Bike and ped master plan 2010 by srcity

BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 2010 Mayor and City Council Ernesto Olivares, Mayor Scott Bartley John Sawyer Gary Wysocky

Jake Ours, Vice Mayor Susan Gorin Marsha Vas Dupre

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB) Beth Dadko, Chair Barbara Moulton, Vice-Chair Mark Adams Tracey Jones Peter Stanley Steve Frye Paul Klassen Beryl Brown, Disabled Community Representative Dusty Rhodes, Senior Community Representative Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Advance Planning and Public Policy: Wayne Goldberg, Director Lisa Kranz, Supervising Planner BPAB Representatives: Steve Frye Beryl Brown Community Development Planning: Clare Hartman, Supervising Planner Gillian Hayes, Planner/Environmental Coordinator Heather Hines, City Planner William Rose, City Planner Bette Smith, Quality Control Associate - GIS Community Development Engineering: Anthony Cabrera, Deputy Director Fred Browne, Associate Civil Engineer Economic Development and Housing: Autumn Buss, Downtown Program Specialist Cheryl Woodward, Deputy Director

Finance: Fire:

Brian Cochran, Principal Financial Analyst Mike Siegel, Fire Captain Andrew Cook, Plans Examiner

Information Technology: Mike Hargreaves, GIS Administrator Public Works: Nancy Adams, Transportation Planner Alistair Bleifuss, Environmental Specialist, Stormwater and Creeks Program Sheri Emerson, Senior Environmental Specialist Stormwater and Creeks Program Jeff Foster, Construction Jerry Roach, Supervisor, Field Services Doug Simon, Civil Engineering Technician, Construction Recreation, Parks & Community Services: Lisa Grant, Park Maintenance Superintendent Richard Hovden, Park Planning and Development Manager Police:

Gary Negri, Captain Rafael Rivero, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program

Risk Management Mardell Morrison, ADA Coordinator - Liability Claims Analyst Utilities:

Andy Allen, Supervising Engineer Dell Tredinnick, Project Environment Manager

TAC Partners Bay Area Ridge Trail Council Dee Swanhuyser, North Bay Trail Director California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Becky Frank, Senior Community Planner Ina Gerhard, Bicycle Coordinator D4 County of Sonoma Gary Helfrich, Planner, County Permit and Resource Mgmt. Ken Tam, Park Planner, County Regional Parks Department

Santa Rosa Junior College Curt Groninga, Vice President for Administrative Services Sonoma County Transit Steven Schmitz, Transit Specialist, staff to Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Sonoma County Transportation Authority Lynne March, Transportation Planner Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART): John Nemeth, Rail Planning Manager Credits

Eric Anderson, Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP), Board Member and lead author of APBPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Edition Chris Barney, Sonoma County Transportation Authority, GIS Mapping Michelle DeRobertis, Senior Transportation Planner, and author VTA Bicycle Guidelines, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Patti Lum, Transportation Coordinator, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Craig Thomas, Communications, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Christine Hall, Omaha by Design, Omaha Streetscape Handbook

Consultants Environmental Review ESA 225 Bush Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Existing conditions, Pedestrian & Bicycle Counts, Collision data, Questionnaire, Ranking Criteria MIG, Inc. 800 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 In association with W-Trans 490 Mendocino Avenue Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401

Wilson Street Graphics RRM Design Group 3765 South Higuera Street, Ste. 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Project Assistant Celia Chung, Bicycle and Pedestrian Consultant, Mountain View, CA Desktop Publication Gary Freshley, Right Hand Resource, Windsor, CA 95492

Kathleen Millison, City Manager

Transit Department Jason Parrish, Interim Director Fabian Favila, Project Manager Joy Gipson, Marketing and Outreach B Amador, Administrative Support

Adopted by City Council â&#x20AC;&#x201D; February 15, 2011 Resolution Numbers: 27834, 27835, 27836 This project was led by the City of Santa Rosa and financed with State Transportation Development Act, Title III funds and in-kind staff resources. Contact Information: Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Transit Department 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 6 Santa Rosa, California 95404-4906 (707) 543-3333 We wish to also acknowledge the community for its public involvement and dedication to sharing of ideas at various public meetings and correspondence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary Background ..................................................................................................................................................... ES-1 Pedestrian Network............................................................................................................................................. ES-2 Bikeway Network ................................................................................................................................................. ES-2 Collision History.................................................................................................................................................... ES-2 Public Input ..................................................................................................................................................... ES-4 Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................................ ES-4 1. Introduction and Setting Background ........................................................................................................................................................1-1 Setting ........................................................................................................................................................1-1 Consistency and Conformance with Other Plans........................................................................................1-3 Vision Statement.....................................................................................................................................................1-9 Goals and Policies................................................................................................................................................. 1-10 Local Government and Citizen Involvement.............................................................................................. 1-19 Walking and Bicycling Benefits in the Transportation System............................................................. 1-21 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-23 2. Existing Conditions Demand and Usage................................................................................................................................................2-1 Pedestrian Facilities ...............................................................................................................................................2-7 Existing Bikeways....................................................................................................................................................2-8 Bikeway Corridors ............................................................................................................................................... 2-20 Other Bikeway Corridors.................................................................................................................................... 2-25 Collisions Involving Bicyclists........................................................................................................................... 2-35 Existing Support Facilities................................................................................................................................. 2-37 3. Recommended Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................3-1 Policies and Standards ..........................................................................................................................................3-1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................3-5 Bikeway Classifications..........................................................................................................................................3-7 Pedestrian and Bikeway Recommendations.................................................................................................3-9 Pedestrians on Multi-Use Paths....................................................................................................................... 3-12 Bicycle Project List On - Street (Table 3-1) .................................................................................................. 3-14 Bicycle Project List Off - Street (Table 3-2) .................................................................................................. 3-49

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

4. Pedestrian and Bicycle Education And Safety Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................4-1 Child Bicyclists ........................................................................................................................................................4-2 Adult Bicyclists ........................................................................................................................................................4-4 Motorists ........................................................................................................................................................4-5 Law Enforcement Officials....................................................................................................................................4-5 Bicycle Promotion Programs...............................................................................................................................4-7 5. Implementation Plan Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................5-1 Implementation Process.......................................................................................................................................5-1 Route Prioritization Criteria.................................................................................................................................5-2 High Priority Projects.............................................................................................................................................5-6 Costs ........................................................................................................................................................5-8 Council Directed Reviews.................................................................................................................................. 5-12 Funding Opportunities and Strategies......................................................................................................... 5-14 High Priority Pedestrian Projects.................................................................................................................... 5-24 High Priority Bicycle Projects........................................................................................................................... 5-30 Glossary Acronyms Appendices A List of planning documents reviewed as part of BPMP B California Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000 (Bicycles) C California Highway Design Manual Chapter 105 (Pedestrian Facilities) D Surface Street Crossings Design Standards for At-Grade Crossings - Citywide Creek Master Plan E Sample Street Surface Repair Standards - Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines - Chapter 4: Technical Guidelines F Proposed Zoning Code language on bicycle parking requirements G MTC Resolution No. 875 - Transportation Development Act, Article 3 H Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Resolution and Staff Report I Online Survey of Pedestrians and Bicyclists, Spring 2008 J City Resolution No. 26341 - Greenhouse Gas K National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project Instructions and Forms L City Ordinance 3886 - public to maintain sidewalk areas and parking strips M Standard. 200 - Rural Hillside development - Street Design and Construction Standards 2004 N US DOT “Design Guidance Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel” O Caltrans DD-64-R1 “Complete Streets - Integrating the Transportation System”

Table of Contents-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

P Integrating walking and biking into transportation infrastructure, Statutes of 2002, Chapter 120 (ACR 211-Nation) Q California Complete Streets Act Statutes of 2008, Chapter 657 (AB 1358-Leno) R MTC Resolution No. 3765 - regional policy for accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities S 2001 BPMP Appendix D - references for four-three lane conversions T Trail Traffic and Transportation Design Standards—Citywide Creek Master Plan U Unit Cost Assumptions for Construction V Wilson Street Corridor - Existing Conditions, Proposed Street Treatments, Overview W Wilson Street Focus Group Presentation ILLUSTRATIONS Figures 1-1 1-2 1-3 2-1 2-2 2-3A 2-3B 2-3C 2-3D 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 3-1 5-1

Connections to Sonoma Countywide Bicycle Routes................................................1-5 Bay Area Ridge Trail - Santa Rosa Vicinity........................................................................1-2 BPMP Development and Public Involvement Process............................................ 1-20 Crosswalk Markings................................................................................................................2-1 Downtown Proposed and Existing Bicycle Facilities...................................................2-9 Northwest Proposed and Existing Bicycle Facilities................................................. 2-11 Northeast Proposed and Existing Bicycle Facilities.................................................. 2-13 Southeast Proposed and Existing Bicycle Facilities.................................................. 2-15 Southwest Proposed and Existing Bicycle Facilities................................................. 2-17 Draft Downtown Bike Map................................................................................................ 2-19 Major Bikeway Corridors.................................................................................................... 2-21 Total Collisions (All) by year............................................................................................... 2-28 Pedestrian Collisions by year............................................................................................ 2-28 Bicycle Collisions by year................................................................................................... 2-28 Pedestrina Collision Locations......................................................................................... 2-30 Bicycle Collision Location.................................................................................................. 2-35 Complete Streets.....................................................................................................................3-2 High Priority Pedestrian Projects.................................................................................... 5-27 High Priority Pedestrian Projects (cont.)....................................................................... 5-28 .. High Priority Pedestrian Projects (cont.)....................................................................... 5-29

TABULATIONS Table2 1-1 2-1 2-2

September 2010

Conformance of Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities between Santa Rosa & Sonoma County.............................................................................................1-4 Residents’ Bicycling and Walking Rate for Commuting.............................................2-1 Sonoma County, Percentage of Total Trips by Walking and Bicycling..................2-1

Table of Contents-3

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-12 2-13 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1

Table of Contents-4

Walk/Bike Trips by Frequency and Purpose...................................................................2-2 Percentage of Biking and Walking Trips, by Gender...................................................2-2 Mode Combinations for Single Trips................................................................................2-3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts (East-West) April & May 2008.................................2-5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts (North-South) April & May 2008............................2-6 Pedestrian Collisions by Roadway Segment - 2002 through 2006..................... 2-31 Pedestrian Collisions by High Incidence Intersection............................................. 2-32 Pedestrian Collisions Ranked by Fault and Type - 2002 through 2006............. 2-33 Bicycle Collisions by Roadway Segment - 2002 through 2006............................ 2-35 Bicycle Collisions by High Incidence Intersection - 2002 through 2006........... 2-36 Bicycle Collisions Ranked by Fault and Type - 2002 through 2006..................... 2-36 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Route 1.................................... 3-14 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Route 2.................................... 3-15 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 3 & 4........................... 3-16 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 5 & 6........................... 3-17 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Route 7.................................... 3-18 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Route 8.................................... 3-19 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Route 9.................................... 3-20 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Route 10.................................. 3-21 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 11 & 12...................... 3-22 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 13, 14 & 15............... 3-23 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 16, 17 & 18............... 3-24 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 19, 20 & 21............... 3-25 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 22 & 23...................... 3-26 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 201, 202 & 203....... 3-27 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 204, 205 & 207....... 3-28 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 208, 206 & 330....... 3-29 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 332 & 334................. 3-30 North-South Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 336 & 337................. 3-31 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 30 & 31............................ 3-32 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 32 & 33............................ 3-33 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 34 & 35............................ 3-34 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Route 36....................................... 3-35 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Route 37....................................... 3-36 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 38 & 39............................ 3-37 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Route 40....................................... 3-38 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Route 41....................................... 3-39 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 42, 43 & 44..................... 3-40 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 45, 46 & 47..................... 3-41 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 48 & 49............................ 3-42 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 50 & 51............................ 3-43 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 52 & 54............................ 3-44 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 55, 56 & 58..................... 3-45 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 225, 229 & 231............. 3-46 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 236, 239 & 249............. 3-47 West-East Class II & III Bike Lanes and Routes - Routes 241, 340 & 342-SW..... 3-48

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 4-1 4-2 4-2 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-5 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6

September 2010

PLAN

North-South Class I Bike Paths - Routes 60, 64 & 65................................................. 3-49 North-South Class I Bike Paths - Routes 66, 67 & 200.............................................. 3-50 North-South Class I Bike Paths - Route 322................................................................. 3-51 North-South Class I Bike Paths - Routes 62, 63 & 68................................................. 3-52 North-South Class I Bike Paths - Route 69.................................................................... 3-53 North-South Class I Bike Paths - Routes 70 & 71........................................................ 3-54 North-South Class I Bike Paths - Routes 72 & 73........................................................ 3-55 North-South Class I Bike Paths - Route 310................................................................. 3-56 Citations to Bicyclists for Violations of City Codes.......................................................4-5 Citations to Bicyclists for Violations of City Codes ......................................................4-6 Citations to Bicyclists for Violations of City Codes (cont.).........................................4-6 High Priority Pedestrian Projects - Total Estimated Cost...........................................5-9 Priority Bicycle Projects - Total Estimated Cost ......................................................... 5-10 Summary of Bicycle Network -Total Estimated Cost and Mileage ..................... 5-11 Summary of Funding Sources for Bicycle Projects and Programs................5-16/23 Characteristics of High Priority Pedestrian Projects................................................. 5-25 Characteristics of High Priority Pedestrina Projects (cont.)................................... 5-26 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 1 (Route 37)............. 5-31 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 2 (Route 34)............. 5-33 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 3 (Route 36)............. 5-35 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 4 (Route 41)............. 5-37 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 5 (Route 37)............. 5-39 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 6 (Route 46)............. 5-41 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 7 (Route 55)............. 5-43 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 8 (Route 2)................ 5-45 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 9 (Route 5)................ 5-47 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 10 (Route 7)............. 5-49 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 11 (Route 10)........... 5-51 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 12 (Route 15)........... 5-53 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 13 (Route 67)........... 5-55 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 14 (Route 72)........... 5-57 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects - Project 15 (various routes).5-59

Table of Contents-5

WHAT IS THE SANTA ROSA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN? The Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) is a tool used to evaluate current and long-term development plans specifically for the pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. Because a city that offers a variety of mobility choices is a viable and desirable city to live in, it is important that the requirements for new or improved developments and their associated streets, including the reconstruction of existing streets, be anticipated and routinely and consistently conditioned for these other modes of transportation - walking and bicycling. The BPMP is a critical tool for guiding city staff and the development community in building a multi-modal transportation system that is pedestrian and bicycle “friendly” and encourages residents to use these modes of transportation. The ultimate goal being a modal shift from driving the single occupancy vehicle to more walking and bicycling “as a normal part of life.” The BPMP process provides opportunities for elected and appointed members of the City’s Boards, Commissions and the public to participate in the development process of the BPMP by evaluating, commenting and suggesting ideas for the BPMP, and then using the BPMP as a guide for future input on specific projects. The BPMP provides a programmatic description of proposed projects and priorities for implementation, past expenditures and future funding needs, crash analysis, goals and objectives, data collection, standards, design guidelines, best practices, and demonstrates coordination with other jurisdictions and consistency with the General Plan and other planning documents. It helps in determining the future needs and programming of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. It also includes addressing safety and education programs. The BPMP addresses facility needs over a 25 year horizon. Updates to the BPMP are necessary as a progressive city is rarely static, and the needs of a viable city are dynamic. At a minimum the BPMP should be reviewed annually to update maps, project lists and priorities as facilities are completed and to keep pace with the development landscape. The BPMP is prepared to support and guide the city toward pursuing and maintaining a pedestrian and bicycle friendly city and offering its residents a variety of mobility choices. Choices make a city attractive.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In August 2001, the City updated the 1994 Bicycle Master Plan to a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP). This 2010 version updates that 2001 BPMP, which was reauthorized in January 2006 by the City Council.1 Like the 2001 BPMP, the focus of the 2010 Update is twofold: 1) to identify and implement a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network that will provide the public with an attractive transportation alternative to the automobile and 2) to continue the City’s eligibility for obtaining pedestrian and bicycle facility grant funds. The pedestrian element of the 2010 Update expands beyond the limited pedestrian’s use of multi-use paths covered in 2001. The 2010 Update identifies sixteen high priority pedestrian projects and provides recommendations for future expansion of the pedestrian component. This update includes extensive appendices, Glossary and commonly used Acronyms. This update also adds discussion on the importance of pedestrian and bicycle counts and provides count data from select intersections. It includes the latest national methodology for conducting these counts consistent with the region and county practices (Ch. 2). Chapter 3 discusses “Complete Streets” and the various levels of government polices and California’s Complete Streets Act of 2008. The Council also directed staff to review 6th Street as a bikeway, propose a revised Zoning Code for Bicycle Parking that conforms with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan recommendation, and to review Wilson Street as a bikeway. This Council directed review is discussed in Chapter 5. The timeframe for the improvements identified in this plan is twenty-five years, or until the year 2035. The following is addressed in the Update: analysis of the existing bikeways, recommendations for new bikeways, bicycle and pedestrian accident analysis, bicycle education and safety programs, and bicycle parking. Design considerations for bicycle facilities are also included.

BACKGROUND The 1994 Bicycle Master Plan proposed a 154-mile bicycle network. The City added thirteen miles of bicycle lanes since the 1994 Plan, mainly by installing bike lanes on streets that were Class III Bike Routes. Recently completed projects include some 11 pedestrian projects and 14 bicycle projects such as 1) Vallejo Pedestrian Flasher with bulbouts, 2) Chanate Pedestrian Flasher at Sutter Hospital, 3) Class II Bike Lanes on Fulton Road—Piner Road to Wood Road, and 4) on South Hendley Street—South E Street to Aston Avenue. The full list of the recently completed projects can be found in Chapter 5. The following is a summary of the progress made in bikeways since the 2001 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan:

Bikeway type

1994

2000

2009

Class I Off-Street Bike Paths Class II On-Street Bike Lanes Class III Signed Bike Routes

9 miles 12 miles 48 miles

12 miles 25 miles 33 miles

13 miles 46 miles 18 miles

City Council Resolution No. 26472

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PEDESTRIAN NETWORK As noted above, this 2010 update expands the pedestrian component beyond multi-use paths and identifies sixteen top pedestrian priority projects (Ch. 5). Although these pedestrian projects are primarily sidewalk infill activities, pedestrian projects also include crosswalk markings, signals, connections and facility design. This update does recommend that future updates to the BPMP consider these other types of projects, as well as providing pedestrian facilities maps that depict street alignments that have no sidewalk facilities on either one or both sides of the road, and distinguish between those areas that by design have no sidewalks. This update also provides a discussion of the City sidewalk ordinance (Ch. 2).

BIKEWAY NETWORK Not all regional and transitional streets in Santa Rosa have bike lanes. These streets accommodate a higher volume of traffic, limiting the option of bicycling to only serious cyclists who feel confident to ride on them. As recommended in the 2001 BPMP, bike lanes should be provided on all regional and higher volume transitional streets so that bicyclists have the same mobility options as those with cars. The recommended bikeway network reflects this philosophy. However, as noted in the 2001 BPMP, implementation of bike lanes will be easier on some streets than others; ease of implementation will be a factor in deciding which projects to proceed with first and in some cases require further study/evaluation. Santa Rosa’s bicycle network works best for its topography as a combination of all three bikeway classification types: Class I— bike path, Class II—bike lane, and Class III—bike route. Together all three make up Santa Rosa’s unique bikeway network. Use of local residential streets as alternatives to regional streets is not possible in most cases due to the discontinuity of the local street system. Still, several opportunities for linking local streets together were identified as part of the overall network system. The top fifteen bicycle priority projects (Ch. 5) include a proposed Class III Network to enhance the bikeway network. While the proposed Class III Network does not cover the entire city, it can prove to be very useful for casual and child cyclists to serve their neighborhoods and the adjacent attractors like Santa Rosa Junior College. Together with the bicycle path network, they can provide a network for those bicyclists who do not want to bicycle on high volume streets. Highway 101 creates a major barrier to pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Two major vehicle crossings at Steele Lane and College Avenue have been reported as extremely intimidating to even serious cyclists. Bike lanes continue to be proposed under Highway 101 at College Avenue as well as under Highway 101 at Steele Lane. The one remaining pedestrian and bicycle bridge2 is useful despite its grade, but more safe crossings of Highway 101 continue to be of interest to the community. Recently, the City Public Works Department held a series of public meetings to discuss the design and construction of a pedestrian and bicycle only bridge between Steele Lane and College Avenue. The BPAB has recommended a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing in this area as the number one priority on both the pedestrian and bicycle top priority list.

COLLISION HISTORY Traffic safety has become a concern for both recreational and commuter pedestrians and bicyclists. Analysis of collision history was considered in developing recommendations. For a five-year period between January 1, 2

ES-2

The one existing bridge is Earle Street at Highway 101. Another pedestrian and bicycle bridge formerly existed at Sonoma Avenue and Highway 101 that connected the Olive Park neighborhood. However it was removed in 2008 as part of the Highway 101 widening project.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

2002 and December 31, 2006, the City of Santa Rosa reported 253 pedestrian collisions and 264 bicycle collisions. The most common cause of collisions, as determined by law enforcement officers for pedestrians, involved Right-of-Way violations by drivers (40%). For bicyclists, it was due to bicyclists riding on the wrong side of the street (33%). This was also the most common cause of bicyclist collisions (24%) noted in the 2001 BPMP. The second and third most common causes of pedestrian collisions were pedestrian violations and improper passing by motorists (35% and 4% respectively). For bicyclists the second and third most common causes were Right-of-Way violations attributed to bicyclists, followed by Right-of-Way violations attributed to vehicle drivers (12% and 10% respectively). Over this five year period, approximately 30 percent of the pedestrian at fault collisions involved children under 16 and approximately 13 percent of the motorists at fault involved children under 16. For bicyclists under 16, approximately 17 percent were at fault. However, no motorists were found at fault in collisions involving children under 16 on bicycles during this same five year period. Tables 2.10 and 2.13 in Chapter 2 detail this data.

Collisions Involving Pedestrians A list of the twenty street segments that have the most reported pedestrian collisions is provided in Table 2.8 The five streets with the highest collision rate (collisions per mile per year) were the following: • • • • •

D Street Santa Rosa Avenue 3rd Street Guerneville Road Mendocino Avenue

A list of eight intersections in Santa Rosa experiencing three or more reported pedestrian collisions is shown in Table 2.9. The top three pedestrian collision intersections are: • • •

Mendocino Avenue at McConnell Avenue D Street at 3rd Street Mendocino Avenue at Clement Avenue

Collisions Involving Bicyclists A list of the twenty street segments that have the most reported bicyclist collisions is also provided in Table 2.11. The five streets with the highest bicycle collision rate (collisions per mile per year) were the following: • • • • •

Wilson Street Mendocino Avenue Hearn Avenue Pacific Avenue Steele Lane

A list of the ten intersections experiencing reported bicycle collisions is shown in Table 2-12. The top three bicycle collision intersections are: • • •

Marlow Road at Crosspoint Avenue Mendocino Avenue at College Avenue B Street at 3rd Street

September 2010

ES-3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PUBLIC INPUT Multiple public workshops by quadrant were held in October 2007, March 2008, February and April 2009, and September 2010, including some bilingual workshops. The February 2009 public meetings consisted of three focus group meetings regarding Wilson Street. In addition, several of the BPABâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regularly scheduled and special meetings were held to discuss the development of the BPMP and included public comment periods. A questionnaire was also done on-line to get the publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s help in determining walking and bicycling characteristics; location-specific needs in order to develop an idea of the future types of routes and facilities needed in the community, and to provide another method of public participation for those who could not attend public meetings in person. Public comments were considered or included in the early drafts of the BPMP update and refined in later versions, which shaped the draft final presented by staff to the BPAB, Planning Commission, and City Council. Finally, the staff presentation of the BPMP update to the Planning Commission and the City Council included public hearings as part of the recommendation and adoption process.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended pedestrian projects consist of sixteen priority projects involving various segments of primarily sidewalk in-fills at an estimated total cost of approximately $4.3 million (Table 5.1). The recommended bikeway network consists of approximately 172 miles of existing and proposed bikeways that would cost a total of about $38.9 million to implement. This is the combined figure for the Bicycle Priority List and all other bicycle network projects. Costs do not include right-of-way acquisition, intersection and signal detection (on non-priority projects), or annual maintenance costs. The proposed bicycle network includes approximately 20 miles of bike paths, almost 41 miles of bike lanes, 5.6 miles of bicycle boulevards, and 27 miles of bike routes. Several of these bikeways have been identified as high priority projects, which will help the City staff focus its efforts on the projects of most importance to bicyclists. The high priority projects are estimated to cost $25.8 million of the total $38.9 million. It is important to note that approximately $12.9 million of the high priority projects is associated with the Highway 101 pedestrian/bicycle bridge proposal. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 summarize the bicycle network miles. The Funding Opportunities and Strategies section in Chapter 5 has been updated and identifies the various grant sources available to cover the costs of these projects. This grant information together with the assistance of the BPAB recommending community priorities will assist the City in bringing these projects to fruition. Ranking and Priorities This update includes new ranking criteria developed by the consultant to provide objective criteria as an essential tool to avoid or reduce controversy among various project proponents as well as to efficiently respond to funding applications. The project ranking criteria, developed in cooperation with the BPAB, the Technical Advisory Committee for the BPMP, and other key City staff, should be revisited as necessary to ensure the continued usefulness as a tool to rank and prioritize projects. In particular the criteria should be revised to ensure that Class I-Bicycle Paths receive equal consideration, since Traffic Volume and Collision History may not be as applicable to Class I facilities.

ES-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

A summary of the High Priority Pedestrian Projects based on the new criteria are shown by orientation: North-South • • • • • •

Fulton Road—Piner Road/Wishing Well Way North Dutton Avenue—Tesconi Circle/West College Avenue Fulton Road—Appletree Drive/Guerneville Road Brookwood Avenue—College Avenue/5th Street Stony Point Road—Northpoint Parkway/Bellevue Avenue Wilson Street—4th/3rd Streets

West-East • • • • • • • • • •

Proposed Connector Cleveland Avenue/Armory Drive West 3rd/3rd Street—Roberts Avenue/Railroad Street West College Avenue—Stony Point Road and Marlow Road/Albion Place West College Avenue—Ridley Avenue/Tyara Way Chanate Road—Cobblestone Drive/Chanate Court Hoen Avenue—Brookside Drive/Hahman Drive Guerneville Road—Marlow Road/Ridley Avenue Hearn Avenue—Corby Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue West College Avenue—Marlow Road/Sparrow Creek Street Badger Road—Brush Creek Road/Baird Road

A summary of the High Priority Bicycle Projects based on the new criteria are shown below by orientation: North-South • • • • • • •

Route 2 Route 5 Route 7 Route 10 Route 15 Route 55* Route 67*

Marlow Road/Stony Point Road Range Avenue/Frances Street/Cleveland Avenue/Wilson Street/Railroad Street Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Humboldt Street—D Street/Hendley Street/South E Street Yulupa Avenue—Bennet Valley Road Neotomas Ave—Farmer Ln/Knolls Dr/Bethards Dr SMART Pathway—Northern/Southern City Limits

West-East • • • • • • • •

Route 34 Route 36 Route 37

Administration Drive/Chanate Road/Fountain Grove Parkway/Montecito Boulevard Guerneville Road/Steele Lane/Lewis Road Halyard Drive/Jennings Avenue/Armory Drive/Bear Cub Way/Pacific Avenue/4th Street/Sonoma Highway Route 40 Sixth Street/B Street/Fourth Street Route 41 West Third Street/Third-Second Street/Montgomery Drive/Melita Road/Los Alamos Road Route 46 Sebastopol Road Route 72* Roseland Creek Trail—Southwestern/Eastern City Limits Various* Class 3 Network * The exceptions to the new criteria are noted with an asterisk. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended substituting Routes 55, 67, 72 and a Class III Network from the initial routes recommended by the consultant.

September 2010

ES-5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The full implementation of the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan can significantly improve the safety and mobility of Santa Rosa pedestrians and bicyclists. Increasing the pedestrian and bicycle mode share will improve the quality of life of all Santa Rosa residents due to the resulting reduction in traffic congestion and neighborhood traffic impacts, improved air quality and increased pedestrian safety. These benefits lead to a more viable city as residents and visitors have more modes of transportation to choose from. Recommendations to further Santa Rosaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s progress into becoming a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly city are: 1. Pursue funding and inter-agency cooperation in the development of the bikeway network. 2. Continue the active involvement of the BPAB in the traffic engineering and transportation planning decisions that affect the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists on Santa Rosaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s streets and intersections. 3. Expand and develop bicycle safety programs to include pedestrian safety programs to address the issues faced by pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages as well as motorists. Expand and develop pedestrian and bicycle promotion programs to encourage and legitimize walking and bicycling as transportation for work, school, shopping, errands and other utilitarian trips. 4. Develop a phased and prioritized implementation plan that takes into consideration the available funding opportunities and availability of staff. 5. Pursue a supplement of Design Guidelines and Best Practices focused on pedestrian and bicycle facility design to the BPMP for use by City staff and the development community based on generally acceptable principles and standards as a tool for a continued pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. 6. The implementation actions described in Chapter 5 are based on a planning-level analysis. Additional analysis is necessary to determine the appropriate implementation action for the high-priority projects to ensure projects can occur without compromising safety or efficiency. The projects should be included within the Capital Improvement Program for funding prioritization by the City Council together with the Planning Commission review for General Plan consistency. Each project would then need to proceed through the normal public participation process, project specific environmental review, and approval through the City Council prior to design and construction.

ES-6

September 2010

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND SETTING BACKGROUND Like the 2001 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), the primary purpose of the BPMP is to continue working toward identifying and implementing a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network over a set period. This plan assumes a twenty-five year planning horizon to the year 2035 consistent with the City’s General Plan. The BPMP also continues to make the City eligible for grant funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. When combined, these two efforts (a comprehensive network and eligibility for funding) provide the public with attractive transportation choices as alternatives to the automobile. Unlike the 2001 BPMP, this plan includes more of a pedestrian component and an update of the bicycle component. This BPMP update addresses the following: analysis of the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recommendations for new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, pedestrian and bicycle collision analysis, education and safety programs, implementation, and bicycle parking. This BPMP update includes policies and reflects coordination with other city planning documents and coordination efforts with other city departments, neighboring municipalities, the county and the state. This plan conforms to the requirements set forth in the Streets and Highways Code 891.2, which are the primary requirements for funding through California Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the basis of eligibility for various other grant funding programs. Since 2001, the City has added twenty-one miles of bicycle lanes, mainly by installing bike lanes on streets that were Class III Bike Routes. Recently completed projects include: 1) Class II Bike Lanes on Mendocino Avenue, Montgomery Drive, Dutton Avenue, Coffey Lane, and Stony Point Road; 2) Projects under construction and expected to be completed by the end of 2010 include College Avenue between Dutton Avenue to the railroad tracks, Summerfield Road between Carissa Avenue to Santa Rosita Court; and 3) secured funding for Sonoma Avenue bike lanes, route signs for various Class III bicycle routes, and pilot electronic bike lockers.

