II bike lane to a bufffered bike lanne can be easily implementted. Table 4.1 summarizees the prop posed near-teerm improvvements alonng with estiimated costss and jurisdictio onal responsib bilities. Figuree 4.1 shows the t locations of the propo osed near-term m improvemeents. Table 4.1: Proposed d Near-Term m Improvem ments Corriidor

A: Pacificc Coast Highw way

B: Laguna Canyon

Location

Owner/ O Op perator

P Proposed Imprrovement

Le ength (feet)

Co ost Estim mate

PCH H (west city limitt to Clifff Dr)

Laguna L Beacch/Caltrans

N New Class II (o on-street, stripinng)

55,970

$65,670

PCH H (Nyes Place to o Easttline Drive)

Laguna L Beacch/Caltrans

N New Class II (o on-street, stripinng)

14,230

$156,530

El Camino C Real (Camino Cap pistrano to Avenida Estaacion)

San Clemente

N New Class IV

10,000

$524,000

Sttripe bike lanes through frreeway interchannge

33,000

$33,0000

Lagu una Canyon Roaad at SR-73

Co ounty of Orange O / Caltrans C

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

Corriidor

Location

C: El Toro o / Alicia / Laguna Canyon

Broaadway Street (Laguna Can nyon Road to PC CH)

D: Portolla / Santa Margaarita

SR-2 241 and Portola Parkkway

E: Aliso Creek

Aliso o Creek Trail

Cam mino Capistrano (Metrolink Station to t soutth city limit)

F: Muirrlands/ Cabot/C Camino Capisttrano

Via California (Camino Las Ram mblas to Calle Bein nvenido) Via California (Via Velez V to Via Lopez) Via Fortuna (Via Caalifornia to Via V Sacramento) Via Sacramento (Viaa Forttuna to Camino Cap pistrano) & Via California (via Lopez to Via Fortuna)

Owner/ O Op perator

Lagu una Beach

Co ounty of Orange O / Caltrans C Co ounty of Orange, O Mission Viejo Lakke Forest Lagu una Woods Lagguna Hills Aliso Viejo

Co ost Estim mate

U Upgrade Existing Facility (ssignage and otheer)

11,510

$4553

C Class II buffered bikeway sttriped through innterchange

33,000

$33,0000

44,670

$1,4401

55,930 30,050 22,870 33,410 14,550

$1,7779 $9,0015 $8661 $1,0023 $4,3365

33,710

$9,2275

510

$1,2275

540

$5,9940

840

$2,1100

U Upgrade existing Class I by addding way-findinng signage

Lagu una Niguel

N New Class III (onn-street, siignage)

San Clemente

N New Class III (o on-street, signagge)

Daana Point Daana Point

N New Class II (o on-street, stripinng) N New Class III (o on-street, signagge)

Daana Point

N New Class III (o on-street, signagge)

11,950

$4,8875

Oso o Parkway at I-5 Freeeway

OC CTA and Caltrans C

A Add buffered classs II sttriping through inntersection (withh green p aint)

55,500

$75,0000

Oso o Parkway at Mo oulton Parkkway

Aliso Viejo

A Add Class II stripping to the inntersection

900

$10,0000

870

$9,5570

11,200

$180,000

33,000

$33,0000

G: Oso Parkway P

H: Anton nio / La Pata / Pico

Le ength (feet)

P Proposed Imprrovement

La Pata P - west city limits to Del D Rio La Pata P - Del Rio to o Calle Saluda Avenida Pico (Calle Fron ntera/Avenida Presidio to Calle C De Industrias/Via Pico o Plaza)

San Clemente San Clemente

San Clemente

N New Class II (on-street sttriping) N New Class I (off--street p aving) N New Class II (on-street sttriping)

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

Corriidor

I: San Juan n Creek

Owner/ O Op perator

P Proposed Imprrovement

Le ength (feet)

Co ost Estim mate

Avenida Siega/Calle Arro oyo to Calle Jard din

San S Juan Caapistrano

U Upgrade Existing Facility (SSignage and Othher)

19,700

$5,9931

Calle Jardin to Doheny State Beach

Daana Point

U Upgrade Existing Facility (SSignage and Othher)

66,240

$1,8872

San S Juan Caapistrano

N New Class 1 - offf street p aving

77,620

$1,1433,000

Daana Point

N New Class 1 - offf street p aving

33,810

$571,500

Location

Eastt side of San Juan n Creek (Trabuco Crreek Traiil to Stonehill Drr) Eastt side of San Juan n Creek (Stonehill Drr to PCH H)

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

V U SR-241

NEAR TERM CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative BIKEWAY CORRIDORS Existing Proposed Near Term Facility Facility Project

A: Pacific Coast Highway m n O

m n

COUNTY TR AN

MA ALD

PO RTOLA

D: Portola/Santa Margarita

SR-241

FLO RES

m n

U V

C: El Toro/Alicia

m n

N AVE

SR-261

IDA DE

m n

EN GL

Hnm

m n

LAS

N CH RA

U V

B: Laguna Canyon

m n

NDERAS

EL IN DA

T MARGARI

m n

m n AD E LA

m n

§ ¦ ¨

m n

FELIPE

C Sp

m n

RID

m n

DE VALE I NC

LS NA

HIL

m n m nn m

HILLS

WN VA LL

m n

TA LE GA

SAN

DE L

PA CIF

m n

L AVIO

ISL AN D

DANA POINT m n

nSTON m PACIFI

A LV

C COAS

m n

1.25

2.5

5 Miles

N DA

T O IN AP

m n

A AVENIDA L PATA

TA H

ERM

OSA Palisades Reservoir

Pacific Ocean

M BL

-5

m n C

IL EH

ANO

m n

RELLA

YRE

M IN O

NNE

AR BO R

GLE

AM IN

m n

GUEL NI

m mn n m n

VIS

n m m n

CAMINO VERA CRU

OSA

m n

HE RM

MA RES

AC O N

AVENIDA VISTA

NA HILLS

HIL

HOUSE LUB C

PAT A

Krum Reservoir

m nn m

m n

O RI

CA M IN D O E LOS

m n

CAMINO DE EST

m n

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

¤ n

DEL OBISPO

LAGUNA NIGUEL

m mn n

m n

REE

Inm m nn m

JUA

m n m n

m n

AR I

m n

VI EJ O

m n

COUNTY LAGUNA BEACH

m n HO

COUNTY

m n

PA TA

RA N

m n Y

m n

Sulphur Creek Reservoir

m nn m C

NDS LA IGH

W OO D

m n

ICO

m n

AVENIDA P

n m m n TRABUCO CREEK T

m n m n

O DE COL PASE I

m n

F CI PA

m n

AVERY

CRO

PA R

ALISO VIEJO

SR-73

m n

m nn m

V U

n m m n

Z PA

IE JO

GLENW OO

G ALISO V

m n

LAGUNA WOODS Lagunas

EGA

m n

I-5

NT A

m n

PIAD

IT E

m n

CARL OTA

m n m nn m

m n

ANYON

AC GUN LA

SU NN Y

m MISSION n m VIEJO n

m n

IRVINE

m n

m n O

R GUE MAR

TE ROU

RID

ALIPAZ

N TO UL

JE R O

m n

ELIN E Sand Canyon Reservoir

m n

Reservoir

m n OS

EL TO

TRONG

RI DG

m nn m Veeh

Laguna Reservoir

m n

AVE NID

YM OL

El Toro Reservoir

m n

QUAIL HI LL

m n

ORT

LISOS LOS A

m n

I: San Juan Creek

m n

m n m n

KFIE

Lake Mission Viejo

m n

H: Antonio/La Pata/Pico

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA

n m m DO n

m n

TR ABU

TOLE

F KE

ANTONIO

m n

TON

G: Oso Parkway

m n

EN AV

m n

LAKE FOREST

F: Muirlands/Cabot/Camino Capistrano

IDA DE LAS BA

SA NTA

CHO

ROC

E: Aliso Creek

RANCHO

RAN

SAN CLEMENTE

LEGEND

m n

¤ n

m n m n m n

Rail

m n

m n m n n m

O CAMINO CAPISTRAN

Transportation Center

m n EL

m n

Schools

m n

Colleges Parks / Open Space

MIN

Waterbody

m n

§ ¦ ¨

City Boundary

I-5

Supervisorial District 5

Source: OCTA

Figure 4-1

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

4.2 Proggrammaticc Recommeendations Of the fivve Eâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s of bicyccle planning, fo our are relateed to program ms; encouraggement, educaation, enforceement and evaluation. Prograams should co omplement engineering e im mprovementss such as bikee paths, laness, and routes byy providing the t educatio on and encou uragement to o ensure that the facilitties get maxximum utilization n.

4.2.1 En ncouragem ment Safe Routees to School Prrogram The Safe Routes to School (SRTS)) Program (w www.saferouttesinfo.org) ffocuses on bo oth education and infrastructture develop pment with th he goal of increasing the number of cchildren who o walk and biike to school on n a regular bassis. The pprogram offerrs promotionnal and educaational materrials to help communitiess develop efffective safe ro outes to scho ools program ms. The stateewide Activee Transportattion Program m (ATP) for fuunding bike aand pedestriaan programs includes a sppecific catego ory for SRTSS programs. These grantts can be useed for eitherr infrastructuure or educaational prograams that prromote child dren walkingg and biking to school. O One of the ad dvantages of SRTS grantss is that theyy require no local match.. For more on funding opportunities, see Chapterr 6. Bike m month is a naationwide eveent held in M May of each year. Thee intent of the month long campaaign is to incrrease awareness of bicycling, its benefiits and imppact, as weell as enco ourage bicycl ing across alll segments o of the popullation. OCTA A has an acctive campaiggn each Mayy that includdes not onlyy a bike-to-work day, bbut a numb er of events held throughout the montth. In additio on, many off the cities iin District 5 hold their o own bike-relaated events. For morre informatio on on National Bike Month, go to the Leeague of Am merican Bicyyclists www.bikeeleague.org/biikemonth. For F a list of events e in Orrange Countyy, see www.o octa.net/Sharee-theRide/Bike//Bike-Month

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

Employer--Based Encouuragement Prrograms Many com mpanies, OC CTA, and participating citties work witth or providee information n to employyees about com mmuting by bicycle. A usseful resourcee is an article published in n Inc Magazin ne in 2010 tittled "How to encourage your y employyees to bike to work." It has a checkllist showing what w compan nies (and goveernment agen ncies) can do o to encourrage their emp ployees to bikke to work. Launch Party for New Biikeways When a new n bikeway is built, some residents will w become aaware of it annd use it, while others maay not realize thaat they have improved i bikkeway optionss available. Conductin ng opening events e where you invite lo ocal dignitariess, school groups, bike clubs, c and lo ocal businesses to particip pate is a greeat way to help h raise earlyy awareness and a use of neew facilities. Elected and school offficials are oftten eager to be involved in these typees of events, as they can be used to highlight h proggrams they have h encouragged and championed in thee community.

Open Streetts Events Open streets events hhave many nnames: Sunday Paarkways, Ciclovias, Sum mmer Streets, andd Sunday Streeets. These eevents have becom me increasinggly popular aacross the Countyy. In Southerrn California, these events haave been hhosted from Los Angeles to Santa Ana, G Garden Grovee, and San Diego. Los Angeless's events rouutinely attract over 100,000 participants and d have encouragedd large numbers of peoplee who do not reggularly ride a bike to com me out and enjoy ccar-free city sstreets.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

One of the many ben nefits of thesee events is highlighting h thhe businessess along the rroute and sho owing ow easy it is to t dine and shop by bike. A recent stu dy from UCLLA, titled "Economic impaacts of people ho CicLAvia: Study Finds Gain To Lo ocal Businessses" discussess the significaant economic impact of these events. For a guide to conducting an open streets eveent, go to thhe Alliance fo or Biking and d Walking weebsite: www.bikeewalkalliance.org/resourcees/reports/opeen-streets-guuide.

Bicycle Friiendly Comm munity The League of A American Biccyclists recoggnizes comm munities that are good, frriendly, safe pplaces to riide your bike; cities thhat welcomee and encouurage bicyclissts and bicyclling. According to the leeagueâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s websiite, "A BFC w welcomes bicyyclists by prroviding safe accommodaations for biccycling and encouraginng people to bike for transportation and reccreation. Makking bicycling safe and convvenient are kkeys to impro oving public hhealth, reducing traffic t congesstion, improving air quality and improvinng quality of llife." Being recognized as a bike friendly community is becoming more and mo ore importannt in attractinng and retaining new residentts as well ass businesses. People of aall ages rangiing from schhool age, to newly working adults a to agin ng baby boom mers are lookking for cities that offer ann active lifestyyle and proviide an opportunity to choosee to get out of their vehiccle and use aalternative forrms of transpportation including bicycling. Businesses are a looking to locate and grow in citiees that offer a lifestyle thaat will attractt new employeees and custom mers; one of their importtant criteria has become having a bikee (and pedesstrian) friendly cu ulture. In Orangee County, th he cities of Irrvine and Hu untington Beaach, along w with the Counnty, have achhieved recognitio on as Bike Frriendly Comm munities. Natiionwide, ove r 300 communities are reecognized as being bike friendly. For inform mation on th he advantagess of being reccognized as a bike friendlly communityy and on obttaining bike friendly status seee the League of o American Bicyclists webbsite www.bikeleague.org//bfa.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

4.2.2 Ed ducation Bicycle Reesource Webssite Educating both bicyclees and motorrists is an imp portant aspecct of being bike friendly. Bicyclists neeed to understan nd safe bicycliing behavior and a the basics of bicycle m maintenance. They need tto understand d how to deal with w traffic as well as peedestrians and other bicyyclists. Motorists need to o understand d that bicyclists have the sam me rights thaat vehicle driivers have. Now motoriists need to understand safety rules, such as the 3-foo ot law. OCTA hosts several pages dedicaated to bicyccling and biccycle safety: http://www.o octa.net/Sharee-theRide/Bike//Riding-in-Orrange-Countyy/OC-Bikewayys-Map/ Bicycle reesource websites may also include:  Advertisement A ts for all bikew ways after im mplementationn  Bicycling tips in ncluding inforrmation on ho ow to: o Carry items using baskets b and panniers o Properrly lock a bikee o Ride in n the rain witth help from fenders f and rrain gear o Tips caan also includ de information n on the impo ortance of biccycle lights annd reflectors.. r phone numbers  Bikeway mainttenance and repair  Bicycle events calendar  Bicycle traffic skills s classes information i  multilingual m versions

Marketingg Concurrent with New Faacilities Education n about new w facilities caan help notify an nd educate both cyclistts and motoristss about newly installed faacilities. OCTA has a histtory of efffective marketingg using local events to highlight new facilities. Theese include special events associated with h opening seggments of facilitties, such as a ribbon cutting ceremonies and bike rides wheree local private and a governm mental entitiees are invited to o participatee, along with h local school and youth groups.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

w are also important to ools for markketing new faacilities. A reecent examplee of a Social meedia and the web marketingg campaign asssociated with h the OC Loo op, a 66-mile largely off-sttreet bike and d pedestrian ffacility that connects northern n inland OC with w the beacch communitiies can be fouund at www.o octa.net/OCLLOOP A marketingg campaign that highhlights biicyclists andd pedestriann safety iss an im mportant partt of creating ppublic awarenness. O OCTA has a strong hisstory of creeating co ommunity ouutreach proggrams, using social m media, and crreating publicc service messsages inncluding item ms such as banner ad ds, in paarticular thosse placed on O OCTA bussess.

OCTA deedicates a page of its website to t bicycle informattion

O OCTA's yearlly Bike Monnth Campaignn has beeen very efffective at co onveying a safety m message for bo oth motoristss and bicyclistts. Fuunding sourcces for similaar campaignss that caan be conducted at thhe city leveel are diiscussed in Chapter 6.

Adult Bicyycling Traffic Skills Classess Most adult bicyclists have h not receeived any forrmal training on safe bicyccling practices, the rules o of the road, and bicycle hand dling skills. Iff they receiveed any bike e ducation at aall, it was mo ost likely as a child. Now, many of the adu ults who are being encourraged to retuurn to bicycling feel uncom mfortable, in many cases, eveen riding in th heir neighborh hood. Adult classses offered by League of American Bicyclist B certiified instructo ors are availaable by conttacting www.bikeeleague.org. These coursses combine some short lectures about riding skills and simplee bike maintenan nce. More importantly theey offer the bicyclist the oppportunity to o learn new skills or refressh old skills in a safe environm ment, accomp panied by a ceertified instruuctor.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

A reccent innovation in LA has been the creeation of "bbike trains" fo or adults. Jusst as a train, a bike train runs on a given sched dule over a given routee. Bike trainns have beenn used for seeveral yearss to aid childdren going to o and from scchool. Moree recently, a similar concept has been impleemented forr adults in LA. Theree are curreently eight ro outes in LA. For each of these routees a group w will meet onee or two dayys per weekk. Each ride hhas a conducttor who guidees the grou p along the route as weell as providees any assisttance that is necessary. For more inforrmation on Bike Trainss for Adultss see http:///labiketrains.com/

Youth Bicy cycle Skills Claasses School-baased bicycle education e pro ograms educatte students aabout the rulees of the road d and safe biccycling skills. Saafe routes to schools (SR RTS) educatio onal grants arre available ffor these pro ograms, whicch are typically offered o for upper u elemen ntary and mid ddle school age children.. Funding sttrategies for these programs is discussed in Chapter 6. Bike train ns and walking school buses, where paarents or stafff guide studeents to and frrom school o over a set route at a set timee, are being ad dded in moree and more sschools across Southern C California. In some cases these are formaal programs that t are spon nsored by thee school. In other cases the program ms are organized d and coordinated informally by parentss who want tthe children tto have the opportunity to o walk and/or bikke to school. These proggrams allow children c with different skilll levels to intteract and prrovide an alternaative to the cllass-room or school-yard based trainingg.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

4.2.3 En nforcementt Bicycle Paatrol Police biccycle patrols not only in ncrease the mobility m of o officers in deense areas bbut also offeer the opportunity for officers to interacct with bicyclists in a nonn-confrontational, low keey manor. B Bicycle patrol offficers know both b the law w as well as the t challengees faced by bbicyclists on a day-to-day basis. These offficers can demonstrate an nd explain saafe riding tecchniques as w well as provide enforcem ment if appropriaate. Speed Feedbback Signs andd Rest in Red SSignals Vehicle speeeds greatly aaffect the seeverity of the crashh for the bicycclist or pedesstrian. The adjacennt figure, from m the Safe R Routes to School ((SRTS) guide to slowing down traffic, show ws that at a sspeed of 20 MPH, the percenttage of pedesstrians being killed in a crash iss under 5% buut at a speed of 40 mph, the peercentage is 885%.

Speed feeedback signs have been sh hown to be an a effective m means of making the drivver more awaare of their speeed and encouraging them to t reduce theeir speed. A relativeely new trafficc engineering tool involvess setting trafffic lights for w when vehicless approach a signal over the legal speed limit, the lightt turns red. Once the veehicle slows to below thee limit, it will turn green, allo owing the veh hicle to proceeed. The Citty of Long Beaach has recenntly installed tthese with suuccess at two locations. A video showing s how w this worrks can be seen at w www.youtubee.com/ watch?v=x x5zhziy7TIA

Targeted Enforcementt Targeted enforcementt uses the foccused efforts of police offficers at know wn locations where comppliance is low. According A to the Federal Highway Trraffic Adminisstration (FHW WA) these programs are most effective when crash, citation or other sourcces of inform mation suggeests that thee site is unuusually hazardouss due to illegaal driving pracctices. Accordingg to the FHW WA, "The advaantage of targgeted enforceement is that it can be impplemented in a very shorrt period of time and identtified problem ms can be adddressed almosst immediatelyy. The disadvantaage is that thee effectivenesss is usually measured m in teerms of days and perhaps weeks, ratheer than months or years.”” For more information on o targeted ennforcement ssee: safety.fhw wa.dot.gov/inteersection/ressources/intsaffestratbro/ug 1.cfm

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

Adult Bicyycle Educationn Diversion Program P A few cities in the Statte of Californ nia have adoptted adult bicyycle diversionn programs. In these proggrams, when bicyyclists are givven a traffic ticket they are a providedd the opportuunity to takee a bike educcation program rather than paying p the fu ull price of th he ticket. Att the presentt time Huntinngton Beach has a program for f teens; Maarin County has h an adult program. Duee to potentiall conflicts witth state regulaations these pro ograms have not n been wideely adopted across the statte.

4.2.4 Ev valuation Evaluation n programs measure m and evaluate e the im mpact of projjects, policiess and program ms.

Surveys Surveys are a useful fo or eliciting in nfrastructural deficiency aand attitudinaal informatio on. These maay be intercept surveys cond ducted in the field during events e or in l ocations suchh as bike shops. They maay also be conducted online. For this rep port both online and facee-to-face survveys were useed to collectt both behavioraal information n as well as indications of preferred p rouutes and to deetermine corridor rankinggs.

Counts Bike coun ts are an important ppart of any bike program. As the Naational Bicyclle and Pedeestrian Documentaation Projectt says, "Onee of the greeatest challenges ffacing the biccycle and ped destrian field is the lack of doc umentation o on usage and demand. Wiithout accurate annd consistent demand figurres, it is difficcult to measure thhe impacts of investments in these mod des." Standard fo orms and insttructions for bbike counts ccan be downloade d from the N National Bicyycle and Pedeestrian Documentaation Project website (www.bikkepeddocumeentation.org). In additio on to yearly counts, c countts can be don ne on a befo ore and after basis to sho ow the impact of a specific prroject. Most projects thatt are funded by b governmennt grants routinely incorpo orate these ccounts into the project p plans. Recently, several citiess have started to use automated counnters that aree useful in co ollecting long term counts, esstablishing daily, weekly, or monthly variations, and almost alwayys requiring feewer person hours (National Bicycle and Pedestrian P Do ocumentation n project: Auttomatic counnt technologiees).

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

4 4.0 ACTION P PLAN

The photo on the preevious page sh hows one forrm of counteer that has reecently been installed in o on the Santa Riveer Trail. o cities including Portland, OR, O Several other Minneapo olis, MN and Arlington, VA A, are installiing counters such as thee one show wn on the leeft. ounters not only keep track of the t These co number of o bicyclists, but b visibly display the resu ults on a real time t basis. (P Photo by Eco o-Counter) a an importtant element in Automateed counters are helping determine d the t effectiveeness of biike programs. With theirr effectiveness and efficien ncy nd their reaasonable costs in data collection an $3,000 or less per installaation), they can c ($2,000-$ be incorporated in mo ost future pro ojects. nsored jointlyy by SCAG and the Los Angeles County MTA iss designed to o help A recent project spon compile, organize, o makke accessible and create a standard forr bike count ddata in Southern California. As a result of o the projectt, a clearingho ouse for bike count data hhas been creaated and is beeing maintainned by UCLA. The T project includes info ormation on best practicees and formss for bike co ounts, a literrature review, an nd a white paper on bike counts, travvel demand m modeling, andd benefits estiimation. For more informatio on on the Bikke Count Cleaaringhouse seee www.bikeccounts.luskin..ucla.edu.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.0 BICYCLE FACILIITY TOO OLKIT 5.1 Intro oduction This chap pter is intended to assist the t Orange County C Trannsportation A Authority and local jurisdicctions within thee District 5 study area in the selection and design o of bicycle faciilities. Districct 5 is uniquee from the otherr Districts in Orange County in which corridors arre on major aarterials due to the topoggraphy of Districct 5. Many off these corrid dors have existing bike la nes; howeverr an extensivve shared-usee path network also a exists throughout Disstrict 5. The follow wing pages pull together best b practices by facility ttype from public agencies and municippalities nationwid de. Within th he design secction, treatm ments are covvered withinn a single-sheeet tabular fo ormat relaying im mportant design informattion and disccussion, exam mple photos, schematics ((if applicable)), and existing su ummary guidance from cu urrent or upccoming draft sstandards. Exxisting standarrds are refereenced throughou ut and should be the firrst source of o informationn when seekking to impleement any o of the treatmentts featured heere.