SETTING The City of Santa Rosa is located approximately 50 miles north of San Francisco in Sonoma County. The City lies in a flat valley surrounded by low mountains to the west and east. Santa Rosa is a growing residential, governmental, medical, and commercial center. Santa Rosa is the fifth largest city in the nine Bay Area counties behind Fremont, Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose1. What makes Santa Rosa unique? First, Santa Rosa has taken care to preserve its past and is careful to guide its future. Santa Rosa’s downtown is an active place full of vibrant restaurants and businesses. City, county, state, federal, and medical center functions throughout the city add a stable (and growing) employment base for the area. The City’s residents also enjoy the favorable topography, scale, and climate for walking and bicycling throughout the City. As a gateway to the Redwood Empire, Santa Rosa attracts a substantial number of visitors and has a municipal airport and regional bus transit hub along with an ample supply of quality hotels. Outside of downtown, two major shopping centers and 1

Ten Largest Bay Area Cities, 1960-2000, “2000 Rank City,” MTC-ABAG Library, http://www. bayareacensus.ca.gov/historical/largecity.htm

INTRODUCTION AND SETTING

other smaller shopping centers provide goods and services along principal regional streets. Numerous parks and a municipal golf course offer a chance for residents to relax and exercise.

Transportation System The city is divided into four quadrants defined by Highway 101, which bisects the City on a north-south axis, and State Route 12, which forms an east-west axis. In addition, several major regional streets provide for cross-city circulation, including West Third Street, Fulton Road, Montgomery Drive/Third Street, Dutton Avenue, Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa Avenue, College and West College Avenue, Mendocino Avenue, and Stony Point/Marlow Road. The City is also defined by Santa Rosa Creek, draining from east to west, and the Northwestern Pacific Railroad, running west of and parallel to Highway 101. With the passage of Measure Q on November 4, 2008, a sales tax revenue source was created to fund the 75 mile Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) passenger rail service between Marin and Sonoma counties, including approximately 54 miles of pedestrian and bicycle paths along the SMART right-of-way with onstreet facilities constructed in conjunction with neighboring municipalities for the remaining 21 miles. From a pedestrian perspective, Santa Rosa aims to facilitate commuting by walking. A majority of streets have sidewalks or equivalent pedestrian paths along with the various common cross walk treatments and facilities found in similar cities. For example, the proximity of residential housing such as West End, St. Rose, the Cherry Street neighborhoods—to name a few—and their proximity to downtown jobs, services, Transit Mall and various bus stops throughout the downtown area, make walking a viable transportation alternative to driving for surrounding residents traveling to downtown. The City’s desire for more residential housing downtown in the form of mid-rise residential units and its recent completion of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan in 2007, which focuses on increasing walking and the other alternative modes of transportation through land use intensification and new design policies, further demonstrates Santa Rosa’s plan to facilitate walking as a viable transportation choice. The City also has attractive areas to walk: 4th Street with its wider sidewalks, outdoor dining, bulb outs and public art; the Court House Square area, Historic Railroad Square and the Prince Memorial Greenway. From a bicyclist’s perspective, Santa Rosa is an attractive locale to ride. First, its level terrain and quiet tree-shaded side streets offer comfort and safety. Second, the size of the city makes practically all parts accessible by all residents within a 30 minute ride. In many ways, Santa Rosa has some of the same attributes that make the cities of Davis, Boulder, Colorado and Portland such a bicyclist’s haven.

Pedestrian Planning Before the 2001 BPMP, Santa Rosa simply had a bicycle plan. There was no separate plan addressing the pedestrian mode of transportation. Although the 2001 plan references “pedestrian” in its title, the discussion of the pedestrian mode was limited to pedestrians’ use of multi-use pathways with some collision data. A key objective of the BPMP update is to include more of a pedestrian component. The pedestrian component includes a list priortizing the top 16 sidewalk in-fill projects with recommendations for future pedestrian component materials.

Bicycle Planning Santa Rosa developed its first bikeway plan in 1972. In 1994, the City developed an updated bicycle plan that identified 154 miles of proposed bikeways. The City actively and successfully pursues grant funding,

1-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

and has also committed some City funds to bike projects. Some of these bikeways have been implemented since the 2001 plan, and the existing bikeway network is described in Chapter 2. Santa Rosa now has approximately 13 miles of bike paths (Class I), 46 miles of designated bike lanes (Class II) and 18 miles of bike routes (Class III), up from 12 miles of bike paths, 25 miles of bike lanes and 33 miles of bike routes respectively in 2001.

CONSISTENCY AND CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER PLANS General Plan, 2035 The City’s 2035 General Plan (GP) addresses issues related to land use and growth. It provides the framework and general policies for decisions on how to grow, provide public services and facilities, and protect and enhance the environment. A city’s general plan has been described as its constitution for development. Its broad polices and goals set the vision and framework for supplemental plans and programs that pursue implementation and delivery of its services. For the City’s transportation services related to walking and bicycling, the BPMP provides the more specific policies and guidance for implementation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The GP recognizes the BPMP in GP Policy T-J-1. The BPMP is consistent with the GP and supplements its policies and goals for a pedestrian- and bicyclefriendly city.

Other Supplemental City Plans The BPMP is consistent with other supplemental plans which have shaped and guided the design and policies of walking and bicycling in the City. The major supplemental plans previously developed are the Northern Downtown Pedestrian Linkages Study (2006), Citywide Creek Master Plan (2007) and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (2007). A list of all other planning documents reviewed as part of the BPMP update appears in Appendix A.

Sonoma County Transportation Authority The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) produced the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in May 2008. The Countywide BPMP is a collaboration of eight cities within the county. It contains ten components: the Countywide Master Plan Overview, Appendices, and an Individual Plan for each of the eight participating jurisdictions: Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Town of Windsor, Sebastopol, Sonoma, Rohnert Park, Cotati, and Sonoma County. The collaboration and timing of these smaller municipalities having their master plans all due for updating at the same time and the economy of scale that could be recognized by taking a countywide approach facilitated the collaboration with the SCTA. Both the cities of Petaluma and Santa Rosa chose to do their own plans, Petaluma because it recently completed its BPMP before the countywide effort kicked off and the City of Santa Rosa because of its size (the largest city in the County) and special need to develop a pedestrian component to its Master Plan. The eight individual plans have been adopted by the respective municipalities, the SCTA will post the plans on its web site and include them in the county-wide planning document: the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). Although Petaluma and Santa Rosa did not participate in countywide effort, both coordinate with the SCTA on pedestrian and bicycle issues in the county and are members of the SCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CBPAC), which meets bi-monthly. Santa Rosa shares the same mapping as all other municipalities in the county and SCTA. Petaluma and Santa Rosa will subsequently be amended into the CTP. Santa Rosa coordinates with its bordering jurisdictions and the County of Sonoma (unincorporated areas)

September 2010

1-3

INTRODUCTION AND SETTING

to ensure all major bicycle routes identified in the County plan (existing or proposed) connect directly to routes in Santa Rosa to reduce the possibility of gaps in bicycle facilities from one jurisdiction to the next (aka Gap Closures). These routes are depicted in Figure 1 and a list of the routes and facility type appear in Table 1-1. This coordination includes the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) which includes a 54 mile pedestrian and bicycle pathway along portions of its 70 mile rail corridor that bisects the County and its various municipalities. The Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s coordination includes the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) which has jurisdiction over State Highway Route 12 (SR 12). This includes Farmers Lane between Highway 12 and Fourth Street and Sonoma Highway (SR 12), from Fourth Street and Farmers Lane to the southeastern City Limits. Table 1-1

Conformance of Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities between Santa Rosa and Other Jurisdictions City Path/Route

Northside Santa Rosa Creek Trail Fulton Road North Northwestern Pacific Railroad North Piner Creek North Old Redwood Highway North Brush Creek Road North Calistoga Road North Westside Piner Road West Guerneville Road West Santa Rosa Creek Trail West West Third Street Occidental Road West Sebastopol Road West Ludwig Avenue West

Southside

Stony Point Road South Colgan Creek West Northwestern Pacific Railroad South Santa Rosa Avenue South Petaluma Hill Road South Bennett Valley Road South Roseland Creek South Hunter Creek View Creek Trail

Eastside

SR 12 East Montgomery/Santa Rosa Creek Trail East

Other Jurisdiction Petersen Creek Trail Fulton Road Bikeway to Old Redwood Hwy. County bike route County bike route County bike route County bike route on Wallace No designated connection County bike route County bike route County bike route County bike route along Hall Road County bike route Joe Rodota Pathway to Sebastopol Planned connection to Llano Road County bike route Colgan Creek Trail County bike route County bike lane County bike route County bike route County bike route County bike route County bike route Connection to Spring Lake, Annadel routes

Transportation 2035 Plan, 2009 The Transportation Plan 2035 (also known as the Regional Transportation Plan-RTP), updated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 2009, describes current bicycling conditions in the Bay Area, identifies deficiencies, and recommends actions such as increasing local bicycle routes, and increasing multi-modal connections and the bicycle carrying capacity of transit, among other items. The document does not provide a regional bicycle system map or route descriptions. This plan provides a framework for identifying regional priorities for routes and facilities and recommends a series of activities and policies to encourage bicycling at the regional level. This plan is regional in focus and is, therefore,

1-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Figure 1-1 Connections to Sonoma Countywide Bicycle Routes

September 2010

1-5

INTRODUCTION AND SETTING

oriented around policies and programs and defers to local decision making about specific routes and facilities. MTC updated this plan in 2009.

Sonoma County Unincorporated Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2010 The County of Sonoma updated its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for the unincorporated portions of the county in 2010. The County’s unincorporated BPMP is oriented primarily toward identifying the needs of commuting cyclists. Most County bikeways remain as Class III type facilities on existing roadways, though some Class I and II facilities do exist on major routes and near urban areas. The County’s BPMP contains goals, objectives, design guidelines, and a list of bicycle facility improvement projects needed throughout the unincorporated portions of the County. All major bicycle routes identified in the County unincorporated plan connect directly to routes in Santa Rosa. These include the following existing or proposed facilities: the proposed Colgan Creek path, the Roseland Creek path, the Hunter View Creek path, the Joe Rodota pathway to Sebastopol, the Santa Rosa Creek pathway, Fulton Bikeway, and the Central Sonoma Valley Trail. Nearly all of the remaining Class II and III existing and proposed bikeways in the County’s unincorporated BPMP also connect to existing and proposed routes shown on the Santa Rosa BPMP. Again, these routes are summarized in Table 1-1 and are illustrated in Figure 1.1.

Bay Area Ridge Trail This trail system is planned to encircle the Bay Area, primarily using ridge tops. Approximately 316 of the total 550 miles are currently dedicated (existing). Of that 550 mile network, approximately 57.5 miles of the system is existing or proposed in Sonoma County (27 existing, 30.5 proposed), but only one mile is within the City’s jurisdiction. This one mile trail connector runs through the City’s Howarth Park beginning at the Lake Ralphine parking lot (0.1 mile) to the dirt trail along the edge of Lake Ralphine (0.3 mile), crossing the multi-use pathway (Route 63—Class I) to Bob Whiting Trail and ending at the West Saddle Dam of Howarth Park/Spring Lake boundary (0.6 miles). The remaining segment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail for the Santa Rosa vicinity runs south along Spring Lake and in a south-east direction along the west side of Annadel State Park where it branches east to Hood Mountain Regional Park and south toward Lawndale Road south of the City Limits and into the unincorporated area of Sonoma County (See Figure 1.2, Bay Area Ridge Trail-Santa Rosa Vicinity). The Bay Area Ridge Trail project is managed by a non-profit organization based in San Francisco that coordinates with local governments, land trusts and other land management agencies to implement the system.

Area Plans Area Plans were adopted for southeast and southwest Santa Rosa by the City Council in 1994. Both of these plans identify pedestrian needs and bicycle facilities. Because of the projected increase in the transportation infrastructure in both of these areas, all of the proposed bike routes were reviewed in these two plans for inclusion in the 2001 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and form the foundation of pedestrian and bicycle network in these two areas, unless amended by subsequent planning documents or planning action. The existing and proposed bicycle network in the Southwest Area is connected to the City’s bikeway system. The Area Plans emphasized the development of a pedestrian and bicycle network. Related policies included encouraging school districts to locate new elementary schools so students do not have to cross major streets, developing bikeways in accordance with the 2001 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and requiring that pedestrian/bicycle lanes/paths or shoulders be provided by developers to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety on rural roads.

1-6

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

The Southeast Area plan specified the provision of bicycle paths and lanes to link activity centers; bicycle parking areas in commercial and multi-family residential projects, including ensuring conveniently located bicycle racks at the Town Center, the Community Center, and parks. Because both areas have developed since these two area plans were adopted, and the policies incorporated into subsequent regulation (e.g. Bicycle Parking requirements into the Zoning Code) or planning documents, both plans are superseded by the 2035 General Plan revision.

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan The Citywide Creek Master Plan (CCMP) presents a set of creek-related policies and recommendations for site-specific improvements to the nearly ninety miles of creeks that flow through Santa Rosa. Portions of the creek system are used as alternative transportation routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. The purpose of the CCMP is to implement the General Plan and to provide guidelines, policies, and criteria for the protection, care, management, restoration, and enhancement of waterways in Santa Rosa. The CCMP embraces the concept that waterways are important for multiple uses: drainage and flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational and educational opportunities, open space and alternate transportation routes. The CCMP also acknowledges that although the property owner is the Sonoma County Water Agency, many waterways are also located on private property, and that private landowner rights must be respected. The City strives to acquire private property adjacent to waterways (e.g. parcels on Santa Rosa Creek east of Brush Creek) for open space and alternate transportation routes when and where possible. The CCMP identifies existing and proposed roads, trails, connections and the various existing bicycle facilities. Where the CCMP designates proposed paved “trails,” the BPMP shows proposed Class I Bike Paths. The 2001 BPMP showed proposed Class I Bike Paths that were inconsistent with the CCMP. Trails (unpaved) are shown in the BPMP where the 2001 BPMP previously showed a proposed Class I, and the CCMP shows an unpaved trail. This update to the BPMP makes the BPMP consistent with the CCMP, and defers to the CCMP as the subject matter planning document on the policies and uses of creeks within the City Limits. There are approximately 13 miles of existing and 20 miles of proposed Class I’s along creeks within Santa Rosa.

Core Area Development Plan The Core Area Development Plan (CADP) was adopted in 1991. The principle purpose of the CADP was to promote the Core Area as the center of business, social and civic life in Santa Rosa. The CADP focused on a 10-year planning horizon. Some of those planning recommendations from the CADP have been achieved while others are still actively being pursued and addressed in subsequent planning documents. The CADP included pedestrian and bicycle facilities. For the pedestrian mode, the plan recommends establishing obstacle-clear zones at sidewalk corners, a pedestrian corridor through Santa Rosa Plaza Shopping Mall, bulb outs, and defined signal cycle lengths to minimize delays to pedestrian movements in the Core Area. The CADP recommended that bicycle support facilities be included in new development, that Santa Rosa Creek be used to connect downtown with old Santa Rosa, and that Humboldt and D Streets be used as a primary north-south bicycle route through the Core Area.

CityVision Plan CityVision was a non-profit public citizen’s planning group formed to facilitate the implementation of recommendations from the 1998 Rural Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) report. The recommendations of the R/UDAT stemmed from the recommendations in CADP. CityVision was also

September 2010

1-7

INTRODUCTION AND SETTING

Annadel State Park To 101

Santa

Mission a A ve.

Rd.

370'

Ave.

r f ie l

Start

Trail

1.0 mile

1.0 kilometer

Lo s

Alamo

. s Rd

reek a C

Ros

San

P a Av e tt

l Vi o

P Oak Knolls Picnic Area

Spri

e on

bl e st ob C

a Trail

ut h So

o n

Creek

1320'

End

ch zC Roa

n 600'

Adobe Canyon Rd.

yo il Tra

Cree

P 480'

u lt

Flat Pig Trail

Rd.

ult Sch

ai l

le y

ai l

l Va

le n da La w

00 12

il Tra

Ho od

Fr ey

Tr M arsh 1180'

TZ scans = 25.59%

Two Quarr y

Tr ai l

a Tr

Rhyo lite

Pow

T 0 120

Ledson Marsh 1240'

To Hood Mtn. Regional Park & Open Space Preserve

EP Lin

Tr ai l

sh Ma r

Madrone Spring

Annadel State Park

Tra il

ge R id

1887'

a rm

Bennett Mountain

Oakmont

nda

rsh

Redwood Spring

Hunter Spring

i chard so n Trail

Lake Ilsanjo

Tra i

Other Trail

ich

800

Multi-use Connector

eâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Tra il

Oak Live Trail

Multi-use Trail

Quarry Picnic Area

Law

Or c

rm Bu

To Sugarloaf Ridge State Park

lt z

l Tra i

Cr e

Spr ing

th or N

Bay Area Ridge Trail

Dr.

Trail

il ar dson Tra

il Tra Go greCek Spr inC re ek Tra il

il Tr a

nel

r ha

400'

an yo n

Rou

600

Chan

400

.6 .8

To Hood Mtn. Regional Park & Open Space Preserve

anga

.4 .4 .6

Spring Lake

Dr .

Meli

New

Spring Lake Regional Park

Howarth Park

hn A ve.

ery

240'

Santa Rosa Hoe

Mont g om

Lake P Ralphine

Schu

Rosa

te 8 0 0 v

Son

To Kenwood & Sonoma

Figure 1-2 Bay Area Ridge Trail - Santa Rosa Vicinity

1-8

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

formed to educate and assist the public in proactive community planning in the downtown core of Santa Rosa. CityVision completed a summary report in 2000 for the City of Santa Rosa. As part of the summary report, CityVision proposed several roadway modification projects in the downtown core with the purpose of creating walkable streetscapes. For example, it was proposed that Mendocino Avenue, from College Avenue to Fourth Street, be modified by removing a travel lane and replacing the additional space with parking or widened sidewalks. Most of these proposed projects in the downtown core were created with the idea of making the downtown a destination rather than a through route for vehicular traffic and bicyclists. In conjunction with these street modification projects, CityVision proposed a downtown bicycle beltway system of bicycle paths around the downtown core. The beltway was identified as being located on College Avenue (from NWP railroad right-of-way to E Street), E Street (from College Avenue to Sonoma Avenue), Sonoma Avenue (from E Street to Santa Rosa Avenue), Prince Memorial Greenway (from Santa Rosa Avenue to the NWP railroad right-of-way), and the NWP railroad right-of-way (from Prince Memorial Greenway to College Avenue). Some of the efforts from the R/UDAT exercise have been incorporated into the General Plan (e.g. downtown core boundary) while other recommendations continue to be discussed today (e.g. reunification of Court House Square, an east-west pedestrian connection through Downtown Santa Rosa Plaza to Railroad Square). The corridors identified in the bicycle beltway system have been incorporated as part of the 2001 BPMP and remain in the 2010 update. The Prince Memorial Greenway is now an existing facility.

Northern Downtown Pedestrian Linkages Study The Northern Downtown Pedestrian Linkages Study (NDPLS) was initiated in 2004 to study the 6th and 7th Streets corridor through downtown to develop conceptual and design improvement plans that would strengthen linkages between the northern and central areas of downtown. The City Council accepted the NDPLS in November 2006 pursuing implementation of Class II bicycle lanes as the ultimate improvement along the 6th Street corridor between A Street and Pierson Street with an interim Class III bicycle facilities along 6th Street between Wilson and Davis Streets and West 6th Street west of the SMART property.

Downtown Station Area Specific Plan The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) was adopted in 2007. The primary goal of the DSASP was to create a transit-supportive environment through land use intensification, improved modal connectivity and circulation, and creation of more walkable environments within the Â˝ mile radius of the Plan Area. The DSASP recognized that some of the currently planned Class II bicycle facilities in the 2001 BPMP would be difficult to implement due to a combination of right-of-way and site constraints, neighborhood parking issues, and the presence of historic structures. The DSASP also suggested alternative approaches for accommodating bicycle travel where right-of-way constraints exist. The DSASP was adopted by the City Council without making changes to the Class II Bike Lane facilities proposed in the 2001 BPMP in favor of having the matter studied further as a part of the 2010 BPMP update process. This update makes revisions to the 2001 BPMP as outlined in Chapter 3 of this BPMP update, and discusses the conclusions in Chapter 5 from this further study.

VISION STATEMENT Promote walking and bicycling as viable, attractive, non-polluting forms of transportation and assure safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to all areas of the city.

September 2010

1-9

INTRODUCTION AND SETTING

GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL 1 - PLANNING Integrate the consideration of bicycle and pedestrian travel into City planning activities and capital improvement projects, and coordinate with other agencies to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities and access within and connecting to Santa Rosa. POLICIES: 1.1 Planning for non-automobile modes (pedestrian, bicycle, transit) to receive equal emphasis as planning for motor vehicle transportation. 1.1.1 Action Step: Conduct regular counts of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 1.1.2 Action Step: Review existing city ordinances for appropriateness and for consistency with the California Vehicle Code. 1.2 Integrate pedestrian and bicycle network and facility needs as appropriate into all planning, and regulatory documents, street capital improvement projects, including traffic impact studies and analyses of proposed street changes. 1.2.1 Action Step: Ensure consideration of pedestrian and bicycle network and facility needs into all planning policy documents, studies and in the development review process by considering: • Impact on the existing pedestrian and bikeway network; • Consistency with General Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) policies and City Design Guidelines; • Degree to which pedestrian and bicycle travel patterns are altered or restricted due to the project; and • Safety of future pedestrian and bicycle operations . 1.2.2 Action Step: Require new development, or reconstruction if applicable, to address the pedestrian and bicycle circulation element based on the above considerations. 1.2.3 Action Step: Utilize the Regional Complete Streets (Routine Accommodation) Checklist to assure consideration of pedestrian and bicycle facility needs in City transportation projects and roadway improvements. 1.3 Establish clear roles and responsibilities for all affected City departments in the implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, including the funding, planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 1.3.1 Action Step: Establish a full-time pedestrian and bicycle coordinator position. 1.4 Coordinate the pedestrian and bicycle network plan with state and other adjacent governmental entities, public service companies, potential partner organizations, regulatory and coordinating agencies and transit agencies.

1-10

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

1.5 Require development projects to include features that promote the use of, and eliminate barriers to the use of, bicycle, pedestrian and transit systems. These features could include bus turnouts, inter-connected bicycle and pedestrian paths and sidewalks, and pedestrianaccessible features such as convenient local-serving retail and service uses. 1.6 Improve regulatory requirements related to building and driveway setbacks, curb cuts, maximum block lengths and cul de sacs to reduce impacts to the pedestrian and bicycle system. GOAL 2 - PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE NETWORK DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE Develop a safe, convenient, and continuous network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that serves the community and links neighborhoods with schools, parks, shopping, and employment centers. POLICIES: 2.1 Develop a citywide system of designated bikeways that serve bicyclists of all skill levels and which maximizes bicycle use for commuting, local transportation, and recreation. 2.2 Provide bike lanes along all regional streets and high volume transitional streets (i.e. 4,000 vehicles per day) and remove barriers to bicycle use on selected low volume residential streets. Provide sidewalks on all future development and existing streets as needed. 2.2.1 Action Step:

Include Class II bike lanes in all new construction or reconstruction projects. Maintain a Sidewalk-Infill Program to address sidewalk gaps. Plan and develop well-connected streets and sidewalk and pathways that provide the most direct paths of travel for pedestrians. Provide connections between or through cul de sacs and remove barriers to walking.

2.2.2 Action Step: Evaluate all streets during pavement resurfacing to determine if pedestrian or bicycle facilities can be provided (e.g. bike lanes, wider curb lanes or sidewalks) when the striping is reapplied. 2.2.3 Action Step: On transitional streets with speeds of 35 mph or more, and local streets with speeds over 25 mph, implement traffic calming measures to improve safety for all users - motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. 2.2.4 Action Step: Provide Class II bike lanes through the downtown core to include at least one east-west and one north-south route. 2.3 Provide sidewalks or pathways and bikeways on major access routes to all schools and parks. 2.4 Ensure that projects affecting roadway and pedestrian corridor designs avoid any actions that would compromise pedestrian or bicycle safety or circulation, such as removing or narrowing an existing sidewalk, the narrowing of a curb lane on any road to a width less than acceptable, or restriping or widening to provide a double right-turn lane, particularly where the second lane is a shared through-right lane. 2.5 Integrate Class I multi-use paths along creeks, railroad rights-of-way, and park designs by

September 2010

1-11

INTRODUCTION AND SETTING

coordinating with the Citywide Creek Master Plan, operators and appropriate jurisdictions. Ensure all multi-use paths are accessible per the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 2.5.1 Action Step: Since off-road paths are not surveyed by the pavement management program or reached by street sweepers, a special schedule for inspection and maintenance should be established. 2.5.2 Action Step:

Utilize the design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual (Caltrans), existing standards for design of Class I multi-use paths, Class II Bike Lanes, and Class III Bike Routes (See 2010 BPMP Appendix B). If it is a pedestrian facility, utilize design criteria published in Chapter 105 of the California Highway Design Manual (See 2010 BPBP Appendix C), the City’s Design Guidelines, and Street Design and Construction Standards.

2.5.3 Action Step:

Evaluate at-grade and grade-separated crossing installations where multi-use paths cross streets. Utilize the “Surface Street Crossings” design standards for at-grade crossings in the Citywide Creek Master Plan Chapter 3.3.4 (See 2010 BPMP Appendix D).

2.5.4 Action Step: Design Class I facilities to allow for adequate access by public safety and Water Agency vehicles. 2.5.5 Action Step: Work with Water Agency to design and construct ADA-compatible gates on multi-use paths along creeks. 2.5.6 Action Step: Continue the directional and informational signing system initiated for the Santa Rosa Greenway Signage and expand to all other Class I multi-use paths within the City limits and coordinate the signage system with partner jurisdictions. 2.5.7 Action Step: Continue developing standards for accessible gates at Class 1 bike path entrances that are acceptable to all users (“Trail Entries” are discussed in Chapter 3 and Appendix E of the Citywide Creek Master Plan). 2.6 Ensure that pedestrian and bicycle circulation is an integral part of street design so that lanes and pathways form an integrated network and address the “Complete Streets” concept in transportation planning. 2.6.1 Action Step: Identify weak links and discontinuities in the existing network, and develop criteria for prioritizing and finding solutions to the problems. 2.7 Consider pedestrian and bicycle operating characteristics in the design, and/or retrofitting of turning movements, intersections and traffic control systems, including analysis of pedestrian and bicycle counts and collisions. 2.7.1 Action Step:

1-12

Continue to install bicycle-sensitive loop detectors (or video detectors) with accurately-placed pavement markings placed such that the Bicycle Detection Symbol (BDS) is off-center of the travel lane and not on the right edge of the travel lane.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

2.7.2 Action Step:

PLAN

Continue to install lead pedestrian interval (LPI) phases in traffic signal timing in the urban core, and outside the urban core, as warranted, to encourage walking and facilitate crossing busy regional or high volume transitional streets.

2.7.3 Action Step: Adjust pedestrian clearance time where older or disabled pedestrians routinely use the crosswalk. 2.7.4 Action Step: Refine and calibrate sensitivity of bicycle loop detectors where bicycles are not recognized. 2.7.5 Action Step: Develop standards for signal timing to facilitate movement of bicycles at intersections. 2.7.6 Action Step: Conduct regular pedestrian and bicycle counts pursuant to regional methodology as part of before and after project implementation, as necessary. 2.8 Coordinate and cooperate with surrounding jurisdictions, such as Sonoma County, to create a seamless pedestrian and bikeway network. 2.9 Maintain all roadways, pedestrian and bicycle-related facilities so they provide safe and comfortable conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. The level of service for maintenance efforts on pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be equal to roads used by motor vehicles. 2.9.1 Action Step: Sweep streets regularly, with priority given to those with higher pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 2.9.2 Action Step: Prepare an annual Work Plan including the status of pedestrian and bicycle projects in the BPMP completed, in progress and proposed for the budget year showing Scope, Schedule, and Budget by fund source. 2.9.3 Action Step: Incorporate routine accommodation for pedestrian and bicycle facilities when developing priority lists for overlay and construction projects, maintenance, and in the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guidelines. 2.9.4 Action Step: Adopt street surface repair standards for roadway maintenance that meet bicyclistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs for smooth, deterrent-free roads. (Appendix E.) 2.9.5 Action Step: Design facilities to minimize maintenance costs by specifying quality materials and standard products. 2.9.6 Action Step: Require glass and debris removal from bike lanes after motor vehicle collisions. 2.9.7 Action Step: Trim overhanging and encroaching vegetation to maintain a clear path of travel along pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities. 2.9.8 Action Step: Repair surface defects such as potholes and ruts, giving priority to the right-hand portion of the outside lane. 2.9.9 Action Step: Ensure proper funding levels for routine bicycle-related maintenance activities.

September 2010

1-13

INTRODUCTION AND SETTING

2.9.10 Action Step: Review conditions of all road shoulders and bike lanes at railroad crossings. Plan for an upgrade of conditions to assure safe crossings by bicyclists. 2.9.11 Action Step: Establish a routine inspection procedure for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 2.9.12 Action Step: Repair faded and worn bike lane markings and improve pavement quality where needed, including replacement of drainage grates on City bikeways with grate designs that do not pose a safety hazard for bicycles. 2.10 Provide specific requirements and design guidelines for bikeways, particularly shared use roads and traffic calming strategies where appropriate. (See Chapter 6) 2.10.1 Action Step: Develop policy for increasing Class II-Bike Lane width greater than the Caltrans minimum 5-foot width based on speed limit and traffic volumes. 2.10.2 Action Step:

Develop policy for deploying Shared Roadway Bicycle Markings in the City based on the Caltrans standard but adapted to the City’s local operations and characteristics of speed limit, traffic volumes and street geometry.

2.10.3 Action Step:

Develop policy for designating Class III Bike Routes with added street treatments where the travel lane width is less than 12 feet and the street meets some of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual “On-street Bike Route Criteria.”

2.10.4 Action Step: Develop a city traffic calming program defining the process and criteria used for deploying street calming treatments. GOAL 3 – PEDESTRIAN NETWORK Develop a safe, convenient and continuous pedestrian network of sidewalks and paths that link neighborhoods with schools, parks, shopping and employment centers. POLICIES 3.1 Provide attractive and safe streets for pedestrians. 3.1.1 Action Step: Include sidewalks on all new or retrofitted roadways. 3.1.2 Action Step: Provide pedestrian connections to schools and shopping centers from new housing developments. 3.1.3 Action Step: Design connections that provide a clear and direct path of travel for the advantage and convenience of the pedestrian (See Chapter 6) 3.1.4 Action Step: Develop a protocol to evaluate locations for enhancing crosswalks.

1-14

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

3.1.5 Action Step: Use state-of-the-art technologies such as pedestrian countdown signals and infrared pedestrian detectors or pressure plates. 3.1.6 Action Step: Identify and construct new sidewalks in areas where they are incomplete. 3.1.7 Action Step: Develop and enforce a sidewalk maintenance program to ensure that adjacent property owners maintain the sidewalk properly. GOAL 4 - PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SUPPORT FACILITIES AND INTERMODAL CONNECTIONS Provide related facilities necessary for walking and bicycling to assume a significant role in the transportation system. POLICIES: 4.1 Ensure adequate supply and type of bike parking. 4.1.1 Action Step:

Review and update the Zoning Code, as necessary, for bicycle parking requirements related to new development. Projects of commercial or industrial nature should include bicycle storage facilities for employees and customers and shower/locker areas for employees who commute using bicycles. (Appendix F)

4.1.2 Action Step: Review and update standards for bike rack parking/storage design and placement. 4.1.3 Action Step: Monitor bicycle parking supply within the City right-of-way and installed by private developers under city ordinance to ensure that adequate bike parking is available, and installed properly. 4.1.4 Action Step: Explore innovations for bicycle parking facilities, such as electronic lockers and high-security racks. 4.1.5 Action Step: Continue working with the downtown employers to meet bicycle parking needs in the downtown area and other areas as necessary. 4.1.6 Action Step: Develop a procedure for routine inspection and maintenance of bicycle parking facilities. 4.1.7 Action Step: Encourage event organizers to provide and publicize valet bike parking. 4.2 Promote and facilitate the use of bicycles in conjunction with other transportation modes. 4.2.1 Action Step: Explore the feasibility of providing secure bike parking at key transit transfer centers and bike stations at the Transit Mall and SMART Stations. 4.3 Provide consistent signage for all bikeways. 4.3.1 Action Step: Develop a policy standard for bike signage at set intervals including directional arrows and/or destination signs. (See Chapter 6)

September 2010

1-15

INTRODUCTION AND SETTING

GOAL 5 - EDUCATION/SAFETY/ENFORCEMENT Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists through education and enforcement. POLICIES: 5.1 Support and expand safety education programs such as “Share the Road” for adult bicyclists, child bicyclists, and motorists which increase knowledge of safe bicycling practices and encourage positive individual behavior change. 5.1.1 Action Step: Work with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program offered by the Police Department. 5.1.2 Action Step: Support and enhance existing programs that promote safe walking and bicycling techniques, and make the information available through schools, work sites and general publicity efforts. 5.1.3 Action Step: Promote the League of American Bicyclist’s Certified Instructor bicycle Street Skills course offered by the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition and encourage it to be taught through the adult education program or Recreation, Parks and Community Services. 5.1.4 Action Step: Use pavement markings on the road surface or signage along the road to specify the correct travel direction of bicycles when in bike lanes. 5.1.5 Action Step: Use “Share the Road” warning signs or other appropriate regulatory signs on roads too narrow for bike lanes to encourage mutual consideration and respect for users of the road. 5.1.6 Action Step: Develop and implement a media campaign to promote bicycle safety by increasing motorist awareness of safe driving techniques around bicyclists. 5.2 Work with the school districts in Santa Rosa to institute safety education programs for students, such as the countywide Safe Routes to School Program sponsored by SCTA. 5.3 Enforce motorist, pedestrian and bicyclist violations that are most likely to cause injury, such as running red lights, speeding, wrong-way riding, jay-walking, riding on sidewalks where illegal, and children under the age of eighteen not wearing helmets. 5.3.1 Action Step: Expand and support a city-wide school safety helmet program. 5.3.2 Action Step: Increase enforcement of motor vehicle speeds. 5.3.3 Action Step: Adopt a reduced fine schedule for bicycle infractions so that fines are commensurate with the offense. 5.3.4 Action Step: Study pedestrian/auto and bicycle/auto accident records and develop a focused enforcement effort, combined with education and awareness campaign targeting motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists with a goal of reducing collisions by 10% between 2010 and 2014. 5.3.5 Action Step: Collect comprehensive information about police and hospital-reported pedestrian and bicycle collisions to identify causes and remedies. 1-16

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

5.4 Provide literature and up-to-date bicycle route maps for public use. 5.4.1 Action Step: Continue to provide a link to the current version of the countywide unincorporated bicycle map on the City pedestrian and bicycle program web site. 5.4.2 Action Step: Continue to provide the City bicycle guide map for public use. The map shall be distributed to employers, bike shops, public buildings and schools as part of the Transportation Demand Management program. The map should be updated approximately once every three years as needed. 5.5 Promote programs that reduce incidents of theft and continue efforts to recover stolen bicycles. 5.5.1 Action Step: Develop informative material for use with neighborhood groups on incidents of bike theft from private property. 5.5.2 Action Step: Establish and promote a voluntary bicycle licensing system. GOAL 6 - PROMOTION Increase pedestrian and bicycle mode share by increasing public awareness of the benefits of walking and bicycling and of the available facilities and programs through the Transportation Demand Management Program. POLICIES: 6.1 Provide current and easily accessible information about the pedestrian and bicycle network, pedestrian and bicycle programs and bicycle parking. 6.1.1 Action Step: See 5.4.1 and 5.4.2. 6.1.2 Action Step: Provide website links on the City’s pedestrian and bicycle program web site to pedestrian related programs (e.g. YMCA’s walking program, Police Department’s Pedestrian Safety Program). 6.2 Encourage bicycling and walking through the Transportation Demand Management’s (TDM) incentive/awareness programs. 6.2.1 Action Step:

Continue to sponsor the annual Bicycle and Walk to Work Week in May to receive input on the pedestrian and bicycle program, as well as to educate the public as to the benefits of walking and bicycling and the TDM program.

6.2.2 Action Step: Continue to offer and expand, if possible, the City’s Free Ride Program. 6.2.3 Action Step: Incorporate pedestrian and bicycling promotional activities into City sponsored events. 6.2.4 Action Step: Continue the City’s current program of repairing bikes and donating them to individuals.

September 2010

1-17

INTRODUCTION AND SETTING

6.2.5 Action Step: Publish an annual report summarizing pedestrian and bicycle program activities. 6.2.6 Action Step: Encourage local businesses to welcome and support bicyclists and pedestrians and to participate in the TDM program. 6.2.7 Action Step: Encourage the City of Santa Rosa to become a “Model Employer” for commute alternatives by practicing TDM principles and offering taxfree reimbursement for the cost of transit passes and commuting by bicycle for its employees.3 6.3 Increase local coverage of pedestrian and bicycle issues in the media. 6.3.1 Action Step: Include articles on pedestrian and bicycle issues in the City’s newsletter and distribute to local newspapers and provide the information on the City’s pedestrian and bicycle program web site. GOAL 7 - IMPLEMENTATION/PROGRAMMING Maximize the use of public and private financial resources to fund ongoing pedestrian and bicycle improvements and programs. POLICIES: 7.1 Develop a phased and prioritized implementation plan that takes into consideration the available funding opportunities and availability of staff. 7.1.1 Action Step: Reevaluate the project priorities on an annual basis in order to take into consideration changing conditions and opportunities. 7.1.2 Action Step: Actively seek funding from public and private sources including grant funding. 7.2 Promote public/private partnerships in development, implementation, operation, and maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 7.3 Utilize Complete Street practices to incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities into all roadway improvement projects,-such as widening, overlays, and restripings—to the extent feasible and not limited to those pedestrian and bikeway improvements recommended in this plan. (See Chapter 3 for an extended discussion of “Complete Streets.”) 7.4 Continue the use of the citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board to assist staff and advise City Council in the planning, design, and implementation of projects that directly or indirectly impact pedestrian and bicycle travel and safety. 7.5 Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be included in the City’s regular planning (Capital Improvement Plan) and budgeting processes, and shall be subject to public review by community and planning bodies (i.e., advisory groups, Boards and Planning Commission

1-18

On January 1, 2009, the qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement was added to the list of qualified transportation fringe benefits covered in section 132 (f) of the Internal Revenue Service Code.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

as appropriate). 7.6 Review and update project lists and maps in this plan annually as needed with an overall review and comprehensive update every five years when funding is made available for this purpose as outlined in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution No. 875 (Appendix G) and for presentation to the City Council for adoption. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB) On April 4, 2006, the City Council adopted a Resolution No. 26536 (See Appendix H for City Resolution and staff report) to restructure the former Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to a ninemember appointed-Board. Seven of the members are individually appointed by City Council members. The other two positions are appointed at-large by the Council and represent the disabled community and senior community. The former BPAC was constituted in 1993 as required by Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution 875 as a condition of eligibility for Transportation Development Act funds. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB) provides City staff with input on the type of pedestrian and bicycle transportation projects that should be considered for transportation and what priority those projects should have. These efforts culminate in the preparation of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The BPAB typically met once a month and in addition convened special meetings during the preparation of this plan.

Public Workshops Public workshops were held in October 2007, March 2008, February (Focus Group) and April 2009 and September 2010. In addition, public hearings were held as part of the Planning Commission (October 2010), and City Council (February 2011) process. Several of the BPAB’s regularly scheduled and special meetings were held to discuss the development of the BPMP and included public comment periods as well. A questionnaire (described below) was also done on-line to get the public’s help in determining walking and bicycling characteristics, location-specific needs in order to develop an idea of the future types of routes and facilities needed in the community. Public comments were considered or included in the early drafts of the BPMP update and refined in later versions, which shaped the draft final presented by staff to the Planning Commission and City Council. Finally, the staff presentation of the BPMP update to the Planning Commission and the City Council included public hearings as part of the recommendation and adoption process. The development of the BPMP update also included a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) made up primarily of planners and engineers from not only the various City departments but also partners at the county, regional and state level. The TAC membership also included two BPAB representatives. Figure 1-3 depicts a flow chart of the public involvement process.

September 2010

1-19

INTRODUCTION AND SETTING

Figure 1-3

BPMP Development and

Public Involvement Process Policy Makers Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Manager/Coordinator Trained Professional City Staff

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board

Public, Pedestrian Advocates, Bicycle Advocates

Questionnaire, Pedestrian and Bicycle Counts This update included a questionnaire and pedestrian and bicycle counts. Although the questionnaire is not a statistically significant survey it did fulfill two purposes: as a public participation tool that allowed members of the community to participate in the planning process and to use the results from the questionnaire to reinforce findings from public involvement activities and planning analyses. Two hundred-ninety three individuals took the on-line survey in the spring of 2008. Although this is less than 1 percent of the total population in Santa Rosa, it does represent those individuals of the public who participated in the planning process and who were most interested in the pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. This sort of data, although unscientific, can help staff have at least some rough idea of travel patterns from those most interested in walking and bicycling in Santa Rosa and provides consideration for future planning or survey efforts as needed. This small sample of participants revealed that personal vehicles are the primary modes of transportation. Half of the participants said they use their vehicles for transportation while bicycling is the second most popular and walking third among the participants who took the questionnaire. Again, although the questionnaire is not statistically significant and represents less than 1 percent of the total population in Santa Rosa, it does mirror what the Press Democrat reported in November 2005: that â&#x20AC;&#x153;Sonoma County has more vehicles per capita than any of the nine Bay Area counties -- nearly one for every man, woman and child living here.4â&#x20AC;? 4

1-20

COUNTY LEADS IN CARS PER CAPITA, Kerry Benefield, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, November 7, 2005, p.A1

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Other findings from the Questionnaire: (Details of the questionnaire are available in Appendix I.)

• Many respondents are avid cyclists, riding 10 miles or more on an average trip. • Safety and lack of paths and connections are the biggest reasons respondents choose not to bicycle. Safety issues (hazardous pathway conditions and personal security) comprised over 54 percent of the responses for top reasons NOT to bike, followed closely by the lack of paths/connections and time/distance to destinations. Other reasons for not biking for transportation included lack of secure bike racks and other end-of-trip facilities. • The time and distance to get the destination is the biggest reason residents choose not to walk. Other reasons include hazardous conditions, lack of paths and connections, and user conflicts. • Separated bicycle paths are the preferred type of bikeway. Of the three types of bikeways, 56 percent of respondents prefer to use a Type I facility followed by a Class II facility (32 percent), unpaved trails (7 percent) and the least popular: a Class III facility (5 percent). • Among respondents who are walkers, paved multi-use paths and unpaved paths are equally preferred over sidewalks. • Very few questionnaire respondents have a disability that prevents them from biking and/or walking. The results show that 92 percent of respondents are able to bike or walk.

WALKING AND BICYCLING BENEFITS IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Some would suggest that walking is the ultimate or universal form of transportation in that almost everyone can participate without a large investment. However, both modes of transportation—walking and bicycling—require less public or private space to operate, cost less publicly or privately to operate, and cost less in terms of impact to the environment. Muenster, Germany demonstrated this concept of “less space” in its classic photo from 2001 that has been replicated over the years by many other supporters of walking and bicycling. Unfortunately, most people do not immediately think of walking or bicycling as their first or preferred mode of transportation to work, to shop or to social occasions. There are a number of reasons for this: community planning and design, and the car culture of Americans that gave rise to suburban sprawl. But today the trend is moving back toward urban living, and the desire for more viable city centers with convenient access to services and public transportation. Bicycling is the most efficient form of transportation in terms of energy per mile traveled and still less to operate than a personal vehicle. However, few bicyclists consciously ride for this reason. Bicyclists ride, in fact, for many reasons and the benefits are accrued by both the individual as well as society. Some bicyclists are sometimes referred to as “transit-dependent”- meaning they have no car. But with a bicycle they are not dependent on transit; they have door-to-door mobility at the exact time they need it without being dependent on transit schedules and with the increasing popularity of “cargo bikes” and accessories such as saddle bags, bicycling is even feasible for shopping locally. Santa Rosa, like most American cities, is car centric, more so in the Bay Area as noted previously in the Press Democrat article. Of Santa Rosa’s workers, 75 percent drive to work alone, 12 percent carpool, 3 percent take public transportation, and 5 percent use other means. The remaining 6 percent work at home. It takes an average 21.9 minutes to get to work for Santa Rosans who commute.5 Like most commuters, the majority of Santa Rosans rely on personal vehicle travel. With the increasing price of gas and greater awareness of the impact of the personal vehicle, more people will look to other transportation options.

September 2010

1-21

INTRODUCTION AND SETTING

Other bicyclists, like pedestrians, have or could afford a car but for environmental reasons choose to use their bikes or feet for transportation. The environmental reasons range from the obvious one of air pollution to the more subtle but just as real problems of noise pollution, water pollution from roadway storm water run-off, reduced area for water drainage, loss of habitat due to excessive pavement for roads and parking lots, dependence on foreign oil, et cetera. In addition to societal benefits, walking and bicycling have direct benefits for the individual. Walking is the least expensive transportation mode while bicycling is a less costly transportation mode than the automobile. When there is a fee for car parking, bicycling is even more cost-effective. At ten cents a mile,

Poster in City of Munster Planning Office, August 2001 Credit: Press Office City of Munster, Germany

a five mile bicycle trip is only 506 cents compared to an auto trip at $2.75 per trip (55 cents per mile) or a one-way bus fare of $1.25. Thus, bicycling is chosen by people both with and without cars as the most cost effective way to travel. Bicycling is particularly convenient when it comes to parking and/or storage. Bike parking takes less space than automobile parking. Besides the individual benefits of lower costs, there are also individual health benefits from walking and bicycling: exercise. Walking and bicycling are popular among those who are concerned with health and fitness. While walking is often recommended for its health benefits, bicycling provides excellent cardio-vascular conditioning and studies have shown that employees who regularly bike to work are sick less than the average employee. Many bicycle commuters recognize that the time spent commuting to work is time that does not have to be spent at the gym or on a home treadmill. 5

US Census 2006 American Community Survey

“Our Methodology:” taken from article “Benefits of Biking to Work Keep Adding Up,” Louis Jones, June 2009, Kiplinger.com

1-22

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

From a public policy point of view, it is a worthy goal to provide safe and convenient personal mobility choices not only to those without cars but to those who have cars but want other choices in transportation other than using their car. Those without cars need access to employment, shopping, recreation and connections to transit, rail and air to reach points outside the City just as those who can afford cars and choose to drive. In sum, investing in pedestrian and bicycle facilities is a fiscally and environmentally sound expenditure of public monies and helps connect to schools and neighborhoods helping to reduce congestion. It is similar to recycling in that a win-win situation is achieved that improves the environment while saving public dollars in the long run. Just as recycling programs have become main stream in the last twenty years, both in residential areas and at institutions, it is hoped that in the next ten years, walking and bicycling in Santa Rosa will be a daily or weekly event in the lives of most residents. This desire for walking and bicycling becoming more of main stream method of transportation in Santa Rosa is consistent with the General Plan policy • T-A-7: Expand non-motorized and bus infrastructure throughout the city such that greater amenities exist for cyclists, pedestrians and transit users in order to promote a healthy, sustainable city and further reduce GHG (Green House Gas) emissions. It is also coinsistent with the City’s GHG Resolution No. 26341 (Appendix J) adopted August 2, 2005 that established a municipal GHG reduction target of 20 percent from 2000 levels by 2010 and facilitated a community-wide GHG emission reduction target of 25 percent from 1990 levels by 2015.

SUMMARY: HOW WALKING AND BICYCLING FITS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM •

Walking and bicycling are common forms of exercise

•

Walking and bicycling benefits the environment

•

Walking and bicycling are the least costly forms of transportation

•

Pedestrians and bicyclists use less roadway space than cars

•

Bike parking takes less space: up to twenty bikes can park in one car space

•

Bikes provide access to outlying areas (1 to 2 miles) from transit that may not be as appealing to some if they had to walk 1 to 2 miles to use transit

•

Walking and bicycling offer competitive travel time for short trips under 2 miles, particularly where motor vehicle parking is limited

•

Walking and bicycling provide access to schools from within neighborhoods - removing vehicles from transitional and regional streets

September 2010

1-23

Chapter 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter provides an overview of the City of Santa Rosa’s existing conditions for walking and bicycling. Existing conditions consist of the following components: 1) 2) 3) 4)

demand and usage; sidewalks and bikeways; collision analysis; existing support facilities and programs.

DEMAND AND USAGE Factors for demand and usage include commute percentages for walking and biking as the primary commute mode; trip purpose percentages for trips made by walking and biking; and pedestrian and bicycle counts.

Commute Trips A comparison of the 1990 and 2000 Census figures on commute patterns in Santa Rosa show a decrease in the rate of biking and walking to work (See Table 2-1). However, Santa Rosa’s population increased by 30% between 1990 and 2000, from 113,313 to 147,595, according to U.S. Census. The actual number of trips to work by walking has increased, but the number of bike trips to work has decreased. Table 2-1: Residents’ Bicycling and Walking Rate for Commuting Bike Santa Rosa Sonoma County

1990 1.6% 1.0%

Walk 2000 0.9%* 0.8%

1990 2.9% 3.3%

2000 2.4%* 3.3%

SOURCES: 1990 and 2000 US Census. *Figures are for the Santa Rosa Urbanized Area (UZA)

All Trips The percentage of the all trips, including commute, shopping, recreation, etc, undertaken in Sonoma County on weekdays by walking and bicycling is 3.4% and 1.8% respectively, based on data from the 2000 San Francisco Bay Area Travel Survey (BATS). This represents a drop from 1990 BATS, where walking and bicycling accounted for 6.7% and 1.9% respectively for total weekday trips. See Table 2-2 below. Table 2-2: Sonoma County, Percentage of Total Trips by Walking and Bicycling 1990 388,222

2000 458,614

Walk Mode Share % Bike Mode Share %

6.7 % 1.9 %

3.4 % 1.8 %

Number of Walk Trips Number of Bike Trips

26,011 7,376

15,593 8,255

Population

SOURCES: 1990 and 2000 San Francisco Bay Area Travel Survey; US Census 2000

EXISTING CONDITIONS

However, it is interesting to note that the population of Sonoma County increased from 388,222 to 458,614 from 1990 to 2000, according to the US Census. Looking at Table 2.2 and applying the year 2000 percentages to the year 2000 population reveals that the total number of bike trips actually increased, while the number of walking trips decreased over the decade.

Trip Purpose It should be noted that while commute trips get most of the attention in transportation planning and programs, they account for a fraction of the total walking and bicycling trips. Table 2-3 provides a snapshot of the more specific trips undertaken by foot and on bike. (Note that this is based on a sample size of 293 respondents based on an online questionnaire).

Table 2-3: Walk/Bike Trips by Frequency and Purpose Never

< twice a month

Once a week

3-4 times/week

5-7 times/week

Bike

Walk

Bike

Walk

Bike

Walk

Bike

Walk

Bike

Walk

Work

34%

72%

14%

12%

16%

24%

11%

School

69%

85%

13%

Daily Needs (grocery, health care, etc)

24%

21%

23%

22%

26%

34%

20%

21%

Exercise

12%

11%

22%

27%

38%

30%

23%

20%

Entertainment

14%

19%

34%

37%

29%

26%

14%

10%

Social Visits

20%

19%

26%

24%

33%

40%

16%

14%

Other

50%

30%

13%

19%

39%

Source: Online Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Questionnaire, 2008. Question: “For each of the following types of trips, please indicate how often you use bicycling/ walking as your primary mode of transportation”

Gender and Age While males account for twice as many trips by bicycle than females, they make less trips by walking than females. See Table 2-4. The number of bike trips decrease more markedly than the number of walking trips from those aged 30 and older. See Exhibit 2-1. Table 2-4: Percentage of Biking and Walking Trips, by Gender, US Male Female

% of Total Bike Trips

% of Total Walk Trips

68% 32%

47% 53%

Source: 2002 National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and Behavior – Summary Report, NHTSA 2008, Figure 29: Walking; Figure 7: Biking.

2-2

September 2010

Gary, Note the figures are Exhibt (graph). If you delete these figures the Exhibit goes S Aaway. N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N Age 16-20 21-29 30-45 46-64 65+

Walking

Biking 15% 16% 33% 25% 11%

25% 19% 34% 18% 3%

100%

99%

MASTER

PLAN

I am only interested in the figure.

Exhibit 2-1: Percentage of Walk and Bike Trips by Age, US

40% 35% 30% 25% Walking

20%

Biking

15% 10% 5% 0% 16-20

21-29

30-45 Age group

46-64

65+

Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Questionnaire The questionnaire was posted online on the project website as part of the data collection for this update of the Bicycle and Master Plan. The number of respondents that completed the questionnaire was 293. While the survey is not statistically significant due to the small sample size and self-selection of the respondents, it does provide insight on walking and biking trends in Santa Rosa. For example, Table 2-5 shows the modes of transportation combined for single trips. Table 2-5 Mode Combinations for Single Trips Walking & Automobile

32%

Bicycling & Automobile Walking & Bicycling Walking & Public Transit Bicycling & Public Transit Automobile & Public Transit No other combination of modes Other

25% 19% 7% 4% 2% 9% 2%

Source: Online Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Questionnaire, 2008. Question: “What transportation modes do you combine most often on a single trip?”

Other interesting survey results include: • The average walking trip was 32 minutes; the average biking trip was 42 minutes. • The most common reason cited for NOT bicycling was concerns with personal safety and security. • The most common reason for NOT walking was the time/distance to get to the destination. • Transit usage amongst these respondents is very low: 71% never rode buses. • The percentage of respondents using their car on a daily basis: 49%. In addition, respondents commented extensively on the specific intersections or locations that needed pedestrian/bicycle facilities or improvements. This questionnaire showed that surveys are a valuable tool for getting detailed public input. More surveys and data collection should be done when planning pedestrian and bicycle projects, to ensure that the projects will fit the needs of the users.

September 2010

2-3

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Pedestrian and Bicycle Counts Apart from using travel surveys to get an idea of the demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and usage, a more location specific method is doing actual counts of pedestrians and bicyclist to determine the level of pedestrian and bicycle traffic in a particular area. This count data is also important for providing input into project specific design, planning and traffic engineering efforts. In April/May of 2008, bicycle and pedestrian counts were conducted at 31 locations throughout the City of Santa Rosa as a component of the 2010 Santa Rosa Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Update. Besides collecting pedestrian and bicycle traffic data to understand the existing level of use throughout the community at key locations, the purpose was also intended to establish a routine of conducting pedestrian and bicycle counts. Thus this effort establishes a baseline for future pedestrian and bicycle counts. Selection of the 31 locations was derived from key origins and destinations identified as part of the pedestrian and bicycle network and include: neighborhoods, schools, city and regional parks, transit centers, community centers, and shopping centers. An effort was made to balance the 31 count locations as much as possible among the City’s four quadrants and included input from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. This was the first time that bicycle and pedestrian counts have been conducted on a citywide scale.

Count Dates and Times The count dates and times were scheduled to fit within the overall schedule of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update and were conducted to be consistent with recommendations in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Handbook for Bicyclists and Pedestrian Counts, and the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project. Counts were conducted on weekdays –Tuesday through Thursday. Two-hour counts were generally conducted during the AM and PM peak commute periods, with the exception of one location. The counts were conducted between April 29 and May 8, with some re-counts conducted in the following weeks. Average weather conditions were experienced on each of the count days; conditions included sunshine, mild temperatures with highs in the upper 60s to the upper 70s, and light variable winds. No measurable precipitation was recorded during that period. The results of the counts are provided in Table 2-6 for east-west direction of travel and Table 2-7 for north-south direction of travel.

2-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Table 2-6: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COUNTS (EAST - WEST) - APRIL & MAY, 2008

Primary Street

Cross Street

Count Time

Location

5/20/2008

Joe Rodota Trail

Dutton Avenue

4/29/2008

Joe Rodota Trail

4/29/2008

Joe Rodota Trail

5/8/2008

Piner Road

Marlow Road

4/29/2008

Sonoma Avenue

Brookwood Avenue

5/7/2008

Sonoma Highway (SR 12)

Calistoga Road

5/1/2008

4th Street

Farmers Lane

5/1/2008

Sonoma Highway (SR 12

5/6/2008

College Avenue

5/6/2008

College Avenue

Mission Boulevard Mendocino Avenue Mendocino Avenue

5/1/2008

7th Street

B Street

5/6/2008

9th Street

Wilson Street

5/14/2008

Sonoma Avenue

Farmers Lane

Range Avenue

Ventura Avenue

Count Date

4/29/2008 5/1/2008 5/14/2008

Guerneville Road Guerneville Road Administration Drive

Prince Memorial Greenway Prince Memorial Greenway

AM PM

Peak Hour Time 5:00 6:00 PM 7:15 8:15 AM 5:00 6:00 PM 3:00 4:00 PM 12:15 1:15 PM 5:00 6:00 PM 7:15 8:15 AM 4:45 5:45 PM 7:15 8:15 AM 4:00 5:00 PM 7:30 8:30 AM 4:15 5:15 PM 3:30 4:30 PM 7:45 8:45 AM 3:00 4:00 PM 9:15 10:15 AM

2 - Hour Total

Bikes

Peds

Total

107

143

137

Time 4:00 -6:00 PM 7:15 - 9:15 AM 4:00 - 6:00 PM 3:00 - 5:00 PM 12:00 2:00 PM 4:00 - 6:00 PM 7:15 - 9:15 AM 4:00 - 6:00 PM 7:15 - 9:15 AM 4:00 - 6:00 PM 7:30 - 930 AM 4:15 - 6:15 PM 3:30 - 5:30 PM 7:15 - 9:15 AM 3:00 - 5:00 PM 8:15 10:15 AM

Bikes

Peds

Total

106

163

127

154

125

150

108

100

132

177

251

129

156

157

231

143

179

120

130

5/1/2008

3rd Street

Davis Street (Hwy 101)

4:30 5:30 PM

4:00 - 6:00 PM

5/5/2008

Davis Street

4th Street

4:30 5:30 PM

102

4:00 - 6:00 PM

157

173

* Alternative for Davis and 3rd, since sidewalk on south side was closed.

September 2010

2-5

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Count Date

Location

Count Time

TABLE 2-7: Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts (NORTH – South) - April & May, 2008

Primary Street

Cross Street

5/7/2008

Fulton Road

Piner Road

5/7/2008

Fulton Road

Guerneville Road

Joe Rodota Trail

5/20/2008 5/21/2008 5/21/2008 5/1/2008 5/7/2008 4/29/2008 4/29/2008

South Wright Road Stony Point Road Petaluma Hill Road Santa Rosa Avenue Summerfield Road Mission Boulevard. Mission Boulevard

Santa Rosa Creek Path Kawana Springs Road

PM PM

Sonoma Avenue

Montgomery Drive Montgomery Drive Montecito Boulevard

AM PM

5/21/2008

Brush Creek Trail

5/7/2008

North Street

Pacific Avenue

5/7/2008

Mendocino Avenue

Administration Drive/Chanate Road

5/22/2008

Yulupa Avenue

Bethards Drive

Stony Point Road Mendocino Avenue

West Third Street

Steele Lane

5/7/2008 5/7/2008

5/20/2008

Dutton Avenue

Joe Rodota Trail

5/14/2008

Mendocino Avenue

Pacific Avenue

Peak Hour Time 7:45 8:45 AM 4:15 5:15 PM 7:00 8:00 AM 5:00 6:00 PM 4:30 5:30 PM 4:15 5:15 PM 7:30 8:30 AM 7:45 8:45 AM 5:00 6:00 PM 8:00 9:00 AM 7:30 8:30 AM 4:15 5:15 PM 4:30 5:30 PM 5:00 6:00 PM 7:30 8:30 AM 4:30 5:30 PM 8:15 9:15 AM

2 - Hour Total

Bikes

Peds

Total

122

152

110

129

Time

Bikes

Peds

Total

109

188

7:00 - 9:00 AM 4:00 - 6:00 PM 7:00 - 9:00 AM 4:00 - 6:00 PM 4:00 - 6:00 PM 4:15 - 6:15 PM 7:00 - 9:00 AM 7:15 - 9:15 AM 4:00 - 6:00 PM 7:00 - 9:00 AM 7:00 - 9:00 AM

101

156

257

4:15 - 6:15 PM

109

133

128

123

138

193

226

4:00 - 6:00 PM 4:00 - 6:00 PM 7:00 - 9:00 AM 4:00 - 6:00 PM 8:00 10:00 AM

In 2002, MTC undertook a project to count pedestrians and bicyclists at various locations in the Bay Area, including Santa Rosa. MTC developed a standard methodology to conduct intersection counts. The results of the counts and surveys were summarized in MTC’s “Bicyclist and Pedestrian Data Collection and Analysis Project.” MTC conducted additional counts in 2003 and 2004. Since those efforts, MTC has been working to further develop common standards to count pedestrians and bicyclists across the Bay Area in order to use these standards to compare pedestrian and bicycle activity across the country. The National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project was developed by Alta Planning and Design and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Pedestrian and Bicycle Council. The project provides standardized forms and methods to count bicycles and pedestrians. All future counts conducted by MTC, as well as the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA), will use the

2-6

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

methodology developed by the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project. As noted previously, the above counts for Santa Rosa were done using the national count methodology (See Appendix K). The MTC web site should also be consulted for the latest updates to this methodology.