5.1.1 Na ational Sta andards Several aggencies and organizationss provide deesign standardds for bike facilities in tthe US. The most commonlyy used manuaals that outlin ne these stand dards are listeed below.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

The Fedeeral Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Conttrol Devices (MUTCD) defines the standards used byy traffic engin neers nationw wide to instal l and maintaiin traffic control devices on all public streets, highwayys, bikeways, and private roads r open tto public trafffic. The FHW WA MUTCD fforms the basis of o the Califorrnia MUTCD,, which is thee standard useed by most ciities in California. To furtheer clarify the MUTCD, the FHWA creeated a table of contempo orary bicyclee facilities thaat lists various bicycle related d signs, markkings, signals, and other trreatments annd identifies ttheir official status (e.g., can be implemeented, curren ntly experimeental). See B icycle Facilitiies in the Manual on Unniform Traffic Co ontrol Devicees. There aree some neweer bikeway treeatments thatt may not bee explicitly co overed by thee MUTCD thaat are often sub bject to experiments, interpretations and a official ruulings by the FHWA. Thee MUTCD O Official Rulings iss a resource that allows website visittors to obtaain informatio on about theese supplemeentary materials. Copies of various v docum ments (such as incoming request letteers, responsee letters from m the FHWA, progress p repo orts, and final reports) are available on tthis website. American Association n of State Highway H and d Transportaation Officialls (AASHTO O) Guide for the Developm ment of Bicyccle Facilities, updated in June 2012 pprovides guiddance on dim mensions, usee, and layout of specific bicycle facilities. The standard ds and guide lines presentted by AASH HTO provide basic informatio on, such as minimum m sideewalk widths,, bicycle lanee dimensions, detailed striiping requirem ments and recom mmended sign nage and paveement markin ngs. The Natio onal Association of City Transportation n Officials’ (N NACTO) 2014 Urban Bikeeway Design G Guide is the new west publicatiion of nationally recognizeed bikeway ddesign standarrds, and offerrs guidance o on the current sttate of the practice design ns. The inten nt of the guidde is to offerr substantive guidance for cities seeking to o improve biccycle transporrtation in placces where co ompeting dem mands for the use of the rigght of way preseent unique ch hallenges. All of the NACTO Urban B Bikeway Desiggn Guide treaatments are iin use internatio onally and in many m cities arround the US. Meeting the t requirem ments of the Americans A with w Disabilities Act (ADA A) is an impo ortant part o of any bicycle an nd pedestrian facility projeect. The Uniteed States Acccess Board’s proposed Public Rights-off-Way Accessibillity Guidelinees (PROWA AG) and thee 2010 ADA A Standards for Accessible Design (2010 Standardss) contain guidance and staandards, resp pectively, for tthe constructtion of accessible facilitiess. This includes requirements r for sidewalk curb ramps, slope requireements, and ppedestrian raiilings along sttairs. Some of these t treatmeents are not directly d referrenced in the current verssions of the A AASHTO Guiide or the MUTC CD, although h many of thee elements off these treatm ments are fouund within thhese documennts. In all cases, engineering judgment is recommendeed to ensuree that the appplication maakes sense fo or the context of o each treatm ment, given th he many comp plexities of urrban streets.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Below is a list of the websites w asso ociated with these t standarrds and guidees and their aassociated maanuals. 1. FH HWA. Bicyccle Facilities and the Manual M on Uniform Traaffic Contro ol Devices. 2011. htttp://www.fhw wa.dot.gov/en nvironment/bikeped/mutcdd_bike.htm 2. MUTCD M Official Rulings. FH HWA. http://mutcd.fhwa.ddot.gov/orseaarch.asp 3. htttp://nacto.orrg/cities-for-cyycling/design--guide/ 4. htttp://www.acccess-board.go ov/guidelines--and-standardds/streets-sideewalks/public-rights-of-waay 5. www.ada.gov/2 w 2010ADAstan ndards_index x.htm

5.1.2 Sta ate Standa ards and Guidelines

Californiaa Highway Deesign Manual (HDM) (2012) This manu ual establishees uniform po olicies and prrocedures to carry out highway designn functions fo or the Californiaa Departmentt of Transpo ortation. Thee 2012 editio on incorporatted Complette Streets fo ocused revisions to address th he Departmen nt Directive 64 6 R-1. Under ex xisting Califo ornia law, all local agencies responsibble for the developmentt or operatio on of bikeways or roadways where bicyclle travel is peermitted mustt utilize Caltrrans adopted design criteria and specifications as contaained in the HDM H and MU UTCD. For bbikeways thatt do not meeet these stand dards, cities and counties can n apply for a design d excepttion from Calttrans. Howevver, accordingg to the Legisslative Analyst’s review durin ng passage off Assembly Bill B 1193 in 22014, “local ggovernments complain thaat the process iss cumbersom me and time-cconsuming. In n contrast, citties and counnties may, butt are not reqquired to, utilizee the HDM when w designin ng local streeets and roadss.” AB 11993 allows locaal governmennts to adopt alteernative natio onal criteria, such s as AASH HTO’s or NA ACTO’s.

Completee Intersectionns: A Guide to t Reconstruucting Interseections and IInterchanges for Bicyclistss and Pedestrianns (2010) This California Deparrtment of Transportation T n reference guide presents informattion and conncepts related to o improving conditions c fo or bicyclists and a pedestria ns at major intersections and interchaanges. The guidee can be used d to inform minor m signagee and stripingg changes to intersectionss, as well as major changes and designs fo or new interseections.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Main Streeets: Flexibilityy in Design & Operations (2013) This Caltrrans booklet is an informaational guide that reflects many of the recent updattes to the Caaltrans manuals and policiess that imprrove multim modal access, livability aand sustainaability withinn the m. The doccument will help users locate inforrmation abo out standardss and transportation system procedurees descried in n the Caltran ns Highway Design D Manuaal (HDM), thee California M Manual on Unniform Traffic Co ontrol Devicees (California MUTCD) an nd the Projecct Developmeent Procedures Manual (PDPM) www.dot..ca.gov/hq/Lan ndArch/mainsstreet/main_sstreet_3rd_eedition.pdf NCHRP Leegal Digest 53: Liability Aspeects of Bikewayys (2010) This digesst is a useful resource fo or city staff considering c innnovative enggineering soluutions to loccalized issues. Th he document addresses thee liability of public p entitiess for bicycle ccollisions on bbikeways as w well as on streetts and highw ways. The report will be useful to at attorneys, traansportation officials, plannners, maintenan nce engineerss and all perssons interesteed in the relaative rights annd responsibbilities of mottorists and bicycllists on shared roadways.

New Legisslation Allowiing Safety Staandards Otheer Than Caltraans’ HDM: A AB 1193 AB 1193, signed into law on Septeember 22, 20 014, allows lo ocal agencies to adopt, byy resolution, safety standards for bikewayys other thaan Caltrans’ Highway Deesign Manual.. According to the Legisslative Analyst, AB A 1193 “allo ows local goveernments to deviate from m state criteriaa when desiggning bikewayys, but does not give them co omplete contrrol. Cities and d counties th at elect to usse design critteria not conttained within thee HDM would d have to enssure that the alternative crriteria have bbeen reviewed and approvved by a qualified d engineer, arre adopted byy resolution at a a public m meeting, and aadhere to guidelines established by a natio onal associatiion of public agency transsportation offficials, such as the Natio onal Associatiion of City Transportation Officials.” O Thee bill also expands the definition of bikeeways to incluude cycle traccks or separated d bikeways, allso referred to t as “Class IV bikeways, ” which prom mote active ttransportation and provide a right-of-wayy designated exclusively for f bicycle trravel adjacentt to a roadw way and whicch are protected d from vehicu ular traffic. Types of separation includee, but are no ot limited to,, grade separration, flexible po osts, inflexiblee physical barrriers, or on-sstreet parkingg.

5.1.3 Bic cycle Faciliity Standarrds Compliance Some of these t bicyclee facilities covvered by these guidelines are not direectly referencced in the cuurrent versions of the Califo ornia Highwayy Design Maanual or the California M MUTCD, altho ough many o of the elements of these treaatments are found within n these docum ments. An “X X” marking inn Table 5.1 bbelow identifies the inclusion n of a particcular treatmeent within thhe national aand state dessign guides. A “-” marking indicates a trreatment mayy not be speecifically menttioned, but iss compliant aassuming MU UTCD compliantt signs and maarkings are ussed. In all casees, engineerin ng judgment is i recommen nded to ensurre that the aapplication maakes sense fo or the context of o each treatm ment, given th he many comp plexities of urrban streets.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Table 5.1: National and State Design D Guid des Caltrans Signed Shared Roadwaay Marked Shared Roadw way Bicycle Bo oulevard Bicycle Laane Buffered Bicycle B Lane Cycle Traacks Bike Box Bike Lanees to the left of o Right Turn n Only Lanees Green-Co olored Bike Lanes L in Conflict Areas A Combined d Bike Lane/T Turn Lane Two-Stage Turn Queu ue Boxes Intersection Crossing Markings Wayfindin ng Sign Typess & Placementt Wayfindin ng Sign Placem ment Bicycle Siggnal Heads Active Warning W Beaco ons Pedestrian n Hybrid Beacons

CA MUT TCD (2014)

X X X X

Caltra ans

NACTO O

Highway Desiggn Manual (2014))

U Urban Bikeway D Design Guide (20144)

Experrimental

X X X X X X

X Same as C Class I

FHWA A Interim Approvval (IA-14) Disallowed At T-inttersections X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

5.2 Bicyycle Facilityy Selection n There aree no ‘hard an nd fast’ ruless for determiining the mo ost appropriatte type of biicycle facility for a particularr location – roadway r speeeds, volumes,, right-of-wayy width, pressence of parkking, adjacentt land uses, and expected biccycle user typ pes are all crittical element s of this decision. Studies find that the most significantt factors influeencing bicyclee use are mottor vehicle trraffic volumess and speeds. Additionally, most bicyclists prefer facilities separated from motor vehicle trafficc or located on local road ds with low m motor vehicle trraffic speeds and volumees. Because off-street o pat athways are physically seeparated from m the roadway, they are peerceived as saafe and attraactive routes for bicyclistts who prefeer to avoid m motor vehicle traaffic. Consisteent use of treeatments and d application o of bikeway facilities allow users to anticcipate whether they t would feeel comfortab ble riding on a particular ffacility, and pplan their trips accordinglyy. This section prrovides guidance on variou us factors thaat affect the tyype of facilitiees that should d be provided d.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.2.1 Fa acility Classsification Descriptioon Consisten nt with bicyccle facility classifications throughout the nation, these Bicyccle Facility D Design Guidelines identify thee following classes of facilities by degreee of separattion from mo otor vehicle ttraffic. Shared Ro oadways (No o bikeway dessignation) aree bikeways w where bicyclissts and cars o operate within the same travvel lane, eith her side by side s or in sin ngle file depeending on ro oadway confiiguration. In some instances, streets may be fully adequate and safe without bicyycle specific signing and pavement markkings. Class III Bikeways B (Bikke Routes) arre Shared Roadways configured with ppavement marrkings, signagge and other treatments inclu uding directio onal signage, traffic divertters, chicaness, chokers and /or other traffic calming devices to red duce vehicle speeds or vo olumes. Suchh enhanced trreatments oft ften are assocciated with Bicyccle Boulevard ds.

Class II Biikeways (Bikee Lanes) use signage s and sttriping to del ineate the rigght-of-way assigned to bicyyclists and moto orists. Bike lan nes encouragee predictable movements by both bicycclists and mottorists.

Class IV Bikeways (Cyycle Tracks) are exclusive bike facilitiies that com mbine the useer experiencee of a separated d path with th he on-street in nfrastructure of conventio onal bike lanees.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Claass 1 Bikeways (Bike Paths)) are facilitiess separated frrom roadwayss for use by bbicyclists and peedestrians.

5.2.2 Fa acility Conttinua The follo owing contin nua illustratee the range of bicycle facilities appplicable to various roaadway environments, based on the roadway type and desired deegree of sepparation. Engiineering judggment, traffic studies, previous municipal planning p effortts, communitty input and local context should be ussed to refine criiteria when developing bicycle b facilitty recommenndations for a particularr street. In some GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

corridors, it may be desirable to construct facilities to a higher leevel of treattment than those recommended in relevvant planningg documents in order to enhance useer safety and comfort. In other cases, existing and/or future motorr vehicle speeeds and volum mes may nott justify the reecommended d level of separattion, and a lesss intensive trreatment mayy be acceptabble.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.3 Sharred-use Paaths A shared d-use path allows for tw wo-way, off-sstreet use fo or pedestrian ns, skaters, wheelchair w useers, joggers and a other nonnmotorized d users, as well w as for biccyclists. Thesse facilities arre frequentlyy found in parks, alongg rivers, beaaches, and iin greenbelts or utility corridors wheere there aree few conflictts with mottorized vehicles. Path facilities f can also includde amenities such as lighting, signaage, and feencing (wherre appropriaate). Througho out the United States outside of Califorrnia, the term ms “shared-u use path” and a “Class I bike path” are useed interchanggeably. How wever, Califfornia law requires aall bikeways, i.e., “all faccilities that provide p prim marily for, annd promote, bicycle traveel”, to conform to the Caltrans Highwaay Design Manual, M even bikeways thaat are not un nder Caltran s’ jurisdictio on. For thiss reason, paths that fall short of thhe HDM’s reequirements for f Class I paavement widtths, shoulderrs, vertical cllearance, and separation frrom the edgee of travel waay of a paraallel street are a often laabeled “shareed-use paths”, removing the implicaation that the t path is primarily fo or bicyclists. Key features of shared d-use paths include:  Frequ uent access po oints from the local road network. n  Direcctional signs to o direct userss to and from m the path.  A limited number of at-grade crrossings with streets or drivew ways.  Terminating the paath where it is easily accesssible to and from the street sysstem.  Separrate treads for pedestrianss and bicyclistts when heavyy use is expected.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.3.1 Ge eneral Design Practic ces Descriptionn Shared-usse paths can provide a deesirable facilityy, particularlyy for recreattion, and userrs of all skill levels preferringg separation from f traffic. Bicycle B paths should generrally provide directional trravel opportuunities not provid ded by existin ng roadways. Guidance Width • 9 feet is the minimum m allow wed by the HDM H for a onne-way Class I bicycle pathh consisting o of a 5fo oot paved wid dth with 2-foo ot shoulders on each side.. • 12 2 feet is the minimum m allowed by the HDM H for a tw wo-way Class I bicycle pathh consisting o of two 4--foot lanes an nd 2-foot sho oulders on each side. On structures, the clear widtth of a Class I path beetween railinggs shall be no ot less than 10 0 feet. Lateral Clearance C • The T minimum separation beetween the edge e of pavem ment of a one-way or a tw wo-way bicyclee path an nd the edge of o travel way of a parallel road or streeet shall be 5 feet plus the standard sho oulder width. w Prior to t 2012, the Highway Deesign Manual allowed narrrower separration if a phhysical baarrier is included. Since 2012, howevver, a physiccal barrier w would not reesult in a red duced seeparation. Overhea ad Clearance • The T minimum vertical clearrance allowed d by the HDM M to obstructtions across tthe width of a bike paath is 8 feet, and a 7 feet ovver shoulder. Striping • When W stripingg is required, use a 4-inch dashed yello ow centerlinee stripe with 4-inch solid white ed dge lines. • So olid centerlin nes can be provided on tigght or blind ccorners, and on the appro oaches to roaadway crrossings.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Materials and Maintenaance Asphalt iss the most co ommon surfacce for bicyclee paths. The use of concrrete for pathss has proven to be more durrable over thee long term.

Existing Locations L   

Avenida A Pico, San S Clementee (see photo on previous page) Avenida A Vista Hermosa in San S Clementee Aliso A Creek Biike Path in Laaguna Hills

Potential Locations   

Trabuco T Creek in Rancho Santa S Margariita Seervice road in n Aliso and Wood W Canyon ns Wildernesss Park, Orangge County Avenida A Califo ornia in San Ju uan Capistrano

5.3.2 Pa aths in Rive er and Utiliity Corrido ors Descriptioon Utility and waterway corridors offten offer ex xcellent shareed-use path developmentt and bikewaay gap closure opportunities. Utility corrid dors typically include poweer line and seewer corridorrs, while wateerway corridors include can nals, drainage ditches, rivers, r and bbeaches. Theese corridorrs offer exccellent transportation and reccreation oppo ortunities for bicyclists of aall ages and skkills.

Guidance Shared-usse paths in uttility corridorrs should meeet or exceed general desiggn practices, and must connform to the Caaltrans Highwaay Design Maanual if design nated as a Claass I bike pathh. Access Po oints

Any accesss point to th he path should d be well-deffined with apppropriate signnage designatting the pathw way as a shared-u use path or bicycle b facility and prohibitiing motor ve hicles. Path Clossure

Public acccess to the paath may be prrohibited duriing the follow wing events: • Canal/flood C co ontrol channeel or other utiility maintenaance activitiess • In nclement weaather or the prediction p of storm condittions

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.3.3 Pa aths in Aba andoned Ra ail Corridors Descriptioon Commonly referred to o as Rails-to-T Trails or Rail--Trails, these projects connvert vacated rail corridorrs into off-street paths. Rail co orridors offer several advaantages, incluuding relatively direct routtes between major destinatio ons and generrally flat terrain.

Guidance Shared-usse paths in abandoned a rail r corridorss should meeet or exceeed general d design practicces. If additional width allowss, wider pathss and landscaping are desirrable. In full co onversions off abandoned rail corridorrs, the sub-bbase, superstrructure, drainage, bridgess, and crossings are already established. e Design D becom mes a matter of working w with the exissting infrastruucture to meet the needs of a rail-trail.

Discussionn It is often n impractical and costly to o add materiaal to existing railroad bed fill slopes. T This results in trails that meett minimum paath widths, bu ut often lack preferred p sho oulder and latteral clearancce widths.

Additional References and Guidelinees   

AA ASHTO. Guidee for the Development of Biccycle Facilities. 2012. California MUT TCD. 2014. Fllink, C. Greenw ways. 1993.

Materials and Maintennance For paths that are suscceptible to flo ooding or pon nding, permeeable pavemennt is an optio on to reduce w water collection n.

Existing Locations L 

Saan Juan Creekk Trail, San Ju uan Capistran no (see photo o on previouss page)

Potential Locations 

TBD T

5.3.4 Pa aths in Actiive Rail Co orridors Descriptioon Rails-with h-Trails projects typically consist c of paths adjacent to active railroads. It sho ould be noted d that some con nstraints could d impact the feasibility of rail-with-traill projects. In some cases, space needs to be preserved d for future planned p freigh ht, transit orr commuter rrail service. In other casees, limited rigght-ofway widtth, inadequatte setbacks, concerns ab bout safety aand trespasssing, and num merous mid--block crossings may affect a project’s feassibility. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Guidance If requireed, fencing sh hould be a minimum m of 5 feet in heigght with highher fencing tthan usual neext to sensitive areas such as a switching yards. y Setbaccks from the active rail line will vary depending o on the d frequency of trains, and d available riight-of-way. Furthermoree, the railroaad operatorss have speed and their own n design criterria regarding separation from bikewayss. Metrolinkk’s SCRRA Rail-with-Trail R Design Guid delines proviide recommeended minimum setbacks from the centeerline of the nearest trackk. For examp ple, the setbaack should be 40 feet whhere the main line railroad speed s is betw ween 90 mp ph and 79 mph. Where tthese setbacks cannot bee met, “addiitional barriers, vertical v separration or otheer methods sh hall be emplo oyed.”

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Discussion Railroads typically requ uire fencing with w all rail-w with-trail projeects. Concernns with trespaassing and security can vary with w the amo ount of train traffic t on thee adjacent raill line and thee setting of thhe bicycle patth, i.e. whether the t section off track is in an n urban or ru ural setting.

Additional References and Guidelinees    

AA ASHTO. Guidee for the Development of Biccycle Facilities. 2012. California MUT TCD. 2014. FH HWA. Rails-wiith-Trails: Lessoons Learned. 2002. 2 Metrolink M SCRR RA Rails-with-T Trails Design Guidelines, G 201 0

Materials and Maintennance For paths that are suscceptible to flo ooding or pon nding, permeeable pavemennt is an optio on to reduce w water collection n.

Existing Locations L  

Saan Clemente Beach Trail (see ( photo ab bove) Aliso A Creek Biike Path, Lakee Forest

Potential Locations 

LO OSSAN Corrridor in Missio on Viejo, Laguna Niguel, aand Lake Foreest

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.3.5 Lo ocal Neighb borhood Accessways A Descriptioon Neighborrhood accessw ways provide residential areas a with dirrect bicycle aand pedestriaan access to pparks, trails, green spaces, an nd other recreational areas. They mo st often servve as small trrail connectio ons to and from the larger traail network, typically t havin ng their own rrights-of-wayy and easemennts. Additionaally, these sm maller trails caan be used to t provide biicycle and peedestrian connnections bettween dead-end streets, cul-d de-sacs, and access a to nearrby destinatio ons not provided by the sttreet networkk.

Guidance • • • •

Neighborhood N d access should remain opeen to the pubblic Trail T pavemen nt shall be at least 8 feeet wide to aaccommodatee emergency and maintenance veehicles, meet ADA requireements and be b consideredd suitable for multi-use Trail T widths sh hould be desiggned to be leess than 8 feett wide only w when necessary to protectt large mature m native trees over 18 8 inches in caaliper, wetlandds or other eecologically seensitive areas. Access A trails sh hould slightlyy meander wh henever possiible

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Discussionn Neighborrhood access should be designed d into o new subdivvisions at eveery opportunnity and shouuld be required by b City/Coun nty subdivision n regulations..

Additional References and Guidelinees 

AA ASHTO. Guidee for the Development of Biccycle Facilities. 2012.

Materials and Maintennance For paths that are suscceptible to flo ooding or pon nding, permeeable pavemennt is an optio on to reduce w water collection n.

Existing Locations L  

Horno H Creek Road to Marbella Vista Ro oad, San Juan Capistrano ((see photo abbove) Aliso A Creek Biike Path at Clarington Dr., Laguna Hillss

Potential Locations  

Cul-de-sac C con nnections Neighborhood N d easements

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.4 Path h/Roadwayy Crossing At-grade roadway crossings c can n create po otential con flicts between path users and motorrists; howeveer, well-desiggned crossings can mitigatee many operrational issuees and providde a higher deegree of safeety and com mfort for patth users. Thhis is evidenced d by the tho ousands of su uccessful facilities aroundd the United Sttates with att-grade crosssings. In mosst cases, at-ggrade path crossings can be properly designed to provvide a reasonnable degree of o safety and can meett existing trraffic and saafety standards. Path facilitties that catter to bicycllists can reqquire additional consideratio ons due to the higher travel speedd of bicyclists versus pedestrians.

5.4.1 Ma arked/Unsiignalized Crossings C Descriptioon A marked d/unsignalized d crossing tyypically consiists of a maarked crossing area, a signage, and other markings to slo ow or stop trraffic. The apprroach to deesigning crossings at mid d-block locattions depends on an evalu uation of veehicular traffiic, line of ssight, pathway traffic, use patterns, p veh hicle speed, road type, road width, an nd other saffety issues such s as proximity to m major attraction ns. When spaace is available, using a median refuge island can im mprove user safety by pro oviding pedesstrians of the street at a time. and bicycllists space to perform the safe crossingg of one side o

Guidance Maximum m traffic volum mes • < 9,000-12,000 0 Average Daaily Traffic (ADT) volume U to 15,000 ADT A on two--lane roads, preferably p witth a median • Up • Up U to 12,000 ADT A on four-lane roads with w median Maximum m travel speed d: 35 MPH Minimum line of sight • 25 5 MPH zone: 155 feet • 35 5 MPH zone: 250 feet • 45 5 MPH zone: 360 feet

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Discussionn Unsignalizzed crossingss of multi-lane arterials ovver 15,000 A ADT may be possible with features suuch as sufficient crossing gap ps (more than n 60 per hour), median refuges, and//or active waarning devicees like rectangulaar rapid flash beacons. Additionaal References and Guidelines  AA ASHTO. Guidee for the Development of Biccycle Facilities. 2012  California MUT TCD. 2014

Existing Location L for Potential Imprrovement   

Sh hady Canyon Drive, Irvinee (see photo above) a Aliso A Creek Biike Path at Lo os Alisos Blvd d, Lake Forestt Paacific Coast Highway H Connector at Coast Hwy, Danna Point

5.4.2 Sig gnalized Crossings Descriptioon Path crosssings within approximateely 400 feet of an existting signalizedd intersection with pedeestrian crosswalkks are typically diverted to o the signalizeed intersectio on to avoid trraffic operatio on problems when located so o close to an n existing siggnal. For this restriction tto be effectivve, barriers aand signing m may be needed to o direct path h users to th he signalized crossing. If nno pedestrian crossing exxists at the ssignal, modificatiions should be made.

Guidance Path crossings should d not be provided with hin approxim mately 400 ffeet of an existing signnalized intersectio on. If possiblee, route path directly to th he signal.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Discussionn In the US, the minimum m distance a marked crosssing can be frrom an existinng signalized intersection vvaries from approximately 250 to 660 feeet. Engineering judgment and the conntext of the llocation shouuld be taken into o account when choosing the t appropriaate allowable setback.

Additional References and Guidelinees  

AA ASHTO. Guidee for the Development of Biccycle Facilities. 2012 AA ASHTO. Guidee for the Plannning, Design, annd Operation of Pedestrian FFacilities. 2004 4

Materials and Maintennance If a sidewaalk is used for crossing acccess, it should d meet ADA guidelines.

Existing Locations L   

Laaguna Hills Drive D at Paseo o de Valencia, Laguna Hills (see photo aabove) Aliso A Creek Biike Path at Allicia Pkwy, Laaguna Hills Trabuco T Side Path P at Trabu uco Rd and El Toro Rd, Laake Forest

Potential Locations  

Avenida A Empreesa at Santa Margarita M Pkw wy, Rancho Saanta Margaritta Saalt Creek Bikke Path at Ritzz Carlton Dr.. and Pacific C Coast Hwy, D Dana Point

5.4.3 Ov vercrossing gs Descriptioon Bicycle/peedestrian oveercrossings prrovide criticaal non-motoriized system llinks by joininng areas sepaarated by barrierrs such as deeep canyons, waterways or o major trannsportation ccorridors. In most cases, these structuress are built in response to user u demand for safe crosssings where tthey previoussly did not exxist. Grade-sep parated crossings may bee needed wh here existing bicycle/pedeestrian crossings do not exist, where AD DT exceeds 25,000 2 vehiclees, and wheree 85th percenttile speeds exxceed 45 milees per hour.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Guidance •

• •

10 0-foot minimum width bettween railings, 14 feet preeferred. If oveercrossing haas any scenic vistas ad dditional widtth should bee provided to o allow for sttopping. A seeparate 5-foo ot pedestriann area may m be provided for facilitiees with high bicycle b and peedestrian use. 10 0-foot headro oom on overccrossing Vertical V clearance below will vary depen nding on featuure being crosssed:  Roadway: 17 feet  Freeway: 18.5 1 feet  Heavy Raill Line: 23 feett

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Discussionn Overcrosssings for biccycles and pedestrians tyypically fall uunder the Am mericans witth Disabilities Act (ADA), which w strictly limits ramp slopes s of 8.33 3% (1:12) witth 5-foot landdings every 330 feet. Title 24 of the Califo ornia Code of o Regulationss requires graadients up to o 5% (1:20) tto have 5-foo ot landings att 400foot interrvals.

Additional References and Guidelinees  

AA ASHTO. Guidee for the Development of Biccycle Facilities. 2012. AA ASHTO. Guidee for the Plannning, Design, annd Operation of Pedestrian FFacilities. 2004 4.

Materials and Maintennance Potential issues with vaandalism

Existing Locations L San Juan Creek C Bicyclee-Pedestrian Bridge, B San Ju uan Capistran o (see photo o on previous page) Bicycle-Peedestrian Brid dge over I-5, San S Clementee (see photo above) Pedestrian n Overpass att Paseo De Cristobal C and Esplanade, Saan Clemente

Possible Locations L San Juan Creek C near Trabuco T Creek confluence in San Juan C Capistrano

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.5 Sepaarated Bikeeways Designateed exclusivelyy for bicycle travel, t separatted bikewayss are segregatted from vehicle travel lannes by striping (C Class II), or physical p measu ures such as parking, bollaards, raised isslands, or currbs (Class IV Cycle Tracks). Separated S bikkeways are most m appropriaate on arteriaal and collecttor streets w where higher traffic volumes and a speeds warrant w greateer separation.

5.5.1 Bic cycle Lane e Descriptioon This facilitty provides an a exclusive lane for one-way bicycle ttravel on a streeet or highwayy, installed alo ong streets in n corridors w where there is significant s bicyycle demand,, and where there are disstinct needs thaat can be seerved by them m. On streeets with on-sstreet parking, bicycle b lanes are located between the parking areaa and the trafficc lanes and ussed in the same direction as motor veehicle traffic. Many bicyyclists, particcularly less experienced more e riders, are m comfortab ble riding on a busy streeet if it has a striped s and s igned bikeway than t if they arre expected to share a lanee with vehiclees.

Guidance Provide 5-foot 5 minimu um width for bicycle laness located betw ween parking an nd traffic lanees. Six feet is desired. d •

• •

•

Provide 4-foott minimum width w if no guttter exists. W With a no ormal 2-foot gutter, minim mum bicycle lane width i s five feeet. 14 4.5-foot prefeerred from curb c face to edge of bike lane. (1 12-foot minim mum). 7--foot maximu um width forr use adjacentt to arterials with hiigh travel speeeds. Greaterr widths may encourage m motor veehicle use of bike lane. When W approacching an interrsection with right turn onnly laanes, the bike lane should be b transitioneed to a throuugh biike lane to th he left of the right r turn onlly lane.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Discussion Wider bicycle lanes are a desirable in certain situations s such as on o higher speeed arterials (45 ( mph+) where use of a wid der bicycle lane would increase seeparation between passing vehicles and bicyclists. Consider C Buffered Bicycle Lan nes when fu urther separration is desired. Additional References annd Guidelines  AASHTO A Guid de for the Deevelopment of o Bicycle Faacilities, 2012 2  California C MUT TCD, 2014  NACTO N Urbaan Bikeway Design Guide, 2012  Caltrans C Califo ornia HDM, 2012 2 Materials and a Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly q in high h traffic areas.. Existing Loocations • Oso O Pkwy, Aliso Viejo • Niguel N Rd, Lagguna Niguel Potential Locations L • Golden G Lanterrn Street, Dan na Point (see photo abovee) • Crown C Valley Pkwy, Dana Point P

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.5.2 Bic cycle Lane es and Diag gonal Parking Descriptionn The backk-in/head-out parking is considered saafer than connventional heead-in/back-out parking due to better visibility when leaving. This is particularly important o n busy streetts or where vvehicle driverrs may find their views blockeed by large veehicles or tintted windows in adjacent veehicles. The presence of raised median islands helps prrevent motorrists from using a back-in sstall for head--in parking Guidance Based on existing dimeensions from test sites and d permanent facilities, pro ovide 16 feet from curb ed dge to inner bicyycle lane strip pe and a five fo oot bicycle laane.

Discussionn Test the facility on sttreets with existing e head--in angled paarking and moderate to hhigh bicycle ttraffic. Additionaal signs to direect vehicle drriver in how the t back-in anngled parking works is reccommended.

Additional References and Guidelinees •

City C of Los An ngeles Bicycle Plan Update,, City of Los Angeles

Existing Locations L 

None N

Potential Locations 

TBD T

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.5.3 Bu uffered Bicy ycle Lane Descriptioon Buffered Bike Lanes ass defined in the t Urban Bikkeway Designn Guide are ""conventionaal bike lanes ppaired with a bufffered space separating s thee bike lane fro om the adjaceent motor veehicle travel laane and/or paarking lane." Buffered B bikee lanes are allowed as per Californnia 2014 MU UTCD guidellines for bufffered preferential lanes (secttion 3D-01). Conventio onal bike lanes typically provide p a 5 to t 6-foot widde space betw ween the currb and travell lane. However,, many bicyclists are unco omfortable riding r this clo ose to movinng traffic partticularly on hhigher speed and/or higher volume roadways. A reecent study from Portlannd State titlled "Evaluatio on of innovativee bicycle facilities," shows that bicyclistts feel a loweer risk of beiing "doored" in a buffered d bike lane and nearly nine in i ten bicyclists prefer bu uffered lanes to standard lanes. Seveen in ten bicyyclists indicated they would go g out of their way to ridee on a buffereed bike lane o over a standarrd lane. The NAC CTO Urban Bikeway B Desiggn guides list several s advanntages of buffeered lanes inccluding:  Providing a "sh hy" distance between b moto or vehicles annd bicyclists.  Providing space for bicyclistts to pass ano other bicyclistt without enccroaching into o the adjacennt motor m vehicle travel lane.  En ncouraging biicyclists to rid de outside of the door zonne when buffeer is betweenn parked carss and th he bike lane.  Providing a greeater space fo or bicycling without w makinng the bike lanne appear so wide that it m might bee mistake forr a travel lane or a parking lane.  Appealing A to a wider cross--section of biccyclist users.  And A encouragiing bicycling by b contributin ng to the percception of saffety among users of the biicycle neetwork. There aree three types of buffers: 1. Paarking side orr curb buffer 2. Travel T lane sid de buffer 3. Combined C sidee or double buffer b Parking side or curb bu uffer: Parking or curb side bu uffers providee space betweeen the bicycclist and parkeed cars or thee gutter pan. This (1) reducees the potenttial for a bicycclist to strike a car door bbeing opened by a driver, ((2) eliminates use of the guttter pan as paart of the bikee lane, and (3)) moves the bbicyclist out o of the blind sppots of moto orists approachiing on side sttreets or driveeways.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

The limitaation to the parking p side or o curb side buffer is that tthey do not pprovide the "sshy space" thaat makes biccyclists feel more m comfortaable, but theyy do reduce tthe risk of dooring and thee use of the ggutter pan as parrt of the bike lane.

Travel side (left) and parking sidee (right) buffeers Travel sid de buffer: Travel sid de buffers pro ovide space beetween the bicyclist and m motor vehicles in the traveel lane. High sspeed, high volum me roadways make many bicyclists b unco omfortable. R Recent studiees from the Po ortland State have shown thaat a simple bu uffer substanttially increases the level off comfort for most bicyclissts. The exam mple below sho ows side travel side buffer on PCH in Dana D Point.

Combineed side or do ouble sided buffer: The comb bined side or double sided d buffer offerss advantage off guiding the bicyclists awaay from the d door zone while providing a perceived saafer distance between b the bicyclist and motor vehiclles.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Guidance Accordingg to Californ nia MUTCD 2014 - Sectiion 3D Buffeered bike lannes are considered "allow wable" treatmentts. Signage and a dimensional guideliness are the sam me as for Claass 2 bicycle lanes. Addiitional guidance is i included in the NACTO O Urban Bikew way Design G Guide. • • •

•

Bike lane word d and/or symb bol shall be used (MUTCD D Figure 9C-33). The T buffer shaall have interiior diagonal cross c hatchin g or chevronn markings if it is 3 feet inn with or wider. The T buffer shaall be marked with 2 whitee lines. The California MU UTCD 2104 standards (Seection 3D.01) are succh that for a bicyclist to bee allowed to cross a doubble white line it must be dashed (tthese are thee same standaards applied to buffered H HOV Lanes).. Thus it is rrecommended d that th hat the inside line be dasheed instead of solid. Buffers should be at least 24 4inches wide.

Discussionn • • •

Add A diagonal striping s on thee outer buffer adjacent to the traffic lannes. On-street O parkking remains adjacent to th he curb. A travel lane may m need to be b eliminated or narrowedd to accommo odate bufferss.

Additional References and Guidelinees • • •

NACTO N Urbaan Bikeway Design Guide, 2014 Po ortland Statee University, Center for Transportatio on Studies (2011) Evaluaation of innovative biicycle facilities. California C MUT TCD 2014 Ed dition

Materials and Maintennance Paint can wear more quickly q in high h traffic areas..

Existing Locations L •

Paacific Coast Highway, H Dan na Point

Potential Locations • •

Paacific Coast Hwy, H Laguna Beach B (see ph hoto on prevvious page) Antonio A Parkw way, Ladera Ranch R & Ranch ho Santa Marrgarita

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.5.4 Cy ycle Track or Class IV V Bike Faciilities Descriptionn Cycle tracks, which were w recentlyy designated as a Class IV ffacilities in C California, aree an exclusivee bike facility thaat combines the user exp perience of a separated ppath with thee on-street iinfrastructuree of a conventio onal bike lanee. A cycle traack is physicaally separatedd from moto or traffic and d distinct from m the sidewalk. These differ from buffereed lanes in th hat the bicycclist is separaated from thee travel laness by a physical barrier. b Cycle traacks have diffferent forms but all share co ommon elem ments they provide space thatt is intended to be exclusively or primarily used by bicycles, an nd are separated d from motorr vehicle traveel lanes, parking laanes, and sideewalks. Raiseed cycle tracks maay be at the level l of the adjacent a sidewalk or set at an n intermediatte level between the roadwaay and sidew walk to separate the cycle track from the pedestrian n area. Over the past five yeaars more than 100 new separated bikee facilities haave been addeed in the USS. This relatively new type of facility has beeen shown to o be effectivee in increasingg the numberr of bicyclists using the streeet, increasing safety for bicyclists, b ped destrians andd motorists aand increasinng access to local businesses (Lessons frrom the Greeen Lanes: Evaluating Proteccted Bike Lannes in the US,, National Insstitute for Transp portation and d Communitiees, 2014). Separated d bikeways can increase safety and prom mote proper riding by: • •

Defining D road space for bicyclists and motorists, reduucing the posssibility that m motorists willl stray in nto the bicyclists’ path. Discouraging D bicyclists b from m riding on th he sidewalk.

Guidance Cycle tracks should id deally be placced along strreets with lo ong blocks annd few drivew ways or mid--block access points for moto or vehicles. One-Way Cycle Tracks • NACTO N Guid delines recom mmend a 7-fo oot minimum to allow passsing. 5-foot minimum wid dth in co onstrained lo ocations. No ote: In accorrdance with AB 1193, siggned in 20144, the local aagency

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

•

must m pass a resolution r to adopt NACTO Guidelinnes in lieu off the Caltrans Highway D Design Manual M if the one-way o cyclee track width is less than 9 feet. One O way cyclee tracks can be b either convventional flow w (i.e., go thee same directiion as the adjjacent trraffic) or con ntra-flow (opposite directtion of adjaceent traffic flo ow, such as tto the left siide of trraffic on a onee-way street)).

Two-Way Cycle Tracks • Cycle C tracks lo ocated on on ne-way streetts have fewerr potential co onflict areas thhan those onn twoway w streets. • 12 2-foot recom mmended min nimum for tw wo-way facilityy. 8-foot minnimum in connstrained locaations. Note: N In acco ordance with AB 1193, siggned in 2014,, the local aggency must paass a resolutiion to ad dopt NACTO O Guidelines in lieu of thee Caltrans Highway Desiggn Manual if tthe two-way cycle trrack width is less than 12 feet. f

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Discussion onsideration should be given at transit stops to m manage bicyccle and pedesstrian interacctions. Special co Drivewayys and minor street crosssings are uniq que challengees to cycle trrack design. Parking shouuld be prohibited d within 30 feeet of the inteersection to improve visibbility. Additional References annd Guidelines • NACTO. N Urbaan Bikeway Design D Guide. 2014. • Leessons from the t Green Laanes: Evaluatin ng Protected Bike Lanes inn the US, Nattional Institutte for Transportation T n and Commu unities, 2014 Materials and a Maintenance Dependin ng upon the width, w barrier-separated an nd raised cyclle tracks mayy require smaaller equipment for sweeping.. Existing Loocations • PC CH in Dana Point P just norrth of San Cleemente Potential Locations L • Ell Camino Reaal, San Clemente

5.6 Sepaarated Bikeeways at In ntersection ns Designs for f intersecttions with biicycle facilitiees should reeduce conflicct between bicyclists (an nd other vu ulnerable roaad users) andd vehicles bby heightenin ng the leveel of visibilitty, denoting clear rightt-of-way, and facilitatingg eye contact and awareneess with otherr modes. Intersection treatmentts can improvve both queuiing and mergiing maneuverrs for bicyclists, and are often coordinated with tiimed or speccialized signalss. The configguration of a safe intersecction for bicycclists may incclude elementts such as color, signage,, medians, siggnal detection n, and pavem ment markingss. Intersection design sho ould take into o consideration existing aand anticipateed bicyclist, pedestrian, and a motorist movements. The degreee of mixing o or separation n between biicyclists and other o modes is intended to reduce thhe risk of crashes and increase bicyyclist comfortt. The level of treatmennt required for f bicyclists at an interseection will depend on the bicycle facilitty type used d, whether bicycle b facilities are interrsecting, and the adjacennt street fun nction and land use.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.6.1 Bik ke Box Descriptioon A bike bo ox is a desiggnated area lo ocated at thee head of a ttraffic lane aat a signalized d intersectionn that provides bicyclists b with h a safe and visible v space to t get in frontt of queuing m motorized traaffic during thhe red signal phaase. Motor vehicles must queue q behind the white sto op line at the rear of the bbike box.

Guidance • • • • • • •

14 4’ minimum depth d A “No Turn on o Red” (MUT TCD R10-11)) sign shall bee installed to prevent vehiicles from enttering th he Bike Box. A “Stop Here on Red” sign n should be post p mountedd at the stop line to reinfo orce observannce of th he stop line. A “Yield to Bikkes” sign sho ould be post-m mounted in aadvance of an d in conjuncttion with an eegress laane to reinforrce that bicyclists have the right-of-wayy going througgh the interseection. An A ingress lanee should be used u to provid de access to tthe box. A supplemental “Wait Here” legend caan be providded in advancce of the sto op bar to inccrease cllarity to moto orists. Requires R perm mission to exp periment from m the Federall Highways Addministrationn.

Discussionn Bike boxes should be pllaced only at signalized s interrsections. Bikee boxes shouldd be used in lo ocations that hhave a large volum me of bicyclistts and are bestt utilized in cen ntral areas where traffic is usually moving more slowly.

Additional References and Guidelinees • •

NACTO. N Urbaan Bikeway Design D Guide. 2014 FH HWA. Interim m Approval (IA-14). 2011 GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Materials and Maintennance Because the t effectiveness of markin ngs depends entirely e on thheir visibility, maintaining m markings shouuld be a high prio ority.

Existing Locations L •

None N

Potential Locations •

TBD T

5.6.2 Bik ke Lanes at a Right Turn Only La anes Descriptioon Class II biike lanes mayy be placed beetween the right-turn r lanee and the righht-most through lane. Bicyyclists would acccess the bike lane pocket through a weeave zone, w with signage o or pavement m markings indicating that moto orists should yield y to bicycclists through the conflict aarea.

Guidance At right tu urn only lanes: • Continue C existting bike lane width; standard width of 5 feet or 4 feeet in constraained locationns. • Use U signage to o indicate thatt motorists sh hould yield to o bicyclists through the co onflict area. • Consider C usingg colored con nflict areas to o promote vissibility of the mixing zone.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Additional References and Guidelinees • • • • •

AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. California C MUT TCD. 2014. NACTO. N Urbaan Bikeway Design D Guide. 2014. Caltrans. C Califo ornia HDM. 2012. 2 Caltrans. C Com mplete Interseections. 2010.

Materials and Maintennance Because the t effectiveness of markin ngs depends entirely e on thheir visibility, maintaining m markings shouuld be a high prio ority.

Existing Locations L • •

Paacific Coast Highway H at Caamino Capisttrano, San Cleemente (see pphoto on preevious page) Paacific Coast Hwy H at Crow wn Valley Pkwyy, Dana Pointt

5.6.3 Co olored Bike e Lanes in Conflict Areas Descriptioon The Federal Highway Administratio on (FHWA) has h granted tthe State of C California appproval for opptional use of grreen colored pavement in n marked biccycle lanes aand in extensions of bicyycle lanes through intersectio ons and otheer traffic con nflict areas. Itt should be nnoted that thhe green colored pavemeent as GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

described d under this approval is used for tw wo different situations: fiirst, to deno ote a lane thhat is exclusively used for bicyclists and second, to advise a motorists and bicycclists that they are sharinng the same patcch of pavement and shou opted uld beware of o each otheer’s presencee. Local agenccies have ado different philosophies on the usagge of green colored pavvement. Some agencies uuse green co olored pavementt only for Class II lanes where bicycclists have exxclusive use,, and leave tthe conflict zones uncolored d. Other agencies use thee green colorred pavemen t only in connflict zones, ssuch as the w weave zone show wn in the figu ure below.

Discussionn The best practices forr green colored pavemen nt are still evvolving. As o of this date, m more agenciees use green colo ored pavemeent for conflicct zones than for exclusivee bicyclist lannes. The amo ount of greenn paint used by such s agenciess varies dram matically. Some agencies filll the entire conflict zonees with solid green paint, while others use a pattern of o green strip pes. Some aggencies use ggreen colored d pavement aacross every drivveway, alley, and cross sttreets, while others reserrve the use o of green colo ored pavemennt for conflict zo ones that merit special atttention. The precise p designn of green co olored pavem ment remains aat the discretion n of the local agencies. It should be noted th hat the comb bination of a shared lane marking (“shharrow”) witthin green co olored pavementt, as is used on o Second Sttreet in the Belmont B Shorres communiity of Long B Beach, is no longer approved for new experimentaation by thee FHWA. However, tthe FHWA may acceptt for experimentation the use of green colored pavem ment as a “bacckground connspicuity enhaancement”.

Additional References and Guidelinees • • • • •

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

100

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Existing Locations L •

None N

Potential Locations • •

Paacific Coast Hwy H at Crow wn Valley Pkwyy, Dana Pointt Laake Forest Dr. at Jeronimo o Rd., Lake Forest

5.6.4 Co ombined Bike Lane / Turn Lane e Descriptionn The comb bined bicycle//right turn laane places a standard-widt s th bike lane on the left sside of a dediicated right turn n lane. A dottted line delin neates the sp pace for bicycclists and mo otorists within the shared d lane. This treattment includees signage ad dvising motorrists and bicycclists of propper positioninng within thee lane. This treattment has been used at in ntersections lacking sufficieent space to accommodatte both a staandard through bike b lane and right turn lan ne. Guidance The FHW WA has disallo owed the exp perimental usse of combineed bike lane/tturn lane marrkings. Previously, typical insstallations were as follows:: Maximum m shared turn lane width is 13 feet; narrrower is prefeerable. • Bike Lane pockket should haave a minimum m width of 4 feet with 5 feeet preferred d. • A dotted 4 in nch line and bicycle lane marking sho ould be used to clarify bicyclist positiioning within w the com mbined lane, without w exclu uding cars fro m the suggessted bicycle arrea. • A “Right Turn n Only” sign with w an “Exceept Bicycles” plaque may be needed to o make it leggal for th hrough bicyclists to use a right r turn lane.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

101

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Discussion mbined bike lane/turn lanee, this Unless the FHWA resumes granting permission to experimeent with a com r d. treatmentt will not be recommende

Additional References and Guidelinees • •

NACTO. N Urbaan Bikeway Design D Guide. 2014. AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012.

Existing Locations L •

None N

M 5.6.5 Inttersection Crossing Markings Descriptioon Bicycle paavement marrkings througgh intersectio ons indicate tthe intendedd path of biccyclists through an intersectio on or across a driveway or o ramp. Theey guide bicycclists on a saafe and directt path througgh the intersectio on and provid de a clear boundary betweeen the pathss of through bicyclists and d either throuugh or crossing motor m vehiclees in the adjaccent lane.