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The primary considerations of the pedestrian network is to serve all users, improve safety, and eliminate pedestrian barriers to accessing transit, education, shopping, and services. The lack of sidewalks diminishes safe access for all residents, but can particularly impact the elderly, disabled, and youth. Pedestrian infrastructure in the City of Santa Rosa includes sidewalks, multi-use pathways—paved and unpaved, curb ramps, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, audible crossing cues and amenities such as warning and information signs, transit shelters, lighting, benches, drinking fountains, shade trees and artwork. Within the City limits, responsibility for sidewalk maintenance belongs to the property owner.2 It is important to note that some parts of the City are not required to provide sidewalks. This is common in rural hillside developments3 such as portions of the Fountaingrove area, or areas previously built out when under the County’s jurisdiction and subsequently annexed into the City such as the Castlerock subdivision area (In general, the County does not require sidewalks in new residential developments outside of Urban Service Areas and Spheres of Influence except in specified circumstances).4 Future updates to the BPMP should contain a citywide “Pedestrian Facilities map”. This type of map would facilitate measuring gaps and cataloging areas where infill sidewalks are needed as the City makes progress toward completing its Sidewalk In-fill program and conditioning new development for the installation of sidewalks in order to fulfill the GP Policy T-B-1 of “continuous sidewalks.” A Pedestrian Facilities map would also help distinguish those areas of the City where previously in built-out areas--before the Complete Streets concept--by design sidewalks were and are not required. (Chapter 3 discusses the concept of “Complete Streets.”) Special treatments are provided downtown for pedestrians such as decorative paving, bollards and crosswalk treatments. The existing crosswalks include standard parallel lines, ladder crosswalks, school zone crosswalks (i.e. yellow markings/striping), enhanced “zebra” crosswalks, special paving treatments and overhead pedestrian activated warning flashers, although the City is moving toward high visibility Continental crosswalk markings. See Figure 2-1 for name of various crosswalk markings. Crosswalk markings are discussed further in the Best Practices and Design Guidelines Section, Chapter 6.

Figure 2-1 Crosswalk Markings

2 3 4

City Ordinance 3886 (See Appendix L for complete text of ordinance) Reference City Design and Construction Standard 200L (See Appendix M) Conversation with Gary Helfrich, Planner, County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department

September 2010

2-7

EXISTING CONDITIONS

EXISTING BIKEWAYS The City of Santa Rosa has approximately 77 existing bikeway miles that are composed of 13 miles of Class I paths, 46 miles of Class II lanes, and 18 miles of Class III routes. Twenty-one miles of bicycle lanes have been added since the 2001 Plan, mainly by installing bike lanes on streets that were Class III Bike Routes. The existing and proposed bikeways are depicted in Figure 2-2. More detail is provided by quadrant maps in Figures 2-3A to 2-3D. A detailed map of the downtown area is depicted in Figure 2-4.

2-8

September 2010

Holst R

Oak

a nd

L os A

Los

Hols t

u i n Dr

il d woo d

otl

Rd ille

Mo nt a na Rd nie lli R d Bo on eR d

Pythian Guili cos Los

Rd Ra nch

Rd Gra y

Adobe Can

d cke ye R

estridg

R id ge Pl

Fr e yR d

Ho u ntaod i n Cir

La wn da le R d

ey P

KE N

Rhy

alley Rd

L ib

tt V

B V a e n n et t l le y Rd tt Rd

Cir cle

s Dr ak lle y O

ira monte Pl

Oa k Mesa

a Dr k

Cliffw

Los G Scho uilicos ol Rd

Eln ok

erv

in g b

rl d

orth B urm

oop

T r a il L Orchard

Orc

dge

Dr Ea

Ln er Bo uld

C h ir e

Pine Valley

Po lled er eford Dr

yon R d

Owls

Dr Brey Rd

MargaritaWay

or t

Rd S ch u l

F P lat

Schu

ltz

de ra Rd

rR anch

GRANGE RD

tt ne Vall B en

Keise

Old

Ben rl

Ente rprise

T nett

ttasso Ct Bo

ey Ln

MOUNTAIN VIEW AV

z Ln Pa tt Benne Rd y Va lle

gton

ar rin Rd

HUNTER CREEK

YR LE

ton R

L VA

HIL

ngton Rd arri

MTN SONOM A

A UM

Hunter Ln

Ware Hill Rd

t ri n g Rd

L TA

Hunter Ln

g ton

Wa r

John s H

Sum merh ill Ln

Bucks Rd Todd Rd

ise r

ill

Hopi

r d n er R an c h

e v A s k o o r Ward Rd B

Rd gs rin

st Bri

ult z

Tr l

Ridge Rd Sch

Ben n

Wa r

Dr rosa nde Bir c h Dr

Robles Ave Magnolia Av

Hunter Ln

Ave

Mars

El Crystal Dr

TODD CRK

W um ay

Dup on

Vio l etti

g Qu ig

St Francis Rd

MISSION BLVD

ra Dr H C RK

US BR

Meda Ave

BROOKWOOD AV

Estes Dr

ROUTE 17

ROUTE 16

Brush Creek Rd er

Rd c Ali

TE CI TO ON M

ROUTE 09

Baird Rd

Zimmerman Ln

An d ers

Tr il

Los O livo s Ave Manzanita Ave

A ve

tecit o

ind ge R ing d

Mon

N V A LLEY

RD Ra R idgenvc ho C ie w a b eza Dr Dr Z ie

dside Woo

Stewart St

Baird Rd on

D il C e

Jaylee Dr

Creek Me a do w Dr Brid ge w ood Dr

Ct Jerem

Glen Ec ho Dr

King St Wright ROUTE St

King St

NORTH ST

Mcdonald Ave

Moraga Dr

Ripley St

ROUTE 09

n Cir

Beaver St

a n Ln

Corby Ave

OD-S R O L AI TR

Rollo Rd

ma r k Dr Redwood Hwy Redwood Hwy

B ar

Moo rland Ave

e Av ve h A olp w e nd Sha a Av e R le Av ap M ress e p y Av C el St ur La ssie e Je Av d e ol w Av is Gr by

geTr Rid

Els a Dr Santa Rosa Ave NOTE: Class II south of Santa Rosa Portal Elcity Ln under County limts jurisdiction. Powderhorn Ave

Nannet t Ave

Moorland Ave

Wallace Rd mb

62 TE RO U Slater S t

ROUTE 07

n Ctr

Briggs Ave

HUMBOLDT ST

Slater St

MENDOCINO AV

Beachwood Dr

C ORBY AV

ROUTE 209

Wh itewood Dr Wiljan Ct

Be n V a ne ll ey

Benn e

Carrith e r

Ghilotti Ave

le Tr

DUTTON

Taylor Mountain Regional Park

St ne ee Gr

a Vi

SAN TA ROSA AV

ROUTE 10

Illinois St

n e tt

e Av

Dowd Dr

e olit

v ha ee Tr

DOWD

rin

SMART PATHWAY

Spri ng

rv Me

Tracks

ian

Dutton Ave

U RO

I nd

In d n ia S pr i n g s R d

le da wn La

Juniper Ave

Kawana Ter

Lla

Juniper Ave

Tr il a

nne tt View

g Eg

e P

w nil

Dutton Meadow

T rl

DUTTON MEADOW

t et

Wilder Rd

rm Fa

l od Wo

Silv e r Sp ur Dr

s ta Dr

an Je

Ma rs h

in L

La w

Rain Dance Way

a ld

Burgess Dr

Dem eo St

Ct Oa k Po int

ak e s

T PY

A HI

rail Dr

Primrose Ave

TE la 23n d 9

Oak T

t on

Gallop

Va lley

km Oa

Ranc hR d

Liscum St Red Tail St

RO U

O Is

u th Burma

Circle

d oo r D

sD ke

Trl

Lak e

Oa k L So n ea om f D a r Hw y

Green C

da le

field ir

i el haven C

Buckeye Ct ild

Oak Dr

O LGAN CREEK

Tw o

Trl

ay ity W Se ren

d iel

Fair f

al l Pl

A IL

T ON

Keegan D r

CH AN A

VENTURA AV

Meyers Dr

ROUTE 06

Mcbride Ln

Paulin Dr

ROUTE 05

RANGE AV

Estrella Dr

L evine Navarro St

R incon Ridg e Dr

Sou

ed wo o

Airway Dr

Banyan St

Industrial Dr

Northcoast St

68 TE U R O Gamay St

Hardies Ln

a C ir y

MARLOW RD

Cherokee Ave

H ills

Buss

k Dr uarry Trl Oa Q

Cir

e hit

Iro

VA L

Ho ff

Ursu lin e

Coffey Ln Heml

Waltzer Rd

K CR ER

Ex e ter Dr

Halyard Dr

Gr ah Ge Gr n Dr ar y D ace Dr r Gr Be os s lm e on Av t e Ha Ct Sie ve sta n Dr Ln Ro ge rs W ay

ove r

Barnes Rd

BARNES RD

WILDFLOWER

Wicket Av e

Peterson

Y ard

Forestview Dr

Jaine Ln

Holiday St

Gambels Way

FULTON RD

PETERSON LN

Piner Rd

K R C N SO ER

tage

cific

e r Dr

Ce nt

Somers St

Piner Rd Paradise Ln

Judson Ln

Winbe r Knls ie

PE T

te Quietw

mes

Su s

St Ja

Ascot Dr

Lavell Rd

sex D

Wood

Abramson Rd

PI N

Pfister Rd

ite Wh Oak

Lo u isT

n Rd iso m Ja

Phillips Ave

Rubicon W ay

ir fiel d C t

Valley Rd

Fresno Av e

r Oak D

t h Burm a

Nor

HW Y

B en

Yeager Dr

SP TIM RI BE NG R S DR

Steves S Tr

Canyo n

Walker Ave

Sto

wri dg e

dge

Trl

Wright Rd

Stone B ri

ite

rest S k yc Dr

Cir

vi ood

or D r

S WRIGHT RD

Meado

ROUTE 66 ROUTE 13

Llano Rd

CHA

Hood Mtn Regional Park

P W Trl on ds ar ich

Hw y1

Meado ws to

Lloyd Ave

So m

Woodacre Trl

Merced Ave

ROUTE 52

NOTE: Proposed facilities outside of Santa Rosa City limits are shown to illustrate connectivity with the countywide system. The City of Santa Rosa has no jurisdiction over facilities not owned by the City or outside of City limits. Any proposed facilities not owned by the City or outside of Santa Rosa City limits have been proposed by other jurisdictions and are shown here for planning purposes only.

ROUTE 200

u s an

r Te ft cro ne

Park Royal Av e

RO U

Trl

unta d in

ne D

r ha

MIDDLE

This planning map should be consulted in conjunction with the bicycle project list as some proposed routes require further study or are subject to other jurisdictions.

vie r D

Av e

AN NE

eek T r l

HIL

Be d

w ig

R ld fie er

Ave

r er D

i Spr

Mt Tay l

Lu d

gle

Sono ma H

st Way Sky c re

W ildw o od

Old R an chD r

o mm Hi llsb Su

Ave

and D r

Bay Area Ridge Trail to Lawndale Road. See Figure 1-2 "Bay Area Ridge Trail-Santa Rosa Vicinity" map for details.

Cactus

Tarton Dr Ca ris s Ave a

ELEMENTARY

HIGH SCHOOL

del Hei g h ts A n na

S A M ve

lls

OLL S KN Dr

re il H

Linwo od

ROUTE 64

Todd Rd

G reat H er

Tor ac

Hw y

Fern r lD trai Park

TE ir

Guernev ille Rd

Dr glen

B rook s

T sA EO ma

Irwin Ln

Son om a

Trl

tura Way Fu Fa w n D r

U RO

Hall Rd

sh H awk

OTHER

PROPOSED

ir d C

n Sto

Waterway

Schools

EXISTING kD haw Sun

t Owl L igh ve ill A Ow l H

Hartman Ln

ck Ro t C

Sunny View Way

s ta D

Slate Dr

Co sta

o ot Ne

IE L

SUTTER WARRACK HOSPITAL

Cr e eksid e

1 24

o Kn

w2 V ie

C v a ir ras

r odward D Wo

a Dr C ont r yo rroerra i al a r C AV sa D PA ripo r Ma hoe D ULU Y Ta

E HO

R EEKS I D

Hoen

Hospitals

aB ue n a Rd

Nest Dr

Me lita

City Halls

Bike Parking - Proposed

Bike/Ped Crossing ue

Ch Ch RO a a UTnne nnel E l Trl D 23 r 1

M SU

ing

y rle

m yo

l ey

K 55

U RO

Sierra Vista Rd

La C

ler ca Es r b

Incorporated City or City Limits Publicly Owned Land

Bike Lockers - Proposed

ngs ck Ro Spri Dr

44 C

ay Sullivan W

Ti m

ROUTE 207

T rl

le Brid

it ar

Rainb

101

Sutton Pl

Beech Ave

La Crosse Ave

Boas Dr

ROUTE 18 Dr

r ga Cou

ROUTE 33

5 GO

E MONTE VERD

Dia n e Way

line b e rGrowth Urban Boundary

Bike Lockers - Existing

rba Buena Rd Ye Spain Ave

4TH ST - H WY

RY ME

rri Co

r CALISTOGA

rys

ins jam

a St M

Ben

urs rkh Pa

EN NS

Geographic Elements

Bike Parking - Existing

ing ind W e k Ave e Cr

L n qu ilit y n

Esc ale ro

St 6 enTE n edU reO cia L BR a Ac lvd

F ir

Ave

Burt St

Ne w

ga Rd

on Princ e t Way

U RO

Vista Dr erdi olla nd e l Dn r

L TA

Yolanda Ave

T ra

o Idah

YOLANDA AV

Pear Ln Courtyard

RO U

Ave

ROUTE 49

Ricardo Ave

ad lor

view A v e

dge

Ave

Tokay St

CLASS III, PROPOSED

BIKE BLVD, PROPOSED

iew BLVD P a rk v

UT RO

L on

r ope

rd Go

urk

E UT

NE OTO M AS AV BE NNET T VALL EY

3 U TE

RaOy W

Crystal Hill Dr

KAWANA SPRINGS RD

Ln all nd

RO U

CLASS III, EXISTING Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

Be a

e te Av Mayet

T De

e Rutl

Gra

Poplar St Olive St Corby Ave Boyd St

Ave Dr ara Barb Sa nta San Domingo Dr

on Ast

ETTE

N AV

ST LL HA

l Dr

ha Mart

NQ U

Ct Patio

HOE N

Ave

IGH

Santa Rosa - SCT HWY 12/Brookwood Ave

a na d D Gra ra Culeb Ave 1

U RO

E UT

way Mid

e Carv

FRA

E 50

r yD

E 21

VA L

ay en W G re M

bury

Ash

ROU T

n Holst L

Farmers Ln

c ar k D

C IT

Street or Road Highway Freeway Railroad Trail Paved Pathway

CLASS III EXISTING, CLASS II PROPOSED

ont

NT E

Transportation Features

CLASS II, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

Alamos

BIKE BLVD, EXISTING

T ROU

AV MA ON O

St Church

Eastside Transit Center

Do P

MAPLE

Coach m

BELLEVUE AV

PROPOSED PROPOSED RAIL STATION

Bicycle Amenities

k Ric

Sunri se

eSt

4 TE 1 ROU HAHMAN DR

Rd Shortt

OK RO

4 U TE

NT MO

le Hart

Dr wood Sher

m Ran ch

ALDE

roctor D r

Bush

ont

e Av

U RO

lin nk t rk S

kR re e Bru s h C

a Fr

RO ley St d Hen Brown St

A St

Davis St

40 E2

th ill

Va lley

o br

UT RO

Happ y

PA R

N LI

W R id

BO AN

U RO

iv e

ers Spe

bu c m

y 20 w

S A

E ST OLIV

dH ROUTE

w oo Red

ber Rd

e Alta Vista Av

ay rly W ve

A FR

DUTTON AV

icia Ben

Vis B onitan t a L

k Dr

S ND

W NE

Flower Ave

4 E3

ROUTE

BADGER RD

MIDDLE RINCON RD

ell HillD

Hei

her Way

f or d

Talmadge Dr

U RO

0 E4

Cla

e Av

urd

ROUTE 04

r ke

oo a w d Dr

K end Ho llo w

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

St Charles

6 UTE 23

D HI

r yD

2nd St. Transit Mall

Fistor

H il l Dr

Sle

Dr on e

n lse Nie

t BS

th Ru W l ey H ad

e Av ete Le Dr

LL HI

ay in W B aldw

d da H en Lin Terra

UT RO

CLASS I, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

Jo a q

Calisto

n Pl axto e Grov in 5y nta E 3Pk o uOUT FR

PARKE R

ron Aa

ista

ROUTE 08

eer Trail Rd

Tr a

e a y r ford

Foo

ok Dr

er ar k t T r ee Pl n

a ruri Dr r tus Ci

pp Po

EXISTING

CLASS I, EXISTING

n Gley a

Park e r

Alt ve

e Row

Timothy Rd Good man Ave

Piezzi Rd

Bayb erry Dr

n d L

N GA OL TRA IL EK

xe He

SPENCER AV

Ol g a

Sonoma County Transit HQ

PACIFIC AV

ROUTE 49

Oasis Dr

a r Ri d

Harville Rd

Rincon Ave er t

34 ROUTE

U RO

HEARN AV

TODD RD

Gloria Dr

ROUTE 208

WEST AV

Mcminn Ave

Yuba Dr

lRd

Plu

NOTE: Class III North of Santa Rosa city limts under County jurisdiction.

COLLEG E AV

ROUTE 205

DUTTON AV

head Arrow

Barndance Ln

ROUTE 02

7Th

DUT TO

nstone C

o rin Ma

A EL

fi ne

l Dr

204 ROUTE Burbank Ave

Edg ewater Dr

Butler Ave

K EE

Boyce St

Dr Leo

Southside Community Park

ROUTE 72

padera Dr Ta

et Ave Suns

Comalli St

POINT RD

Giffen Ave

Lincoln St 10Th St

TRAIL

BUR BAN K

ro Jane D r

Meadow D ny Woo d Park

CHANATE

Silva Ave

BEAR CUB

ROUTE 51

A TR

bblest

Mcconnell Ave

56 ROUTE

Max

Su STO NY

Marbl e

Gardner Ave

Ave Rose

ROUTE 51

ont Ct Cr eekm

r Millb o P r denark sD r

SUTTER HOSPITAL

M uledeer Ln

Da lle y

Hil

rs Schola

Hwy 12

LUDWIG AV

Rd Doyle

er DO JO E RO

Kenmore Ln

Pyle Ave

ROUTE 22

rrey D

Northpoint Pky

Su n

Bo schi Rd

ra A v e Made

eath

St pbell D r Ca m Dr

Maitland Ave

Concord Ave

Hyla nd Crest D r Dr

UTET 58 AV ROLI OT

er Ln

Shelt e Wr

Santa Rosa Junior College

ROUTE 08

Tammy W Lance Dr

Wild

8Th

NT A

Benton St

9TH ST

C ir

ROUTE 48 T PKWY NORTHPOIN

ita s A

LE LN

SEBASTO POL

Lombardi Ln

Miles Ave

Emeri

Joe Rodota Trl

ROUTE 03

Price Ave

T rl

G S AV NNIN

Pippin o Way Ap o ll

Finley Ave

STEE

Coddingtown Mall

Eardley Ave

CLOVER DR

ny C

W 3R D

Brittain Ln

202 ROUTE ve

Leddy Ave

FRESNO AV

r hu

Gold en Gate

t Pla

St ois Iroq u

a rk

County Center

ROUTE 39

Brittain Ln

Louis Dr

Art

Ashe Cir

NTAL RD IDE Y HW AIL AL TR Chico Ave RI A MO OT D ME RO K N E A JO RB

ROUTE 46

C t

Ro s e

ROUTE 203

Lemur

ROUTE 73

Krohn

O CC

Manhattan Way Rid ley Ave

ROUTE 38

RD OCCI DENTAL

ROUTE 08

Tonja Way

Nyl a

e w gate

W d oo ew W ay Hill

Knl s

e rso

Rusty Dr Mallard Dr Wren Dr

tryside Dr

e Ave Dona hu

ver Dr C lo

Glenbrook Dr Fenwick

WAY

ngtow C oddi

ROUTE 37

Westside Transit Center Santa Rosa Citybus HQ

Julio

Steele Ln

Donna Mari a Way ar

Valley We s t

GUERNEVIL LE RD

tta re L o Way

U RO

FULTON RD

SANTA ROSA WEST COUNTY CONNECTOR

3Rd

State Farm Dr

PAULIN CRK

ROUTE 32

ROUTE Terry Rd70

BIC ENT.

Russell Ave Plumeria Dr Ditty Ave

eLn Tre

ROUTE 41 Hall Rd

Y FOU NTA I N GR PK O VE

Cle

Ke ls ey

Transit Connections

Bike Routes Rd

lam

CLASS II, EXISTING

idg r thr D

A lt r u ria D B e ll a V r W ay Lake P

KAISER HOSPITAL

Butte Dr

E 04

WY Hwy DH wo od Red

T ROU

e rfie ld Dr

Gads Hill St

PINER RD

W STEELE LN

Charro

Laguna Vista Rd

Cir

Cop p

Golden Gate Transit

Sto

Larry Dr

ROUTE 02

K CR

Sequoia

ROUTE 54

ROUTE 36

Kipl a

PIN ER

Yuma St

Crosspoin t A v e

Fai r banks Dr

ROUTE 45

lR po sto ba

sso m Blo

ROUTE 201

ROUTE 01

nor Dr Country M a

t Oak Knoll Dr Moonlight Way

W COLLEGE AV

Arcadia D r

Joe

rd ha

B Villa g e

Marsh Rd

n d Dr

HALL RD

a nsone Dr

ROUTE 32

rkshire Dr

Arcad i a D r

ta do Ro

Do g w

O rc

rm Ln

le y

App l e tree Dr

NOTE: Class II West of Santa Rosa city limts under County jurisdiction.

ROUTE 69

Occidental Rd

ock St

yal Ro ow Ct d ea

Cleland Ranch R d

ROUTE 30

HOPPER AV

ROUTE 225

Pinercrest Dr Lapper Ave

GUERNEVILLE RD

Hall Rd

er Ave

COFFEY LN

rn Ba

Oak Fa

OO DW RE

Tedeschi Dr

RI EBLI RD

Langt

LEGEND

nd Rd

H wy

Old R

D OL

Vera Dr

PINER RD

owcroft W

Onsrud Ln

Ab ramson Ln

Hall Rd

cha Ln Mo

ncisco Ave

Firwoo d Ave

H opp

IGUEL RD M

Piner Rd

den Hills Dr

ge Fir Ri d D

l Deau v ille P

Y WA TH PA

Guerneville Rd

rm yfa Sk

n B rande e L

Crimso n

Penbrook e Av e

Alton Ln

Piner Rd

101

Dennis Ln F RANCISCO

Fra

W O

Cervantes Rd

Triple Oak Way Wood Rd

Skyfarm

A SM

Raplee Ter

Alba Ln

Angela

y Rd

Rd lsey Woo

Piner Rd

o ig ht

i Ln

olse

O LD

bor Rd

Mea d

ws Dr n d re St A

rd Bis o

Parnell Rd

Ranch Rd

River Rd/HWY 101

H id

rl a

St Helena

eights D

s R d

Ba stoni Ln

Lam be rt

THIS MAP IS NOT A BICYCLE ROUTE GUIDE Je a n M ar D La b e r t Dr Lark La This map is for general planning purposes only. Map information, locations of existing and Br ve ll R d RIVER RD shown are subject to change. Consult City proposed bikeways, and other program information n Dr els SCT staff for the most updated information. Ch Hart Ln ield Dr

Cir

gs Rd Sprin

st We

Mar k

May f

RINGS RD SP

Creek R d ss ro

nc Ra

in Rd Laughl

p D

PROPOSED AND EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES Ln SONOMA rdoni COUNTY, CALIFORNIA d Gila

C arr iage

ndonber r Lo

Su n d

o d Dr

Noona n

Deerwo

Rd oga list Ca

i k iu

Regiona l P k

CITY OF SANTA ROSA

Almar Pky

pRanc

C opperhill Pky

Brickway Blvd

Figure 2-2

S latte ry Rd

EXISTING CONDITIONS

This page left intentionally blank.

2-10

September 2010

Piner Rd

Wi n rie Kn ls be

Piner Rd

Paradise Ln

PE T

Piner Rd

Alton Ln

Wood Rd

Hall Rd

Sequoia uo ia Cir

GUERNEVILLE RD

Hall Rd

Countr

Nikki Dr Wren Dr

FULTON RD Countryside D r

SANTA ROSA WEST COUNTY CONNECTOR

Louis Krohn

stg a

Ave

Leisure

SEBASTOPOL

i ir n e

A p ol

Brittain Ln

ll Dr

Lazzini Ave

Gardner Ave

r Giffen Ave

the r

9TH ST

Ave Rose

Cir

Lodi

Hwy 12

e et Av Suns

8Th

INGS

Ave ards Edw

n gtow oddin

J EN N

BICEN

Max

Lian

a Dr

IN O

SONOMA COUNTY ADMIN CENTER

Russell Ave

T. WAY

Coddingtown Mall

Palomino Dr

AIL TA TR

r Surrey D

OD O JO E R

Hwy 12

Cavendish Av e

Hea

NT A

uss D

Camp b e

Ro un d

KAISER HOSPITAL

Steele Ln

r Geographic Elements

Skyfar m

Street or Road Highway Freeway Railroad Trail Paved Pathway

Urban Growth Boundary

HIGH SCHOOL

MIDDLE

ELEMENTARY

OTHER

Schools

Waterway

Hospitals

City Halls

Incorporated City or City Limits Publicly Owned Land

Leo Dr

Boyce St

Decker St

Major D

County Fisc al Dr Center

Lo mi

Richm Emerit

N LE L STEE ond Dr

t 9Th S

Fu n

ve am A Barh

10Th St

Lincoln St

Benton St

Denton Way

BEAR CUB

Santa rs Schola Rosa Junior College

V TT A ELLIO

St 7Th

tas

Ave

Altru ria D r

Carr Ave

Dexter St

hS 4T

Knls

s on

n a Vista D

Bu e

Lake Pa

e w Ci r

Ke l se y

NOTE: Proposed facilities outside of Santa Rosa e ldCity limits are shown to illustrate connectivity with the countywide system. The City of Santa Rosa has no jurisdiction over facilities not owned by the City or outside of City limits. Any proposed facilities not owned by the City or outside of Santa Rosa City limits have been proposed by other jurisdictions and are shown here for planning purposes only.

WEST AV

Circ a a W

PKWY

Joe Rodota Trl

Lombardi Ln Pippin Cir

Marble

d ian Apollo Way y

W 3 RD ST

Fenwick

ROUTE 39

Kenmore Ln

ay lo W ay Mer c ury W

ny C

Glenbrook Dr

Sto

Santa Rosa Citybus HQ

W il d D Ros e

STONY

FRESNO AV

THPOINT

Ave New Zealand Ave Match Point Golden Gate

OCCIDENTAL

h orn Cir

ROUTE 38

Tonja Way

Jennings Av e

Greeneich ROUTE

ver Dr Clo

stberr

llis P hy

Lance Dr

e St Paw ne

ROUTE 54

Steele Ln

PAULIN CRK

Terry Rd

ROUTE 70

Ditty Ave

Plumeria Dr

Russell Ave

Butte Dr

PINER RD

Bluebell Dr

Golden Gate Transit

BURBANK

Finley Ave

Westside Transit Center

GUERNEVILLE RD

Larry Dr

W STEELE LN

M ohawk St

St omanche Nav ajo St

Yuma St

D og w

PROPOSED RAIL STATION

r Transportation Features

y Ave Corbyd Bo St

Miles Ave

Rusty Dr Mallard Dr

Lemur

ROUTE 45

e Ave Don a hu

Charro D r

Long

Valley West Dr Lemur St

Julio

Donna Maria Way

3Rd S

ROUTE 36

Ave

S Sansone Dr

PROPOSED

EXISTING

Bike/Ped Crossing

Bike Lockers - Proposed

Bike Lockers - Existing

Bike Parking - Proposed

Bike Parking - Existing

Bicycle Amenities

BIKE BLVD, PROPOSED

BIKE BLVD, EXISTING

CLASS III, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

PROPOSED

EXISTING

Transit Connections

farm

This planning map should be consulted in conjunction with the bicycle project list as some proposed routes require further study or are subject St to other jurisdictions.

West Ave

Price Ave

Baggett Dr

ROUTE 41

Stanislaus W

ROUTay E 69

r aD led

Gads Hill St

rfield D r

Chian ti D r

Cr osspoint

Tu li p

ROUTE 30

Old

w y

CLASS III, EXISTING

CLASS III EXISTING, CLASS II PROPOSED

CLASS II, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

CLASS II, EXISTING

Sky

LEGEND

CLASS I, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

CLASS I, EXISTING

Bike Routes

DUTTON AV

OC C

Dar

nd Dr

W COLLEGE AV

r kshire Dr

n dia

Plum

HOPPER AV

Pine Meadow Dr

a mino Del Prado225 ROUTE

nes Rd

Valdes Dr

Belair Way

Cir

San P

PIN ER nchester Dr

Cent

Fairb anks Dr

Moonlight Way

Oak Knoll Dr

Sundance St

Marsh Rd

Floral Way

ROUTE 32

Pinercrest

c k St

Seville S t

Dr Lapper Ave

Dr Ann Sun lit

Kerry Ln

GUEL RD MI

Penbrooke A v e

Crimson

Brandee Ln

Dennis Ln

Alba Ln

This map is for general planning purposes only. Map information, locations of existing and proposed bikeways, and other program information shown are subject to change. Consult City staff for the most updated information.

Brittain Ln

App le r ee Dr t

Quail Hollo w Dr

Zurlo Way

PINER RD

Fir w ood Ave

F RANCISCO

Cervantes Rd

SCT River Rd/HWY 101

CITY OF SANTA ROSA - NORTHWEST QUADRANT

Lavell Rd PROPOSED AND EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA el D Ch GUIDE r THIS MAP IS NOT A BICYCLE ROUTE

Carina Dr

Jasm C

y Hw

Raplee Ter

Onsrud Ln

Tabor Rd

RIVER RD

WILDFLOWER

River Rd

Goodman Ave

NTAL RD IDE Y L HW AI AL TRChico Ave I R TA MO DO ME O R NK E BA JO

HALL RD

Woodacre Trl

N SO ER

Piner Rd

K R C Forestview Dr

ROUTE 200

Barnes Rd

BARNES RD Holiday St

D rsea

Hart Ln

FULTON RD

Somers St

ROUTE 01

Parnell Rd

Hw y1 2

ROUTE 201

Banyan St

Figure 2-3A

Poplar St

Merced Ave

k Dr Westbroo

Wright Rd

Ya r

dley

Velma Ave

PETERSON LN

Waltzer Rd

ld L

Goldf ie

PI N

Peterson Ln

Meri

pe op

e Cir ysid Dr

Levine

ER Ma nor Dr

Putney

Rubicon Way

Navarro St

MARLOW RD

ROUTE 02

Nyla Pl

20 3

Cir

rbo

ROUTE

Park

Gamay St

Santiago Dr

Pfister Rd

a n Sonita Dr

Coffey Ln

Hemlock S

4 TE 0 A ve

Airway Dr

iew C restv

RO U Ridley Ave

Mcbride Ln

Ursuli ne Rd

Northcoast St

r ee

Apache St

y Manhattan Wa

Estrella Tammy Lance Dr

K Olive St

Eardley Ave

RANGE AV Link Ln

W all

Industrial Dr

e W

Hardies Ln

Tesconi

Timothy Rd

Keeg an Dr

well Dr

B OYD

Deme o St

ROUTE 22

Briggs Ave

Illinois St Ripley St

Ctr

Central Ave

ro f essional

VENTURA AV

Nordyke Ave Meyers Dr

Re dw

Kingwood

Ki p l a

E ST OLIV

CLOVER DR

t BS

Davis St

ROUTE 05

wo R ed

Beachwood Dr

y Manor Dr

Cir

A St

wy od H

Tracks

Cou n tr

urion D

B St

ssom Dr B lo

MENDOCINO AV

Boc k St

d ar Ln

y D

B ST

SPENCER

KAWANA

2nd St. Transit Mall St 1St

St 5Th

7Th

COLLEGE Cherry St

Silva Ave

Nason St

S A

CORBY AV

ch Or

Slate r St

o Tr e

Sa iag nt

R TE OU 67

Slater St

eetgum St Sw

lata

R TE OU

St Redwoo d Hwy Redwoo d Hwy

Way ta et r Lo

COFFEY LN

ROUTE 06

Orchard St

Dr Angela Hwy ood Redw

HUMBOLDT ST

Ci r

Ln cha Mo

ancisco Ave

B lv Barn

Orchard St

fi ne

us Cir

Beaver St

A AY HW

r eD R ow

ey Ri l

Cir

SM T PA RT BA E RN

Warre n

d en v

d Mur

s ck

Dr ria tru l A

r de H e n Lind Terra

Tra

r aD

Beaver St

St Andrew s

Ga r

ht o n B r ig

ROUTE 04

re ek Cross C

A FR A St

DUTTON AV West Ave

Mcminn Ave

Burbank Ave

Comalli St

POINT RD

Leddy Ave

EXISTING CONDITIONS

This page left intentionally blank.

2-12

September 2010

o ls t R d

A lam

Los A lam o

il dwoo d W

w k Dr

o tl

ht ha

Rd ille erv

Pythian Rd

Mo nta na Da Rd nie lli R d Bo on eR d

Los Guili

AIL

t Le af

Oa kL eaf Dr

IA TH

Tw T wi e k La

t on km Oa Dr

ak M e Oa Dr s

in L ak e s

Trl

HW Y

Tra il D r

Ci r

3a9n dak

O ak

verl ook

O I sl

UT E2

ksDr l le y Oa

Va lley L

e ak

eenfi

C eld ir

Trl

el haven C

C Rancircle h Rd

Lo s G Scho uilicos ol Rd

Fair f

um n Dr

P Valley in

Eln ok a Trl

Nort h

Trl Oa k

rchard

Ho ou n od tain

oop T r a il L

Rd o

St Francis Rd

ers Spe

dc m n

Boulder

Orch a rd

cos Rd

d iel

rry

VA L

Trl

Lak e

H ills k Dr Oa Wild

Oak Dr

anyon T rl

NT O

Buckeye Ct

Bu rm a

M AK

Qu a

T rl

e h it

B urma T rl L

r th

White Oak

Li v

Vio l ett Rd i

Hols t

ui n Dr

Brey R d

H C RK US

ROUTE 16

d Brush Creek R BR

Estes Dr Baird Rd

Zimmerman

Ln 17 ROUTE

ife r Ct

u ay m

Steves S T

Los O livo s Ave Manzanita Av e

A ve

Ge ar y Gr Dr Be oss lm eA on ve H tC Sie ave t sta n Dr Ro ge L n rs W a

Baird

Trl

SP TIM RI BE NG R S DR

ite

s h i re

CE e Dr

t rof ec on r St Te

Si e

Meado wrid ge Dr Brid ge Rd

oodla

Stone

P W Tr n so

CHA NN

Bur m a

ro C ir

ws t

d ar ich

ie ve w

k ree

D AV

Meado

ou is

Bri dg ewood

Ct J eremy

tecit o M on

Gr ah Gr n D ac r e Dr

TO CI ON TE M

Spring St

Mcdonald Ave

Stewart St

NORTH ST

Jaylee Dr

C rown

r Cab ezaD

Ra nc h o

N V A LLEY R D

ge R g d

ROUTE 09 d indin

ROUTE 11

King St

MISSION BLVD

Hill Dr

ROUTE 09

Glen E ch Dr o

Cob

n Cir

R inco

2 UT E6 RO A CH

Orchard St

ROUTE 10

Slate r St

n Ridge D r

r e

Sou

King St

UT E

Orchard St Beaver St

u s an

AN NE L

Hood Mtn Regional Park

C ring Sp

Sono ma H

Cir

ROUTE 07

SkyDcr e st r

ta i nRd

So m

HUMBOLDT ST

Sout

Slater St

Cany on T rl

s del H eig h t A n na

st Skycreay W

r b er D

Bay Area Ridge Trail to Lawndale Road. See Figure 1-2 "Bay Area Ridge Trail-Santa Rosa Vicinity" Rou g h G o map for details. T

B roo k

H illsb o

s Ave

T BE

S RD HA

Dr a il Parktr a rton Dr Cari ss a Ave

To rac

one

MENDOCINO AV

a Hw M y eli ta R

MIDDLE

Wild w od o Mo un

Old R an c h Dr

D ke

Cactu

D r

41 A

D V

7 onom

and D r

H awk D r

e Ave

VENTURA AV

Cir

urbank C

rs h

Hoen

ELEMENTARY

gle Ea Ct

UT E3

nier Ave

E UT

Co sta

Cre eksi de

Holland Dr

Tracks

Trl

tura Way Fu Fa w n D r

N ig

E1 UT

Rai

OLL S KN

Verdi Vis ta

ROUTE 15

KN 5 O LL S

w Vie

IE RF ME

Ripley St

Slate Dr

M SU

R EEKSI D

33 2

EXISTING

OTHER

r ug a Co

This planning map should be consulted in conjunction with the bicycle project list as some proposed routes require further study or are subject to other jurisdictions.

Nest D wls r Dr o t D eso Ow l r Light Te Hill A v e O wl

O NE

l ey

UTE

TE 5

BENNET T VALL EY R D

k Cree ir ra C Dr a C o ntr y rro rr a Sie la Ca Dr AV oe PA LU Tah YU

MAS AVROU

Waterway

Schools

Lockers - Proposed

Bike/Ped Crossing

Ctr

ler ca Es

Illinois St

RO Dr ng mi yo d W r y D rle Ca

Central Ave

Ma rit

Cu es ta

La Crosse Ave

ROUTE 18

Boas Dr

Mcbride Ln

ROUTE 33

TE OU

ri or

MONTE VE

Rainb

t n n S65 decia L eecTaE BrU A

Hospitals

HIGH SCHOOL

San Luis Ave Santa Teresa Ave Rd ba Buena r e Y RDE

310 HOE A SUTTER r UTE O 3 WARRACK R E4 o T U C v aHOSPITAL RO ra i r r odwar d D Wo

T ownv

et Pri n cy Wa

N AV

o Idah

E1 UT

Kingwood

Dr yon

CALISTOGA

on Cir

Dia ne Way

Rd Bike

4TH ST - H WY

RY ME GO TE T N U MO RO

h Mart

1 TE 2

a Way

City Halls

PROPOSED

Dr Co r

ins jam Ben

a ry s tM

t urs rkh Pa

Can

ve tte A Maye

Incorporated City or City Limits Publicly Owned Land

ing ind ve W ek A e r C

RANGE AV

h anc

oga R Calist

MIDDLE RINCON RD

BLVD

ROUTE 71

ge Villa Side

el Dr Carv lin Dr k c o R

Al a

all nd Ra Ln

way M id

RO U

MAN DR

HO E

erson Dr n Gra

an q u ilit y Ln

HAH

Ave ood

ND ST

r rD ope

don Go r

Linw

Ave ve ge A

ce St

led Rut

Gra

A St

Davis St ve St Oli

Corby Ave

HA EW

42 UTE

Farmers Ln h St Churc

I GH

H 12Hwwy 12 y 12

ve kA Tur De

YD BO

Mcminn Ave

Timothy Rd Goodman Ave

Santa Rosa - SCT HWY 12/Brookwood Ave

E6 UT

Urban Growth Boundary

Bike Lockers - Existing

ont

k Ric

EN NS HA

NEOTO

E MAPL

Geographic Elements

Bicycle Amenities

Be aW

MON

29 E 2 da UT a

Cir

E UT

os CLASS III, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network m os BIKE BLVD, EXISTING H olst L n BIKE BLVD, PROPOSED

lum R

V A A N OM

HOEN

J en

Eastside Transit Center

VA LL

n Wa y G ree

yA bur Ash

Sunr i dg

TE 3 7

Rd Shortt

thill

1 MEMORIAL E4 HOSPITAL OUT

Street or Road Highway Freeway Railroad Trail Paved Pathway

Bike Parking - Proposed

31 OUc kTwE ood

Dr ont em

Ave

O RO

Dr ood SherwK

1t UTleEy S ROHend

Brown St

S A

E ST OLIV

Oak St

Transportation Features

Bike Parking - Existing

ay Sullivan W

Cir M a Ali S nrise ss i

34 Ave TE ineOU ECITO ns h R T

nicia Be

Vista

RO U

ALDE

h Bus

Alta

Happ yV alle y Fo o

Fistor

ell Hill

Proctor

PA RK

t rk S E Cla OUT

y o nside D r C an

e Av

K ST

H adl

adow

2nd St. Transit Mall

rk Pay

Mo nte c i t o Me

lin nk

PROPOSED PROPOSED RAIL STATION

CLASS III, EXISTING

Jo a q

And

ber R d Z

Harville Rd

BADGER RD

Fir Wa

D 2N

St D 3R

a Fr

E UT

W Ri

H 4T

ROUTE 07 t BS

Ho llo w

B o nita Vis t a Ln

COLLEGE AV

Lincoln St

t Sunsee Av

ROUTE 38

St Tupper

TRAIL

e ID Av H

r yD

SPENCER AV

ROUTE 37

Benton St

101

xe He

pp Po

Santa Mcconnell Ave Rosa Junior College

ROUTE 37 TE RO U

one

KL AN

BEAR CUB

Hyl a nd Dr C rest Dr

eer Trail Rd

K end

4 TE 3

E 38 O UT

rs Schola

7Th

RO U

ock Mu D

V TT A ELLIO

Boyce St

Rincon Ave

H i ll Dr

d nR

ir tus C

Emeri

e els Ni

da He nd Lin Terr a

DUTTON AV

8Th St

RD LL HI

e Row

ell Dr

E 36 O UT

CHANATE D R

SUTTER HOSPITAL

rd S yca r m

N LE L STEE

ROUTE 08

JENN

County Center

C o ddin

AV INGS

r on

ria tru

ROUTE 06

Hwy dwood Hwy ood Re

ROUTE 08

w Red

Coddingtown Mall gtow n

e r so

Sle y

rfo he

PARKE R

WY DH

blest

e dg Av ete Le Dr

OO DW

BICENT . WAY

Russell ROUTE Ave

Knl s

Lake Pa rk D r CI

ar Ri

ok Dr

D OL

EN DO

KAISER HOSPITAL

CLASS II, EXISTING

Cleland Ranch R d

t Cre ekmont C NOTE: Class III North of Santa Rosa city limits under County jurisdiction.

l TE PU ton O ax R e Grov in nta Pky

e on

C le

r ay W

l R

br Mill o

Fou Rock y a Point W

rk H il

U RO

Sh Glenelte

fie

Be l la Vist a W ay

d os Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

CLASS III EXISTING, CLASS II PROPOSED

ber

Y PK

O VE

EXISTING

CLASS I, EXISTING H I, PROPOSED CLASS

Los

FO UNTAI N GR

g rid th D

Ke l s ey

al Royow Ct ea d

Transit Connections

Bike Routes

THIS MAP IS NOT A BICYCLE ROUTE GUIDE This map is for general planning purposes only. Map information, locations of existing and proposed bikeways, and other program information shown are subject to change. Consult City staff for the most updated information.

Alt r uria Dr

LEGEND

CLASS II, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

kyfarm

PROPOSED AND EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Gr a

Ri dge Fir

Dea u v ill e

s Dr d rew

far

RI EBLI RD

ks R d

Wallace Rd

Mea dowcroft Wa

n St A

y Sk

l d en Hills Dr i

Bayb erry D r

Hi d

Ri e b

Helena R CITY OF SANTA StROSA - NORTHEAST QUADRANT d

Bas toni

RINGS RD SP

D St a llion r

Figure 2-3B

EXISTING CONDITIONS

This page left intentionally blank.

2-14

September 2010

T rl

Sha

Ln Dr

Ja so

Trl C

CLASS II, EXISTING CLASS II, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network CLASS III EXISTING, CLASS II PROPOSED CLASS III, EXISTING Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

Bike/Ped Crossing EXISTING PROPOSED

Dr Street or Road Highway Freeway Railroad Trail Paved Pathway Urban Growth Boundary Incorporated City or City Limits Publicly Owned Land City Halls

Be n

Bennett Valley R d

Bike Lockers - Existing

PROPOSED RAIL STATION

Transportation Features

Geographic Elements

BIKE BLVD, PROPOSED

Bike Parking - Proposed

Ho wnEXISTING Ln llo w PROPOSED

d yR Valle

CLASS I, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

CLASS I, EXISTING

nett

ereP oll e d f o rd Dr

Morning

P ar k

Linwood Ave

BROOKWOOD AV

Meda Ave

tV ie w

Ben n et

Bike Routes

Hospitals Waterway

Schools OTHER

Be nn

View D r

a k s Dr

ie w dv oo W Transit Connections

e tt Vall e

nett

Bike Lockers - Proposed Margarita Way

SANTA ROSA AV

Sie

Hahman Dr

ow Way

Sum

Redwood Hwy Corby Ave

LEGEND

L ak ev i

Corby Ave

Dowd Dr

DR DOWD Wiljan Ct

Moraga Dr

H wy Redwood

CORBY AV

Beachwood Dr Tracks

uirfie l d C t

Lakeview Dr

Sp rin g

Whitewood Dr

yo an

Victoria Dr

Cir

fie er

Dutton Ave

Hillsboro

Jason Dr

st re r yc

m m Su

DUTTON

Dutton Meadow

rest W ay S kyc

Cir

S RD

Cir

DUTTON MEADOW

NOTE: Rosa Ave El PortalSanta Ln Class II south of Santa Rosa city limits Powderhorn Aveunder County jurisdiction.

Wood l a

Elsa Dr

side

Warwick Dr

k Dr ree

Connie St

Las M esi t as Dr

j A le H

Old R

Bike Parking - Existing

Park erc

Ricardo Ave Aileen Ave Apple Ln Pear Ln rtyard Cir Cou

gh Rou

ROUTE 16

Cir dCir o wo

el Heights Dr nad An

BIKE BLVD, EXISTING

Taylor Mountain Regional Park

Cir Dr

t Co n Co sta

Bay Area Ridge Trail to Lawndale Road. See Figure 1-2 "Bay Area Ridge Trail-Santa Rosa Vicinity" map for details.

CLASS III, PROPOSED

mercreek Dr

ROUTE 51

Ave

T arton Dr

Bicycle Amenities

Burt St

Bell evue Ave

Canterbu r y

ROUTE 13

Yolanda Ave

Carissa A ve

an o r dr o Dr se s h o e Dr

T BE

Mt Taylor D r

YOLANDA AV

ROUTE 66 RO

ROUTE 52

Ben

E UT

trail Park

e ath erglen C ir

Hillsbo

CactusA v

Kawana Ter

ksi de

lak ood

lland

Hi ll Dr

Tre de e

e Gr

OLLS KNr

r nD ngle Fer

AS M

Rain

Cre e

s oll

7 E4

ou Siskiy

ROUTE 15

alle V y

ire Pl nsh vo De

hire oks Bro Leaf

ier Ave

TO O NE

w nview C Ave R EEKSI NEOT D RO O MAS AV ookh U BENNE TE TT VA LLEY KN55 RD O LL S RO UT E3 32 iew V

1 E1

ve oA ent ram c a S

Dr en av

per Coo

Ln don

Way

LL HI

Tokay St Crystal Hill Dr

r Fi

a C a Cir lava ra s

Ronne D r

k ee Cr

PA LU

HOEN

T OU

ie r r yo S ro r sa D ripo Ma Dr oe

live Dr Mt O

Gor

BELLEVUE AV

N AV

T OU

HOSPITAL r

Tah

ST Y LE ND 19 HE E UT v e RTOemple A

Ave urk

Ave Mea

Talmadge Dr

E T De

San Domingo Dr

ROUTE 49

Hearn Ave

Cass Rd

Ave

Breeze

KAWANA SPRINGS RD Coachman

DUTT ON

Dr na ta A Dr San ara b ar ta B n a S S an Clemente Dr

y Wa

Glo ria Dr

HEARN AV

AV AN 0 G L 4 CO TE 2 U O R

Bedfor d

ood Dr Southw

on Ast

e Flower Av

LU TA

L AL WHhall St E N ew

LE JO

Verdi Vista D r

Leo

nd Gra

Baker Ave

Ave zier St Fra ton Mil

ve Barham A

Poplar St

r nD

ve re A Wa

Santa n nso Rosa - SCT HWY e v Ste 12/Brookwood Ave

E MAPL

wy A ve H

A St

Davis St

Olive St

Boyd St

un s

dley

S A wy ood H Redw

YD BO

Timothy Rd Goodman Ave

WEST AV

e h Av Sout

Maple

Hwy 12

Barham Ave

h Bus

Pine St Oak St

RO UT E 2

Brown St

St Wheeler

E ST O LI V

dH woo Red

Charles St

IGH

Hen

Tupper St

Way

Ave

Hoen

AV EN SUTTER WARRACK O H

Dr ard

t rk S Cla

en Gre

VA L

BR am Ave h Brig ve oA lan Cor ve yA bur Ash

D 3R

SANTA ROSA St CITY 1 StHALL

r out h D Dartm

odw Wo

7Th

n Dr Princeto

Ct Patio r ek D g Cre Sprin

ha Mart

S tt we He

DUTTON AV

t o rs

MAN DR

m Sono

Farmers Ln

Doc

5Th

e a Av

S D THIS MAP IS NOT A BICYCLE ROUTE GUIDE 4Th 2N BoyceisStfor general planning purposes only. Map information, locations of existing and This map proposed bikeways, and other program information shown are subject to change. Consult City 8Th St staff for the most updated information. 2nd St. Transit Mall t St

V A A OM N O S

t CITY OF SANTA - SOUTHEAST QUADRANT 9Th SROSA

PROPOSED AND EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA cker St

L FIE

t BS

H 5T

HAH

Figure 2-3C

ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOL

This planning map should be consulted in conjunction with the bicycle project list as some proposed routes require further study or are subject to other jurisdictions. NOTE: Proposed facilities outside of Santa Rosa City limits are shown to illustrate connectivity with the countywide system. The City of Santa Rosa has no jurisdiction over facilities not owned by the City or outside of City limits. Any proposed facilities not owned by the City or outside of Santa Rosa City limits have been proposed by other jurisdictions and are shown here for planning purposes only.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

This page left intentionally blank.

2-16

September 2010

de C i

A EL OS

Concord Ave

Miles Ave

Price Ave

TAL RD Y L HW AI AL TR Chico Ave A OT D O

ysi

Countryside Dr

CLASS III EXISTING, CLASS II PROPOSED

Meadow Ln

Transportation Features

HIGH SCHOOL

MIDDLE

ELEMENTARY

OTHER

Schools

Waterway

Hospitals

City Halls

Incorporated City or City Limits Publicly Owned Land

Urban Growth Boundary

Geographic Elements

Street or Road Highway Freeway Railroad Trail Paved Pathway

h orn Cir

a te

6 ROUTE 4

i y an

Ba n cro ft

Leisure

ny C ir

W 3 RD ST

Joe Rodota Trl

SEBASTOPO

Fenwick

Glenbrook Dr

ROUTE 4

Apollo

Cam p b

e ll

Edgewater Dr

Giffen Ave

Lazzini Ave Marble St

Gardner Ave

L RD

Butler Ave

ROUTE 51

Yuba Dr

O lg

velline St ronstone C Barndance Ln

Dr Pearblossom Dr u nny Wood C Park Meadow

ROUTE 7

Northpoint Pky

Tapadera Dr

AN LG AIL C O TR K CR E E

TODD RD

Maitland Ave

PROPOSED RAIL STATION

PROPOSED

EXISTING

Transit Connections

AI L

stg

INT PKWY NORTHPO

This planning map should be consulted in conjunction with the bicycle project list as some proposed routes require further study or are subject to other jurisdictions.

PROPOSED

EXISTING

Bike/Ped Crossing

Bike Lockers - Proposed

Bike Lockers - Existing

Bike Parking - Proposed

Bike Parking - Existing

Bicycle Amenities

BIKE BLVD, PROPOSED

BIKE BLVD, EXISTING

CLASS III, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

CLASS III, EXISTING

Madera Ave

Finley Ave

LUDWIG AV

R KT

CLASS II, EXISTING CLASS II, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

K UTE Louis O

e Ave Don a hu

RD OCCIDENTAL

e New Zealand Av e Av int Match Po Golden Gate

Lemur St

Valley West Dr

Julio

Donna Maria Way

Pyle Ave

LEGEND

CLASS I, PROPOSED Highlighted Route on the Regional Network

CLASS I, EXISTING

Bike Routes

y Hw

San P ed

Wright Rd

S WRIGHT RD

Dar

Sunland Ave

ROUTE 01 Llano Rd

PROPOSED AND EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES r SONOMA COUNTY, Co u n t CALIFORNIA THIS MAP IS Hall NOTRd A BICYCLE ROUTE GUIDE Hall Rd Hall Rd This map is for general planning purposes only. Map information,3Rlocations of existing and d Dr City proposed bikeways, and other program information shown are subjectStto change. Consult staff for the most updated information. Bag gett Dr

Walker Ave

St o

Taylor Ave

CITY OF SANTA ROSA - SOUTHWEST QUADRANT

Yeager Dr

Keeg an Dr I

Muledeer Ln

Millbrae Ave

Scenic Ave

Todd Rd

vue Ranch Rd B elle

ky Blue S

Southside Community Park

Trom

A Rose

Hwy 12

8Th St

e et Av Suns

AIL TA TR

Surrey Dr

ODO JOE R

Hwy 12

Hea the r

NT A

C reek

Liana

Figure 2-3D

Lloyd Ave

RD Rd

Llano Rd

Fresno Ave

Buss

Park

ay Phillips Ave

Liscum St

O LGAN CREEK

l l Pl a

Demeo

Hw y

no L la Arlington Ave

N O

Gloria Dr

Oasis Dr

w He

Southw

St 7Th

BELLEVUE AV

Cass Rd

MILLBRAE AVE

Sutton Pl

Tracks

Sonoma County Transit HQ

a Barh

ood Dr

Leo Dr

et t

Boyce St

ROUTE 49 DUT TO N

HEARN AV

ROUTE 51

Rain Dance W ay

Amador Dr

Red Tail St

Leddy Ave

Primrose Ave

Ave

ROUTE 202

Sil ver Spu r Dr

Circ a d a W

Primrose Ave

FRESNO AV

Burgess Dr

ROUTE 03

Hargrave Ave

CTR PKWY CORPORATE

DUTTON MEADOW

ay lo W

ROUTE 02

Dutton Meadow

Gallop Dr

Wilder Rd

STONY POINT RD

Whistler Ave

betta St

Juniper Ave

SANTA ROSA WEST COUNTY CONNECTOR Comalli St

Juniper Ave

FULTON RD

Lemur

204 UTE ROBu rbank Ave

Langner Ave

Wren Dr rohn Dr

Westwood Dr

Langner Ave

Rusty Dr Mallard Dr Brittain Ln

ton

e m Av

Ave Jose Ramon Nikki Dr Mcminn Ave

Dutton Av e

ROUTE 208

DUTTON

ple

Ghilotti Ave

Long

A p ol

ROUTE 205

ROUTE 64

Labath Ave

Cir Lombardi Ln Pippin Cir

Beachwood Dr Whitewood Dr

Brittain Ln Kenmore Ln

SMART PATHWAY

Carina Dr

Dowd Dr

Cir

Dr da o le b r A Charr o WEST AV

WEST AV

DUTTON AV

D 3R

Ne w

S 1St

ve rA ke Ba

KAWAN

A LG

2nd St. Transit Mall

Ave ma Sono

ROUTE 2

Talmadge Dr

DOWD

CORBY AV

Dr Westbrook

BURBANK

ROUTE 04

Dowdell Ave

Olive St

K Corby Ave

Timothy Rd Goodman Ave

Victoria Dr

ROUTE 67

Moorland Ave

e Corby Av Boyd St

Redwood Hwy

Link Ln

YD BO ROUTE 209

Redwood Hwy

E ST O LI V

Poplar St

mark Dr

DUTTON AV Davis St

BELL

Todd Rd

SANTA ROSA AV

wo R ed wy od H

Wiljan Ct

A St

S A

TODD CRK

B ST t BS A St Roberts Lake Rd

Moorland Ave

EXISTING CONDITIONS

This page left intentionally blank.