Guidance •

Seee MUTCD Section S 3B.08 8: “dotted linee extensions””

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

102

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Additional References annd Guidelines • AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. • California C MUT TCD. 2014. • NACTO. N Urbaan Bikeway Design D Guide. 2014. Materials and a Maintenance Because the t effectiven ness of markeed crossings depends enttirely on theiir visibility, m maintaining marked crossings should be a high h priority. Existing Loocations • None N Potential Locations L • Paacific Coast Hwy, H Dana Po oint and Laguna Beach

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

103

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

wo-Stage Turn Box 5.6.6 Tw Descriptionn A two-staage turn box provides biccyclists a wayy to make leftt turns at muulti-lane signaalized intersecctions from a rigght side cyclee track or bikke lane. Bicycllists are oftenn reluctant to o weave into traffic to turrn left. A two-staage left turn box b allows bicyclists to co ontinue straigght while the traffic signal displays greeen for the origin nal direction of travel, durring one stagge of a trafficc signal, and tthen wait forr the second stage when the cross street receives a grreen light to complete c the move. Guidance urn box to facilitate a jugh handle turn att a T-intersecction is presently allowed in the • A two-stage tu Feederal and Caalifornia MUT TCD’s. • A two-stage tu urn box for use other than n for a jughanndle turn at a T-intersectio on is experim mental. Required R desiggn elements include a bicyycle symbol ppavement marrking, a pavem ment markingg turn or through arrrow, full-time turn on red prohibition fo for the cross street, and passive detection of biicycles if the signal phase that permitss bicyclists to o enter the iintersection during the seecond sttage of their turn t is actuated. • Green G colored d pavement iss optional. Discussion While tw wo-stage turn ns may increaase bicyclist comfort in many locatio ons, this configuration typpically results in higher averagge signal delayy for bicyclistts versus a veehicular style left turn manneuver. Additional References annd Guidelines • NACTO. N Urbaan Bikeway Design D Guide. 2014. Materials and a Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly q in high h traffic areas.. Existing Loocations • None N Potential Locations L • Antonio A Pkwy at Santa Marrgarita Pkwy, Rancho Santaa Margarita • Marguerite M Pkw wy at Oso Pkkwy, Mission Viejo V

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

104

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

ke Lanes at Diverging Ramp R Laness 5.6.7 Bik

Descriptioon Some arteerials may co ontain high sp peed freeway--style designss such as merrge lanes and exit ramps, w which can createe difficulties for f bicyclists. The entrancee and exit lannes typically hhave intrinsic visibility problems because of o low appro oach angles and feature high speed differentials between biccyclists and m motor vehicles. Strategies S to improve safeety focus on increasing sigght distances,, creating forrmal crossingss, and minimizingg crossing disstances.

Guidance Entrance Ramps: • Angle the bike lane to o increase thee approach aangle with enntering traffic.. Position cro ossing before drivvers’ attentio on is focused on o the upcom ming merge. Exit Ramp ps: • Use a jug handle turn to t bring bicycclists to increease the approach angle w with exiting ttraffic, and add yieeld striping an nd signage to the bicycle aapproach.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

105

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Discussionn Green colored pavemeent is optionaal.

Additional References and Guidelinees • • •

AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. California C MUT TCD. 2014. Caltrans. C Com mplete Interseections. 2010.

Materials and Maintennance Locate crossing markin ngs out of wh heel tread when possible to o minimize w wear and mainntenance costts.

Existing Location L with Proposed Impprovement • •

Saan Juan Creekk Rd at Valle Rd, San Juan Capistrano Research R Dr. at a Irvine Centter Dr., Irvinee

5.6.8 Freeway Inte erchange Design D Descriptioon Freeway Interchanges can be signifficant obstacles to bicyclinng if they aree poorly desiigned. Travel through som me interchangge designs may m be particcularly challeenging for yo oung bicyclistts. Key desiggn features at a conflict areas through h interchangees should bee included to improve the experience fo or bicyclists.

Guidance Entrance Ramps: • A right-turn laane should bee configured with w a taper aas an n “add-lane” for motorissts turning right r onto thhe frreeway entran nce ramp. • A bike lane sh hould be provvided along the t left side o of th he right turn lane. Dotted d through bikke lane stripinng provides clear priority for bicyclists at right r turn ‘addd laane’ on-rampss. Exit Ramp ps: • Motorists M exissting the freeeway and turrning onto thhe crrossroad sho ould be contrrolled by a stop sign, signaal, or yield sign, rather than n allowing a free flowinng movement. m

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

106

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Discussionn The on-raamps should be configureed as a right-tturn-only “addd lane” to assert throughh bicyclist priority. Designs that t are functional for biccycle passagee typically enncourage slow wing or requuire motor vvehicle traffic to slow s or stop.. Designs thatt encourage high-speed h traaffic movemeents are difficult for bicycliists to negotiate..

Additional References and Guidelinees • • •

AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. California C MUT TCD. 2014. Caltrans. C Com mplete Interseections. 2010.

Materials and Maintennance Locate crossing markin ngs out of wh heel tread when possible to o minimize w wear and mainntenance costts.

5.7 Sign nalization Determin ning which tyype of signal or beacon to use for a particularr intersection depends on a variety of factors. f Thesee include speed s limits, traffic volu umes, anticip pated bicyclee crossing traffic, t and th he configuration of planneed or existingg bicycle faacilities. Signaals may be necessary ass part of thee constructtion of a pro otected bicyccle facility such as a cyclee track with h potential tu urning confliccts, or to deccrease vehiclee or pedesttrian conflictts at major crossings. c An n intersectionn with bicyycle signals may m reduce stress and delays for a crossing bicyclist, b and discourage illegal and un nsafe crossingg maneuverrs.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

107

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.7.1 Bic cycle Dete ection and Actuation A Loop or Video V Detectoors For signaalized interseection movem ments that do d not normally receive a greeen light unlesss actuated by b a car or pedesttrian, the Caalifornia Vehicle Code reequires installation of detectors capable off detecting bicyclists at the lim mit line. This is most comm monly handleed with either in nductive loo op detectorss or with video detection. Traffic actu uated signals should be seensitive to bicyclles, should be located in the biccyclist’s expected path, and stenciling should direcct the bicyclist to the poin nt where th he bicycle will w be detected. This allows the bicyclist to stay with hin the lane of trravel without having to maaneuver to th he side of the roaad to trigger a push button n.

Push Buttton Actuation A bicyclistt pushbutton may be used d to supplemeent the required limit l line deteectors. Thesee buttons sho ould be mounted in a location that permitss their activattion by a bicyclistt without haviing to dismou unt.

Discussionn Proper bicycle b detecttion should meet two primary p criteria: 1) accurately detects d bicycllists and 2) prrovides clear guidance to bicycclists on how to actuate deetection (e.g.,, what buttonn to push, whhere to stand)). The requiremeent for bicyclle detection at a all new and d modified appproaches to traffic signalss is included in the CA MUTC CD 2014.

Additional References and Guidelinees • • • • •

AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. NACTO. N Urbaan Bikeway Design D Guide. 2014. California C MUT TCD. 2014. Caltrans. C Policcy Directive 09-06. 0 2009. Caltrans. C Com mplete Interseections. 2010.

Materials and Maintennance Signal dettection and acctuation for bicyclists b should be maintaained with otther traffic signal detectio on and roadway pavement p maarkings.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

108

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

5.7.2 Bic cycle Signa al Heads Descriptioon The Califo ornia MUTCD authorizess the use of bicycle b signal heads only aat locations tthat meet Caaltrans Bicycle Siggnal Warrantts. FHWA’s Interim I Apprroval IA-16, ddated Decem mber 24, 20133, specifies a more detailed application a of bicycle signal indications. Bicycle signa l heads may bbe used for a movement tthat is not in co onflict with an ny simultaneo ous motor veehicle movem ments at a siignalized inteersection, including right or leeft turns on red. r The bicyccle movement may not bee modified by lane-use signns, turn prohibition signs, paveement markin ngs, separate turn signal in ndications, or other traffic control devicces. The size of signal lensses may be 4 inches, 8 incches, or 12 innches in diam meter, with thhe 4-inch lenns size reserved only for supp plemental neaar side mounttings.

Additional References and Guidelinees • •

California C MUT TCD. 2014. FH HWA Interim m Approval IA A-16, 2013.

Materials and Maintennance Bicycle siggnal heads req quire the sam me maintenance as standarrd traffic signaal heads, suchh as replacing bulbs and respo onding to pow wer outages.

5.7.3 Ac ctive Warn ning Beacons Descriptioon Active warning w beaco ons are userr-actuated illu uminated devvices designeed to increaase motor vvehicle yielding co ompliance at crossings of multi-lane orr high volumee roadways. T Types of active warning beeacons include co onventional circular c yellow w flashing beeacons, in-roaadway warninng lights, or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beaccons (RRFB). RRFBs have blanket appro oval in Califo rnia per FHW WA MUTCD IA11.

Guidance Warning beacons shall not be useed at crossw walks control led by YIELD D signs, STO OP signs, or traffic signals. • Warning W beacons shall inittiate operatio on based on pedestrian o or bicyclist aactuation and d shall ceease operatio on at a predeetermined tim me after actuuation or, wiith passive deetection, afteer the peedestrian or bicyclist clearrs the crossw walk.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

109

5.0 0 BICYCLE FA ACILITY TOO OLKIT

Additional References and Guidelinees • • • •

NACTO. N Urbaan Bikeway Design D Guide. 2014. California C MUT TCD. 2014. FH HWA. Interim m Approval (IA-11). 2008. Caltrans. C Com mplete Interseections. 2010.

Materials and Maintennance Dependin ng on power supply, main ntenance can be minimal. If solar pow wer is used, R RRFBs can ruun for years with hout issue.

Existing Locations L •

Sh hady Canyon Trail at Shad dy Canyon Rd d, Irvine

Potential Locations •

Aliso A Creek Biike Path at Lo os Alisos Blvd d, Lake Forestt

5.7.4 Pe edestrian Hybrid H Beacons Descriptioon A pedestrrian hybrid beeacon, also known k as a High-intensity Activated CrrossWalK (HA AWK), consiists of a signal-heead with two o red lenses over o a single yellow lens on the majorr street, and pedestrian aand/or bicycle siggnal heads forr the minor street. s The signal s normallly displays daark indicationss to motor vvehicle traffic. When W actuated d by a pedesttrian, the sign nal displays a yellow light, followed by an interval w where both red lights are displayed steadily during the pedestrian w walk interval, followed by alternating flaashing red indicaations duringg the pedestrian clearancce interval. A As used in o other states, pedestrian hhybrid beacons are a used to improve non--motorized crossings of m major streets in locations where side-sstreet volumes do d not suppo ort installation n of a conven ntional trafficc signal or whhere there arre concerns tthat a conventio onal signal will encourage additional a mo otor vehicle ttraffic on the minor streett. However, d due to Californiaa law that prohibits the in nstallation off STOP signs on approaches to signalized intersecctions, hybrid beacons may on nly be used att mid-block crossing locatiions. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

110

6.0 FUND DING

Guidance Pedestrian n hybrid beaccons may be installed witthout meetinng traffic signaal control waarrants if roaadway speed and d volumes aree excessive fo or comfortablle user crossiing. • If installed witthin a signal system, s signal engineers s hould evaluatte the need for the pedeestrian hyybrid beacon to be coordiinated with other signals. • Paarking and otther sight obsstructions sho ould be prohiibited for at lleast 100 feett in advance o of and att least 20 feett beyond the marked crosswalk

Discussionn An altern native to a pedestrian p hyybrid beacon n is a standaard signal facce that displaays a flashing red indication during the pedestrian clearance c phaase. The advvantage of a standard siggnal face is tthat it displays no dark indicaations that co ould be interp preted by a m motorist to bee a symptom of a power o outage that requiires coming to a stop. Additionaal References and Guidelines • California C MUT TCD. 2014.

Materials and Maintennance Signing an nd striping neeed to be main ntained to help users undeerstand any unfamiliar traffffic control.

Existing Locations L for Potential P Impprovement • •

Laaguna Niguel Family YMCA A Bike Path at a Crown Vallley Pkwy, Lagguna Niguel Creekside C Acccess Rd at Aliso Viejo Pkw wy and Briar G Glenn, Aliso V Viejo

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

111

6.0 FUND DING

5.8 Sharred Roadw ways On shareed roadways, bicyclists an nd motor vehicles use u the same roadway space. These facilities are a typically used on roadss with low speeds an nd traffic vo olumes; howeever they can be used on higheer volume ro oads with wide outsside lanes orr shoulders. A motor vehicle drriver will usuaally have to cross over into the adjacent trravel lane to o pass a bicyclist, unless a wide w outside lane or shoulder is provided. Shared roadways employ a large variety of treatmeents from simple siggnage and shaared lane maarkings to including more complex c treatments diverters, directionaal signage, traffic chicanes, chokers, and/or a otheer traffic calming devices to red duce vehicle speeds s or volumes.

5.8.1 Sig gned Share ed Roadwa ay Descriptionn Signed shared s roadways are Class III facilities generally g locaated on roadw ways with lower sp peeds and lo ower traffic volumes. Class III faacilities are designated as roadways with no striped bicyccle lanes, bu ut include signage to o indicate thee roadway is a bicycle route. Shaared roadwayys can be useed on higherr volume roadds with widee outside lanees or shouldeers. A motor veehicle driver will usually have h to crosss over into tthe adjacent travel lane tto pass a biccyclist, unless a wide w outside lane l or should der is provideed. Guidance “BIKE RO OUTE” - This sign (D11-1) is intended for f use wheree no unique ddesignation off routes is deesired. Directional changes sh hould be signeed with appro opriate arrow w sub-plaques (D1-1b) or d directional siggnage “Bicycles May Use Full Lane”- This sign (R4-11) sign s may be uused:

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

112

6.0 FUND DING



On O roadways where theree are no bicyycle lanes orr adjacent shhoulders usabble by cyclistts and where w travel laanes are too narrow for cyyclists and m otor vehicless to safely opeerate side-by--side.



In n locations where w it is important to in nform all roaad users that cyclists may occupy the travel laane.

Discussion A Bicycle May Use Fulll Lane sign (R R4-11) may be b used on a lane that is ttoo narrow fo or a bicycle aand an automobile to share th he road side by b side within n the same lanne). Additional References annd Guidelines • AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. • California C MUT TCD. 2014. Materials and a Maintenance Maintenan nce needs fo or bicycle wayfinding w sign ns are similaar to other signs, and w will need periodic replacemeent due to weear. Existing Loocations • So outh Ola Vistta, San Clemeente (see pho oto above) • Paacific Coast Hwy, H Laguna Beach B Potential Locations L • Calle C Amanecaar, San Clemeente • Via V California, San Juan Cap pistrano

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

113

6.0 FUND DING

5.8.2 Ma arked Sharred Roadway Descriptionn The shareed lane markking (SLM) orr “sharrow” is i commonly used where parking is alllowed adjaceent to the travel lane. The ceenter of the marking m should be located where bicycllists would bee clear of the open doors of parked cars. This often results r in the bicyclists be ing near the center of thee right-most travel lane. Guidance Shared lan ne markings may m be consid dered in the following f situuations:  On O constraineed roadways too t narrow to o stripe with bicycle lanes  To T delineate space within a wide outsidee lane where cyclists can bbe expected tto ride  On O roadways where w it is im mportant to in ncrease vehiccle driver awaareness of cycclists  On O roadways where w cyclistts tend to ridee too close to o parked vehicles

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

114

6.0 FUND DING

Discussion Class II bike lanes sho ould be considered on roaadways with outside travel lanes wideer than 15 feet, or where oth her lane narro owing or rem moval strategies may provi de adequate road space. Sharrows shaall not be used on shoulderrs, on design nated Bike Lanes, L or to designate B Bicycle Detecction at signnalized intersectio ons. (MUTCD D 9C.07) Additional References annd Guidelines • Caltrans C HDM M Chapter 300 0 • California C MUT TCD 2014 • NACTO N Urbaan Bikeway Design Guide, 2012 • Model M Design Manual of Livving Streets, 2011 2 Existing Loocations • Gleneyre G St, Laguna Beach (see photo ab bove) • So outh Ola Vistta, San Clemeente Potential Locations L • Blue Lantern St, S Dana Pointt ow volume, lo ow speed strreets • Lo

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

115

6.0 FUND DING

5.8.3 Bic cycle Boule evard Descriptionn Bicycle bo oulevards aree low-volumee, low-speed streets moddified to enhaance bicyclistt comfort by using treatmentts such as siggnage, pavemeent markings,, traffic calminng and/or traaffic reductionn, and interseection modificatiions. These treatments t may m allow thro ough movem ments of bicycclists while discouraging ssimilar through-ttrips by non-lo ocal motorizeed traffic. Guidance m are the t minimum treatments necessary to designate a street as a bbicycle Signs and pavement markings boulevard d. • Bicycle boulevvards should have a maximum postedd speed of 225 mph. Use traffic calmiing to maintain m an 85 5th percentilee speed below w 22 mph. • Im mplement volume control treatments such as trafffic diverters based on thhe context o of the biicycle boulevvard and usin ng engineering judgment. Target moto or vehicle vo olumes range from 1,,000 to 3,000 0 vehicles per day. • In ntersection crrossings shou uld be designed to slow m motor vehiclees, enhance ssafety for bicyyclists an nd pedestrian ns and minimize delay for bicyclists. b

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

116

6.0 FUND DING

Discussion The term m “bicycle bo oulevard” imp plies a facilityy that encouurages bicyclee usage while reducing m motor vehicle vo olumes and/o or speeds to o a greater extent e than on a typical Class III ro oute. Some o of the treatmentts used to en ncourage cyclling may inclu ude preferenttial treatmennt by means o of exclusions from turn restrrictions, contra-flow accesss through a one-way o streeet, exclusive traffic signal phases, or thhe reorientatio on of stop siggn control to o favor the biicycle boulevvard. Traffic ccalming technniques may innclude bulbouts, chokers, trafffic circles, ro oundabouts, sp peed humps, turn restrictions, or barriicades. Additional References annd Guidelines • Caltrans C HDM M Chapter 300 0 • California C MUT TCD 2012 • NACTO N Urbaan Bikeway Design Guide, 2012 • AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. • FH HWA Mini-R Roundabouts. 2010 Existing Loocations • Traffic T circle att Calle Colim ma, San Clemeente (see pho oto above) Potential Locations L • TBD T

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

117

6.0 FUND DING

5.9 Bikeeway Signin ng The abilitty to navigaate through a city is in nformed by landmarkss, natural feattures and other visual cuess. Signs thro oughout the city c may indicaate to bicyclissts: • Direction D of trravel • Lo ocation of deestinations • Travel T time/disstance to tho ose destinations These signs will increaase users’ com mfort and acccessibility to the bicycle systems. Signage S can seerve both waayfinding and safety purrposes includiing: • Helping H to familiarize f users u with the bicycle neetwork • Helping H userrs identify the best routes to deestinations • Helping H to add dress mispercceptions abou ut time and diistance • Helping H overccome a “barrrier to entrry” for peopple who aree not frequeent bicyclists (e.g., “iinterested but concerned”” bicyclists) unity-wide biccycle wayfinding signage plaan would idenntify: A commu • Siign locations • Siign type – wh hat informatio on should be included and design featurres • Destinations D to o be highlightted on each sign – key desstinations for bicyclists • May M include approximate distance d and travel time tto each destiination Bicyclle wayfindingg signs allso visually cu ue motorists that they arre driving alo ong a bicycle route and shhould use caaution. Siigns are typically placed at key locatiions leading to and alongg bicycle rouutes, includinng the d it is in ntersection off multiple rou utes. Too maany road signns tend to cluutter the righht-of-way, and reecommended d that these signs s be postted at a leveel most visible to bicyclistts rather thaan per veehicle signagee standards.

5.9.1 Wayfinding W Sign S Typess Descriptionn A bicyclee wayfinding system conssists of comp prehensive siigning and/orr pavement m markings to guide bicyclists to their deestinations along preferreed bicycle ro outes. Theree are three general typpes of wayfindingg signs: Confirmation Signss • Indicate to o bicyclists th hat they are on a designaated bikeway.. Make moto orists aware o of the bicycle rou ute. • May includ de destination ns and distancce/time. Do nnot include arrrows. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

118

6.0 FUND DING

Turn Signs w a bikew way turns from m one • Indicate where street ontto another street. Can bee used with pavem ment markinggs. d arrows. • Include destinations and Decissions Signs • Mark the junction of o two or more bikeways. he designated d bike • Inform biccyclists of th route to access key desstinations. • Destinatio ons and arrow ws are requireed, distances aare optional but recommeended. • The inclusion of bicyclee travel time is i nonstandarrd, but is reco ommended. Discussion There is no n standard color c for bicyycle wayfindin ng signage. Seection 1A.12 of the MUTC CD establishees the general meaning m for signage colorss. Green is the color useed for directiional guidance and is the most common color of bicyccle wayfindingg signage in th he US, includ ing those in tthe MUTCD. Additional References annd Guidelines • AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. • California C MUT TCD. 2014. • NACTO. N Urbaan Bikeway Design D Guide. 2014. Materials and a Maintenance Maintenan nce needs fo or bicycle wayfinding w signs are similaar to other signs and w will need periodic replacemeent due to weear.

5.9.2 Wayfinding W Sign S Placem ment Guidance Signs are typically placed at decision points alon ng bicycle rouutes – typicallly at the interrsection of tw wo or more bikeeways and at other key loccations leadin ng to and alonng bicycle rouutes. Decisions Signs S • Near-side N of in ntersections in i advance of a junction w with another bbicycle route. • Along A a route to indicate a nearby destin nation.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

119

6.0 FUND DING

Confirmatiion Signs • Evvery one-quaarter to one-m mile interval on off-streett facilities andd every 2 to 3 blocks alonng onsttreet bicycle facilities, unless another type of sign is used (e.g.., within 150 feet of a tuurn or deecision sign). It should be placed soon after turns to o confirm desstination(s). P Pavement markings caan also act as confirmation n that a bicycllist is on a pr eferred routee. Turn Signss • Near-side N of in ntersections where w bike routes r turn (ee.g., where thhe street ceases to be a bbicycle ro oute or doess not go thro ough). Pavement markingss can also inddicate the neeed to turn tto the biicyclist.

Discussion It can bee useful to classify c a list of destinatio ons for incluusion on the signs based on their reelative importancce to users th hroughout the area. A parrticular destinnation’s ranking in the hierrarchy can bee used to determ mine the physical distance from f which the locations aare signed. Additional References annd Guidelines • AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. • California C MUT TCD. 2014. • NACTO. N Urbaan Bikeway Design D Guide. 2012. Materials and a Maintenance Maintenan nce needs fo or bicycle wayfinding w signs are similaar to other signs and w will need periodic replacemeent due to weear. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

120

6.0 FUND DING

5.10 Reetrofitting Existing E Strreets to Add Bikewaays Most majo or streets aree characterizeed by conditiions (e.g., high vehicle speeds and/or vollumes) for wh hich dedicated bike lanes are the most approprriate facility to o accommod date safe and comfortaable riding. Allthough oppo ortunities to add bike laanes through roadway widening may exist in so ome locations, many major streets haave physical and other con nstraints that would requirre street retrrofit measures within existiing curb-to-cu urb widths. As A a result, much m of the guidance provided p in this section fo ocuses on efffectively realllocating existing street width w through h striping modifications m to accommo odate dedicateed bike lanes.. Although largely inten nded for majo or streets, th hese measures may be ap ppropriate fo or any roadw way where bikke lanes would be the bestt accommodaation for bicycclists.