2-18

September 2010

PARK

PROPOSED SMART STATION

PROPOSED TRANSIT CONNECTION

EXISTING TRANSIT CONNECTION

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

EXISTING PEDESTRAIN CROSSING

SCHOOLS

CITY HALLS

RAILROAD

WATERWAY

ONE WAY

CLASS III, EXISTING/CLASS II, PROPOSED

CLASS III, PROPOSED

CLASS III, EXISTING

CLASS II, PROPOSED

CLASS II, EXISTING

CLASS I, PROPOSED

CLASS I, EXISTING

BICYCLE BLVD, PROPOSED

CLEVELAND AV

11-20-2009

D ST

Railroad Depot Park

T DS 3R

HUMBOLDT ST T TS 1S

DUTTON AV

Jilliard Park

1ST

2nd St. Transit Mall

SA IL A

N SO

D 2N

A OM

Park

SANTA ROSA CRK

T DS

Figure 2-4

3RD ST

H 4T

A OM SON

WHEEL

ER ST

L VA

O LEJ

Downtown Bike Map

Rae Street Park

SANTA ROSA CITY HALL Sonoma Ave

E AV

H 4T ET RE ST

Burbank Home & Gardens

A NT V SA A A S RO

Prince Memorial Park

Santa Rosa Plaza

BEAVER ST Courthouse Square

NORTH ST

Freemont Park

BROWN

RAILROAD

W 3R

T DS

A S AN T RK C A S O R

O LS WI T

ST VIS DA

BRO

DUNCAN ST

DR W

ST HS 6T

T AS

Museum

T HS

AN RG MO H 7T

INO OC ND ST

CHERRY ST

COLLEGE AV

DRAFT D

Demeo Park

Deturk Round Barn Park

T 9TH S

W COLLEGE AV

This planning map should be consulted in conjunction with the bicycle project list as some proposed routes require further study or are subject to other jurisdictions. 10-6-2011

DUTTON AV

Bike Routes

L AI ) T R WP R N A ( SM AIL TR

HEALDSBUR G AVE

RY MO

OKW BRO

S CR AN E TA E K RO TR

Legend

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R PLAN

AV OD WO K O

SANTA V ROSA A

S A ST

E OLIV ST

2-19

EXISTING CONDITIONS

BIKEWAY CORRIDORS A narrative description of the existing major Santa Rosa bikeway corridors is presented below. A corridor is a route or series of routes strung together to form a “corridor” that traverses the City or connects to a major traffic generator or major activity centers (i.e. schools, employment centers, and parks) in Santa Rosa. These general corridors are depicted in Figure 2-5. North-South Corridors Fulton Road Bikeway (Route #1) At the western edge of the City, the Fulton Road corridor (between Wood Road and Highway 12) has 3.8 miles of bike lanes. The route serves four parks and Piner High School and connects with the Santa Rosa Creek pathway, a major West-East Class I Bike Path. These bike lanes are in good condition and provide ample width for bicyclists. Coffey Lane—Marlow Road—Stony Point Road Bikeway (Routes #4, 2) This corridor generally parallels Highway 101 to the west. It runs along Coffey (Rte. 4) Lane from Hopper Avenue to Piner Road west to Marlow Road (Rte. 2) to continue south onto Stony Point Road to reach the southern city limits at Bellevue Avenue and beyond. The route serves three parks, the Stony Point Business Park, and four schools. The Stony Point Road/State Route 12 intersection is currently challenging for bicyclists due to heavy traffic and turning volumes. This interchange was modified in 1994, improving bicycling conditions somewhat by the addition of bike lanes on the overcrossing only. The area south of this intersection to Sebastopol Road is currently being widened and will have bike lanes added. The City is widening Stony Point Road to Hearn Avenue in phases, which will include bike lanes. Range—Guerneville—Dutton Bikeway (Routes #5, 36, 4) This corridor runs parallel to and west of Highway 101 and jogs west along Guerneville Road (Rte. 36) for 0.3 miles before continuing south on North Dutton Avenue (Rte. 4) to Hearn Avenue. The Guerneville Road portion includes bike lanes. This bikeway serves one park, the Coddingtown Center, the Santa Rosa Business Park, and the Roseland area. Dutton Avenue south of Sebastopol Road enters the unincorporated Roseland area. Beyond South Avenue, Dutton Avenue is within the County’s jurisdiction. This corridor south of Sebastopol Road has many sections with restricted widths, including most of Dutton Avenue and Range Avenue. Old Redwood Highway, Mendocino Avenue, Santa Rosa Avenue Bikeway (Route #7) This corridor parallels U.S. 101 to the east and starts on the northern city limits from Old Redwood Highway to Mendocino Avenue and runs south to Santa Rosa Avenue to the southern city limits at Bellevue Avenue and beyond. At College Avenue the corridor turns south on Healdsburg Avenue onto B Street and jogs east on 3rd Street to continue south on Santa Rosa Avenue to the southern city limits. In the northbound direction, the route proceeds north on Santa Rosa Avenue past 3rd Street through the future reunited Court House Square to continue north on Mendocino Avenue and back to College Avenue. Except for the approximate 1.1-mile portion through the heart of downtown from College Avenue to Highway 12, the route has entirely Class II-Bike Lanes. This corridor serves major destinations such as Kaiser, Fountaingrove Parkway, County Administration Center, Santa Rosa Junior College, Santa Rosa

2-20

September 2010

fulton@@rdN int@rdN

uNsN@QPQ

nt@@rdN

stony@@poi

marlow@@rdN bellevue@@aveN

GAN

COL

CRE

veN a@@@a bar bar ta@@@ san

y@@d

mer

tgo

n mo

NORTH

creek@

rdN CR E

uNsN@@QPQ

SANTA

ROSA

rN d s@@ d ar th be

CREE

RIN

AUSTIN CREEK

@rd badger lvd

@b ito

ah ev

u al et m

cleveland@@@@aveN

yerba@buen

Figure 2-5

MAJOR BIKEWAY CORRIDORS

S C REE K

NZA

MATA

ec nt

ve @@a en

y@ w h e@ at st

ch ta

hi ll

SUQSTPOfŒŠ›˜ˆ@TMQORYORPPQ

mendocino@@av

yolanda@aveN

e@@ v @@a n to

veN a@@a

son

ejo

ll va

stN kawana@sprgs@rd

n a lg

college@@@aveN

@@s

@ln N

o kw

hearn@@aveN

pacific@aveN

chanate@rdN

ludwig@@aveN

t@@pkwyN

ridley@ aveN

north@@poin

link@@lnN

N sebastopol@@rd

N steele@ln

i ta

ve ro

@rdN occidental@

CREEK

N @@ln

west@@ninth@@stN

n jen

e @av s@@@ ing

ROSA

n ve @@a

SANTA

west@@@@steele@@lnN

PAULIN CREEK

du o tt

west@@college@@aveN

peterson@@lnN

guerneville@@rdN

N PI

marsh@@rdN

piner

san@miguel@@rdN

range@@aveN

corpN@@center@@pkwyN

hopper@@aveN

s@@lnN

farmer

humboldt@@stN @@ pa

fey

north@@stN

@@aveN

e av

m†minn

mission@blvdN lu

wright@@rdN

waltzer@@rdN yu

ventura@ dutton@@av

industrial@dr

v @a dN

in @@r

eN ld

parker@hill@rdN fie

@h N wy er

n kl mm

a fr

west@@aveN

corby@@aveN

September 2010 n@r su

santa@@rosa@@aveN

cof

brush@

K EE

od US

rin

N calistoga@@rd

d@r wo ed

middle UC K

s„”š„@r•™„@bŒ† †’ˆ@„”‡@pˆ‡ˆ™š˜Œ„”@m„™šˆ˜@p’„”

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R PLAN

@r d

stony@po

2-21

EXISTING CONDITIONS

High School, downtown Santa Rosa, City Hall, Prince Memorial Greenway, Julliard Park, Petaluma Hill Road, Santa Rosa Market Place, and the Santa Rosa Town Center. Humboldt Bicycle Boulevard—Aston Avenue-Brookwood Avenue (Route #10, 47, 11) This corridor runs 4.8 miles from Chanate Road to Kawana Springs Road. Approximately 1.5 miles are on the proposed Bicycle Boulevard route currently in the pilot stage. This corridor serves as an important commuter route into downtown from residential neighborhoods that anchor northern and southern ends of the corridor. The corridor serves one school and three parks. With the County’s future plan to provide access to Taylor Mountain Regional Park, an additional park will be accessible. There are currently incomplete segments on this corridor on D Street-Brown Street south to Wheeler Street and South E Street to Bennett Valley Road as well as Aston and Linwood Avenues. The first incomplete segment can be easily completed through appropriate signage and directional arrows. However, the south E Street segment is more challenging with its limited roadway width, street function, vehicle speeds and volumes, which may create an intimidating environment for some users. These are all factors when considering future improvements. (County Center) North-Franklin-Lewis-Brookwood Bikeway (Route #34, 10, 11) This corridor runs 3.7 miles from the Sonoma County Administration Center through the east side of downtown to the Sonoma County Fairgrounds. Approximately 2.5 of the 3.7 miles is Class II Bike Lanes with remaining sections either proposed or existing Class III-Bike Route. This corridor serves as an important commuter route into downtown, the County Center, the Bike Boulevard, one school and three parks. There are currently incomplete segments on this route on Franklin Avenue between Mervyn Avenue and Chanate Road, Brookwood Avenue between Third Street and College Avenue, and Brookwood Avenue between Sonoma Avenue and Maple Street. This is due to the limited roadway width, particularly in the latter segments where vehicle speeds and volumes are more of a factor. To compensate for this last segment, a Class III-Bike Route is proposed on Brigham Avenue via Vallejo Street (Rte 50) to get users south of Highway 12. Brush Creek—Yulupa Bikeway (Routes #60, 15) This corridor runs 4.5 miles south along the Class I-Bike Path on Brush Creek Pathway from Montecito Boulevard and jogs west onto the Santa Rosa Creek Pathway before heading south again on Yulupa Avenue. This corridor continues to the southern city limits at Bennett Valley Road and beyond. This corridor serves two schools and Galvin Community Park at the southern end, serving as an important recreation connection from the City to Bennett Valley Road. In the northern section, a bridge connection is provided to connect across to and for travel east on the Santa Rosa Creek Pathway (Class I). This northern segment along Brush Creek runs through residential areas. The route appears to serve mostly local residents, and has good access from local streets onto the system. A major portion of the Yulupa Avenue segments are Class II-Bike Lanes with the exception of 0.2 of mile near the connection with Brush Creek, which is designated as a Class III-Bike Route through this local street area. The remaining proposed Class II segments are expected to be completed in late 2010.

2-22

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Mission/Summerfield Bikeway (Route #16) This corridor begins on Mission Boulevard from Montecito Boulevard to Bethards Drive via Summerfield Road. This bikeway corridor runs parallel to the Yulupa Bikeway for about 2.5 miles between Sonoma Highway at Mission Boulevard to Bethards Drive. It connects with other routes and serves Howarth Park, which is the connection to the Bay Area Ridge Trail, Spring Lake Regional Park, Annadel State Park and other points south. This corridor serves two schools and three parks. By 2010 approximately 1.9 miles will be Class II-Bike Lanes with the remaining segments proposed as Class III Bike Routes. West-East Corridors Piner-Bicentennial-Mendocino-Chanate-Montecito Bikeway (Routes #32, 8, 34) This 7-mile corridor parallels the northern side of Santa Rosa, from the intersection of Piner Road and Fulton Road to Montecito Boulevard and Calistoga Road. This corridor serves a regional bus line (Golden Gate Transit-Piner Road at Industrial Drive), the Sonoma County Administration Center, Sutter Hospital, Kaiser Hospital, one park, one public library and one school on its eastern leg. The corridor is currently a little less than 50 percent5 Class II Bike Lanes with the remaining segments either an existing or proposed Class III Bike Route. This bikeway currently has three incomplete segments: Piner Road between Marlow Road and Range Avenue/Bicentennial Way; Bicentennial/Ventura Avenue and Chanate/Mendocino to Humboldt Street, Chanate/Montecito Meadow Drive to Fountaingrove Parkway and Montecito Boulevard between Brush Creek and Middle Rincon Road. The most severely restricted width is east of Montecito Meadow Drive. Another segment with limited width is the Bicentennial Way overcrossing of Highway 101. Guerneville-Steele Bikeway (Route #36) This corridor begins west of Fulton Road proceeding east on Guerneville Road merging with West Steele Lane and passing under U.S. 101 and south of the County Center. This corridor continues east becoming Lewis Road after Mendocino Avenue and terminates at Franklin Road. This is a popular route for bicyclists heading west out of the City, and also for commuters heading east towards employment and school destinations such as Santa Rosa Junior College. This route also passes by Coddingtown Center, the Northside Transit Transfer Center, the Steele Lane Community Center, one park and four schools. This corridor intersects the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed north-south Bicycle Boulevard. A major barrier on this corridor is the segment between Range Avenue and the approach to the undercrossing of U.S. 101 where restricted width, multiple intersections and travel lanes, high traffic volumes and highway on-ramp can create an intimidating environment for some cyclists. West College-Jennings-Pacific-Spencer-Fourth Street-Sonoma Highway Bikeway (Routes #38 and #37) This corridor runs from the western boundary of Santa Rosa at West College Avenue to Oakmont on State Highway Route 12 (Sonoma Highway). This corridor serves major destinations such as the future SMART Station at Jennings Avenue, Santa Rosa Junior College, Santa Rosa High School, Humboldt Street Bicycle Boulevard, Safeway/Flamingo Shopping Center, Oakmont and beyond. The corridor serves six schools and 5

Total combined route mileage is 7.03 miles with 3.08 miles existing Class II Bike Lanes (3.08/7.31 = 0.42). The DPW has proposed plans to install Class II on Piner Rd east of Marlow Rd to Cleveland Avenue. This proposed section is not included pending completion of the Class II Bike Lanes.

September 2010

2-23

EXISTING CONDITIONS

three parks. Approximately 7 miles of this 11.2 mile corridor are proposed as a Class II-Bike Lane facility. Currently there are Class II Bike Lanes on West College Avenue and wide shoulders on most of the Sonoma Highway segment. It is important to note that of this 11.2 mile corridor, only about 4 miles is within the City’s jurisdiction. This corridor passes through the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), and Santa Rosa Junior College. A major portion of the corridor, 6.4 miles, is also within Caltrans’ right-of-way. Two major obstacles include crossing the SMART rail line and Highway 101. Both crossings involve considerable right-of-way and engineering considerations. The City has initiated preliminary discussions with SMART which notes the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has indicated it would be opposed to atgrade crossings. A feasibility study for a Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing that would serve this corridor is currently under way. Other corridors exist that can facilitate this west-east movement across the rail line and Highway 101: West College-4th Street-Highway 12 (Route #38, 37); West College-Cleveland-West 9th-7th-E Street-4th Street-Highway 12 (Route #38, 5, 39, 40 37). Class II-Bike Lanes are scheduled for completion in 2010 between Stony Point Road to the SMART rail line on West College Avenue. However east of this location, College Avenue is narrow and traffic volumes increase with vehicles entering College Avenue to enter/exit Highway 101 from adjoining regional streets, or using College Avenue as a cross cut to Sonoma Highway via 4th Street. These operating characteristic can create an intimidating environment for some bicyclists. Bicyclists may choose to use another alternate route through West Ninth Street, which has less traffic to connect to 4th Street. However, both College Avenue and 4th Street have restricted widths for bicycles. West Ninth-A Street-Seventh Street Bikeway (Route #39) This 2.2 mile bike corridor is an important connector between west and central Santa Rosa, and a good bicycling alternative to using the Third Street tunnel and West College Avenue, which it parallels. The route serves the downtown shopping area as well as Finley Park via Bikeway Route #2. A little more than half of the corridor currently exists as a combination of Class II and III facilities. This corridor is likely to remain a combination Class II and III facilities because of specific limited roadway width along residential areas between Wilson and A Streets; A Street between 9th and 7th Streets; and 7th Street between Humboldt Street and Brookwood Avenue. Because this is a popular route with bicyclists, additional street treatments encouraging motorists and bicyclists to share the road, coupled with education and awareness efforts would be recommended along these segments. Sample of these treatments and education and awareness program are covered in the Design Guidelines and Best Practices, Chapter 6. West Third – Montgomery Drive - Sonoma Avenue-Bikeway (Routes #41, #42) This segment stretches 8.8 miles through the heart of Santa Rosa, from the western city limits west of Fulton Road/West Third Street to the east State Highway Route 12 (SR 12) and Melita Road. The route generally parallels SR 12 through the city and is a major commute route into downtown Santa Rosa from the southeast (Pythian Road and beyond). Some of the few downtown destinations served are the library, Santa Rosa Plaza, Fourth Street commercial district (or Courthouse Square), Transit Mall and City Hall. The route also serves as a recreation conduit for bicyclists heading either east or west into Howarth and Spring Lake Parks. This corridor is proposed as a Class II facility. Currently approximately 3.6 miles exist. Of these only 1.2 miles is Class III. However, there are two areas along this corridor that have restricted roadway widths and will require further study, particularly east of Mission Boulevard (Segment q) where the roadway curves and is restricted by a hillside (See Project List at the end of Chapter 3). An alternative

2-24

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

or complement to using Montgomery Drive is to use Sonoma Avenue, which parallels Montgomery Drive up to Summerfield Road and is more aligned with accessing Howarth and Spring Lake Parks. West Third Street just east of Stony Point Road (segment d), and just east of Dutton Avenue to the SMART railroad tracks and a segment of Sonoma Avenue between Hahman Drive and Yulupa Avenue have restricted widths for bike lane expansion. Another alternative for bicyclists is the Prince Memorial Greenway/Santa Rosa Creek, which parallels 3rd Street between Downtown and Stony Point.

OTHER BIKEWAY CORRIDORS Southwest Area Bikeways Three bikeways segments (Routes #46, #3, #48), all bike lanes, make up a mini-loop in southwest Santa Rosa. Located on Sebastopol Road, Corporate Center Parkway, and Northpoint Parkway, this 2.2 mile system serves a growing employment and residential area. These segments are currently disconnected from the City bikeway system. Bicyclists currently use Sebastopol Road, Stony Point Road, and Hearn Avenue to connect to other bike routes. This area is complemented by a proposed Class I pathway, Roseland Creek (Route #72), running southwest to northeast through the area and proposed Class II bike lanes on Burbank Avenue (Route #204) as well as on West and Dutton Avenues (Routes #205 and #4), although these two remaining routes have restricted widths for bike lane expansion and will require further study. Santa Rosa Creek / Prince Memorial and Santa Rosa Creek Greenways (Route #69) A 3.25 mile Class I path follows Santa Rosa Creek from Fulton Road to Pierson Street (about 2,000 feet to the west of Highway 101). It continues east and follows the north side of Santa Rosa Creek along the threequarter mile Prince Memorial Greenway (Pierson Street to Santa Rosa Avenue). These Class I facilities are very popular with neighbors, students, bicyclists, runners, and walkers. The Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan identifies an eventual corridor running along the creek and City streets from Laguna de Santa Rosa to Acacia Lane. Completion of this corridor west of Fulton Road is a County of Sonoma Regional Parks Department project. The first phase to Willowside Road is underway. Subsequent County Regional Parks phases will connect to Laguna de Santa Rosa. Completed in 2005, the Prince Memorial Greenway (PMG) restored Santa Rosa Creek and includes a paved pathway along the banks of the creek. The project connects downtown at Santa Rosa Avenue to the historic Railroad Square district at Olive Street with pedestrian and bicycle paths, plazas and multiple urban design elements. In August 2008, the Prince Memorial Gateway Park was completed. It is located at Santa Rosa and Sonoma Avenues and provides access to the south bank of PMG. Conversely, it provides an exit to the south east area of Santa Rosa connecting to Sonoma and Santa Rosa bikeways for points east and south. Howarth/Spring Lake Park Bikeway Pythian Road (Routes #63, #231, #239) This multi-use pathway runs along Lake Ralphine in Howarth Park, and connects to Channel Drive through Annadel State Park and through the Wild Oak and Oakmont communities to connect to Pythian Road. This route provides access east through to Hood Mountain Regional Park, the future County “Central Sonoma Valley Trail” and south toward Lawndale Road south of the city limits and into the unincorporated area of Sonoma County. This corridor provides an alternative to Sonoma Highway and Montgomery Drive for commuters coming from the Pythian Road area into Santa Rosa. A connection between the County’s Spring Lake Park pathway (Route #63, Segment d) to Channel Drive (Route 231) is proposed to close the gap between the County and City and facilitate the use of this corridor. Paving the

September 2010

2-25

EXISTING CONDITIONS

route through Annadel State Park would require coordination with the State and Wild Oak Homeowners Association for improvements to the existing pathway between lower Timber Springs Drive and White Oak Drive to reduce any potential for pedestrian and bicycle conflicts. This corridor also connects to a pathway via Route #63 that circles Spring Lake and provides a connection to the Bay Area Ridge Trail discussed in Chapter 1 (page 1-7). Almost three miles long, the pathway that circles Spring Lake is very popular with recreational riders, both loop riders and those headed for the west side of Annadel State Park. Due to its popularity, user conflicts exist between bicyclists and walkers around Spring Lake as well as along Howarth Park. Fountaingrove Parkway / Calistoga Road Bikeway (Routes #62, #35, #34) This corridor is approximately six miles6 long running from Mendocino Avenue in the west to Calistoga Road (Route 18) in the east. The western end of this corridor is on a grade. An asphalt pathway is provided for about 2.2 miles along Fountaingrove Parkway from Mendocino Avenue past Fountaingrove Country Club to Stage Coach Road, which provides a connection south back onto Parker Hill Road (Route #9). At the northern end of Parker Hill Road, which connects with Fountaingrove Parkway, Class II-Bike lanes exist for approximately 2.5 miles to Brush Creek Road. Except for a short segment east of Middle Rincon Road that is an existing Class II-Bike Lane, the rest of this corridor on Montecito Avenue to Calistoga Road is proposed as a Class II bike lane and exists as a Class III-bike route. Sebastopol Road Bikeway / Joe Rodota Trail (Routes #46 and #73) These two corridors parallel each other and end near the Railroad Square area. The Sebastopol Road corridor (Route 46) is an on-street facility while the Joe Rodota is an off-street facility following an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The Sebastopol Road corridor begins at the western city limits west of South Wright Road and terminates at Olive Street to the east. This corridor is approximately three miles long with approximately 1.9 miles as an existing Class II facility—0.3 of these miles are within the County’s jurisdiction in the Roseland area. The Joe Rodota Trail (Route #73) is a County facility that lies, generally, about a block to the north of the Sebastopol Road Corridor and runs between Sebastopol and Santa Rosa for approximately 8.47 miles. Approximately 3.18 miles of these are within the Santa Rosa city limits. Although the Joe Rodota Trail intersects the Sebastopol Road corridor at the western city limits, the trail is interrupted by industrial buildings and trail users are directed to the sidewalk on the east side of South Wright Road via Sebastopol Road to reconnect with the Joe Rodota Trail. From here the Joe Rodota Trail heads east behind the long commercial/industrial strip on Sebastopol Road. Several public streets provide access to the Joe Rodota Trail within the city limits: Sebastopol Road, South Wright Road, Courtside Village Park (via Campoy Street and Louis Krohn Drive), Stony Point Road, Hampton Way, Roseland, Dutton and Roberts Avenues. After Roberts Avenue the Joe Rodota Trail winds north under State Highway Route 12 and ends at the pedestrian/bicycle bridge intersection with the Prince Memorial Greenway (Route #69) between West 3rd Street and Railroad Street, southwest of the Marriott Courtyard Hotel.7 The community has expressed desire for the pathway to continue north past the Prince Memorial Greenway across 3rd Street paralleling the SMART Rail line. The City’s Downtown Station Area Specific 6

Route 62, 35 and segments “d-g” of Route 34 total 5.95 miles

Adapted from County of Sonoma Regional Parks Department web site, “West County & Joe Rodota Trails“[http://www.sonoma-county.org/parks/pk_westc.htm]

2-26

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Plan shows a Class I facility extending north through the SMART station to West 6th and Adams Streets. However, the 2004 SMART Corridor Schematics8 plan for pedestrians and bicyclists is to take the Prince Memorial Greenway (PMG) to Pierson Street to city surface streets to reconnect with the SMART pathway at 7th Street and continue north. Both the north and south ends of the SMART Class I path through the downtown Santa Rosa SMART station area (7th Street to the PMG) would require additional right of way and coordination with SMART. No specific project is currently under way to address this northsouth connection. Both SMART and the City will continue to work together to address this north-south connection. Vacant Highway 12 Corridor (Routes #310) This swath of land runs east from Hoen Avenue and Cypress Way toward Spring Lake County Regional Park. It is undeveloped land, covered with grass, trees and shrubs. The alignment is what would have been State Highway Route 12 had it continued east from Farmers Lane where Caltrans stopped construction. This corridor runs for 1.0 mile and is proposed as a Class I facility—a nonmotorized alternative to Hoen Avenue. This corridor would provide an interior connection to neighborhoods and connect to Montgomery High School and Montgomery Village on the west. The eastern end would access Summerfield Road, providing access on surface streets for continued trips to Spring Lake County Regional Park. Discussions of what to do with the vacant land has recently been revisited by neighbors in the area who would like to see the land used as a greenway.9 The City’s Community Development Department did an exploratory study of recreational opportunities along the vacant Highway 12 corridor in September 2002. The 2007 Citywide Creek Master Plan (CCMP) shows a paved trail along this vacant State Highway Route 12 alignment above and next to an existing under ground culvert.10 The BPMP update is consistent with the CCMP and shows a Class I facility along the vacant State Highway Route 12 alignment. The State of California (i.e. Caltrans) still owns the land and no immediate determinations have been made about the vacant highway corridor. However, it is clear from the community (95405 Neighborhood Association, CCMP and BPMP) that future considerations of this vacant right-of-way (ROW) should include pedestrian and bicycle considerations in addition to any motorized uses that may be considered. The California Streets and Highways Code provides that state highway ROW should not be abandoned unless Caltrans first consults with local agencies having jurisdiction over the area to determine if the ROW or part of it could be developed as a nonmotorized transportation facility. The same determination— whether useful as a nonmotorized facility—applies to the abandonment of local streets.11

SMART Draft Environmental Impact Report, Appendix E, “SMART CORRIDOR SCHEMATICS…BIKE/ PEDESTRIAN PATH (PHASE 1).”

95405 The Neighborhood Association for Bennett Valley web site page “Highway or Greenway?” subject of September 22, 2009 meeting, www.95405.org

CCMP MANTANZAS tile C, D, E and F.

Streets and Highways Code 892.

September 2010

2-27

EXISTING CONDITIONS

COLLISION ANALYSIS Collision data for pedestrian and bicycle-related incidents were evaluated to determine locations that should be targeted for safety improvements. Collision records for 2002-2006 were obtained through the California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) State Wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), the same data used by the City of Santa Rosa. The CHP Accident Investigation Unit maintains SWITRS. It was developed as a means to collect and process data elements from a collision scene. The program ensures that local police departments and the CHP utilize and maintain uniform data collection tools and methods to collect and compile meaningful data and statistics that can be used to improve roadway conditions and monitor the effectiveness of enforcement efforts. It is important to note that SWITRS only includes reported collisions, so it may not reflect all conflicts that occur. A comprehensive review and analysis of the data was performed to help understand the nature and factors involved in pedestrian and bicycle collisions. A better understanding of these factors may help planners and engineers address some of the issues that contribute to these incidents. For example, if it is determined that a high incidence of collisions are occurring in the evening, lighting improvements may help to correct the situation. Conversely, a high incidence of collisions attributed to bicycles riding in the wrong direction or those involving children may be addressed through education and/or enforcement activities and awareness programs. The following types of data were reviewed with an emphasis on the conditions indicated in the data to better understand the factors that may have contributed to the reported collisions: Collisions: This information includes an analysis of the major causes of each collision, the locations of collisions, and the seasonal variation of collisions. Conditions: Environmental conditions at or near the collision site at the time of each crash were examined. This included an analysis of weather conditions, lighting conditions, and types of traffic control devices present. Demographics: This included a determination, by gender and age, of collision rates for bicyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrian Collisions Bicycle Collisions Total Collisions Figure 2-7 Figure 2-6 by Year byFigure Year 2-8 by Year 1/1/2002-12/31/2006 Pedestrian collisions by year

Year, # of collisions

Year

Year, # of collisions

Year

2006, 57

2006, 53

2005, 42

2004, 48

2005, 53

2004, 47

2003, 55

#Total of Collisions Collisions

2003, 46

2006, 1649

2005, 1907

2004, 2091

2003, 2080

1000

2002, 64

#Total of Collisions Collisions

1500

2002, 2802

# Total of Collisions Collisions

2000

2-28

(1/1/2002 – 12/31/2006 (Total Collisions 264)

2500

Total Collisions 253

(1/1/2002 – 12/31/2006 (Total Collisions 253)

3000

500

Bicycle collisions by year 1/1/2002-12/31/2006

Total Collisions 253

Total (1/1/2002 Collisions 10,529 – 12/31/2006 (Total Collisions 10,529)

2002, 52

Total Collisions (All) by year 1/1/2002-12/31/2006

Year, # of collisions

Year

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Locations: This portion of the analysis includes a citywide map of bicycle and pedestrian collisions and other spatial analyses of different collision types. For the five-year period reviewed, a total of 10,529 total collisions were reported in Santa Rosa (see Figure 2-6), including 253 pedestrian collisions and 264 bicycle collisions. Therefore, pedestrian and bicycle collisions account for approximately 5 percent of all total collisions in Santa Rosa. As depicted in the Figure 2-7, the number of pedestrian collisions have decreased during the five-year analysis period with a slight trend upward in 2006. The number bicycle collisions has stayed relatively constant over the fiveyear analysis period with a low of 47 collisions in 2004 and a high of 57 collisions in 2006 (see Figure 2-8). The locations of all reported pedestrian and bicycle collisions were plotted in the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s GIS mapping system in order to determine roadway segments and intersections that appear to have higher frequencies of collisions. These collisions are depicted in Figures 2-9 and 2-10 for pedestrian and bicyclist, respectively

September 2010

2-29

101

2-30 12

NE SE

0.35

Miles

Miles 0.7

September 2010

January 2008

Pedestrian Collision Map 1: Pedestrian Collision Locations Locations

Planning Area

Lake Creek

Planning Area

Highway Regional Street Transitional Street Local Street - Trail Railroad City Limits

Class I Bikeway Class II Bikeway Class III Bikeway

Pedestrian Collisions

Collision Locations

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2-9

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Collisions Involving Pedestrians As with bicycle-related incidents, the locations of all reported pedestrian collisions were plotted on a City map (see Map 1 on the previous page) in order to determine key roadway segment and intersection locations that appear to have higher frequencies of collisions. A list of the twenty street segments that have the most reported pedestrian collisions is provided in Table 2-8 below. Table 2-8 Pedestrian Collisions by Roadway Segment, Santa Rosa, CA Jan. 1, 2002 to Dec. 31, 2006

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Corridor D Street Santa Rosa Avenue 3rd Street Guerneville Road Mendocino Avenue College Avenue Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa Avenue Wilson Street 4th Street Stony Point Road Montgomery Drive Dutton Avenue Petaluma Hill Road E Street Chanate Road West 3rd Street Fulton Road Sonoma Avenue West Collage

Begin Point

End Point

Pedestrian Collisions

5th Street 3rd Street B Street Cleveland Avenue Pacific Avenue US 101 Pacific Avenue Yolanda Avenue 9th Street B Street Sebastopol Road 2nd Street 9th Street Yolanda Avenue College Avenue Mendocino Avenue Fulton Road SR 12 / Wright Road Santa Rosa Avenue Fulton Road

Sonoma Avenue Petaluma Hill Road Brookwood Avenue North Dutton Fountaingrove Pkwy 4th Street 3rd Street Baker Avenue 3rd Street College Avenue 9th Street Mission Blvd Hearn Avenue Santa Rosa Avenue Sonoma Avenue Parker Hill Road Wilson Street Piner Road Summerfield Road US 101

8 14 9 8 20 9 8 4 3 5 5 10 8 5 2 4 9 8 6 5

Segment Length in Miles

Crash Rate (Collisions/ Mile Per Year*

0.3 0.7 0.5 0.62 1.67 1.0 1.0 0.56 0.43 0.72 1.0 2.17 1.92 1.23 0.5 1.1 2.83 2.8 2.55 2.43

5.3 4.0 3.6 2.6 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4

Â Source: CHP, SWITRS and W-Trans * Collisions per mile per year were applied in order to formulate a ranking. The accident rates should be considered as a relative measure; however, as segment distances vary by street and do not take into account type of street, volume of traffic, speed, or cause of collisions..

The top three locations with the most pedestrian collisions are in downtown. It should be noted that each of these corridors includes major origins and destinations such as downtown, Santa Rosa Junior College, Santa Rosa High School, and the Coddingtown Mall. Therefore, a substantial amount of pedestrian activity would be expected to occur in these areas. A list of the eight intersections experiencing three or more pedestrian incidents is shown in Table 2-9.

September 2010

2-31

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Table 2-9 Pedestrian Collisions by High Incidence Intersection City of Santa Rosa January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006 Intersection Mendocino Avenue at McConnell Avenue D Street at 3rd Street Mendocino Avenue at Clement Avenue Santa Rosa Avenue-Mendocino Avenue/3rd Street Silva Avenue at Mendocino Avenue Davis Street at 5th Street Santa Rosa Avenue at Bennett Valley Road Sebastopol Avenue at Mill Street

Total Collisions 6 4 4 4 3 3 3 3

Collision Per Year 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

A total of 253 pedestrian-related collisions were reported within the City over the five-year review period. Of these, approximately 36 percent were determined by presiding officers to be pedestrian-atfault incidents. Approximately 59 percent were determined to be driver-at-fault incidents, and no at fault determination was made for the remaining 5 percent. Pedestrian collisions were also broken down by fault and age for the years between 2002 and 2006. In about 36 percent of pedestrian collisions, the pedestrian was deemed at fault; approximately eleven percent of the pedestrians involved were under the age of sixteen. On the following page, a summary of pedestrian collisions by fault and type is provided in Table 2-10.