5.10.1 Lane L Narro owing Descriptionn Lane narrrowing utilizees roadway space that excceeds minimuum standardss to provide the needed space for bike lanes. Many roadways r havve existing traavel lanes thaat are wider than those pprescribed inn local and nation nal roadway design d standaards, or which h are not marrked. Most sttandards allow w for the use of 11 feet and sometimes s 10 0 feet wide traavel lanes to create space for bike lanees. Guidance Vehicle lane width: • Before: 10 to 15 feet A 10 to 11 1 feet • After: Bicycle lan ne width: • Guidance G on Bicycle B Lanes applies to thiis treatment

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

121

6.0 FUND DING

Discussion Special co onsideration should be givven to the amount of heeavy vehicle ttraffic and ho orizontal curvvature before the decision is made to narrrow travel laanes. Center turn lanes caan also be naarrowed in certain situations to provide space for bikee lanes. Additional References annd Guidelines • AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. • AASHTO. A A Policy P on Geo ometric Desiggn of Highwayys and Streetss. 2004. • Caltrans. C Califo ornia HDM. 2012. 2 • Caltrans. C Main Streets. 2005. Materials and a Maintenance Repair rough or uneveen pavement surface. s

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

122

6.0 FUND DING

5.10.2 Lane L Recon nfiguration Descriptionn The remo oval of a single travel lane will generallyy provide suffficient space ffor two bike lanes on each side of a street. Streets witth excess vehicle capacity provide p oppo ortunities for bike lane rettrofit projectss. Guidance Vehicle lane width: • Width W depend ds on project. No narrowin ng may be neeeded if a lanee is removed. Bicycle lan ne width: • Guidance G on Bicycle B Lanes applies to thiis treatment.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

123

6.0 FUND DING

Discussion ng on a street’s existing configuration, traffic opeerations, useer needs and d safety conccerns, Dependin various lane reduction configuration ns may apply.. For instancee, a four-lane street (with two travel lanes in o travel lanne in each dirrection, a cennter turn lanee, and each direcction) could be modified to provide one bike laness. Additional References annd Guidelines • AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. • FH HWA. Evaluaation of Lane Reduction “R Road Diet” M Measures on • Crashes. C 2010. • Caltrans. C Main Streets. 2005. Materials and a Maintenance Repair rough or uneveen pavement surface. s

5.11Bicyycle Suppo ort Facilitiees Facilitie es Bicycle Parrking Bicyclists expect a safe, convenient place to o secure theeir bicycle when they reaach their desttination. This may be shorrtterm parkking of two hours or less, or long-term parking ffor employeees, students, residents, r and d commuters. Access to Transit T Safe and easy e access to o bicycle parkking facilities is necessary to encouragee commuterss to access transit t via biccycle. Providiing bicycle acccess to transit and spacee for bicycless on buses a nd rail vehicles can increease the feassibility of traansit in loweerdensity arreas, where transit t stops are a beyond walking w distannce of many residences. People P are often o willing to t walk onlyy a quarter- to t half-mile to t a bus stop p, while theyy might bike as much as two t or more miles to reacch a transit sttation.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

124

6.0 FUND DING

5.11.1Biicycle Rack ks Descriptionn Secure bicycle parkin ng at likely destinations d is an integral paart of a bikew way network.. Adequate biicycle parking should s be incorporated d into any new developm ment or red development project. Biicycle parking should be given a baalanced leveel of importancce when consideringg car paarking improvem ments or deveelopment. In commercial areas a where biccycle traffic is more prevvalent, as weell as parks and d shopping ceenters, increaased bicycle parking is reco ommended. Bicycle raack type playss a major rolle in the utilization of thee bicycle rackks. Only rackks that support the bicycle at two points and a allow convenient lockking should bbe used. The Association ffor Pedestriaan and Bicycle Prrofessionals (A APBP) recom mmends selectting a bicycle rack that:  Su upports the bicycle b in at leeast two placees, preventingg it from fallinng over  Allows A lockingg of the framee and one or both wheels w with a U-lockk  Iss securely ancchored to gro ound  Resists R cuttingg, rusting and bending or deformation Guidance  Does D not bend d wheels or damage d otherr bicycle partss  Accommodate A es high securitty U-shaped bicycle b locks  Accommodate A es securing th he frame and wheels w  Does D not trip pedestrians  Are A easily acceessed yet pro otected from motor vehiclees  Are A covered iff users will leaave their bicyycles for long periods  Lo ocated in areas that cyclistts are most likely to trave l Additional RReferences annd Guidelines • AA ASHTO. Guuide for the Developmeent of Bicycle Faccilities. 2012. • APPBP. Bicycle Pa Parking Guide 22nd Edition. 20010. Materials aand Maintenannce Use of pro oper anchors w will prevent vaandalism and thheft.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

125

6.0 FUND DING

5.11.2 On-Street O Bicycle B Corral Descriptionn Bicycle co orrals are gen nerally formeer vehicle parrking stalls co onverted to bbicycle parking. Most havee been on-street conversions,, but they are now being incorporatedd into shopping center paarking lots ass well. orrals Corrals can accommodate up to 20 0 bicycles perr former veh icle parking sspace. On-strreet bicycle co provide many m benefits where bicycle use is high and/ or grow wing: Businessees - Corrals provide a much higher customer c to parking spacce ratio and advertise “bbicycle friendlinesss.” They also o allow more outdoor seaating for restaaurants by mo oving the bicyycle parking o off the sidewalk. Some cities have h instituteed programs that t allow loccal businessess to sponsor or adopt a bbicycle corral to improve bicyycle parking in n front of their business. Pedestrian ns - Corrals clear c the sidewalks and tho ose installed aat corners alsso serve as cuurb extensionns Cyclists - Corrals increease the visib bility of cyclingg and greatly expand bicyccle parking opptions Vehicle drivers - Corrrals improve visibility at in ntersections bby preventingg large vehiclees from parkking at street corrners and blocking sight lin nes Guidance See guidelines for sidew walk Bicycle Rack R placemeent. • Can C be used with w parallel or o angled parkking • Paarking stalls adjacent to curb extensiions are goo od candidatess for bicycle corrals sincce the co oncrete exten nsion serves as a delimitatio on on one side • Can C be custom mized and havve been designed and fabri cated to com mplement specific locationss

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

126

6.0 FUND DING

Discussion c the installation of bicyclee corrals is drriven by requuests from ad djacent businesses, In many communities, and is nott a city-driven initiative. In n other areass, the city prrovides the faacility and business associaations take respo onsibility for the maintenaance of the faccility. Additional References annd Guidelines • APPBP. Bicycle Paarking Guide 2nd 2 Edition. 20 010. Materials and a Maintenance Physical barriers b may obstruct drrainage and collect c debriss. Establish a maintenance agreementt with neighboring businessess.

5.11.3 Bicycle B Lockers Descriptionn Bicycle paarking facilitiees intended fo or long-term parking musst protect agaainst theft off the entire bbicycle and its co omponents an nd accessoriess. Three com mmon ways of o providing secure s long-teerm bicycle pparking are: • Fu ully enclosed lockers acceessible only by b the user, either coin-o operated, or by electronicc, ondeemand locks operated by “smartcards”” equipped wiith touch-sennsitive imbedd ded RFID chipps. • A continuouslly monitored d facility thatt provides aat least mediium-term typpe bicycle paarking faacilities generaally available at no charge • Restricted R acccess facilities in which sho ort-term typ e bicycle raccks are proviided and acccess is reestricted onlyy to the owneers of the bicyycles stored tthere Perhaps the t easiest reetrofit is the bicycle lockker. Generallyy, they are aas strong as tthe locks on their doors and d can secure individual biccycles with th heir pannierss, computers, lights, etc., lleft in place. Some bicycle loccker designs can be stackeed to double the parking ddensity. Lockers with w coin-opeerated locks can c be a targeet of theft annd may attractt various uninntended usess. This can be mitigated by insstalling lockerrs with mesh sides to allow w periodic insspection. Guidance Minimum dimensions: width w (openin ng) 2.5 feet; height h 4 feet; depth 6 feet.. • Fo our-foot side clearance an nd 6-foot end clearance. • Seeven-foot min nimum distance between facing f lockerss. • Lo ocker designss that allow visibility v and in nspection of ccontents are recommendeed for securitty. • Access A is controlled by a keey or access code. c

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

127

6.0 FUND DING

Discussion Long-term m parking faccilities are more m expensiive to providde than short-term faciliities, but aree also significanttly more secu ure. Although h many bicycle commuterrs would be w willing to payy a nominal ffee to guaranteee the safety of o their bicyccle, long-term m bicycle parrking should be free wheerever autom mobile parking is free. Additional References annd Guidelines • AA ASHTO. Guidee for the Development of Biccycle Facilities. 2012. • APPBP. Bicycle Paarking Guide 2nd 2 Edition. 20 010. Materials and a Maintenance Regularly inspect the functioning of moving parts p and ennclosures. Change keys and access codes periodicallly to preventt access to un napproved useers.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

128

6.0 FUND DING

5.11.4 Secure S Park king Areass (SPA) Descriptionn A Secure Parking Areaa for bicycless, also known n as a Bike SPPA or Bike & Ride (whenn located at ttransit stations), is a semi-en nclosed spacce that offerss a higher leevel of security than ordinary bike racks. Accessiblee via key-card, combinatio on locks, or keys, Bike SPPAs provide high-capacityy parking for 10 to 100 or more bicycles. Increased seecurity measu ures create ann additional ttransportationn option for those whose bigggest concern n is theft and vulnerability. Guidance ude: Key features may inclu • Closed-circuit C television mo onitoring • Double D high raacks & cargo bike spaces • Bike repair staation with ben nch • Bike tube and maintenaance item vending machine m • Bike lock “hittching post” – allows peeople to leeave bike lockks • Seecure access for users

Discussion Long-term m parking faacilities are more expen nsive to provide than short--term facilitties, but arre also significanttly more seecure. Altho ough many bicycle commuters would be willing to pay p a nominaal fee to guaranteee the safety of o their bicycle, long-term m bicycle parking sh hould be freee wherever automobile a paarking is free. Additional References annd Guidelines • AASHTO. A Guiide for the Development of o Bicycle Faccilities. 2012 • APBP. A Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition n. 2010 Materials and a Maintenance Regularly inspect the functioning of moving parts p and ennclosures. Change keys and access codes periodicallly to preventt access to un napproved useers.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

129

7.0 APPEND DICES

5.11.5 Bicycle B Acc cess to Transit Descriptionn Safe and easy access to t transit stations and securre bicycle paarking facilities is necessaryy to encouragge commuterrs to access transit via bicyycle. Bicyclin ng to transit reeduces the need to pro ovide expensivee and spacee consuming car parking sp paces. Many people who ride to a transsit stop will want w to bring their bicycle wiith them on the t transit portion of their trrip, so buses and other trransit vehicles should be equipp ped accordinglyy. For stairccases at bus or o rail transit stations, bicyycle access co ould be facilittated with biccycle staircasee side ramps. Th hese consist of o narrow chaannels just wiide enough to o accommodaate bicycle tirres, installed bbelow the hand rails of stair cases. c Cyclistts could placee their bicyclees onto the siide ramps and walk them up or down thee stairs, with the bicycles rolling within n the channe ls. Examples of bicycle staaircase side rramps can be fou und at the El Monte Bus Sttation and at BART’s 16th Street Station. Guidance • Prrovide direct and convenient access to transsit stations andd stops from thhe bicycle and ppedestrian netw works. • Prrovide maps, wayfinding w sign nage and pavem ment markingss from the biccycle network to transit stations. Bicycle Paarking • The T route from m bicycle parking locationss to station/sttop platformss should be w well-lit and vissible. • Siigning should note the locaation of bicyccle parking, ruules for use, aand instructio ons as needed d. • Provide safe an nd secure lon ng-term parkiing such as biicycle lockerss at transit huubs. Parking sshould bee easy to use and well maiintained. Discussion Providing bicycle routees to transit helps combin ne the long-ddistance coverage of bus aand rail travel with the door-to-door serrvice of bicycle riding. Transit T use c an overcomee large obsttacles to bicyycling, including distance, hillss, riding on bu usy streets, niight riding, in clement weatther, and breeakdowns. Additional References annd Guidelines • APBP. A Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition n. 2010. • FH HWA. University Course on Bicycle an nd Pedestriann Transportattion. • Leesson 18: Bicycle and Pedeestrian Conneections to Trransit. 2006. Materials and a Maintenance Regularly inspect the fu unctioning off long-term paarking movingg parts and ennclosures. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

130

7.0 APPEND DICES

5.12 Bikkeway Facility Mainteenance Regular bicycle facility maintenancee includes sweeeping, mainttaining a smootth roadway, ensuring that the gutter-to-pave g ement transition remains reelatively flat, and installin ng bicycle-friendly drainage grates. Pavem ment overlayys are a goo od opportuniity to improve bicycle b facilities. The follow wing recomm mendations prrovide a menu off options to consider c enhaancing a mainttenance regim men.

5.12.1 Sweeping S Descriptionn Bicyclists often avoid shoulders an nd bike lanes filled with ggravel, i the roadw way to broken gllass and otheer debris; theey will ride in avoid theese hazards, potentially p caausing conflicts with moto orists. Debris frrom the road dway should not be swept onto sideewalks (pedestriaans need a cllean walking surface), norr should deb ris be swept fro om the sidewaalk onto the roadway. A regularly r scheeduled inspection n and mainteenance prograam helps enssure that roaadway debris is regularly r pickked up or sweept.

Guidance Establish a seasonal sw weeping scheedule that prrioritizes roaddways with majo or bicycle rou utes. • Sw weep walkwaays and bikew ways wheneveer there is an accumulationn of debris onn the facility. • In n curbed secttions, sweepeers should pick up debriss; on open sshoulders, debris can be sswept onto gravel shoulders. oaches to minimize loose ggravel on paveed roadway sshoulders. • Paave gravel driiveway appro • Peerform additiional sweepin ng in the fall in n areas wheree leaves accumulate. Note - some separated bike faccilities (cyclee tracks) thatt employ currbs or for otherr physical barriers separration may bee too narrow w for a standaard street sweeper, w which requirres a 10-foo ot wide clearrance. If thiis is the caase, arrangem ments need to be m made for sm maller equippment to be used on a reegular basis to keep the ffacility clean. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

131

7.0 APPEND DICES

5.12.2 Gutter-to-P G Pavement Transition T and handling standin ng water Descriptionn On streetts with concrrete curbs and gutters, 1 to t 2 feet of tthe curbside area is typiccally devoted d to the guttter pan, wheere water colllects and draains into catcch basins. On n many streeets, the bikew way is situated d near the trransition betw ween the guttter pan and the t pavementt edge. This transition t can n be susceptibble to erosion n, creating po otholes, and a rough surfacce for travel. These areass can also be prone to rettaining standing water w during and after rain ns. Guidance Ensure that gutter-to-p pavement transitions have no more thaan a ¼” verticcal transition.. • Ex xamine pavem ment transitio ons during evvery roadwayy project for nnew construcction, maintenance acctivities, and construction c project activities that occ ur in streets. • In nspect the pavement two to four montths after trennching constrruction activitties are comppleted to o ensure that excessive settlement has not occurredd. d. • Provide at leasst three feet of o pavement outside o of thee gutter seam m and four feeet is preferred W adding new bike facilities such ass separated laanes, roundabouts, and trraffic circles, check • When fo or potential drainage d issuees. Installing bioswales to capture runoff and avoid d standing waater in biike lanes is beecoming a staandard part of o building bikke facilities in bike-friendly communitiess such ass Portland and Long Beach h.

5.12.3 Roadway R Su urface Descriptionn Bicycles are a much more sensitivee to subtle changes c in ro oadway surface th han are motor vehicles. Vaarious materials are used tto pave roadways, and some are a smoother than others. Compactionn is also an importtant issue afteer trenches and a other con nstruction ho oles are filled. Uneven settlem ment after treenching can affect the ro oadway surface neearest the cu urb where biccycles travel. Sometimes ccompaction iss not achieveed to a satisfaactory level, and d an uneven pavement surface can ressult due to ssettling over the course of days or w weeks. When ressurfacing streeets, use the smallest s chip size and ensuure that the ssurface is as ssmooth as po ossible to improvve safety and comfort for bicyclists. b Guidance Maintain a smooth potthole-free surrface. • En nsure that on n new roadwaay construction, the finish ed surface onn bikeways do oes not vary more th han ¼”.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

132

7.0 APPEND DICES

• • • •

Maintain M pavem ment so ridgge buildup do oes not occuur at the guttter-to-pavem ment transitio on or ad djacent to railway crossinggs. In nspect the pavement two to four montths after trennching constrruction activitties are comppleted to o ensure that excessive settlement has not occurredd. If chip sealing is to be perrformed, use the smallest possible chipp on bike lannes and shouulders. Sw weep loose chips regularlyy following ap pplication. During D chip seeal maintenan nce projects, ifi the pavemeent condition of the bike llane is satisfactory, it may be apprropriate to chip seal the travel t lanes o only. Howeveer, use cautio on when doinng this so o as not to crreate an unaccceptable ridgge between thhe bike lane aand travel lanee.

5.12.4 Drainage D Grates Descriptionn Drainage grates are tyypically locatted in the gutter area neaar the curb of a roadwayy. Drainage ggrates typically have h slots th hrough which h water drain ns into the m municipal storm sewer syystem. Many older grates weere designed with w linear paarallel bars sp pread wide ennough for a ttire to becom me caught so tthat if a bicyclistt were to ride on them, the t front tire could becom me caught in the slot. Thiis would causse the bicyclist to o tumble oveer the handleb bars and sustaain potentiallyy serious injuuries. Guidance Require all a new drainaage grates be bicycle-friend dly, including grates that have horizontaal slats on theem so that bicyccle tires and assistive a devicces do not falll through the vertical slatss. • Create C a proggram to inveentory all exiisting drainagge grates, and replace haazardous grattes as neecessary – teemporary mod difications succh as installinng rebar horizzontally acrosss the grate sshould no ot be an acceeptable alternative to replaacement.

5.12.5 Bikeway B Ma aintenance e and Operrations Descriptionn Motor veehicle traffic tends t to “sw weep” debris like litter annd broken glaass toward the roadway edges where it can c accumulaate in bicycle lanes. Maneuvering to avo oid such hazarrds can causee a cyclist to ffall. In this way, proper mainttenance direcctly affects saffety and streeet sweeping m must be a priiority on road dways GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

133

7.0 APPEND DICES

with bicyccle facilities, especially e in curb lanes and d along the cuurbs themselvves. Law enfo orcement can assist by requiriing towing co ompanies to fully f clean up crash sites to o prevent glaass and debriss from being left in place or simply s swept to the curb or o shoulder affter collisionss. When anyy roadwork repairs r are do one by the City C or other agencies, thee roadway muust be restorred to satisfactorry quality witth particular attention a to surface s smoo othness suitabble for cyclingg. Striping muust be restored to the prior markings, or new marrkings if calleed for in a project. Bicyycles facilitiess also sometimees seem to “disappear” affter roadway constructionn occurs. This can happen incrementaally as paving reepairs are made over tim me and are not prompttly followed by proper re-striping. W When combined d with poor surface s recon nstruction fo ollowing long periods out of service d due to road w work, bikeway facilities f can be “lost,” which w can disscourage cyclling in generral. Construcction projectss that require the t demolitio on and rebu uilding of adjjacent roadw ways can cauuse problems maintainingg and restoring bikeway funcction. Constructtion activitiess controlled through t perm mits, such as ddriveway, draainage and utiility work cann have an imporrtant effect on o roadway surface quality where cyyclists operatte in the forrm of mismaatched pavementt heights, rough surfaces or longitud dinal gaps in adjoining paavements, orr other paveement irregularitties. Permit conditions c sh hould ensure that pavemeent foundatio on and surfacce treatmentts are restored to their pree-construction n conditions,, that no ve rtical irregularities will rresult and that no longitudin nal cracks wiill develop. Strict S specificcations, standdards and insspections designed to prrevent these pro oblems should be develop ped. A five year y bond shhould be held to assure correction o of any deteriorattion that migh ht occur as a result of faullty reconstrucction of the rroadway surfaace. Bicycle faccilities should d be swept reegularly, at leaast twice a m month, and prreferably morre often for hheavily traveled routes. r Also, adjacent shru ubs and treess should be keept trimmed back to prevvent encroachhment into the pathway p or ob bstructing cycclists’ views. Guidance Colored Pavement P Maaterials:  Waterborne W Paints P o Over the past 10 years, transportation ageencies in thee United Stattes have graadually replaceed conventio onal solvent paints with waterborne paints that have low Vo olatile marking mateerials. Waterbborne Organic Compound ds (VOC) and d other neweer pavement m traffic paints are th he most wideely used and least expenssive pavementt marking maaterial availab ble. Glass beeads are either pre-mixeed into the paint or d dropped onto o the waterb borne paint to o provide rettro-reflectivitty. o Waterrborne paints generally provide equ al performannce on asphhalt and conncrete pavem ments but havve the shorteest service liife of all pavvement markiing materials. This paint type tends to t wear off rapidly and lose retro-reflectivity qquickly after being exposeed to factorss such as high traffic voluumes. Althouggh still a wid dely used maaterial,

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

134

7.0 APPEND DICES



waterb borne paint is also used d as an interrim marking material unttil they can apply something more du urable. Regular R Solven nt Paint o This tyype of paint can c be used universally u forr just about aany pavementt needing painnt and is the least expensiive. Sometimes additives ssuch as reflecctive glass beeads for reflecctivity and saand for skid resistance arre widely useed to mark road surfacees. This is typpically consid dered a non-durable paveement markinng and is eassily worn byy vehicle tirees and often requires r annu ual re-applicattion. Durable D Liquid d Pavement Markings M o Durab ble Liquid Pavvement Markkings (DLPM M) include eppoxy and Meethyl Methaccrylate (MMA A). Epoxy pain nt has traditionally been vviewed as a marking mateerial that pro ovides excepttional adhesion to both asphalt and concrete paavements whhen the paveement surfacee is properlyy cleaned beffore applicatiion. The stro ong bond that forms bettween epoxy paints and both b asphalt and concretee pavement ssurfaces resuults in the maaterial being highly h durablee when applieed on both paavement surfa faces. These m markings are highly durable and can be sprayed or extruded e but generally reqquire long no--track times. Thermoplastic T s o Th hermoplasticss are a durab ble pavement marking matterial compossed of glass bbeads, piggments, bind ders (plasticss and resinss) and fillerrs. There arre two typees of thermoplastics:: hydrocarbon n and alkyd. H Hydrocarbonn thermoplasttics are madee from peetroleum-deriived resins; and a alkyd theermoplastics are made frrom wood-deerived resins. One of the added ad dvantages of using thermo oplastic is thaat the material can bee re-applied over older thermoplastic t c markings, tthereby refurrbishing the older maarking as well as saving on n the costs off removing oldd pavement m markings. Althhough thermoplastic materials m usu ually perform very well o on all types o of asphalt surrfaces, there have been mixed results when theyy have been aapplied on co oncrete pavem ments.

Paint Type Estimated Product P Life Advantage A Disadvantages: 



Waterborne W o Paints 9-36 monthss * Inexpensiive * Quick-ddrying * Longger life on lo ow-volume ro oads * Easy clean-up and disposal d * Short life on hiigh-volume ro oads * Subjecct to damage from sands/abrasives * Paavement musst be warm orr it will not adhere. Regular R o Solven nt Paint 9-36 months* * Inexpensive * Quick-dryinng * Longer life on low-vo olume roads * Short life on o high-volum me roads * Su bject to damaage from sands/abrasives * Easy clean-u up and dispossal * Pavemen nt must be waarm or it will not adhere.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

135

7.0 APPEND DICES

Durable Liquids L for Pavement Markkings:  Ep poxy o 4 Years* * Longerr life on low--volume roadds * More reetro-reflectivve * Slow dryying * Requirres coning and/or flagging during applicaation * Heavyy bead applicaation- may neeed to be cleaaned off of ro oadway * High h initial cost * Subject to ddamage from sands/abrasivves  Thermoplastic T o 3-6 Yeears* * Long life l on low-vo olume roads * Retro-reflective * No beeads needed * Any tempeerature for ap pplication * Recommendeed use for syymbols and spot treatmeents * Subjecct to damagee from sands/abrasives * Cost prohhibited if useed for large scale applicaations * Show wn to wear quickly q in connflict areas * Life of paveement markinng will depend on traffic vo olume, road condition c andd application ttime of year Source: NACTO. Urban Bikew way Design Guide. 2014. FHWA. Durability D and Retro-Reflecctivity of Paveement Markinngs (Synthesiss Study). 20088 Use of Grreen Paint: One signiificant changee is the FHW WA’s interim approval for the use of ggreen colored d pavement w within bicycle lan nes in mixingg or transition n zones, such h as at interseections and inn other potenntial conflict zones where mo otor vehicles may cross a bicycle lane. They are inttended to waarn drivers to o watch for aand to yield to cyyclists when they t encountter them with hin the painteed area. FHW WA studies havve also shown that green biccycle lanes im mprove cyclisst positioningg as they trav avel across inntersections aand other co onflict areas. Jurisdictio ons within the State mustt notify Caltrrans before pproceeding w with green biccycle lane pro ojects because the agency is required to maintain m an in nventory, butt since Caltraans has requeested to particcipate in this interim approvval, the proccess has been streamlinedd because FHWA experrimental treattment protocol is no longer required. r Source: NACTO. Urban Bikew way Design Guide. 2014. http://muttcd.fhwa.dot.ggov/resources/interim_app proval/ia14/inndex.htm

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

136

7.0 APPEND DICES

6.0 FU UNDING G STRATEGIES S The federral and state government, g along with reegional and lo ocal governmental agenciees, spend billio ons of dollars eaach year to fund f transportation progrrams. Thesee programs rrange from m major highwaay and bridge projects to loccal street rep pair. Only a small percenntage of thesse dollars is used for planning, developing, and constrructing bike-related projeccts and prograams. Howevver, even thouugh the perceentage is small, tens of million ns of dollars are made avaailable on a yyearly basis fo or funding acttive transporttation projects for f both biking and walking. While the t competitiion for thesee funds is fierce, a well-crafted application to fund neeeded infrasttructure and educational programs sttands a good d chance of being funded. A major source of fun nding for bikee and pedesttrian projectss is the Fedeerally funded Moving Aheaad for Progress in the 21st Century C (MAP P-2)1 Program m. The Act w was signed intto law on Julyy 6, 2012. Thhe bill, which was reauthorizeed for FY 2014-2015, provvides $25.2 b illion dollars nationwide o of which just under $2.4 billio on is allocated d to Californiaa. Eligible acttivities includee:    

Transportation T n alternativess Recreational R trrails program m Saafe Routes to o School Proggram Planning, desiggning, or consstructing roadways with tthe right-of-w way of formerr interstate rroutes fo or other divid ded highways.

Many fedeeral and statee grants require some leveel of matchingg funds. As a result mostt programs reely on more thaan one sourcee of money. Developing a strategy tto put togethher all of thee required funnds is importantt, as grants will w not be awaarded withou ut specifying tthe sources o of matching fuunds. The strrategy may includ de matching a state grant with w a federaal grant, or th e use of local or regional ffunds. Many cities have hireed a bike coordinator to not only heelp develop and overseee an effectivee bike program, but also to coordinate c th heir funding efforts. e Thesse positions, which now o often use the term active transportation to t include botth bike and walking, w can h elp cities leveerage their exxisting investm ments in street repair r and maaintenance ass well as locall returns from m gas tax andd developer feees. Cities suuch as Long Beacch have brou ught in over $20 $ million dollars in bikee and pedestrrian-related fuunds over thee past 10 years. Recently Orange O Coun nty cities were awarded over $14 million dollars to fund bike and pedestrian n projects beetween and FY F 2015-2016 6. An activee transportattion coordinaator can helpp your city obtain n a portion of o these activee transportation funds. For additional informaation, SCAG, OCTA and Safe Routes to Schools all have reso ources that can be used to help h determin ne the most effective e strattegy to obtainn federal, statte and regionnal funds for active transportation projects. To help agencies a deteermine fundin ng sources for projects alo ong the propposed corrido ors, a summaary by source type is provided with detailss regarding tyypes of eligiblee projects, m match requirem ments, and usse. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

137

7.0 APPEND DICES

6.1 Fedeeral Prograams 6.1.1 Pa artnership for f Sustain nable Communities Partnersh hip for Sustainable Comm munities is an interagency partnership between HU UD, DOT annd the EPA.   

HUD H offers fu unding opporrtunities to help h communnities realize their own vvisions for buuilding more m livable, walkable, w and environmenttally sustainabble regions. DOT D offers funding opporttunities to sup pport more liivable walkabble communitiies. EPA offers graants to support activitiess that improvve the qualityy of developpment and prrotect hu uman health and a the envirronment.

Grants aree offered period dically and can be found at ww ww.sustainab lecommunitiees.gov/partneership-resourcces.

6.1.2 De epartment of the Inte erior – Lan nd and Watter Conserrvation Fun nd (LWCF F) The LWC CF state assistance progrram provides matching grrants to helpp states and local commuunities protect parks and recrreation resou urces. This 50 0:50 matchingg program is the primary federal investtment tool to ensure e that faamilies have easy access to parks andd open space, hiking and d riding trailss, and neighborh hood recreatiion facilities. The proggram is admiinistered thrrough the Naational Parkss Service. Grants are alllocated on aan asrequested d basis. The state s prioritizzes and selectts eligible pro ojects for LW WCF assistance. For moree info, visit http:///www.nps.go ov/ncrc/progrrams/lwcf/man nual/lwcf.pdf.

6.1.3 Riv vers, Trailss, and Conservation Assistance A Program ((RTCA) This proggram, funded through thee National Paark service, pprovides techhnical assistannce in the form of visioning, program plan nning, goal seetting, and co ommunity outtreach. In thhe past, thesee grants havee been used to establish e high--level plans fo or the Santa River R Trail annd the LA Rivver. Project proposals arre due August 1sst of each yeaar. For more information on these grannts, see www w.nps.gov/orgss/rtca/apply.htm

6.1.4 Co ommunity Transform mation Gra ants The Centter for Diseease Control (CDC), thrrough their Community Transformattion Grant (CTG) program, offers grantss designed to o "create heaalthier comm munities by m making healthyy living easieer and more affo ordable wherre people wo ork, live, leaarn and play. " Active livving is one ffocus of the grant program. An examplee project is promoting p im mprovements in sidewalkss and street llighting to make it safe and easy e for people to walk and a ride bikees. Class I a nd Class IV bike facilitiess are types of bike infrastructture that mayy be supporteed by the CTG program. For more infformation on these grants see www.cdcc.gov/nccdphp p/dch/program ms/ communitytransformaation/funds/inddex.htm

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

138

7.0 APPEND DICES

6.2 Statte Program ms 6.2.1 Ac ctive Transsportation Program (ATP) ( Californiaa's Active Traansportation Program wass created in 2013 to enccourage increeased use of active modes off transportattion, such ass biking and walking. A According to the Californnia Transporttation Commission (www.cattc.ca.gov/proggrams/ATP.httm): The ATP A consolidattes various transportation programs, p inccluding the feederal Transpoortation Alternnatives Prograam, state Bicyccle Transportaation Account, and federal annd state Safe Routes to Schhool programs into a single program to:       

Increase the proportion of o biking and walking w trips, Increase saafety for non-m motorized userss, Increase mobility for non--motorized useers, Advance the efforts of reggional agencies to achieve grreenhouse gass reduction goaals, Enhance public health, including i the reduction of childhood obeesity through the use of prrojects eligible for Safe Routes too Schools Progrram funding, Ensure disaadvantaged com mmunities fully ly share in proggram benefits (25% of proggram), and Provide a broad spectrrum of projeccts to benefitt many typess of active trransportation users.

Prograam funding is segregated s intoo three compoonents and is ddistributed as ffollows:   

50% to thee state for a staatewide competitive program m, 10% to sm mall urban and rural regions with populatioons of 200,0000 or less for tthe small urbaan and rural area competitive c program, and 40% to Meetropolitan Plaanning Organizzations (MPO)) in urban areeas with popuulations greater than 200,000 foor the large urbbanized area competitive c prrogram.

For the Orange Cou unty area, the t ATP is overseen byy the Southern Californnia Associatio on of Governments (SCAG). For Fiscal Years Y 2014-15 5 and 2015-1 6, the area o of Southern C California governed by SCAG received a total of $74.3 million for funding f bike aand pedestriaan projects off which about 25% ($18 million) was alloccated to disaadvantaged co ommunities2. Of the total funding available in the SSCAG region, 17 7 projects weere funded in Orange Cou unty for a tottal of $13 million. The graants ranged frrom a low of $126,000 to a maximum of o $2.6 million with a meedian of $4755,000. Fifteeen of the grants in Orange County C were for f infrastruccture development and two o were for pllanning. ATP guidelines prescribe that no less l than 25% % of overall prrogram fundss benefit disad dvantaged communitties, which arre defined as having a median householdd income lesss than 80% off the statewid de median, or o among the most disadvaantaged 10% in i the state (aaccording to tthe latest verrsion of the C CA Communities Environm mental Health h Screening Tool), T or at leeast 75% of thhe public scho ool students in the project arrea are eligible to receive free f or reducced meals undder the Natio onal School Luunch Program m. 2

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

139

7.0 APPEND DICES

o a least 11.47% were reequired for aall projects exxcept for pro ojects For ATP Cycle I matcching funds of nantly benefitting a disadvvantaged com mmunity, staand-alone no on-infrastructture projectss (for predomin example community c saafety and bikee education programs) p andd safe routes to school projects. The source of the maatching funds was any com mbination of lo ocal, private, state or fedeeral funds. Maatching funds were required to be expeended in thee same projeect phase (ppermits and environmental studies; plans, e rigght-of-way capital c outlaay; support for right-of-way acquissition; specifications, and estimates; constructtion capital ou utlay; and con nstruction enggineering) as the Active T Transportationn Program funding. The matching requirem ments for AT TP Cycle II are subject to cchange pendiing finalizationn of the proggram's guideliness. 7 and 2017-18, the fundin ng available fo or the SCAG region should be similar.. The For fiscal year 2016-17 next roun nd of grant su ubmittals willl be due in March M 2015. The most cuurrent inform mation on thee ATP program can c be found at www.catc.ca.gov/progrrams/ATP.htm m

6.2.2 AB B2766 Since 199 91 local goveernments havve received AB A 2766 fundds to implem ment program ms that reducce air pollution from motor vehicles. AB B 2766 specifies that a Mottor Vehicle R Registration feee surcharge of $6 per vehiclle be collecteed by the Dep partment of Motor M Vehiclees and given to the South Coast Air Q Quality Management District (SCAQMD) ( for f disbursem ment. Of thiss fee, 40% go oes to local ggovernments. The local funds are designeed to help cities meet requ uirements of tthe federal annd state Clean Air Act. The AB 2766 guidelines indicate that the deesign, develo opment, and installation of bicycle ro outes, bikeways//bike paths an nd bike trail improvementts are eligible for AB 27666 funding. Thhe guidelines ggo on to specifyy: Biike lanes, pathhs or routes are a most effecctive when theey reduce com mmute and noon-recreationaal auto trravel by encouuraging and increasing the use u of bicycless. A bike pathh must eliminaate and/or deccrease single commuteer vehicle tripss and miles trraveled, while improving saafety and acceessibility. Bike paths sttrictly used forr recreational activities a will not n qualify as an eligible prooject because there are no motor veehicle emissionn reductions orr vehicular com mmuter trips reeduced or elim minated. Other bikke facilities that t promotee and facilitatte the increaased use of nnon-motorizeed transit aree also eligible. This T would include bike racks, lockers, signals, and bbus racks; andd the installatiion of bike sttorage units with h park and rid de facilities or at the end of bicycle traails. In additiion, the purchase of electtric or standard bicycles in lieeu of gas pow wered vehiclees for police officers, com mmunity service personneel, and communitty residents is eligible. For more on o AB 27666 funding seee www.aqmd d.gov/docs/deefaultsource/traansportation//ab2766-moto or-vehicle-sub bvention-fundd-program/abb2766-resourcceguide.pdf??sfvrsn=2

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

140

7.0 APPEND DICES

6.2.3 Climate Ready Grant Program P – California State Coa astal Conse ervancy The purpo ose of the Cllimate Ready grant prograam is to help advance the planning and implementation of on-the-ground actionss that will lesssen the impaacts of climatte change onn California’s coastal resouurces. The Coasstal Conservancy fund mayy include trailss and other ppublic access tto and along the coast. The stagees of a projeect generally funded by the t Coastal Conservancyy include pree-project feassibility studies, property p acquisition, plan nning (for larrge areas orr specific sitees) and design, environm mental review, co onstruction, monitoring, m and, a in limited d circumstancces, maintenannce. For more informatio on see www.scc.ca.gov/catego ory/grants/

6.2.4 Greenhouse G e Gas Re eduction Fund: F Affo ordable H Housing an nd Sustain nable Commu unities program The auctio on proceeds from the Statte’s Cap and Trade Prograam are appro opriated in thee Greenhousse Gas Reduction n Fund. A minimum of 50% % of the fund ds must be ussed for affordaable housing. A portion n of these fu unds will be made availab ble for bicyccle-related prrojects on a competitive basis through the t Strategic Growth Co ouncil’s Afforrdable Housiing and Susttainable Com mmunities pro ogram (AHSC). Eligible projeects will inclu ude those that result in a reduction o of greenhousee gas emissio ons by increasingg accessibility of housin ng, employm ment centerss, and key destinationss via low-caarbon transportation optionss (walking, bikking and tran nsit), resultingg in fewer vehhicle miles trraveled (comm monly known ass transit-orien nted developm ment). At least 50% of thhese funds w will be targeted at disadvanntaged communitties. For updaates on the program see http://sgc.ca.go h ov/index.php

6.3 Regional & Local Programs 6.3.1 OC CTA Bicyc cle Corrido or Improve ement Projjects (BCIP P) In 2012, the OCTA Board of Diirectors auth horized 10% of Federal C Congestion M Mitigation and Air Quality (C CMAQ) fund ds that are currently c auth horized undeer MAP-21 to o be set asid de for bicycle and pedestrian n projects thaat are "ready to go” as dettermined thro ough compettitive calls for projects. Eligible ap pplicants inclu ude the 35 loccal governmeent agencies inn Orange Co ounty. Eligiblee agencies muust be able to reeceive federal funding thro ough OCTA or must be able to provide authorizinng resolutionns and cooperative agreemen nts from their controllingg bodies or through Calltrans as a d direct recipieent of Federal Highway H Admiinistration (FH HWA) funds. In the 2014 funding cyycle, $4.3 miillion dollars were allocatted for bike aand pedestriaan projects w with a minimum grant size of $100,000 and a $1 million n maximum. However, prrojects that reequired moree than $1 million n could be seegmented intto smaller ph hases and subbmitted as individual projects. Projects that were prio oritized as parrt of a multi-jjurisdictional active transpportation plannning effort (ssuch as this district

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

141

7.0 APPEND DICES

5 Bikewayys Strategy) received r up to t 10 additional points fo r coordinatio on. A minimum local mattch of 12% was required r for each e grant ap pplication. The 2016 BCIP plan is currently under review by b OCTA stafff with announcements reggarding the plan by early 2016 6. For more information about a the BC CIP see http:///www.octa.neet/BCIPcall.aspx

6.3.1 De eveloper Im mpact Feess Under Caalifornia law, developers can be charrged a one-ti me fee to o offset impactss of their prroject. Traffic mitigation fees, infrastructurre improvemeent fees, and ffees for imprroving sewer and water systems to accommodate new development are commo on examples of developmeent impact feees. "Exactionn" is a broader term t for imp pact fees, dedications of land, and in--lieu fees thaat are impossed to fund public improvem ments necessiitated by thee proposed development d t. School faciility fees, parrk land dediccation requiremeents, and road dedicationss and improveements are al l examples off exactions. In order for f these impact fees to bee imposed, th he responsiblee agency musst: 1. Id dentify the purpose to which the fee is put; 2. Demonstrate D a reasonable relationship between b the fee and purpo ose for whichh it is charged d; 3. Id dentify all sou urces and am mounts of fun nding anticipaated to be uused to financce the incom mplete im mprovements; and 4. Designate D the approximatee dates on wh hich the abovve funding is expected to be deposited d into th he appropriatte account orr fund. For moree on the Deveeloper Impacct Fee program see the Caalifornia Natuural Resourcees Agency weebsite www.cerees.ca.gov/plan nning/financingg/chap4.html San Franccisco has used this fee to fund transpo ortation projects ranging from buses and street caars to bike facilities. As of 2012 the development feee had generrated over $100 million d dollars to suupport transit-related projeects. To find f out more m abouut the Sann Francisco o program see http://ww ww.metroplanning.org/newss/newsletterss/173

6.4 Privvate Prograams There aree a variety off private sourrces that mayy be tapped ffor funding bbike-related pprograms. Som me of the more prominent so ources are discussed below w.

6.4.1 Pe eople For Bikes B Grantt Program Formerly known as the t Bikes Beelong Program, PeopleforrBikes (www w.peopleforbikkes.org) is a bike industry-ssponsored no on-profit that provides com mmunity grannts as well as support for aadvocacy.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

142

7.0 APPEND DICES

The Peop pleforBikes Community Grant Program m provides fuunding for important and influential pro ojects that leverrage federal funding f and build b momenttum for bicyccling in comm munities acro oss the U.S. T These projects include bike paths p and raill trails, as weell as mountaiin bike trails,, bike parks, BMX facilities, and large-scalee bicycle advo ocacy initiativves. Since 199 99, the prograam has award ded 272 gran nts to non-prrofit organizat ations and loccal governmeents in 49 states and the Disttrict of Colum mbia. Their investments ttotal nearly $ $2.5 million aand have leveeraged $650 million in publlic and privaate funding. For more informationn on the grrant program m see www.peo opleforbikes.o org/pages/com mmunity-grantts People-for-Bikes also sponsors s the Green Lane Project, whicch is aimed att helping citiees build better bike lanes to create c low-sttress streets. The program m focuses onn protected bbike lanes, w which are on-sstreet lanes sepaarated from traffic t by curb bs, planters, parked p cars, o or posts. The Greeen Lane Projeect hosts hands-on worksh hops and stu dy tours for city leaders, provides tecchnical and strateegic assistancee, and deliverrs targeted grrants designedd to get proteected bike lannes on the ground. For moree information on the Greeen Lane Projeect including an excellent video on prrotected bike lanes see http:///www.peopleeforbikes.org//green-lane-prroject.

6.4.4 Ka aiser Permanente He ealthy Eatin ng Active L Living (HEA AL) Progra am For overr 60 years Kaiser Perm manente has offered graants to charritable and community based organizatiions. Accordingg to the Kaiseer Permanentte website: Our O Communityy Health Initiaatives take a prevention-driv p ven approach to health, suppporting policiees and ennvironmental changes c that promote heallthy eating annd active livingg (often referrred to as HEA EAL) in neeighborhoods, schools and workplaces. w Our O work also addresses coommunity econnomic developpment, ennvironmental sustainability s and a neighborhhood safety—kkey factors inn promoting healthy commuunities. We W work withh community-bbased organizzations and rresidents to ttranslate theirr vision for hhealthy coommunities intto visible, conccrete changes— —and ultimateely healthier neeighborhoods. Cities succh as Long Beeach have useed HEAL gran nts as part off their bike prrogram neighborhood outtreach and educaation effort. The Long Beach grants were w obtaineed through thheir Public Health Departtment. For moree on Kaiser Peermanente grrants see http p://share.kaiseerpermanentee.org/article/ggrants-overvieew.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

143

7.0 APPEND DICES

7.0 AP PPENDIICES A. Samp ple Letter of Supportt The follow wing is an ex xample of a letter of sup pport that wo ould be preppared by an individual citty and submitted d as part of a grant fundingg application.

Date Fund ding Agency Address City, State, Zip Subje ect: Letter of Support for Funding Grant Application fo or (insert Project name) W it May Co oncern: To Whom The City C of (insert name) n is submittting this letter in n support of thee funding grant application subm mitted by (insertt lead agency) a for the (insert project name). This pro oposed bikewayy project repressents an important piece of thee regional bikeway nettwork in south Orange O County.. We recognizee the benefits thhat the project will provide nott only to t (insert city naame), but all citiees within this section of the couunty. This proposed project was identified d as a focus corrridor as part off the District 5 Bikeways Collaaborative, a jointt effortt involving our city, c the projectt applicant, the Orange O Countyy Transportationn Authority (OC CTA), and otherr neighboring local agencies. Our citty was an activve participant inn the District 5 Bikeways Collaborative. Thiss collab borative effort focused on reegional bikewayy planning and the identificattion of bikewaay projects and d impro ovements that would w provide beenefits througho out Orange Couuntyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Supervisorrial District 5. T The collaborativee was one o of many projects p undertaaken by OCTA A to improve reegional bikewayys planning thro oughout Orangee Coun nty. oving bikeway faacilities within District D 5 is a keey priority for o our city. Bikewaay facilities helpp to provide ourr Impro resideents and comm muters with alternatives to auto omobile travel and provide saffe and convenieent bikeways to o encou urage people to travel by bicycle. We enthusiaastically support the consideration of the (inserrt project name)) for fu unding through this t program. Sincerely, City Contact C Title

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

144

7.0 APPEND DICES

B. Facilitation Effo orts Preparatio on of this reeport was a collaborative c effort, with facilitation bby OCTA of input from public stakeholders, agency sttaff, and electted officials. Preparation P o of the strategyy included thee following effforts.

Project Developm ment Team (PDT) Summary A projectt developmen nt team (PDT T) was conveened with plaanning and enngineering reppresentatives from each mem mber agency within District 5, as well as OCTA, O OCCOG, andd project connsultant team m staff. The PDT T met on multiple m occaasions to disscuss projectt goals and objectives, opportunitiess and constraintts, preliminarry corridor alignments, a an nd draft rankking criteria. Meetings weere held at LLaguna Hills Com mmunity Centter (October 2013 & May 2014), Lake Forest City H Hall (Decembber 2013), Sann Juan Capistrano Council Ch hambers (Aprril 2014), Lagguna Beach C ity Hall (July 2014), and Saan Juan Capisstrano Community Center (September ( 2014). Atten ndance at thhe PDT meeetings ranged between 20-30 attendeess. The PDT membership m included the following f reprresentatives: 

City C of Aliso Viejo V – Shaun Pelletier



City C of Dana Point P – Brad Fowler F



City C of Irvine – David Law



City C of Lagunaa Beach – Scott Drapkin



City C of Lagunaa Hills – Ken Rosenfield, R Humza Javed, aand Katie Cro ockett



City C of Lagunaa Niguel – Edggar Abrenica



City C of Lagunaa Woods – Douglas C. Reilly



City C of Lake Fo orest – Carrie Tai



City C of Mission n Viejo – Philip Nitollama and Greg Sto ones



City C of Rancho o Santa Margaarita – Anthony Viera and Nate Farnsw worth



City C of San Cleemente – Tom m Frank



City C of San Juaan Capistrano o – Joe Mankaawich and Geeorge Alvarezz



County C of Oraange – Khalid Bazmi, Joe Sarmiento, Sam m Ahi, and H Hany Ahmed



Caltrans C – Rom meo Estrella and a Marlon Regisford R



Transportation T n Corridor Agencies A (TCA A) – Valarie M McFall



OCTA O – Charrlie Larwood, Gary Hewittt, Carolyn Maamaradlo, Marlon Perry, Paul Martin, N Nathan Wheadon W

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

145

7.0 APPEND DICES

Focus Group G Meettings Focus gro oup meetingss were organ nized with PDT P represenntatives to ccreate smalleer working ggroups consistingg of groups of o cities. During the focuss group meettings, large-fo ormat boardss were printeed for brainstorm ming potentiaal bikeway corridors. The printed mateerials includedd the identificcation of wateer and rail corrid dors, the traansportation network, ex xisting and prroposed bikeeways, majorr destinationss, and other keyy features for consideration and collabo orative brainsttorming. Focus gro oup meeting #1 # occurred on January 13 3, 2014 at thee City of Misssion Viejo with representtatives from Mission Viejo, Lake L Forest, Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Ranchho Santa Marrgarita, Counnty of Orange, and a Caltrans. Focus group p meeting #2 occurred on January 27, 2014 at the C City of Dana Point with reprresentatives from f Dana Po oint, Laguna Beach, San C Clemente, Co ounty of Oraange, and Calltrans. Focus gro oup meeting #3 # occurred on o January 30 0, 2014 at thee City of Laguuna Niguel with representtatives from Lagu una Niguel, Aliso A Viejo, and County of Orange. O From the three focus group meetin ngs, the “Poteential Bikewaay Corridors”” inventory m map was deveeloped to identifyy potential co orridors whicch agencies would w like to develop in thhe future. Fro om these pottential corridors, the nine reegional bikew way corridorss were deve loped. Figurre B-1 illustrrates the pottential bikeway corridors c inittially identifieed by the PD DT members. While not all of these connections were ultimatelyy designated on o the recom mmended reggional networrk, they may still be considered in loccalized planning and a implemen ntation effortss by the respeective cities aand County aggencies. These potential bikew way corridors can be identtified and serrve as local spur connections from thee nine regional bikeway corridors and other District 5. These local spur o bikewaay facilities tthroughout D connectio ons will help build a largerr bikeway neetwork with aadditional connectivity to regional and d local bikeway corridors c as well w as regional and local destinations d a nd attractionns.