2-32

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Table 2-10 Pedestrian Collisions Ranked by Fault and Type â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2002 through 2006 Motorist at Fault

Percent

Right-of-Way

101 (14)

39.9%

Improper Turn

Improper Pass

9 (2)

3.5%

Signal/Stop

1.5%

Unsafe Speed

3.1%

7 (2)

2.7%

1.9%

4 (1)

1.5%

6 (1)

2.3%

0.7%

Collision Type Pedestrian Violation

Pedestrian at fault

Percent

88 (26)

34.8%

Unsafe Backing Other Hazardous Movement Under Drug/Alcohol Influence Not Stated

1 (1)

0.3%

0.8%

Other Other Than Driver or Pedestrian TOTAL

35.9%

149

58.9%

Neutral (No Fault Assigned)

Percent

8 (1)

3.1%

5 (1)

1.9%

5.1%

Source: CHP, SWITRS, and W-Trans (x) Number under 16 years

September 2010

2-33

101

2-34 12

NE SE

0.35

Figure 2-10

September 2010

January 2008

Miles

Miles 0.7

Bicycle Map 1:Collision Bicyle Locations Collision Locations

Planning Area

Lake Creek

Planning Area

Highway Regional Street Transitional Street Local Street - Trail Railroad City Limits

Class I Bikeway Class II Bikeway Class III Bikeway

Bicycle Collisions

Collision Locations

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

EXISTING CONDITIONS

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

COLLISIONS INVOLVING BICYCLISTS Specific street segments were identified and their approximate lengths estimated in order to develop an accident rate per mile, which was then divided by the five-year period of available data. The “collisions per mile per year” statistic provides a general means of ranking the street segments by the historical frequency of collisions. A list of the 20 street segments that have the most reported bicycle collisions is provided in Table 2-11. Table 2-11 Bicycle Collisions by Roadway Segment City of Santa Rosa January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006 #

Corridor

Begin Point

End Point

Bicycle Collisions

Segment Length in Miles

(Collisions/ Mile Per Year)*

Crash Rate

Wilson Street

3rd Street

College Avenue

0.76

1.8

Mendocino Avenue

Fountaingrove Parkway

Third Street

2.68

1.7

Hearn Avenue

Santa Rosa Avenue

Stony Point Road

1.53

1.4

Pacific Avenue

Montecito Avenue

Mendocino Avenue

0.84

1.4

Steele Lane

Myers Drive

Marlow Road

1.54

1.3

Dutton Avenue

Guerneville Avenue

Hearn Avenue

3.03

1.3

Santa Rosa Avenue

Third Street

Bellevue Avenue

2.64

1.1

Stony Point Road

College Avenue

Hearn Avenue

2.53

1.0

College Avenue

4th Street

Fulton Road

3.54

1.0

Marlow Road

Piner Road

College Avenue

1.53

0.9

4th Street

Farmers Lane

B Street

1.75

0.9

Range Avenue

Piner Road

Jennings Avenue

1.32

0.9

Sebastopol Road

Dutton Avenue

Wright Road

2.4

0.8

Cleveland Avenue

Hopper Lane

Steele Lane

1.5

0.8

Guerneville Road

Range Avenue

Fulton Road

2.14

0.7

Humboldt Street

Pacific Avenue

5th Street

0.81

0.7

Sonoma Avenue

Farmers Lane

Santa Rosa Avenue

1.45

0.7

Sonoma Hwy / SR 12

Farmers Lane

St. Francis Road

2.73

0.5

Yulupa Avenue

Montgomery Drive

Bennett Valley Road

2.37

0.4

Fulton Road

Alton Lane

SR 12 / Wright Road

3.44

0.3

Source: CHP, SWITRS and W-Trans. Rate of “Collisions per mile per year” was determined in order to formulate a ranking. The accident rates should be considered as a relative measure as segment distances vary by street and do not take into account type of street, volume of traffic, speed, or cause of collisions.

•

The two corridors experiencing the highest frequency of bicycle collisions per mile are Wilson Street in Railroad Square and Mendocino Avenue between Fountaingrove and downtown, which includes Santa Rosa Junior College and Santa Rosa High School.

Bicycle collisions at intersections were analyzed in order to determine which intersections in the City experience the highest incidence of bicycle collisions. The top twenty-five intersections were ranked, of which ten intersections experienced three or more reported bicycle collisions during the five-year period between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006. The highest incident intersections are Marlow Road/ Crosspoint Avenue adjacent to Monroe Elementary School, and Mendocino Avenue/College Avenue, both of which experienced a total of four reported collisions. Eight intersections experienced three reported

September 2010

2-35

EXISTING CONDITIONS

bicycle collisions during the period. It is important to note that the data indicates a downward trend in intersection related collisions, as the analysis for the 2001 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan indicated that the top five high incidence intersections included five or more reported collisions. A list of the 10 intersections experiencing reported bicycle collisions is shown in Table 2-12. Table 2-12: Bicycle Collisions by High Incidence Intersection City of Santa Rosa January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006 Total Intersection Collisions Marlow Road at Crosspoint Avenue Mendocino Avenue at College Avenue B Street at 3rd Street Hearn Avenue at Corby Avenue Mendocino Avenue at Administration Drive Rt 12 at Mission Boulevard Sebastopol Road at Dutton Avenue Stony Point Road at SR 12 W/B Offramp Stony Point Road at SR 12 (N) West Steele Lane at Steele Lane

Collisions Per Year

4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Source: CHP, SWITRS, and W-Trans

The SWITRS data received from the California Highway Patrol included information that indicated the type of accident and party at fault. The data was summarized to include the top ten collision types for both bicyclist-at-fault and driver-at-fault incidents involving bicyclists, and includes a breakout of incidents involving children under the age of 16. The data is shown in Table 2-13. Table 2-13 Bicycle Collisions Ranked by Fault and Type - 2002 through 2006 Bicyclist-at-Fault Collision Type

Collisions

Percent

Collisions

Percent

Wrong Way

86 (20)

32.6%

Right-of-Way

32 (16)

12.1%

10.2%

Improper Turn

20 (5)

7.6%

4.9%

Improper Pass

3 (1)

1.1%

2.2%

Signal/Stop

22 (2)

8.3%

2.6%

Unsafe Speed

8 (1)

3.0%

0.8%

Unsafe Lane Change

1.1%

Other Hazardous Movement

2.2%

1.1%

Under Drug/Alcohol Influence

1.5%

Lights

4 (1)

1.5%

Other

6.1%

1.1%

TOTAL Source: CHP, SWITRS, and W-Trans

2-36

Motorist-at-Fault

200

(x) Number under 16 years

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Of the 264 reported bicycle collisions during the five-year review period, over three-quarters of the collisions (76%), were determined to be the fault of the involved bicyclist, and the remaining 24% were determined to be the fault of the driver. The most common cause of collisions, as determined by the law enforcement officers conducting the collision reports, was related to bicyclists riding on the wrong side of the road. The second and third most common causes of collisions were right-of-way violations attributed to bicyclists and vehicle drivers respectively. The fourth most frequently cited cause is signal or stop sign violations attributable to bicyclists. The fifth most frequent is improper turns attributable to bicyclists. Bicyclists under age 16 were at-fault in 17 percent of all bicycle collisions, a reduction of 6 percent in comparison to the analysis performed for the 2001 BPMP.

EXISTING SUPPORT FACILITIES Support facilities include bicycle parking, showers and lockers, signage, traffic signal detectors, and promotional programs.

Parking Secure, functional and convenient bicycle parking is critical for maintaining and attracting bicycle trips; people are less likely to ride their bicycles to a destination without bicycle parking that suits their needs. Inventory The City has installed bicycle racks throughout downtown, on sidewalks/plazas and in the downtown parking garages. These racks have been funded primarily through the Transportation Fund for Clean Air, provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Other private businesses have also installed bicycle racks. Parking Garage #12 on First Street also has bike lids, also known as clam shells. These bicycle lids cover the entire bicycle and have a 72-hour limit. Bicycle lockers have also been installed downtown; however, they are assigned to specific users at worksites, and are not available for general public use. The City is considering installing a system of electronic lockers that would be accessible to any user with a smart card for the system. As part of a 2009 community grant through the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Advisory Board, the City partnered with the New Horizon School to update the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inventory of downtown bicycle racks for inclusion in the Santa Rosa Bicycle Guide Map. Consistent with the 2005 Santa Rosa Bicycle Guide Map, this effort focuses on bicycle racks in the downtown core. The revised map of bicycle parking appears in Figure 2-11 However, it is recommended that the City develop a GIS-based inventory database of public bicycle parking throughout the City as part of a future Bicycle Parking Plan, as resources allow, that would supplement the BPMP. This information could also be shared with the public, to bolster and facilitate trips by bicycle not only to downtown but citywide. Such a citywide inventory would also help the City manage its bicycle rack program as part of its Santa Rosa Free Ride Trip Reduction Incentive Program. Bicycle Parking requirements and the Zoning Code This update to the BPMP revises the Zoning Code specifications for bicycle parking for new and redevelopment projects, as called for by the 2007 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP). These will include formulas for calculating the minimum required bicycle parking spaces, based on square feet and land use, as well as layout/site standards. See Appendix F for the proposed revisions to the Zoning Code.

September 2010

2-37

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Traffic Signals Pedestrian Countdown Signals The City has started to use countdown pedestrian crosswalk signals for new and replacement signals. This will improve safety by enabling pedestrians to make better timing decisions when crossing the street. Traffic Signal Detectors To help facilitate commuting by bicycle, the City installed 200 bicycle-sensitive detector loops with pavement markings so that a bicyclist can activate the signal. However, for better detection and longer pavement life, the City has decided to replace loop detectors with video detection at all locations as needed.

Signage and Pavement Markings The City uses standard signs and pavement markings that are consistent with the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Examples of these include, but are not limited to: • • • • • •

Flashing Beacon. Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians (R10-15). An example of this can be seen at the intersection of Santa Rosa Avenue and Kawana Springs Road. Bright Green/Yellow Pedestrian Xing Warning (W11-2) with down arrow (W16-7) signs. Continental Crosswalk pavement markings. These type of markings are a series of stripes parallel to the direction of vehicle travel. These are mostly used at non-signalized intersections within the City of Santa Rosa. Wrongway sign for bicyclists (R5-1b). This has been installed on Guerneville Road. Bicycle Detector Symbol. Used to indicate the spot bicycles should stop at signalized intersections to activate the green light for their direction of travel.

More discussion on the CA MUTCD standard markings/signs appears in the Best Practices and Design Guidelines Section. Wayfinding and Guide Signs The City is considering developing wayfinding signage for pedestrians as part of its Downtown Program administered by the Economic Development and Housing Department. The City may also consider route numbering of bikeways (which has been implemented in San Francisco and Marin County). However it would require further study and coordination with neighboring jurisdictions to ensure consistency beyond city limits and available resources. In the interim, it is recommended that the City consider consistent application of the existing standard guide signage and directional signage to major destinations along bikeways which has the added benefit of alerting motorists that bicyclists are also legitimate users of roadways.

Bike Racks on Buses Bike racks on buses are a minor, but important component of bus service. Very few transit operators can provide door-to-door service for all trips. The convenience of traveling the first-and/or last-mile, i.e., from one’s front door to the bus stop or transit station is an influential factor in transit ridership. Since the average cyclist can cover four times the distance of a pedestrian in the same amount of time, bicycling can extend the catchment area for transit service. Conversely, the ability to take their bike on transit allows bicyclists to make longer trips than those taken only by bike.

2-38

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

In addition, bicycling can free the user from the constraints of transit frequency and schedules; in some cases, the user may be able to ride their bicycle to their destination instead of waiting for a transfer, or when there is no scheduled service. All of the public buses that serve Santa Rosa accommodate bikes on buses. • • • • •

Santa Rosa City Bus: All buses have front-loading racks to carry two or three bicycles, on a first come, first serve basis. Sonoma County Transit: All buses have front-loading racks to carry two or three bicycles, on a first come, first serve basis. Golden Gate Transit: All buses accommodate two or three bikes, either with front-loading racks, or luggage bay bike racks. Mendocino Transit: All buses have front-loading racks to carry two or three bicycles, on a first come, first serve basis. Napa VINE Transit: All buses have front-loading racks to carry two bicycles, on a first come, first serve basis.

Most bus operators use bicycle racks of the same design. The rack secures two (or three) bikes by a spring-loaded support arm. It folds up when not in use and down when carrying bikes. The rounded corners make the rack safe for bike riders and others. The main feature is that the bicycles can be loaded and unloaded independently of each other. The bicycle can be loaded in the time it takes two to three passengers to board.

Showers Showers should be included in development and redevelopment projects that will serve as workplaces. Some employers have showers available for their employees due to the nature of their business such as hospitals and colleges/schools with locker rooms. In general, all employers are encouraged to have showers available for their employees, whether onsite, or through arrangements with a nearby gym, etc. Showers would benefit all their staff, since those who bike (and exercise) work together with those who do not bike. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) supports biking as a clean commute option by providing showers and lockers for employees who bike to work at least three times a week (as well as for employees who walk or jog to work). In Santa Rosa, the engineering firm of Winzler & Kelly installed showers when it expanded its offices. Many employees bike to work, or go bike-riding or exercising at lunch, so the showers were a benefit for employees who wanted to wash up after working out. After the showers were installed, it became an incentive for other employees to start biking or exercising. The firm stocks soap and shampoo in dispensers in the showers. Both the showers (one for each gender) are well-used by the staff of nearly 100.

September 2010

2-39

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Maps The City produces and distributes the Santa Rosa Bicycle Guide Map showing the bikeways, bike loop detectors, downtown bike parking, as well as bicycle safety tips in English and Spanish. There are also static and interactive GIS bikeways maps on the city’s website <www.srcity.org>.

City-sponsored Promotional Programs The City sponsors the Santa Rosa Free Ride – Trip Reduction Incentive Program for employers in the city which offers incentives for commute alternatives such as bicycling, walking, taking transit and carpooling. Incentives include discounted transit passes, and gift cards. There is also a guaranteed ride home component, where a registered participant may get a free taxi ride to deal with an emergency. Approximately 2,200 people are signed up. In 2008, over 50,000 one-way commute trips were made by bike, and over 16,000 trips were made by walking. These incentives are part of the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program discussed in Chapter 1 and administered by the Transit Department. TDM is aimed at encouraging more walking and bicycling. Another program is the annual Bike to Work Day event. Energizer stations hosted by public and private entities are set up throughout the city to provide refreshments to bicyclists. In 2000, approximately 368 participants stopped in at seven energizer stations. The event has been growing every year. By 2009, there were 13 energizer Stations with 1,528 participants. The City participates by staffing a downtown Energizer station in front of City Hall. The Transit Department coordinates and administers the City Hall Energizer station.

Bike to Work Day, 2009

2-40

September 2010

Chapter 3

RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN AND BIKEWAY NETWORK INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the recommended pedestrian and bikeway network for the City of Santa Rosa. It first describes the policies at various government levels for including walking and bicycling in the design of all transportation projects, the methodology and facility types, and a description of the recommended pedestrian and bicycle network is provided. Since this is an update of the 2001 plan, the focus is on revising previous bikeway recommendations where appropriate. The complete network is comprised of existing and proposed pedestrian and bikeway facilities. Citywide pedestrian improvement projects are not listed at the end of this chapter as the bikeway project are due to limited resources. However the top pedestrian priority projects are in Chapter 5 along with the top priority bicycle routes. These pedestrian priority projects are limited to sidewalk in-fill projects, that is, completing sidewalk gaps. Future updates to the BPMP should consider listing citywide pedestrian improvement projects that include not only sidewalk in-fills but crosswalk markings, signal connections and facility design.

POLICIES Complete Streets This update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) incorporates the concepts of Complete Streets when planning for the City’s pedestrian and bicycle network. The concept of “Complete Streets” where streets are no longer simply considered and designed for the personal automobile but designed with all users of the road in mind has been discussed in planning and engineering circles for a couple of years, but not until recently has it begun to take hold across the nation and here in California. The idea started with pedestrian and bicycle advocates and has attracted a diverse national alliance of other supporters, including advocates for senior citizens and the disabled. Complete Streets is a way of rebalancing the public realm away from automobile dominance so that roads are available to all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and motorists creating “Livable Streets.” The City’s General Plan defines “Livable Streets” as the “…design and integration of alternative modes.”1 The need for transportation agencies to change their orientation away from building primarily for cars and consider the “other users of the road” is addressed in policies at the federal, state and regional level. Those polices follow along with Santa Rosa’s own policies and planning documents that help implement “Complete Streets” into its transportation projects.

Federal Policy Directive – US DOT In February 2000, the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) issued a “Design

Guidance Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach” in response to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). It includes four policy directives: 1. Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in new construction and reconstruction projects in all urbanized areas unless one or more of three conditions are met:

Santa Rosa General Plan 2035, Chapter 3, Urban Design p.3-1.

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

Figure 3-1 A diagram of a “Complete Street” - one example

2 4

3 

ure

5 Legend  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 

• • •

Bus Stop Street Trees (shade) Coordinated Street Furniture Planters Median Refuge Pedestrian Crosswalk Colocating signs Bicycle Lane Public Art Pedestrian Lighting On-street parking



0 3



 6

0

Source: Omaha Streetscape Handbook Draft 04-02-08, Omaha by Design

Bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the roadway. In this instance, a greater effort may be necessary to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians elsewhere within the right of way or within the same transportation corridor. The cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. Excessively disproportionate is defined as exceeding twenty percent of the cost of the larger transportation project. Where sparsity of population or other factors indicate an absence of need.2

2. In rural areas, paved shoulders should be included in all new construction and reconstruction projects on roadways used by more than 1,000 vehicles per day. Paved shoulders have safety and operational advantages for all road users in addition to providing a place for bicyclists and pedestrians to operate. 3. 2

3-2

Sidewalks, shared use paths, street crossings (including over- and undercrossings), pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, transit stops and facilities, and all connecting pathways shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so that all pedestrians, including people with disabilities, can travel safely and independently. However, best practices would dictate that sufficient capacity be obtained, when possible, in anticipation of future population growth and pedestrian and bicycle needs.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

4. The design and development of the transportation infrastructure shall improve conditions for bicycling and walking through the following additional steps: • • • •

Planning projects for the long-term. Addressing the need for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross corridors as well as travel along them. Getting exceptions approved at a senior level. Designing facilities to the best currently available standards and guidelines.

The US DOT “Design Guidance, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel” appears in Appendix N.

State Policy Directive – California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) In March 2001, Caltrans adopted a policy directive accommodating non-motorized travel known as Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64) that adopted the best practice concepts in the US DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure. In 2008, Caltrans revised this policy (DD-64 R1) to address Complete Streets consistent with recent state legislation. DD64-R1 definition and background section of the policy reads: Complete Street — A transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and motorists appropriate to the function and context of the facility. The intent of this directive is to ensure that travelers of all ages and abilities can move safely and efficiently along and across a network of “complete streets.” State and federal laws require the Department and local agencies to promote and facilitate increased bicycling and walking. California Vehicle Code (Sections 21200-21212), and Streets and Highways Code (Sections 890 – 894.2) identify the rights of bicyclists and pedestrians and establish legislative intent that people of all ages, using all types of mobility devices, are able to travel on roads. Bicyclists, pedestrians, and nonmotorized traffic are permitted on all State facilities, unless prohibited (CVC, section 21960). Therefore, the Department and local agencies have the duty to provide for the safety and mobility needs of all who have legal access to the transportation system. Department manuals and guidance outline statutory requirements, planning policy, and project delivery procedures to facilitate multimodal travel, which includes connectivity to public transit for bicyclists and pedestrians. In many instances, roads designed to Department standards provide basic access for bicycling and walking. This directive does not supersede existing laws. To ensure successful implementation of “complete streets,” manuals, guidance; and training will be update and developed. Although the Caltrans policy directive is applicable to Caltrans employees, it provides subtle encouragement to local agencies to provide safety and mobility needs for all legal users of the transportation system and consideration of Complete Streets. Caltrans DD-64-R1 “Complete Streets—Integrating the Transportation System” appears in detail in Appendix O.

State Legislation – California ACR 211 — After Caltrans issued DD-64, but before revising it (DD-64-R1), California Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 211 (Chapter 120, Statutes of 2002) by Assemblyman Joe Nation was enacted in August 2002. ACR 211 encouraged local jurisdictions to implement the policies of both the Federal

September 2010

3-3

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

and State Policy Directives in DD-64 when constructing transportation projects. As such, these policy directives (DD-64-R1 and ACR 211) are not required. ACR 211 appears in Appendix P. AB 1358 — California’s “Complete Street Act” was enacted in September 2008 (Chapter 657, Statutes of 2008; Leno). This legislation requires a city or county revising the circulation element of its general plan to include a ‘balanced, multimodal transportation network’ beginning January 1, 2011. However, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research is required to develop guidelines for cities and counties by January 1, 2014 to assist them in meeting the requirements of California’s “Complete Street Acts.” AB 1358 appears in Appendix Q.

(Regional) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Policy Directive In 2006, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted regional policies for the accommodation of non-motorized travelers. MTC Resolution No. 3765 called for creation and implementation of a checklist that promotes the routine accommodation of non-motorized travelers in project planning and design. MTC controls much of the transportation funds in the Bay Area that come from regional, state and federal sources. MTC’s Complete Streets Checklist is intended for use on projects at their earliest conception or design phase so that any pedestrian or bicycle consideration can be included in the project budget, before being submitted for funding approval by MTC. Resolution No. 3765 appears in Appendix R.

Santa Rosa 2035 General Plan, 2009 The Santa Rosa General Plan addresses various elements related to physical development, growth management, and transportation services among others, and has a planning horizon through the year 2035. The City’s General Plan is the guiding document from which all other regulatory documents must follow. The General Plan does not contain specific criteria; rather, it establishes goals and objectives for other documents to implement. These implementation documents such as the City’s Zoning Code are therefore more specific with less room for interpretation. The transportation element of the General Plan is located in Chapter Five, which contains two vision statements that discuss bicycle and pedestrian-related design and development: 5-6, Bicycle Facilities; and, 5-7, Pedestrian Facilities. These sections are further defined by several goals and objectives under three categories: T-J, T-K, and T-L.

Santa Rosa Design Guidelines, 2002 The City’s Design Guidelines provide a clear set of design policies for project sponsors such as those in the development community, property owners, and public agencies. The Guidelines serve as the primary design criteria that city staff, boards and commissions and the City Council use to evaluate project proposals. These guidelines apply to all projects that require design review and public improvements such as streets. Adherence to the guidelines, however, is not meant to stifle design creativity. An applicant/ designer may propose an alternate approach to a guideline(s). In that case, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant/designer to demonstrate to City staff, boards and commissions how the proposal creates an equal or higher level of design quality than the guideline(s) would provide. Pedestrian and bicycle design criteria can be found throughout various sections of the City’s Design Guidelines and are not just limited to Street and Public Ways, or Streetscapes sections of the Design Guidelines.

3-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

Santa Rosa Street Design and Construction Standards, 2004 The Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Street Design and Construction Standards provide the minimum engineering standards for construction of City streets. These are the required standards used for the design and construction of all private and public streets. These standards were revised in 2004 to bring them into conformity with the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Design Guidelines. Deviations from these standards may be granted by approval of the City Engineer. The standards do not preclude the use of a higher standard. This document is relevant in that it provides the standards for sidewalks, pathways and bike lanes.

Santa Rosa Water Design and Construction Standards, 2002 Similar to the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Street Design and Construction Standards, the Water Design and Construction Standard provides the standards for the placement of water apparatus such as fire hydrants on or near sidewalks.

Complete Streets in Amstrdam/Paul Klassen

METHODOLOGY The primary considerations in developing and evaluating the pedestrian network and bikeway network were to serve most of the existing and potential users, to improve walking and bicycling safety and to serve key origins and destinations (traffic generators) with direct, non-circuitous routes. Opportunities and constraints for route selection were determined via field reviews, analysis of existing facility locations, and other sources such as aerial photographs, collision histories, review of existing planning documents, and public input.

September 2010

3-5

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

Pedestrian Facilities The pedestrian network should serve all users, improve safety, and remove pedestrian barriers to accessing transit, education, shopping, and services. The lack of sidewalks diminishes safe access for all residents, but in particular the elderly, disabled, and youth. Although some areas of Santa Rosa were designed without sidewalks such as some hillside developments, and scenic roads, these scenarios usually are outside the urban area and may provide wide shoulders for pedestrian access. Future updates of the BPMP should include pedestrian facilities maps that depict street alignments that have no sidewalk facilities on either one or both sides of the road and distinguish between those area sthat by design have no sidewalks. Such a map can also illustrate the presence of existing Class I bicycle facilities—which serve as pedestrian pathways in the primary network, and which were identified as pedestrian facilities in the 2001 BPMP. It is also recommended that the future update include the off-street connections identified in the 2007 Citywide Creek Master Plan, Section 3.3.3 (Reference Appendix D) for consistency. The City’s design guidelines and standards for sidewalks are provided in the Santa Rosa Design Guidelines (2002) and the Santa Rosa Street Design and Construction Standards (2004). Recommendations for improving the pedestrian experience as a valuable form of transportation are provided in the Chapter 6 Design Guidelines and Best Practices.

Bicycle Facilities Santa Rosa is unique in its bicycle network in that its network is not defined by any one bikeway classification. Unlike Portland with its grid streets lending more to signed bike routes or Boulder, Colorado with its extensive bicycle paths, Santa Rosa’s bicycle network works best for its geography as a combination of all three classification types: Class I, II and III. Together all three make up Santa Rosa’s unique network, although some feel that bicycle lanes are safer, this is relative to the perception of the individual users of the road. “Safety issues about bike lanes depend heavily on where and how they are installed, and how bicyclists use them.”3 As emphasized in the California Highway Design Manual (HDM) “the designation of bikeways as Class I, II and III should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application.”

Types of Bicyclists The primary objective of the citywide bikeway network is to serve the needs of most types of bicyclists. There are many types of bicyclists with varying levels of skill and willingness to ride in traffic. These range from the experienced adult cyclist to the casual adult cyclist to the child cyclist. There are many gradations of cycling competency and confidence, and just as many opinions as to what makes an ideal bike route. For example, some experienced cyclists avoid separate bike paths, preferring to share the roads with cars. Other cyclists will ride in bike lanes only if parallel residential roads are unavailable. Children also have special needs. Children approximately ten years and older are capable of walking or riding a bike by themselves for more than a few blocks. Parents are most likely to allow their children to ride only on residential streets, and to cross regional street intersections when controlled by traffic signals. As their children get older, many parents will allow them to ride on busier streets with bike lanes. 3

3-6

John S. Allen, (Bicycle Skills Course Author), comment on apbp list server regarding “Cycle lanes encourage motorists to drive closer to bikes…” September 15, 2009

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

Transportation versus Recreation The bikeways of the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update do not distinguish between routes used primarily for transportation or recreation. Many routes, which at first appear to be primarily recreational, are indeed used for commuting or other transportation purposes, and vice-versa. Just as roadways are built and maintained for motorists without regard to trip purpose, all the recommended routes described in this plan should be considered important regardless of whether primarily used for transportation or recreation. It is acknowledged that some routes may be more often used for transportation than recreation or vice versa. This is accounted for in the prioritization criteria by the extra consideration given to projects that serve the downtown. It is also acknowledged that some funding sources are exclusively for transportation bicycle facilities. The multi-use paths included in this Plan provide a completely separate right of way for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians. Bicyclists in many cases would need to travel at reduced speeds to avoid colliding with walkers, joggers, and those on roller-blades, but may find that these paths provide improved commuting access to places of employment, and an enjoyable source of family-oriented recreational activity. However, if multi-use paths have a high pedestrian demand then the potential for bike-ped conflicts increases. When this occurs, the path should be widened to avoid conflict and assure the paths continue to be viable transportation routes for bicyclists as well as pedestrians.

BIKEWAY CLASSIFICATIONS Chapter 1000 of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual (HDM) describes three types of bicycle facilities (bikeways). The HDM definition is presented in Italics. (NOTE: At the time this BPMP was being updated, Caltrans was revising the HDM. The design standards for bicycle facilities may have moved from the current Chapter 1000 and additional design criteria and/or standards may have been added. Consult the latest version of the HDM for the latest information. Future versions of the BPMP should include these HDM revisions.). For reference, the existing HDM Chapter 1000 is included in Appendix B. In addition to the three standard bicycle facility roadway classifications discussed below, bicycle facilities include Bicycle Parking, Bicycle Detection, Multi-Modal Transit Access, and Private Showering/Changing Facilities. Class I Bike Path Provides a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized. Bike paths are an important component of every bikeway network. Some are long enough and well-located enough to provide a car-free environment for a large portion of a bicycling trip. Other bike paths are used to close gaps in a route such as connecting two dead-end roads or traversing parks. Bike paths are popular with casual bicyclists and families with children, and they can be popular with experienced bicyclists if well-designed and located conveniently to their route. However, their popularity with slow cyclists including families with children and non-bicyclists such as joggers, roller bladers, parents with baby strollers, people walking their dogs, etc., limits the usefulness of a bike path as a â&#x20AC;&#x153;transportation facilityâ&#x20AC;? to cyclists who ride 10 to 15 mph or faster and use the facility as a primary commuter route. Serious bicyclists can rarely ride as fast on a bike path as they can on city roads. This is due both to the

September 2010

3-7

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

design of the bike path and to the high numbers of slower users. For this reason, Class I designations are proposed in key City parks so that future improvements can be made to these corridors to improve them as transportation facilities for bicyclists while serving the needs of other users (See Figure 2-2 and the Bike Project lists—Tables 3-1 Bike Lanes and Routes and 3-2 Bike Paths). Bike paths should be designed in accordance with accepted design guidelines to account for all the other users. The width of the bike path should be increased depending on the numbers and stratification of the users. Class II Bike Lane Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. The bike lane is for the exclusive use of bicycles with certain exceptions: for instance, right-turning vehicles must merge into the bike lane prior to turning, and pedestrians are allowed to use the bike lane when there is no adjacent sidewalk (CVC 21966). Bike lanes should be used when traffic volumes exceed a certain threshold, e.g., 4,000 vehicles per day. Below this traffic volume, there should be adequate gaps in oncoming traffic for motor vehicles to safely pass bicyclists. The Highway Design Manual specifies the minimum width for bike lanes under three conditions: 1. Next to a curb - on-street parking allowed: minimum width is five feet where there is a vertical curb and the parking stalls are marked (or a continuous parking stripe is present). Where parking and/or turnover is infrequent and no parking stalls are marked, twelve feet is the minimum. With rolled curbs, the bike/parking lane may be eleven feet. 2. Next to a curb - on-street parking prohibited: minimum width is five feet with the proviso that there is at least 36 inches to the longitudinal joint where the asphalt meets the gutter pan. With a 24 inch gutter, the minimum bike lane width is five feet. 3. On roadways without curb and gutter - where infrequent parking is handled off the pavement: minimum width is four feet. It also states that, “for greater safety,” widths wider than the minimums should be provided “wherever possible.” Criteria for use of wider bike lanes are discussed in Chapter 6, Best Practices and Design Guidelines Section. Class II-Bike Lanes are not recommended on local streets, and would be counter productive on a local street as noted in the City’s Design Guidelines. 4 Class III Facilities/Bikeways Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. Class III bikeways are intended to provide continuity to the bikeway system and serve two purposes: 1) to establish through routes that are not served by Class I or II bikeways, and 2) to connect discontinuous segments of bikeways (normally bike lanes). The HDM also states that on-street Bike Routes should offer a higher degree of service than alternative streets, and provides six criteria for defining that higher degree 4

3-8

Santa Rosa Design Guidelines 2002, I.I Neighborhood Design, “II. Guidelines, B. Block and Street Pattern” p.I.1-5

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

of service. In the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide1 for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999, Class III bike facilities are called Signed Shared Roadway. Although the HDM does not present the minimum widths for Class III bikeway, as the acceptable width is dependent on many factors, the AASHTO Guide suggests a preferred width of 12 feet with 14 feet as generally recommended width for shared use in a wide curb lane.5 Class III bikeways have traditionally been used to designate anything from low volume residential roads that have no need for bike lanes to regional streets with heavy traffic volumes where widening to provide bike lanes would be infeasible. This plan recommends Class III bikeways for low volume or residential streets where bike lanes are not needed because traffic volumes are low and speeds are slow, or to connect discontinuous segments (gaps) of the bike network. Added street treatments should be considered where street widths may be less than desirable for a Class III Bike Route, but still preferred because it provides through and direct travel in bicycle demand corridors. Bicycle Boulevards: Three of the bike routes are recommended to be bicycle boulevards, i.e. local residential streets that form continuous routes across a good portion of the City. Bicycle boulevards make excellent routes for adults of all abilities and children as well. The City of Palo Alto pioneered the concept of a Bicycle Boulevard in 1982 when Bryant Street was redesigned to have low traffic and few STOP signs which helps bicyclists maintain travel speeds and reduce trip delays. A bicycle boulevard is now considered to be a low traffic volume street that has few STOP signs along the bike route and traffic control at regional intersections to help bicyclists cross. Some traffic calming may be needed in order to discourage motor vehicle traffic from diverting to the bicycle boulevard. Other improvements include route signing. The biggest changes are usually signals at regionals, the removal of unwarranted STOP signs, and traffic calming to replace the STOP signs, if necessary. To implement them, communities such as Palo Alto and Berkeley involved the neighborhoods to create bicycle boulevards, livable streets and traffic calming.