C. Outrreach Media was provideed at www.o Informatio on regardingg the Districct 5 regionaal bikeways w octa.net/Sharee-theRide/Bike//Bikeways-Plaanning/Region nal-Bikeways-Planning. Thhe webpage includes a project overrview, backgroun nd, schedule, and a map illustrating th he existing b ikeways netw work in the pproject area along with the potential bikkeway corrido ors in Districct 5. The weebpage was uupdated reguularly with prroject materials including meeeting materials, meeting dates, and c ontact inform mation. Add ditionally, outtreach events scchedules with hin the comm munity were posted to thhe webpage to provide nnotification tto the communitty. The projject website includes a marketing conttact from OC CTA in the fframe on thee right with phon ne and email contact c inform mation provid ded.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

146

PDT IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL BIKEWAY CORRIDORS

V U SR-241

Irvine Lake

OCTA District 5 Bikeways Collaborative BIKEWAY CORRIDORS SANTIAGO

Potential Bikeway Corridors

CANYON

m n O

m n

COUNTY AN

m n

m n MA ALD

m n

PO RTOLA

SR-241

FLO RES LAS

m n

V U

m n

IDA DE

SR-261

m n

EN GL

Rattlesnake Reservoir

N AVE

V U

m n N CH RA

m n EL IN DA

Lambert Reservoir

SA NTA

T MARGARI

m n

IDA DE LAS BA

CHO

NDERAS

RANCHO

m n

TRE

AVE NID

EGA

O OS

WN VA LL

O EJ VI N RA

BALB

m n

L AVIO

nSTON m SE

m n Pacific Ocean

Miles

N DA

T O IN AP

PAT A

m n

m n COAST

A AVENIDA L PATA

TA H

ICO

ERM

OSA Palisades Reservoir

SAN CLEMENTE

OSA

VIS

HE RM

MA RES

A LV

DANA POINT m n

IL EH

C COAS

M BL

I-5

m n C

ISL AN D

PACIFI

§ ¦ ¨

ISTRANO

M IN O

m n

RELLA

PA CIF

CAP

YRE

NO MI CA

NNE

AR BO R

GLE

GUEL NI

ST RE FO

m n

n m m n

CAMINO VERA CRU

CA M IN D O E LOS

m n

CAMINO DE EST

AC O N

IT E

O RI

Krum Reservoir

m nn m

m n

m mn n

m n

2.5

DE L

HIL

COAST

1.25

m n

¤ n

AVENIDA P

m mn n

m n

LEGEND

m n

AVENIDA VISTA

m n

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

SAN

m nn m

JUA

m nn m

ALIPAZ

LAGUNA NIGUEL

HOUSE LUB C

NEWPORT BEACH

TA LE GA

m n

MARGUER

BAYSIDE

REE

m n

COUNTY

m n AVOCADO

m n

VI EJ O

m n m n

m n

PA TA

m n HO

NA HILLS

NEWPORT COAS T

RA N

m n Y

COUNTY LAGUNA BEACH

Sulphur Creek Reservoir

m nn m C

m n m n

m n

S LL HI

m n

DEL OBISPO

n m m n

m n

AR I

NY ON

CA UEL

MIG

W OO D

AVERY

San Joaquin Reservoir

C TA

m n

Big Canyon Reservoir

m n m n

SAN JOAQUI

m n

¤ n

CRO

PA R F CI PA

m n

SAN

m n

ALISO VIEJO

SR-73

m n

FORD

FELIPE

LS HIL NA GU LA D

RO CK

V U

m nn m

m n

m nn m

BO NI TA

BIS

LAGUNA HILLS

n m m n ALISO V

EY EL RK BE

Bonita Reservoir

m n m n

m n

EASTBLUFF

Lagunas

ILL

m mn n m n SR-73

m n

IE JO

LAGUNA WOODS

GLENW OO

S PU

E TL T UR ON NY Y CA SHAD

V U

m n

VALENCIA

IRVINE

m n

PIAD

m n EO DE

AC GUN LA

R GUE MAR

NT A

ANYON

CARLSON

ITY

C Sp

m n

RID

m n

I-5

YALE

ELIN E Sand Canyon Reservoir

m n

§ ¦ ¨

m n

PA S

RI DG

m n

CARL OTA

m n

O CH

Reservoir

m n AD E LA

405

MICHELSON

IT E

m n m n

m n m nn m

m n

O DE COL PASE I

N TO UL MO

m nn m Veeh

§ ¦ ¨

YM OL

ROU GE

RID

F KE

Laguna Reservoir

m MISSION n m VIEJO n

m n

m n m n

m n

m n O

m n

KFIE

QUAIL HI LL

LANDS

TON

JAMBOREE

M U IR

m n

ROC

m n

JE R O

m n m n

m n

CREEK

LAKE

BARRANCA

VON KARMAN

m n

SAND CANYON

North Lake

MAIN

El Toro Reservoir

EL TO

JEFFREY

CULVER

n m m DO n

¤ n

m n

TOLE

ALT ON

m n

WAR NE R

OLOGY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA

Lake Mission Viejo

TER

TR ABU

IRVINE CEN

m n

TECH N

YALE

HARVARD

TRONG

¤ n

TUSTIN

V U SR-133

WALNUT

EDINGER

m n

TRABUCO

m n

ORT

I-5

Z PA

§ ¦ ¨

m n

D THWOO

SOU

NDS LA IGH

O RE A

LISOS LOS A

CAM IN

m n

LAKE FOREST

BRYAN

EN AV

MER

CEN

m n

AM IN

NORTHWOOD

COM

TRABUCO CREEK

IRVINE

ANTONIO

RAN OLA PORT

Siphon Reservoir

¤ n

m n m n m n

Rail

m n

m n m n n m

O CAMINO CAPISTRAN

¤ n

Transportation Center

m n EL

m n

Schools

m n

Colleges Parks / Open Space

MIN

Waterbody

m n

§ ¦ ¨

City Boundary

I-5

Supervisorial District 5

Source: OCTA

Figure B-1

7.0 APPEND DICES

Questio onnaires Questionnaire #1 An initial online questtionnaire was distributed to t gather inpput that would be useful ffor developinng the of the types of connectio regional bikeway b corridor alignmen nts and in co onsideration o ons to serve. The results off this questionnaire werre provided to the PDT T and considdered in devveloping the draft corridors. There werre a total of 167 1 respondeents through the OCTA w webpage. Belo ow are the rresults of the queestionnaire: 1. How oftten do you rid de your bicyclle? Answer Options O 4-7 days a week 2-3 days a week Once a week Less than n once a week k

Re esponse P Percent

Response C Count

4 41.3% 3 31.1% 1 13.2% 1 14.4%

69 52 22 24

answere ed questions skippe ed questions

167 0

2. Why do o you ride you ur bicycle (che eck one that applies a most o often)? Re esponse P Percent

Answer Options O

Response C Count

3 31.7% 1 12.8% 5 55.5%

To go to work/school w To go sho opping/run errrands; For entertainment; To T socialize To exercis se; For recrea ation Other (ple ease specify)

52 21 91 16

answere ed questions skippe ed questions

164 3

3. How far do you usua ally ride your bike? b Answer Options O 0-3 miles 4-6 miles 7-9 miles 10 miles or o greater

Re esponse P Percent

Response C Count

1 14.5% 1 18.7% 1 12.7% 5 54.2%

24 31 21 90

answere ed questions skippe ed questions

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

166 1

148

7.0 APPEND DICES

4. Which of o the followin ng do you use e to ride your bicycle (checck all that app ply)? Re esponse P Percent

Answer Options O

Response C Count

8 80.2% 7 79.0% 7 70.7% 4 46.1%

Off street paths (e.g. siidewalks, trails, etc.) Residentia al streets or streets s with a speed limit below 35 MPH H Streets with a speed lim mit over 35 MPH M and with a bike lane Streets with a speed lim mit over 35 MPH M and no biike lane Other (ple ease specify)

134 132 118 77 12

answere ed questions skippe ed questions

167 0

5. What is s the biggest challenge c to bicycling b in yo our neighborh hood? Re esponse P Percent

Answer Options O

Response C Count

1 14.5% 3 32.9% 0.7% 5 52.0%

Steep hills s High-spee ed traffic Long dista ances Lack of bicycle facilities s (e.g. bike la anes, bike parrking, etc.) Other (ple ease specify)

22 50 1 79 30

answere ed questions skippe ed questions

152 15

6. Have you ever been in an accident on or with a bike? Answer Options O Yes No If yes, please describe (optional).

Response e Percent

Responsse Count

38.8% 61.2%

6 64 10 01 5 54

an nswered quesstions skipped ques estions

165 2

If yes, plea ase describe (optional). Number

Response Tex xt

Hit & run in La aguna Beach. The T driver side eswiped me the en took off.

I have had 3 minor m collisions s with cars whille on my bike a and had one m ajor solo crash h. All within the last 9 yrs.

I was run off the road by an automobile, se eparated should der

Another cyclis st riding the wro ong way hit me e head-on.

Mechanical fa ailure

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

149

7.0 APPEND DICES

If yes, plea ase describe (optional). 6

A block of woo od fell off a truc ck. I was biking g on the road a and I couldn't ge et out of the wa ay. So I fell on the street and I fe eared getting hit from the cars s behind me.

It was my own n fault. Did not involve a car.

Twice years ago a between J Serra and Avery (minor scrap pes). Too manyy close calls to count.

Hit by a car tw wice. Once was s my fault the second s time I w was in a painted d bicycle lane in downtown Anaheim and I was cut off by y a car.

Never a car/bike collision, be ecause I ride like a driver. An d I have been spared the bad d fortune of being in the trajectory of an impaired motorist.

Driver ran a stop sign on T in ntersection.

Almost. The SE S corner of Ca ampus and Cullver is an accid dent waiting to happen. Cars tturning east to Campus tend to go without stopping s or looking.

Too many close calls and ag ggressive or un naware drivers who drive to cllose to a bicycllist or sound their horns as they pass.

Hit by a truck (vehicle failed to yield). Hit a pedestrian wh o jaywalked (she was cited). Skidded on oil while turning.

A driver made e an illegal man neuver coming from a stop an nd hit me on the e side, while I w was crossing th he intersection with w a green ligh ht.

I've been run down 2 times both b knee , ope erations , uninssured , hit and rrun

I have not bee en hit by a car, but have had plenty p of close calls with carss driving into the e Class II bike lane and almost hittting me.

I have been grazed, (not too o serious), by a car, on two se eparate occasio ons.

Since I'm 60, and have been n riding most off my life, I've be een in several serious ones. F Fortunately non ne were life threa atening.

children on the bike path sto opping abruptly y.

With another rider, cutoff, cracked helmet in half. No hand d signals used by the offendin ng rider.

Many times it is people in so ome type of mo otorized vehicle e who is driving g much too fastt or turning carelessly with little to no reg gard of a bicyclists right of wa ay

Slipping on wet roads and fa alling on mounttain trails.

About 30 yearrs ago I hit a sidewalk adjacent, raised plantter (OK, I used to ride on side ewalks as a kid d) and broke my ankle.

sideswiped on n Hamilton brid dge, followed and driven into ccurb on w16th in Costa mesa a

DO YOU MEA AN BIKE CRAS SHES? (THEY Y ARE USUALL LY AVOIDABLE E AND ARE NO OT ACCIDENT TS.) DURING 70 YEARS Y OF BIC CYCLING: - SEVERAL WITH W STATION NARY OBJECT TS. - MAYBE 4 WITH W OTHER CYCLISTS C - NEVER WIT TH A MOTOR VEHICLE. V

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

150

7.0 APPEND DICES

If yes, plea ase describe (optional). 27

I rear-ended a truck that cut me off.

Hit by a car who w turned in fro ont of me witho out notification. No bike lane..

slipped on we et surface, fell, bruised hand

Hit by a car in n South Carolina. Other crashes by myself o or in races.

Car turning rig ght did not look k right and hit me m and took offf

Ran off the ro oad by a car on Jamboree Blvd.

Motorist made e a sudden righ ht turn in front of o me on Crown n Valley Parkw way and I collide ed with the veh hicle.

I slipped on wet w pavement and a had skin ab brasions in 200 04

Car swerved into i bike lane on o Lambert Roa ad in North Ora ange County and struck me. The car kept d driving without stoppiing.

Car wanted to o make a right hand h turn and parked me into o the curb. Carr made an onco oming left hand d turn trying to out ru un me in the intersection.

I have been hit by a truck, an nd thrown overr the handlebarrs of my bicycle e, among otherr accidents. I ALWAYS wea ar a helmet!

Was wearing a high visibility y 3m scotchlite sweater and w was hit by a carr turning. He never even lookked in my direction when w pulling intto the street. Pulled P out right in front of me.

about 14 yearrs ago, someon ne turning rightt against a red light as I was in n the crosswalk, struck me, destroying my y bike. Luckily, I rolled over th he hood and lan nded on my fee et. Driver took m me to emergen ncy care then to Jax Bicycle Cen nter to buy me a new bike.

I have been tw wice struck by cars c that were turning into sh opping centerss. In one of the ese hit-and-run n accidents, I was w thrown onto o my knee, which resulted in h hemorrhagic bu ursitis ligamentt strain, and a chondral fractture of the pate ella. As a result, I now have a arthritis in that kknee and unde erwent arthrosccopic debridement 2 1/2 weeks ag go. My life has been forever a altered by a vehicle that came e up from behin nd and suddenly cut across my path without warning. w

on sidewalk, something s jammed in my spo okes

Many years ago (and not in California) I wa as riding in a de esignated bike lane when a ccar in the oncom ming lanes turned left in front of me. m I collided with the passeng ger-side of the car, went overr the hood, and d was saved from significant traum ma by my helme et.

stopped too fa ast and fell off, trying to avoid turning vehicle e in the right la ne where I wass going straight (thankfully, did dn't collide with h another vehic cle or bike)

Hit from the re ear while makin ng a left hand turn t on my bike e.

Several. Only y one involving a driver, in Co orona Del Mar o on PCH. Inatte entive driver turned right sudd denly in front of me and another biiker after havin ng just passed u us seconds beffore.

Another cyclis st hit me. Also a car almost hit me in the bikke lane.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

151

7.0 APPEND DICES

If yes, plea ase describe (optional). 47

the car driver was not lookin ng and backed out of there dri ve way and hitt me

I fell from my bike while transitioning from the t street (bike e lane) to an offf street bike tra ail. The road su urface, gutter, and cu urb created a situation in whic ch caused my frront tire to track in the gutter a and not to the path smoothly caus sing me to lose e control and fa all.

I was hit by a car in an inters section and bum mped into a ca ar in a crosswallk. I almost get hit by a car evvery time I ride my bike!

was riding on sidewalk and car c cut in front of me

I was riding in n a fairly low-sp peed limit medium density ressidential area w with shops and a car coming from a 25 mph reside ential area ran through a stop p sign speeding g. In order to avvoid the car, wh hich I judged w was going over 30 0 mph, I knew I had to fall into the street and off my bike. So I got off my b bike and hit the e road and my bike rolled on top of me, but I avoid ded the car. I w wasn't wearing a helmet. I managed to get by with a few scrapes s and a bruised d elbow. Since then, t I am overrly cautious an d will bike slow wer and stop more frequently to avoid a dangerou us cars.

Hit by a car as s it was turning g on to PCH in Laguna Beach h.

Fell off braking for a bunny crossing c the pa ath :-)

Taking a corner too quickly, touching whee els, and hit a sttreet reflector

Other Com mments Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 10

Response T Text I am intereste ed in the Citizen ns Advisory Co ommittee Off street bike e paths are nee eded desperate ely. More dedicate ed trails for bike es and safe connections to M Metrolink and m more bus runs fo or bike racks Why can't we place K rails on o bike routes that parallel ma ajor roads Vehicle speed d limits are too high on most streets s making for a dangerou us combination n when bicycless are put into the mix. There should be more trafffic control policce to slow thing gs down! We need morre bike paths/la anes along the major streets. Sidewalks are e cluttered with electrical boxe es, street light boxes, power polles, etc.; sidew walks don't allow w enough spacce for bike traffiic. great informattion and survey y I've heard talk k of a bike/ ped destrian bridge being added to o the west side e of the existing g train bridge ovver San Juan Cre eek behind SJC C City Hall. The e "Trail" on the east side of Sa an Juan Creek from Doheny currently dead d ends at the San S Juan Creek k/ Trabuco Cre ek terminus. M Most people who ride that trail just carry their bik kes over the train tracks (it's illlegal, but MUC CH safer than riiding northboun nd Camino Capistrano intto San Juan fro om the beach). If the trail wass extended ove er San Juan Cre eek by a bridge e it would alleviatte the need to travel t northbound on Camino Capistrano alttogether. Thankks for your time e. Please keep working w hard to o improve cycling in north Ora ange County. Y Your hard work isn't going unnoticed. Thanks for the e great work. Orange County Cycle Paths could always be b better and tthe obvious gap ps and disconn nects are frustrrating ... but despite that they are a great amenity y, and we shou uld be grateful ffor what you do o! Thank You Creating safe and well-lit bik ke lanes to major centers such h as CSUF, Fu ullerton College e, Fullerton Transportation Center, Brea Mall, Honda Center, C Angel S Stadium etc., w will encourage b bicycle usage a and relieve congestion and pollution and allow persons to con nsider this viab ble year-round o option for commuting an nd travel. I am grateful g for wha at has been do one so far and w would encourage more active e work in this underta aking. Please make m it safe an nd convenient ffor us to ride ou ur bikes.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

152

7.0 APPEND DICES

Other Com mments Number 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

36 37

Response T Text Cycling for rec creation or com mmuting is safe e and FUN in O Orange County!! Spread the word about Safe e Cycling by encouraging people to take the TS101 classess. Slow down a and enjoy the riide!!! Please install more Class I bikeways!!! b Thank you forr supporting tra ansportation by y bicycle! It's important to build bikewa ays now. My friends are dying g on the road. Drivers don't like bike riders. We need a circula ar bike only patth that actually circles Orange e County and a allows riders to enter the path and be safe from cars. c We shou uld work to do th his now. We n need to use the e old railroad tra acks. Please start in ncluding bicycle e facilities on all a transportatio on projects. Thiis is a zero emiission transporrtation mode and nee eds to get priorrity funding. We need morre areas specifiically for cyclistts that are off ro oad and safe, p painted lines in n the street do nothing to imp pede motorists from running over o or into cycclists as most m motorists do no ot even regard tthe bike lane as itts own part of road. r Preserve and improve trail along a east side of San Juan C Creek from Cam mino Cap to Do oheny Beach. I would use my m bicycle much h more often fo or shopping if th here were wayss to get to even n a few destina ations, like Irvine spe ectrum, without competing with car traffic, esspecially at nigh ht. Please consid der a bikeway connection c on Irvine I Blvd betw ween Tustin Ra anch Road and d Newport Blvd d. Thank you! I need A TUNE UP WITH NE EW TIRES & TUBES. T By far the bigg gest hazard is highway overp passes with no bike path. Gettting across highways safely o on a bike is very difficult, and therre are many of them in OC. Santa Ana is one o of the mos st unfriendliest bike cities I've ever known! We need to ge et the word outt to the commu unity that riding is safe and fun n. The best wa ay to do that is have a ciclavia event in orange co ounty. Close th he streets some ewhere on a Sunday and havve a festival typ pe event like in LA. L How about downtown San nta Ana? Fam milies, food truckks, music, art, bikes, corporatte sponsors, etc. I am willing to o help, but don n't know who to o contact or how w to get started d! Eric Great Job OC CTA!!!! Need to study y Amsterdam as that MAJOR EU city has mo ore bikes than cars. And car traffic mixed w with bike traffic. none of this survey seems to o be about Sou uth County, whiich is the worstt place for bike e riding at prese ent. Few trails and d almost none link l to one anotther. Please install a class 1 bike lane on the un nused Pacific E Electric Right off Way, which cu uts through OC C and bisects Garde en Grove. I drive and I ride. I share the e road. Give buses th he capacity for more than two bicycles. Consider reac ching out to OC C bike clubs to get more bike rider input. I would ride to o work if there was w a safe traill or bike lane. As long as pe eople on bikes run r stop signs & red lights; rid de against trafffic in the street;; unpredictably ride on and off of the t sidewalks... motorists are going to contin nue to disrespe ect and dislike us. Better publlic education and d enforcement of the vehicle code c for both b bikes and cars iis much neede ed. Bikes and high speed cars ju ust don't mix well. w More truly dedicated bike e trails, like the e River Trail wo ould be great. There needs to t be designate ed parking area as for landscap pers and mainte enance vehicle es that do not impede bike traffic using des signated bike la anes or paths. A turnout area a for maintenan nce purposes needs to be created in greenbelt (s similar to bus sttops) that proviides for the saffety of the bicycclist and the maintenance crews working in the street. I would like to o help bring atte ention to drivers of bicyclists rrights to share the road and n navigate intersections with w our safety as a number one o priority. Se econdly I could useful in helpin ng develop bike trails and lane es to encourage e pedestrian an nd bicycle route es for pedestrians also. Like the fact that you are doing surveys to making biking safer.... too ma any cyclists are e being killed.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

153

7.0 APPEND DICES

Other Com mments Number 38 39 40

42 43 44

Response T Text Long somewh hat flat trails aw way from traffic are the best. A neurologist I know made m me promise him that he would neve er, ever find me e riding in traffiic. I think the b biggest problem m riding in bike lanes is that cyclists tend to think that all the traffic is watching out o for them. N Not so true. I live in Westm minster and jus st to get out of the t city is a hug ge hassle, McF Fadden and bolsa are TERRIB BLE for bikes We need morre bike lanes in South Orange e County, especcially Mission V Viejo, Laguna N Niguel and Alisso Viejo. Thanks s! The City Coun ncil of Aliso Vie ejo is doing a lo ot to make Aliso o Viejo very bikke friendly, but Pacific Park, ffrom the 73 to Woo od Canyon Driv ve is not safe fo or bicyclists, in my opinion. Th he speed limit iis 50, but mostt of the time there e is little traffic and a some drive ers thunder thro ough at 60 and d even 70 mph.. Furthermore, this stretch of Pac cific Park is now w a 4 lane stree et, but, in my o pinion, it can b be reduced to a 2 lane street; the bike lanes can n be expanded d and separated d from traffic w with a row of tree es or shrubberry. With the bea autiful views, this are ea can become e great for bicyc clists. For exam mple, people ca an ride their bikkes from their homes to the shopping mall on Aliso Creek k, to the Aliso V Viejo library, an nd to the differe ent park areas. Orange County's level of bik ke (un-?)safety is so severe I a am too afraid to use city stree ets. It's just nott worth it and th here is such a large system off trails I don't re eally see the po oint. But this se eriously limits tthe metropolitan area's a ability to o encourage altternative uses ffor transportati on. I don't live in the t 5th District.. It is the place to ride, when w will you have a survey for the other districts? ?I want to ride my m work from Tustin to Santa Ana. A It's far too o dangerous evven though it's a straight shot via streets. Help! Wahoo!

Questionnaire #2 A second questionnairre that asked respondents to identify co orridors theyy would be m most likely to utilize oundtable evvent. The ssurvey was distrributed onlinee, during outreach eventts, and at thhe second Ro included a graphic showing the preliminary regio onal bikeway corridors forr the respond dents to selecct the top threee regional corrridors they would like to o see studiedd further. A sticker survvey was cond ducted during thee Roundtablee #1 meeting for the particcipants to sellect the top tthree corrido ors they woulld like to see stu udied further. The table beelow shows th he results of tthe online annd sticker survvey.

Corridor C

Onlin ne Question naire

Rou undtable #1 Sticcker Survey

Total Survey Score

PCH H Corridor

Laguna Canyon C Corrid dor

Aliso Creek C Corrido or

Muirlandss/Cabot Corridor

Antonio/LLa Pata Corriidor

San Juan Creek Corrid dor

El Toro//Alicia Corrid dor

Portola/Santaa Margarita Corridor

Oso Parrkway Corridor

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

154

7.0 APPEND DICES

Bikeway ys Roundta ables Two roundtables pro ovided the opportunity o for f public innput on the project. Thee first round dtable n was made o on the potenttial corridors and the propposed provided project information and a presentation ranking crriteria. Publicc input was requested and d a group disccussion was fa facilitated. Laarge-format bboards were provided describ bing each of the t draft corrridors. The second rounndtable includ ded a presenttation focused on o key changees since the firrst roundtable and the rannking of the nnine regional bbikeway corrridors. Attendeess included pu ublic stakeho olders from bicycle b advoccacy groups aas well as elected officialls and communitty residents. Attendees at a the roundttables were provided varrious opporttunities to prrovide feedback including parrticipating in the t group disscussion, pro ovide commennts on the bo oards directlyy, and through comment c sheeets. Bikeways Roundtable R 1: Laguna Hills Community C Ceenter The first bikeways ro oundtable was conducted in Laguna H Hills on Weddnesday, Mayy 28, 2014, aat the Community Center to o provide dettailed informaation to mem mbers of the public and solicit input o on the draft corrridors and raanking criteriia. Approxim mately 30 peeople attendeed. A presentation was given, discussingg the regionall context and d background d, with an oveerview of eacch draft corrridor. Large-fo ormat boards were also provvided to illustrate the aliggnments and characteristiccs of each drraft corridor. The ranking criteria were summarized in the PowerPoint pressentation. Inpput from stakkeholders and the public hellped refine an nd prioritize the corridorss as well as i dentify non-eengineering id deas for imprroving bicycling within w District 5. Roundttable materiaals were provvided at the workshop aand on the O OCTA website, which w includeed the presentation given in PDF form mat, a projecct factsheet, tthe Draft Regional Bikeways Corridors Map, M and the draft d evaluatio on criteria. Bikeways Roundtable R 2: San Juan Cappistrano Comm munity Center The secon nd bikeways roundtable was w conducted in San Juann Capistrano on Wednesd day, Septembeer 17, 2014, at the Community Center to provide a quick summ mary of the refined corrridors and raanking analysis and to discusss the next steeps for the feeasibility studdies. Large-fo ormat boards were provid ded to illustrate the proposed bikeway co orridors and the top thrree ranked corridors. A presentationn was given, disscussing the proposed co orridors with h changes iddentified as a result of tthe first bikeeways roundtablle. Roundtablle materials were w provideed at the rouundtable and on the OCT TA website, w which included the t presentattion given in PDF format, the Regional Bikeways Co orridors Mapp, and the corrridor ranking reesults.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

155

7.0 APPEND DICES

D. Corrridor Rankking Criterria Corrido or Ranking Criteria Definitions D and a Scorin ng Since raw w measures arre in different units, they have been no ormalized to provide a “w weighted score” in order to combine c scorres across thee different scaales. For exam mple, the num mber of collissions per milee for a given corrridor is transfformed into a normalized score betwe en 0 and 1000 using the forrmula given bbelow. To maintain consisten ncy (100 is best), b the maaximum and minimum terrms have beeen reversed if the scoring is done on a measure m where lower valuees are more ddesirable. Normalized N Value V

= 100 x

Actual vaalue M Maximum value in range

Below is a discussion of o the criteriaa and weightin ng utilized in tthe ranking aanalysis. 1. Level of Traffic Stress S (LTS S): addresses perceived saffety related tto traffic volume, traffic speed and ex xisting bikew way type. The foundation fo or the traffic sstress analysis is based on The Mineta Transsportation Insstitutes’ Low--Stress Bicyclee and Netwo ork Connectivvity model. High-stress rouutes are prrioritized for treatment. Weight: W 1.0 

Stress S increasses with the number of traffic t lanes, traffic speedd, and lack o of existing bikkeway facilities. fa LTS scores can raange from 1 (low stress) to o 4 (high streess). STRESS CATEGO ORY LTS 1 LTS 2

STRESS S INDICATO OR Suittable for almo ost all cyclistss, including chhildren traineed to safeely cross intersections. Suittable to mostt adult cyclist s but demandding more atttention than might be ex xpected from m children.

LTS 3

Suittable to manyy adults curreently riding biikes in American cities.

LTS 4

Suittable to very few people, tthe “strong & fearless” cycclists who willl ride in nearlly any setting..

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

156

7.0 APPEND DICES



The T criteria fo or level of trraffic stress (LLTS) used onn the District 5 Regional B Bikeway Corrridors were w the follo owing:

FACTOR RS

LTS S1

Bike Facility

Class I

Number of Lanes Speed (mph)

No effect No effect

LTS 2

LTS S3 None or Class III

Nonne orr Classs III

L LTS 4

Class II

Claass II

None or Class III

Class II

None or Class III

Nonne or Classs III

No o effeect

2-3

4-55

4 or more

2-3

4-55

Up to 25

30 0

Up to 25

Up tto 255

35 or more

30 o or morre

None or Class III 6 or more No effect

Class II No effect 40 or more

(No effect) = Facto or does not trigger an increase on th his level of traffic sstress.



The T LTS analyysis scoring calculations c off each corriddor were derived by first iidentifying the LTS score s of each h street segm ment within a corridor. T The distance o of all street ssegments witth the same s LTS score (1-4) within a corridor were calculaated in miles. o The magnitude m of each LTS sco ore (1-4) wass calculated uusing the totaal distance off each LTS among a the corridor (in miles), as shownn in the formuula below:  (LTS Scoree) x (Total Distance of LT TS Among Co orridor (miles)) o The raw r score forr each corrid dor was calcuulated by addding the magnnitude of eachh LTS score category and d dividing thaat by the lenggth of the corrridor (in miles) as show in the formu ula below:  (Magnitudee of all LTS sccore categoriies) / (Length of Corridor (miles))

2. Repo orted Collisiions: addressses safety thro ough five yeaars of reporteed data, norm malized by crasshes per mile. m Unlike au utomobile craashes, the low wer volume o of bike crashes and lack of robust, long term expossure data (i.e.. number of bicyclists b usingg each corriddor) means thhat this dataseet is less statisttically sound than t others. However, it is i still commo only reportedd and easily understood. Weight: 1.0 Crash h data were obtained o from m the Californ nia State Widee Integrated T Traffic Recorrds System (SWIT TRS), which provides p a staatewide comp pilation of all vehicle, pedeestrian and biccycle related crashees on public streets s and hiighways. 

For F each corrridor, a 100-foot buffer was defined.. All reportted collisionss for the fivee year period p (2007-2011) were counted. The total repported collisio ons were divvided by corrridor leength in miless. Corridors with w higher collisions c per mile are prio oritized for treatment.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

157

7.0 APPEND DICES

3. Econ nomic Efficie ency: measures the financcial benefits aassociated wiith the corrid dor, normalizzed by the nu umber of anticcipated users, and divided by b planning levvel constructio on cost estimaates. Weight: 0.75 

Using U Nationaal Cooperativve Highway Research R Proggram (NCHR RP) Report 5552 methods, ¼, ½, and a 1 mile bu uffers are draawn around each e corridorr to obtain population and d journey-to--work mode m share data. d The bike b commutee share rate is factored up to estimaate the rate of all existing e adultt bicyclists (both commu ute and nonn-commute). This rate is applied to o the population p arround the co orridor to prrovide an esttimated num mber of existting bicyclists. To estimate e the number of neew bicyclists induced by nnew bikewayys, a multiplieer is applied tto the number n of ex xisting bicyclissts. Based on these ridersship levels, thhe cumulativee financial valuue for annual a mobilitty, health, reccreation, and reduced auto o use benefitss is calculated d.



The T assumptions in the NCHRP meethod are m modified to m more conserrvative valuess (for example, e rath her than assum ming that a new n corridor facility wouldd result in ussage by new riders 365 3 days per year, usage was w estimated d for only 12 days per yeaar). Also, all benefit figurees are calculated c using the origginal dollar values v rathe r than updaated to 2015 values. T These simplifications s s and conserrvative assum mptions are cconsidered apppropriate giiven the highh-level comparative c nature n of thee assessmentt. The econo omic evaluatiion assumes a 30-year annalysis period, p 0.57% % annual popu ulation growtth rate and a 5% discounnt rate. The net present value (NPV) ( of beneefits is divided d by cost.



The T calculatio on methodolo ogy is comprrised of the fo ollowing cateegories of datta and calculaations to t determine the benefit-cost ratio (BC CR). o

Amerrican Comm munity Surveyy (ACS) Datta – containns data used to determinne the follow wing informaation based on the AC CS data and the NCH HRP Reportt 552 metho odology.  Total Popu ulation  Adult Popu ulation  Workers 16+  Bike Comm muters (Bicyccle Only)  Bicycle Mo ode Share (meean percentagge within bufffer)  Adult Popu ulation (not cumulative) c  Commuters (Workers 16+)

Calcu ulated Ratess – contains the t adult bicyycling rates caalculated usinng the ACS bbicycle comm mute mode sh hare (C) and the formula below providded in the NCHRP Reporrt 552 metho odology.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

158

7.0 APPEND DICES

The table below summ marizes the Beenefit-Cost Analysis for the nine study corridors.

DIS STRICT 5 BI KEWAYS ST TRATEGY OC CTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Orange County Transsportation Authhority

KOA Corporation KTU+A

15 59

7.0 APPEND DICES

Existiing Adult Biicyclists – applies the caalculated aduult bicycling rrates to the adult population to estim mate the num mber of existinng adult bicycclists.

New Adult Bicycclists – appllies multiplieers for each buffer (1/4,, 1/2, and I--mile), provid ded in the NC CHRP Reporrt 552, to thee calculated exxisting adult bicyclists valuues to calculate the numb ber of new biccyclists.

Annu ual Mobility Benefits B – asssumes moneetary value forr time peoplee are willing tto add to trip ps in order to o use designaated biking faccilities ($4.088 for Class I aand $3.60 for Class II). Annual A comm muter trips arre calculated based on thhe number off existing and d new bicyclists multiplieed by 364.8 commute trrips per yearr. This is m more conserrvative (48wkks/4days/1.9trrips) than what is recomm mended in thee NCHRP Repport 552 (50xx5x2). Then,, the percentage of Class I vs. II trips aare determinned based on the percentaage of existin ng conditionss along the co orridor.

Annu ual Health Be enefits – usees the annual per-capita co ost savings fro om physical acctivity of $12 28 to calculatte the annual health benefiits of new aduult bicyclists. Annu ual Recreatio on Benefits – uses the caalculated new w adult bicyclists, the calcuulated new bike b commuters, the days per year of bike recreatiional use, and d the “typical” day which h is valued at $10, to calculate the Annuual Recreation Benefit.

Annu ual Reduced Auto Use – uses the calcuulated new bbike commuteers, the savinggs per mile, each way trrip distance value, and tthe calculatedd commute trips per yeear to calculate the annuaal reduced au uto use beneffit for new bikke commuterrs. Savings per mile and each-way-trip p distance values v were provided iin the NCH HRP Reportt 552 metho odology.

Comb bined Beneffits – is the sum s of annuaal mobility, hhealth, recreaation, and red duced auto use u benefits.

NPV Combined Benefits B – usees a 30 year aanalysis perio od, an annual population grrowth rate of o 0.57%, and d a discount rate of 5% (vvalues providded in the NC CHRP Reporrt 552 metho odology) to calculate c the NPV N combineed benefits.

Cost – is the value calculated from the planning-leveel constructio on cost estimates calculated for eacch corridor, which w do no ot include rigght-of-way, uutility impactss, and mainttenance costs.

Benefit Cost Rattio (BCR) – uses the NPPV combined benefits and d the construuction cost estimates e to calculate c the BCR. GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

160

7.0 APPEND DICES

4. Trip Demand: Based B on the Bicycle B Priority Index (BPII), a measure of population and employyment densitty, land use, lo ocal schools, and transit th hat influencess usage. Weigght: 0.75 



OCTA O Bicycle Priority Ind dex GIS outp put: score peer acre. Higheer numbers rrepresent a hhigher estimated e pottential deman nd and thereffore a higher priority for ttreatment. Thhe BPI calculaations use u the origins and destinaation calculateed values withhin a 1/4 milee buffer for eaach corridor. The T followingg data are used in the BPI calculations: c

The T BPI is dettermined usin ng the following formula fo or each corriddor: o (Sum of Origin Vaalues + Sum of Destinatio on Values) / ((Quarter-Mile Service Arrea (in acres)))

5. Publiic Support: incorporates public priorities through a Public Dem mand Index. T The public inpput was acquired a throu ugh Roundtab ble #1 and on nline surveys. Combinationn of online suurvey questions regard ding the selecction of the to op three desiired corridorrs and the rouundtable “sticcker survey” vvotes. Weight: 0.5 6. Physical Constraints: A sub bjective assesssment of freeeway crossinngs, on-streeet parking impacts, chann nel crossings, railroad crosssings, slope, the t number o of unsignalized street crosssings, the neeed for roadw way infrastruccture/bridge or bridge crrossings, andd the need fo for roadway widening. FFewer constraints result in i a higher score, as the co orridor will bbe easier to im mplement. W Weight: 0.5

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

161

7.0 APPEND DICES



The T scoring of each ind dividual categgory was weeighted differently by ho ow significannt the constraint c wo ould be. A to otal raw scoree and weighteed score wass then determ mined based o on the sum s of all indiividual catego ory scores. o Freew way Crossinggs – measureed by the num mber of freew way crossings that occur along the en ntire corridorr. o On-sttreet Parking – measureed by the lenngth (miles) o of on-street parking alonng the entiree corridor divvided by the corridor c lengtth (miles). o Chan nnel Crossinggs – measureed by the num mber of channnel crossings that occur along the en ntire corridorr divided by the t corridor llength (miles)). o Railro oad Crossinggs – measureed by the num mber of railrroad crossinggs that occur along the en ntire corridorr. o Slope e – measured d by the lengtth (miles) of a roadway orr bikeway faccility having a slope of greeater than 5% % divided by th he corridor leength (miles).. o Unsiggnalized Stre eet Crossinggs – measureed by the number of unsignalized cro ossings along the entire co orridor divideed by the cor ridor length ((miles). o Need d for Roadw way Infrastru ucture/Bridgee or Bridge Crossings – measured bby the numb ber of locations where roaadway infrasttructure or a new bicyclee/pedestrian bbridge or improved bridge crossings were w needed tthroughout thhe corridor. o Need d for Roadw way Widening (for prop osed facilitiies) – measured by the llength (miless) of roadwaay widening needed n for pproposed faccilities divided d by the corrridor length h (miles). o Existiing vs. Propo osed Bikewa ays – measurred by the rattio of existingg versus propposed bikew way facilities of o the entire corridor. c

7. Com mpletes the Network: This T is measu ured by the nnumber of inttersections w with other exxisting and proposed p bikeeways. Althou ugh partly cap ptured in thee BPI methodd, the numberr of links/cro ossings with existing or proposed p bikeeways (from CBSP and thhis project) iis recalculateed here as thhe BPI does not include the t proposed d corridors. Connections C to Class 3 bbikeways werre not consid dered. Note that this is laargely a functtion of length h; therefore tthe number o of connections has been divided by miles. Weight: 0.25 0 8. Com mpletes the Corridor: the portion of o the corrido or that is alreeady built to at least minnimum Caltraans standardss for the bikeeway type thaat is proposedd. A high rattio (near 1000%) means thaat the corrid dor has no ex xisting bikew ways to build on. This helpps to prioritizze corridors which are allready partiaally built. This factor is also o part of the LTS L Index. W Weight: 0.25.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

162

7.0 APPEND DICES

E. Corrridor Cost Estimates â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Detailed d Summaryy Cost estim mates were prepared p for each e corridor to determinne planning-leevel estimatess and were used in the econo omic efficienccy criteria. Th he costs utilizzed in the rannking analysiss include new w bicycle/pedeestrian bridges, frreeway intercchange impro ovements, and constructio on costs, butt do not incluude environm mental clearance,, design, utilitty impacts, right-of-way, r or o maintenannce costs. Thhe table below w summarizees the planning-level cost estiimates for eacch corridor. The basis for the cost estimates aree shown in th he following taable. Ittem

Unit

Rate

Upgrade Existing Facility

Linear Foot

$0.30

Siggns and other u pgrades

Upgrade Class II to Separate e Bikeway

Linear Foot

$100

Baased on Long Beeach Costs for uupgrading to a C Class I separated bikeway. Applied to corridors witth high volumess.

New Classs 1 Facility

Linear Foot

$150

Installation of new w Class 1 Facilityy where no existting path exists. 10' paath constructionn, striping, and am menities

New Classs 2 Facility

Linear Foot

$11

Baased on signing aand striping of C Class II facility w where no existingg facility exists.

Linear Foot

$300

Linear Foot

$2.50

Intersecttion Signs

Each

$780

Major Inttersection

Each

$50,000

Grading/Retraining Wall

Linear Foot

$500

Assumes Gradingg and Approx. 6--8ft Retaining W Wall in areas wheere Class 1 is being prroposed in areas of steep existing grades.

Bridge Crossing

Square Foot

$80

Assuming 80 per SF for Bridge with a 12' Wide B Bridge

New Brid dge

Square Foot

$100

Assuming 100 perr SF for construction of new Bridge

Roundabout

Each

$200,000

New Classs 2 Facility w/ w Widening g New Classs 3 Facility

Fwy Interchange Treatme ent

Each

$2,000,000 $

Com mment

Baased on signing aand striping, currb/sidewalk remo ovals, new sidew walks an nd pavement forr 4' widening in eeach direction w where no existing facility exists. Baased on striping,, bike pavements symbols, and w wayfinding signs ap pproximately eveery 800 ft Biike Sign and Direectional Arrow//Route Label Assumed Averagee Cost of Interseection Treatmennt

Baased on Long Beeach Ro ough cost for prroposed treatmeent at interchangge, which may involve ped/bike ccrossing signals aat ramps, street and or bridge widening, w etc.

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

163

7.0 APPEND DICES

The table below showss the cost breeakdown for each of the nnine corridorss. Corridor

Facility F Improvvements

A: Paccific Coast Highw way (PCH)

Milea age

Cost

Class I (new//grading/retaininng wall)

5.66

$6,9677,000

Class II (upgrrade/new)

9.77

$1,9011,190

Class III (upggrade/new)

6.55

$19,6696

Intersection Signing

$12,4480

Major Interseection Improvem ments

$400,,000

Bridge Crosssing

$590,,400

30% Continggency Total

B: Laguna Canyyon

$2,9677,230 21.8

$12,857,996

Class II (upgrrade/widen)

7.88

$7,1633,631

Class III (upggrade)

1.00

$1,5586

Intersection Signing

$3,9900

30% Continggency Total

C: El Toro/Alicia/Lagu T na Canyon

$2,1500,735 8.8 8

Class I (upgrade)

0.55

$8440

Class II (upgrrade/new/widen )

13.00

$8,1755,112

Class III (upggrade)

1.99

$3,0051

Intersection Signing

$11,7700

Major Interseection Improvem ments

$250,,000

Freeway Inteerchange Improvvements

$2,0000,000

30% Continggency Total

D: Portola/Santa Margarita

$3,1322,211 15.4 4

$13,572,914

Class I (new//grading/retaininng wall)

0.66

2,080,,000

Class II (upgrrade)

6.55

3,430,,000

Intersection Signing

8,5880

Major Interseection Improvem ments

50,0000

30% Continggency

E: Aliso Creeek

1,670,,574

Total

7.1 1

7,239,154

Class I (upgrade/new/gradingg/retaining wall)

19.88

$6,9866,420

Class II (upgrrade)

2.00

$3,2240

Intersection Signing

$16,3380

30% Continggency Total

F: Muirlan nds/Cabot/Camin no Capistrano

$9,319 9,852

$2,1011,812 21.8

$9,107 7,852

Class I (upgrade/new)

7.00

$2,0611,990

Class II (upgrrade/new)

8.00

$3,5255,800

Class III (upggrade/new)

3.66

$28,9960

Intersection Signing

$9,3360

Major Interseection Improvem ments

$150,,000

Bridge Crosssing

$518,,400

30% Continggency Total

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

$1,8888,353 18.6 6

$8,182 2,863

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

164

7.0 APPEND DICES

Corridor

Facility F Improvvements

G: Oso Parkw way

Milea age

Cost

Class I (upgrade)

1.66

$2,6610

Class II (upgrrade)

8.88

$4,6700,000

Intersection Signing

$7,0020

Major Interseection Improvem ments

$50,0000

30% Continggency Total

H:: Antonio/La Patta/Pico

$6,148 8,519

Class I (upgrade/new)

1.22

$181,,530

Class II (upgrrade/new)

14.77

$6,9855,700

Class III (new w)

1.99

$25,5500

Intersection Signing

$7,0020

Major Interseection Improvem ments

$250,,000

Freeway Inteerchange Improvvements

$2,0000,000

30% Continggency

$2,8344,925

Total Class I (upgrade/new)

I: San Juan Creeek

$1,4188,889 10.5

17.8

$12,284,675

8.55

$2,1622,093

Intersection Signing

$6,2240

Major Interseection Improvem ments

$50,0000

Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge

$1,0000,000

30% Continggency Total

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

$965,,500 8.5 5

$4,183 3,833

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

165

7.0 APPEND DICES

F. List of o Referencces American Association of State High hway and Traansportation O Officials (2012). Guide forr the Developpment of Bicycle Facilities, Fourth Edition. AASHTO Pu ublication codde: GBF-4. W Washington DC C. Californiaa Departmentt of Transporrtation (2012)). California M Manual on Unniform Trafficc Control Deevices. Retrieved d from http://w www.dot.ca.ggov/hq/traffop ps/engineeringg/mutcd/ Californiaa Departmentt of Transporrtation (2014 4). Highway D Design Manuaal (Chapter 1000). Sacram mento, CA. Retrieved from htttp://www.dott.ca.gov/hq/op ppd/hdm/hdm mtoc.htm City of Saan Clemente (2014). San Clemente Biicycle and Peedestrian Masster Plan. Preepared by KT TU+A and Fehr and Peers. County of Orange. Citty, Local Streets 2013, Privvate Streets 22013, and Suppervisorial Diistricts Geogrraphic Informatio on Systems (G GIS) databasee files. Retrievved from httpp://ocdata.gisccloud.com/ Data Set:: California Department of Transporrtation, Stateewide Integrrated Traffic Records Systems (2014). Bicycle collisions in Orange Co ounty 20077-2011 [Datta file]. Retrieved from http://timss.berkeley.edu/login.php?next=/tools/qu uery/main1.phhp Data Set: United Statees Census Bureau (2014). 2008-2012 A American Community Surv rvey, B0801 55-Year Estimates [Data file]. Jiang, Yi. (2008). ( Durab bility and Retro-Reflectivitty of Pavemennt Markings (SSynthesis Study). (FHWA Publicatio on No. FHWA A/IN/JTRP-20 007/11). Indian napolis, IN. R Retrieved from m http://doccs.lib.purdue.eedu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artticle=1704&ccontext=jtrp Mineta Trransportation n Institute (20 012). Low-Stress Bicyclingg and Netwo ork Connectivvity. San Josee, CA. Retrieved d from http://ttransweb.sjsu u.edu/project//1005.html A of o City Transp portation Offficials (2014).. Urban Bikew way Design G Guide. Island Press. National Association Washington DC. Orange County C Transsportation Au uthority (2009). Commuteer Bikeway SStrategic Plan,, prepared byy Alta Planning + Design and KOA Corpo oration. Orange County C Transsportation Au uthority (201 12). Fourth D District Bikew ways Strategyy, prepared bby IBI Group and KTU+A. Orange County C Transportation Au uthority (2013 3). Districts 1 and 2 Bikew ways Strategyy, prepared byy Alta Planning + Design and IBI Group. Orange County C Transsportation Authority. A (20 014, May). H elp Plan A B Bike-Friendly Community at A Bikeways Routable. On n The Move. Retrieved fro om http://blogg.octa.net/shaare Orange County C Transp portation Autthority. (2014 4, Septemberr). District 5 Bikeways Rouundtable Rollls into San Juan Capistrano C Seept. 17. On th he Move. Retrieved from hhttp://blog.occta.net/share GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

166

7.0 APPEND DICES

Orange County C Tran nsportation Authority. A Arterial A Speedd Data, Sloppe, Bus Rouute Alightingss and Boarding’s, District 5 Land Use, District D 5 Orrigins and Deestinations, O October 20133 Bus Routess, and District 5 Schools Geo ographic Inforrmation Systeems (GIS) dattabase files. Prrovided by O OCTA Staff. Orange County C Transsportation Authority. Masster Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), Bikewayss, Bus Stops, Meetrolink Rail, Metrolink Staations, Freew ways, and Parkk-and-Ride Faacilities Geographic Inform mation Systems (GIS) databaase files. Rettrieved from http://www w.octa.net/Planns-and-Prograams/GIS-Dataa/GISData-Dow wnload/ Transporttation Research Board (2006). Guideelines for Annalysis of Investments inn Bicycle Faccilities (NCHRP Report No. 552). 5 Washington, DC. United Sttates Census Bureau. Area Hydrology and Linear H Hydrology Geographic Infformation Systems (GIS) dataabase files. Reetrieved from m http://www.census.gov/cggi-bin/geo/shaapefiles2013/m main

GY DISTRICT 5 BIKEWAYS STRATEG OCTA – Oraange County Transportation Authority

KOA A Corporation KTU+A

167