PEDESTRIAN AND BIKEWAY RECOMMENDATIONS The following tables describe the recommended bikeway network for the City of Santa Rosa. Since the Pedestrian Network is more established than the Bicycle Network, and because sidewalks are generally a requirement of new development, existing areas in need of sidewalk facilities are provided in Chapter 5 along with the prioritized bikeway projects. The existing and proposed bikeway class is given along with its location and limits in the Bicycle Project lists: Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Table 3-1 presents the on-street network (Class II and III) in two parts, NorthSouth and West-East directions of travel. Table 3-2 presents the off-street bike path network (Class I). These tables are located at the end of this chapter. The legend explaining the acronyms and markings used in these two tables is on page 3-12 of this chapter.

Philosophy For planning purposes, bike lanes have been recommended on all regional streets. Ideally, every regional street would contain bike lanes so that bicyclists can have the same circulation options and mobility as drivers of motor vehicles. High volume transitional streets, with sufficient right-of-way, would also ideally 5 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999,” p. 17

September 2010

3-9

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

have bike lanes, although most transitional streets in Santa Rosa are local transitional streets (transitional streets designed to local street standards) that serve smaller areas and generally have lower traffic volumes. Practically speaking, however, it is acknowledged that bike lanes will be difficult to implement in many places. These segments which may pose implementation challenges are identified in the Bicycle Project lists (Tables 3-1 and 3-2) with red boxes indicating the segments need further study and evaluation prior to implementation, or that are subject to another jurisdiction’s authority. It is important that the planning map (Figure 2-2 and 2-4) be reviewed in the context of the Bicycle Project lists at the end of this Chapter. These difficult to implement bikeways are nevertheless included in the Master Plan so that unforeseen future opportunities to provide bike lanes are not missed. For example if the Master Plan does not indicate that a bike lane is the preferred ultimate treatment for a particular street, then it may never happen. However, in keeping with the “Complete Streets” philosophy, every transportation project and new development needs to be evaluated for pedestrian and bicycle operations and facilities designed and constructed as appropriate. Keeping the “Complete Streets” concept in mind should also prevent missed opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle facilities from occurring. The feasibility of providing bike lanes was assessed for the fifteen high priority projects presented in Chapter 5. Implementation options for bike lanes in the other projects (in the projects list and not part of the high priority projects) will be considered in future plan updates or at that point in time when opportunities arise. The Master Plan also includes several Class III Bike Routes. Since the local street system of the City of Santa Rosa is not based on a grid system, it is difficult to rely on bike routes for much through travel. Nevertheless, bike routes do provide needed connections in several locations as noted above in the HDM. Future updates to the BPMP should consider reviewing the Class III network as necessary for additional complements to the existing bicycle network. A list of streets to evaluate as possible future complements to the overall network to form a “Class III Network” appear in the top 15 Bicycle Priority Projects.

Restriping of 4-Lane Roads (Road Diets) The 2001 BPMP suggested that a number of streets within Santa Rosa that could benefit from bicycle lanes have four vehicle travel lanes with no center turn lanes – the typical four-lane undivided cross-section. It noted that many of these corridors also include parking on one or both sides of the street and few, if any, of these types of streets have adequate right of way for 4-5 foot bicycle lanes without removing either parking or vehicle travel lanes. Two such streets, Summerfield Road and Hoen Avenue, that were approved by City of Santa Rosa Council back then, have been restriped to three lanes, one lane in each direction with a center left-turn lane and bike lanes. In addition, Calistoga Road was a former four-lane street that now has three lanes, a center turn lane and bike lanes. Sonoma Avenue from Santa Rosa Avenue east to Farmers Lane is scheduled to be restriped to the same road diet configuration. Though it might seem counterintuitive to reduce the number of vehicle travel lanes in order to regain space for a center turn lane and bicycle lanes, research6 has indicated that this type of configuration actually increases safety for all road users with minimal impacts to capacity. The main reasons why “four to three lane” conversions improve safety are slower travel speeds, left turn pockets, pedestrian crossings and the provision of bike lanes. Left-turn Pockets: This type of configuration also leads to increased safety because of the availability

of “refuges” for left-turning vehicles. When left turn lanes are not provided, there tends to be a high

3-10

See Appendix S for a list of references on this subject.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

occurrence of rear-end and sideswipe automobile collisions caused by vehicles waiting in travel lanes to turn left. If the corridor includes numerous driveways and access points, it may be appropriate to include a two-way left-turn lane (2WLTL) in the center of the street. If most left turn activity occurs at intersections or a few major driveways, a more appealing configuration would include a landscaped median in the center of the street with left turn pockets provided only at key locations. Travel Speeds: Travel speeds tend to be lower on streets with two lanes versus four lanes. The appearance

of a wide, unimpeded travelway tends to encourage motorists to drive at higher speeds, often overtaking slower drivers in the other lane. On two-lane roads with on-street parking, motorists tend to drive at more cautious speeds. Cautious drivers in essence set the predominant speed, since passing is not possible. Lower vehicle speeds and the presence of fewer vehicles exceeding the speed limit lead to increased safety not only for drivers, but also for pedestrians attempting to cross the street and bicyclists riding in traffic. Pedestrian Crossings: Another safety advantage is when pedestrians and bicyclists cross the street. When

crossing a typical four-lane undivided street, pedestrians and bicyclists are exposed to four lanes of moving traffic. The double threat – where the motorist in the outside lane stops for the pedestrian but the motorist in the inside lane does not - is unfortunately a common cause of pedestrian accidents. With a three-lane configuration, pedestrians and bicyclists are exposed to only one direction of traffic at a time plus they can use the turning lane as a refuge. Secondly, crossing distances are reduced so that pedestrians and bicyclists are exposed to traffic for less of their crossing time. Finally, pedestrian safety is also enhanced because of the bicycle lane “buffer,” which creates additional space between the sidewalk and travel lanes, particularly on streets that do not have on-street parking.

Bicycle Lanes: The ability to provide bike lanes results in improved safety for bicyclists. They are able to ride

further from traffic and are less likely to veer into the path of a vehicle, approaching from behind them, when avoiding road obstacles. Also, on streets with parking, they are able to ride further from the door zone.

Pedestrians on Multi-Use Paths Class I Bike Paths are sometimes referred to as multi-use paths because they are used by pedestrians and bicyclists and in some instances, equestrians. Existing and proposed Class I pathways are identified in the Bicycle Projects List (Table 3-2) and are depicted in Figures 2-2 and 2-4. Examples of multi-use paths include the Prince Memorial Greenway, the Brush Creek Pathway, the Santa Rosa Creek Pathway and the Joe Rodota Trail, and west county regional trails. Critical pedestrian issues with multi-use paths and pedestrian paths are providing connections to activity centers and neighborhoods and the proximity of pedestrian crossing facilities to the trail access point. In terms of pedestrian activity, the most important trail is the Prince Memorial Greenway, since it has the potential for attracting the most significant volume of pedestrians in the downtown area and provides another connection to the Railroad Square district. Where there are multi-use paths which terminate on a regional mid-block street between signalized intersections, a mid-block crossing treatment may be required if there is a need for pedestrians to cross at the location. Potential mitigation measures may include the addition of a median refuge and crosswalk, warning signs and flashers, such as the overhead flashing pedestrian warning sign that the City of Santa Rosa has used at other mid-block locations. The Citywide Creek Master Plan (CCMP) developed standards for crossing treatments for multi-use paths in its Section 3.3.4 “Trail Traffic and Transportation Design” standards. This section of the CCMP appears

September 2010

3-11

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

as Appendix T and should be consulted along with the appropriate Stormwater and Creek staff. The CCMP should also be consulted for any pedestrian or bicycle facilities planned on or near a creek system because the CCMP includes suggested off-street connections that are not necessarily included in this BPMP update. With new development along any multi-use path, the City of Santa Rosa should look for opportunities to provide direct access to the pathway from neighborhoods, schools and commercial districts as noted in the City’s 2002 Design Guidelines, Section 1-2 Street and Public Ways, II Street Categories & Types, “Trails.” It is important to consul the CCMP for any proposed pathways along waterways. The maps in Chapter 2 of the BPMP show the existing and proposed creek crossings. The source of these crossings is the CCMP. It is important to note that many of the waterways within the City limits that have room for access improvements are under the jurisdiction of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). Adjoining land may be owned by the SCWA, the City or privately held. Although it is recognized that the creek trail system serves as an important transportation facility for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as a multi-use recreational facility, the SCWA has strict requirements to maintain the highest possible habitat while fulfilling its mission to provide flood control. The CCMP also recognizes that “public access may be in conflict with wildlife habitat and other natural resources and processes. Access may be limited to one creek bank or excluded from certain areas for this reason.”7

3-12

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan 2007, p. 61

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

LEGEND NOTES on Project Lists

(hypen) in the segment column denotes link to a cross secting route--i.e. a = connection. (cc ROW 36') Curb to Curb Right-of-Way 36 feet BOLD Prioirty Segment CCMP Citywide Creek Master Plan CD Community Development Department CLOSED Trail or dirt road not open for public access DSASP Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EB East Bound ES East Side MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Bay Area) NB North Bound NS North Side O/C Overcrossing One-side Total one-side mileage, not part of a couplet, is "excluded in total miles" (e.g. Route 30,49 etc.) One-way Total one-way mileage, part of a couplet "included in total miles" (e.g. Route 41) RBP Regional Bicycle Plan (MTC) ROW Right of Way SB South Bound SHLD Shoulder SMART PATHWAY Connects to proposed SMART Class I pathway as opposed to crossing the tracks SMART RR TRACKS Crosses railroad tracks SS South Side SVC Road Service Road TAC Technical Advisory Committee Trail unpaved, or natural surface WB West Bound WS West Side -

Border Lines Entire route Other jurisdiction Link to another route or Winglet--a branch of the existing route (e.g. Rte 37) Requires further study

September 2010

3-13

Status

Proposed Class Existing Miles Miles

Proposed Miles

Page 1 of 35

Total Miles

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

Existing Class

Total Score

Techn nical Ease of Implementation

Page 1 of 35

--0.08 ------3.81 --3.81 --0.20 ----1 Class II --0.35 0.35 1 Class II --1.12 1.12 TOTAL MILES 3.81 1.47 5.28 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) 0.20 Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.08 Reference:

Total Miles

Class II --0.08 ----Class II --3.81 --3.81 Class II --0.20 ----19 --Class II --0.35 0.35 10 --Class II --1.12 1.12 TOTAL MILES 3.81 1.47 5.28 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 0.20 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.08 Reference:

4 2

1 1

4 2

1 1

Rank 0-5

2 1

Techn nical Ease of Implementation

4 2

3 1

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

1 1

SEBASTOPOL RD FINLEY AVE

Comm munity Interest

2 1

(35 MPH)

Curre ent Demand

3 1

Class II Class II Class II 19 --10 ---

Collis sion History

Rank 1-3

Northern CITY LIMITS (Wood Rd) HWY 12 SEBASTOPOL RD FINLEY AVE LUDWIG AVE

Proposed Miles

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

Total Score

Traffic c Volume

To Street Land Use

Northern CITY LIMITS (Wood Rd) HWY 12 SEBASTOPOL RD FINLEY AVE LUDWIG AVE

FRANCISCO AVE WOOD RD HWY 12

Existing Miles

From Street

S WRIGHT RD S WRIGHT RD

a b c d e

Proposed Class

Miles a FRANCISCO AVE b WOOD RD c HWY 12 d SEBASTOPOL RD e FINLEY AVE

FULTON RD FULTON RD (45 MPH) N WRIGHT RD (one-side SB)

Existing Class

Status Street

R t 01 (2001 Pl Route Plan))

To Street

Rank 0-5 (35 MPH)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

From Street

Rank 1-3 Segment

Segment

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Land Use

FULTON RD FULTON RD (45 MPH) N WRIGHT RD (one-side SB)

c Volume Traffic

R t 01 (2001 Plan) Pl ) Route

Curre ent Demand

S WRIGHT RD S WRIGHT RD

Comm munity Interest

3-14 Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

STONY POINT RD (NB) STONY POINT RD (45 MPH) STONY POINT RD (SB) STONY POINT RD (one-side NB) STONY POINT RD

STONY POINT RD (NB) STONY POINT RD STONY POINT RD (one-side SB)

MARLOW RD (40 MPH) STONY POINT RD STONY POINT RD STONY POINT RD STONY POINT RD STONY POINT RD STONY POINT RD (SB) STONY POINT RD (one-side NB) STONY POINT RD STONY POINT RD (one-side SB) STONY POINT RD (NB) STONY POINT RD (one-side SB)

Route 02 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o

PINER RD W COLLEGE AVE SANTA ROSA CREEK W 3RD ST JOE RODOTA PATHWAY SEBASTOPOL RD TROMBETTA ST TROMBETTA ST LAZZINI AVE MARBLE ST MARBLE ST CAMPBELL DR CAMPBELL DR GIFFEN AVE ROSELAND CREEK ROSELAND CREEK HEARN AVE BELLEVUE RANCH BELLEVUE RANCH MULEDEER LN

From Street

3 3 3

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

W COLLEGE AVE SANTA ROSA CREEK W 3RD ST JOE RODOTA PATHWAY SEBASTOPOL RD TROMBETTA ST LAZZINI AVE LAZZINI AVE MARBLE ST CAMPBELL DR CAMPBELL DR GIFFEN AVE GIFFEN AVE ROSELAND CREEK HEARN AVE HEARN AVE BELLEVUE RANCH MULEDEER LN MULEDEER LN BELLEVUE AVE

To Street

c Volume Traffic 5 5 5

Rank 0-5

4 3 3

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

4 3 3

Comm munity Interest

N-S Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

4 4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation

Proposed Class

Existing Miles

0.22 0.27 0.20

0.13 0.21 0 21

0.09

0.05

Page 2 of 35

0.25 4 80 4.80 n/a 0.70 0.00 Reference:

---

1.53 0.69 0.33 0.29 0.20 0.28 0 06 0.06

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

--1.53 ----0.69 --Class II 0.33 --0.29 --3 Class II --0.20 3 Class II --0.28 3 Class II --0 06 0.06 --0.06 ----0.05 ----0.09 --Class II --0.09 --0.13 Class II 0.13 --Class II --0.21 0 21 Class II --0.22 --SHLD Class II --0.22 SHLD Class II --0.27 SHLD Class II --0.20 Class II --0.20 --Class II --0.25 --TOTAL MILES 2 81 2.81 1 99 1.99 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Total Score Class II Class II --Class II 26 --24 --24 --Class II Class II Class II --Class II

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-15

From Street

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o

DUTTON AVE

DUTTON AVE (proposed extension) DUTTON AVE - South (Future Rd)** DUTTON AVE - South DUTTON AVE - South DUTTON AVE - South STANDISH AVE

HEARN AVE NORTHPOINT PKY EXT / TUXHORN DR DUTTON AVE - South (Future Rd) BELLEVUE AVE Southern CITY LIMITS W ROBLES AVE

SOUTH AVE

HOPPER AVE PINER RD W STEELE LN COFFEY LN & HERBERT LN GUERNEVILLE RD W COLLEGE AVE W 9TH ST W 3RD ST SEBASTOPOL RD

a SEBASTOPOL RD

COFFEY LN (CC ROW 40') COFFEY LN COFFEY LN GUERNEVILLE RD N DUTTON AVE N DUTTON AVE N DUTTON AVE DUTTON AVE DUTTON AVE

Route 04 (2001 Plan)

Route 03 (2001 Plan) CORPORATE CENTER PKY

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

DUTTON AVE (proposed extension) BELLEVUE AVE Southern CITY LIMITS W ROBLES / STANDISH AVE TODD RD

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

NORTHPOINT PKY EXT / TUXHORN DR

3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

2 3

Land Use 3

HEARN AVE

PINER RD W STEELE LN GUERNEVILLE RD N DUTTON AVE & WESTBERRY DR W COLLEGE AVE W 9TH ST W 3RD ST SEBASTOPOL RD SOUTH AVE

NORTHPOINT PKY

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

N-S Class II and III

5 5 5 5 5

2 2

Rank 0-5

2 4 4 4 3

2 2

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

3 4 5 5 3

3 3

Comm munity Interest

3-16 4

3 4 4 4 4

3 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 4

3 3 3 2 3

3 3

Total Score

Proposed Class

Existing Miles

0.68

Page 3 of 35

5.21 0.00 n/a 1.36 Reference:

0.68

3.50 1.71 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) g mileage g ( excluded in total miles)) One- side existing Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

-------------

---

0.77 --0.77 0.78 --0.78 0.33 --0.33 Link in Route 36 -segment c 0.50 --0.50 0.32 0.32 0 32 --0 32 0.55 --0.55 0.25 --0.25 0.45 0.45 0.31 0.09 0.51 0.34 0.18 0.50

Class II Class II Class II Class II Class II Class II

Class II

Class II Class II ----Class II Class II Class II Class II Class II

0.31 0.09 0.51 0.34 0.18 0.50

13 ------21 -------

25 ---

17 Class III 20 Class III Class II Class II 22 Class III 26 Class III 27 Class III 26 Class III 24 ---

1.45 1.45 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

--1.45 --TOTAL MILES 1.45 0.00 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Class II

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

September 2010 a b c d -

CLEVELAND AVE (ROW 62') 62 ) CLEVELAND AVE (ROW 52') CLEVELAND AVE CLEVELAND AVE CLEVELAND AVE

Route 06 (2001 Plan)

a b c d e f g h i j k l m

RANGE AVE RANGE AVE RANGE AVE RANGE AVE RANGE AVE RANGE AVE FRANCES ST CLEVELAND AVE CLEVELAND AVE CLEVELAND AVE WILSON ST RAILROAD ST OLIVE ST

Route 05 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

HOPPER AVE INDUSTRIAL DR W STEELE LN & GUERNEVILLE RD EDWARDS AVE FRANCES ST

PINER RD RUSSELL AVE PAULIN CREEK W STEELE LN EDWARDS AVE JENNINGS AVE BRIGGS AVE FRANCES ST CARRILLO ST LINCOLN ST 9TH ST 3RD ST SANTA ROSA CREEK

From Street

3 2 2

3 3 3

2 2 3 3

2 3 3

3 4 3 3

3 3 3 2

3 3 3 3

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

INDUSTRIAL DR W STEELE LN & GUERNEVILLE RD EDWARDS AVE FRANCES ST CARRILLO ST

RUSSELL AVE PAULIN CREEK W STEELE LN EDWARDS AVE JENNINGS AVE BRIGGS AVE / FRANCES ST CLEVELAND AVE CARRILLO ST LINCOLN ST 9TH ST 3RD ST SANTA ROSA CREEK SEBASTOPOL RD

To Street

c Volume Traffic 4 4 4 3

5 1 1

2 2 2

4 4 4 4

Rank 0-5

2 2 3 3

4 4 3

3 3 3

3 3 3 3

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

2 2 3 3

5 4 3

3 3 3

3 3 3 3

Comm munity Interest

N-S Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

3 3 3 3

4 3 3

3 3 3

3 4 4 3

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 3 4 3 3

2 3 3

4 3 3

2 5 3 2

Proposed Class

Existing Miles

-----------

0 29 0.29 0.28 0.89 0.45 1.91 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Page 4 of 35

Class II --0 29 0.29 Class II --0.28 Class II --0.89 Class II --0.45 Class II Link in Route 5-segment h TOTAL MILES 0.00 1.91 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) One Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

19 21 22 21

0.25 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.30 0 10 0.10 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.40 0.10 0.20 3.15 3 15 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

Class III Class II 0.25 --Classs III Class II 0.40 ----Class II --0.23 --Class II --0.30 --Class II --0.10 19 Class II --0.30 20 --Class II --0 10 0.10 20 --Class II --0.25 --Class II 0.20 --Class II 0.25 26 --Class III --0.40 20 --Class II --0.10 18 --Class II --0.20 TOTAL MILES 0.95 2.13 0 95 2 13 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Total Score 21 25 23 20

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-17

To Street

f g i

MENDOCINO AVE 7TH ST B ST 3RD ST

7TH ST 3RD ST SANTA ROSA AVE SONOMA AVE

a 4TH b 3RD ST

2 3

3 3 3 3

3 3 3

Land Use 3 3

2 2 2 3

3 3 3

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

COLLEGE AVE 4TH ST

j SONOMA AVE MAPLE AVE k MAPLE AVE COLGAN AVE l COLGAN AVE YOLANDA AVE m YOLANDA AVE BELLEVUE AVE Southern CITY LIMITS n BELLEVUE AVE TODD RD ROUTE 07 NORTH BOUND COUPLET - B STREET

MENDOCINO AVE (one-way NB) SANTA ROSA AVE (one-way NB)

SANTA ROSA AVE SANTA ROSA AVE SANTA ROSA AVE SANTA ROSA AVE SANTA ROSA AVE

From Street

a Northern CITY LIMITS FOUNTAINGROVE PKY b FOUNTAINGROVE PKY BICENTENNIAL WAY c BICENTENNIAL WAY STEELE LN & LEWIS RD d STEELE LN MCCONNELL AVE e MCCONNELL AVE COLLEGE AVE ROUTE 07 SOUTH BOUND COUPLET - B STREET

HEALDSBURG AVE (one (one-way way SB) B ST (one-way SB) 3RD ST SANTA ROSA AVE

MENDOCINO AVE MENDOCINO AVE MENDOCINO AVE MENDOCINO AVE

OLD REDWOOD HWY / MENDOCINO AVE

Route 07 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

N-S Class II and III

5 5

2 2 2 5

5 5 5

Rank 0-5

4 4

3 3 3 4

4 4 5

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

4 4

2 3 3 4

4 5 5

Comm munity Interest

3-18 4 4

2 3 3 4

4 5 5

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 2 2

2 2 2 2

3 3 3

Total Score Class III Class II Class II Class II SHLD

--Class III -----

0.43 0.72 0.43

0.79 0.43 0.72 0.43 0.63

Total Miles

1.02

0.36

0.36 0.74 0.55 0.79 1.02

Page 5 of 35

7.65 0 97 0.97 n/a 1.02 Reference:

0.74 --0.55 --0.79 ---

0 26 0.26 0 26 0.26 0.24 0.24 Link in Route 41-segment i 0.22 0.22

0.63 ---

0.79 ---

Proposed Miles

TOTAL MILES 3.50 4.15 Miles of one one-way way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

-----

---

-----

-------

Existing Miles

Bicycle Facilities

0.41 0.06

Class III Class III

Class II ------Class II

Class II Cl --Class II Class II

--Class II Class II Class II ---

Proposed Class

Miles

0.41 0.06

24 --25 ---

16 18 18 25

Class II 26 Class III 28 --29 --Class II

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

September 2010 From Street

To Street

--3 3 3 2

2 3 --2 2 2 1

1 2 ---

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

VENTURA AVE a BICENTENNIAL WAY ADMINISTRATION DR ADMINISTRATION DR b VENTURA AVE COUNTY CENTER DR COUNTY CENTER DR c ADMINISTRATION DR STEELE LN ILLINOIS ST/ARMORY DR (40 MPH) d STEELE LN ELLIOTT AVE ARMORY DR e ELLIOTT AVE Proposed Connector (Route 37) Proposed Connector (Route 37) - Proposed Connector (Route 37) BEAR CLUB WAY ARMORY DR - BEAR CUB WAY RIDGWAY AVE ARMORY DR f Proposed Connector (Route 37) RIDGWAY AVE RIDGWAY AVE g ARMORY DR MORGAN ST MORGAN ST h RIDGWAY AVE 9TH ST ROUTE 08 NORTHBOUND - ONLY - 3RD STREET MORGAN ST (ES) a 3RD ST 9TH ST

Route 08 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

c Volume Traffic 1 1 1 1

1 1

Rank 0-5

--2 2 3 2

2 2

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

--3 3 2 2

1 3

Comm munity Interest

N-S Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

--3 3 3 3

3 3

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

---

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 2 2 2 2

2 2

Total Score Class II

----Class II Class II Class II Class III Class III Class II Class II Class III

Proposed Class

---------

-----

0.23 0.32 0.17 0.50

0.63 0.31 0.03

Page 6 of 35

0.38 2.56 0.00 n/a 0.50 Reference:

0.31 0.03 Link in Route 37-segment h 0.23 0.32 0.17 0.50

-----

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

0.42 --0.08 --0.63 ---

Existing Miles

Miles

--0.38 --TOTAL MILES 1.00 1.56 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

12 16 --16 16 16 13

Class III Class III Class III ---------------

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-19

To Street

SPRING ST PACIFIC AVE PARSONS DR

1 1 2 1

2 2 2 1

Land Use

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

a FOUNTAINGROVE PKY PARKER HILL RD Proposed Bridge 56 (BENT TREE PL) b STAGE COACH RD b Proposed Bridge 56 LEET AVE c LEET AVE SLEEPY HOLLOW DR d SLEEPY HOLLOW DR CHANATE RD - PARKER HILL RD HIDDEN VALLEY DR e CHANATE RD PARSONS DR f HIDDEN VALLEY DR MONTECITO AVE g PARSONS DR PACIFIC AVE & BRYDEN LN h MONTECITO AVE & PACIFIC AVE ST HELENA AVE i BRYDEN LN SPENCER AVE ROUTE 09 NORTHBOUND - ONLY - ELIZABETH WAY

From Street

SPENCER AVE - ST HELENA AVE SPRING ST/ELIZABETH WY (NB only l a SPENCER AVE ELIZABETH WY (NB only) b PACIFIC AVE

STAGE COACH RD PARKER HILL RD PARKER HILL RD PARKER HILL RD PARKER HILL RD CHANATE RD HIDDEN VALLEY DR PARSONS DR MONTECITO AVE BRYDEN LN ST HELENA AVE

Route 09 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

N-S Class II and III

Rank 0-5

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

Comm munity Interest

3-20 2

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 5

Total Score -------

--Class II --Class II --Class III --Class III

Class III

Proposed Class

---

Proposed Miles

1 15 1.15 0.34 0.17 0.05 0.11

0.02 0.15 0.23 0.20 0.40

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

0.02 0.15 0.23 0.20 --0.40 --Link in Route 34-segment d 1 15 --1.15 0.34 --0.17 0.05 --0.11

Existing Miles

Miles

Page 7 of 35

Class III Link in Route 37-segment i Class --0.13 0.13 Cl III 0 13 0 13 Class III --0.21 0.21 2.52 0.64 3.15 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference: BPAB NB segment 'a-c'

--Class I Class I Class II Class III Class II Class III Class II --Class III ---

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

HUMBOLDT ST HUMBOLDT ST HUMBOLDT ST HUMBOLDT ST HUMBOLDT ST 5TH ST D ST D ST RAE ST PARK PATHWAY BROWN ST WHEELER ST E ST / SOUTH "E" ST SOUTH "E" ST SOUTH "E" E ST SOUTH HENDLEY ST

Route 10 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n

CHANATE RD MERVYN AVE LEWIS RD PACIFIC AVE COLLEGE AVE HUMBOLDT ST 5TH ST 3RD ST D ST & SONOMA AVE RAE ST PARK PATHWAY BROWN ST COLLEGE AVE & KING ST WHEELER ST BENNETT VALLEY RD SOUTH "E" ST

From Street

2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 2

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

MERVYN AVE LEWIS RD PACIFIC AVE COLLEGE AVE 5TH ST D ST 3RD ST SONOMA AVE BROWN ST WHEELER ST SOUTH "E" ST WHEELER ST BENNETT VALLEY RD SOUTH HENDLEY ST ASTON AVE

To Street

c Volume Traffic 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 0 1 2 3 2 2 2

Rank 0-5

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3

Comm munity Interest

N-S Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 4 4

----------------------------Class II

Existing Miles

Class II --BIKE BLVD --BIKE BLVD --BIKE BLVD --BIKE BLVD --Class III --Class III --Class III --Pathway --Class III --Class III --Class II Class II --Class II -----

Proposed Class

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

Page 8 of 35

0.09 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.06 0 10 0.10 0 10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.35 0.35 Link in Route 19-segment a 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.07 0 07 0 07 0.43 --0.43 0.43 2.92 3.35 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference:

Total Score 18 19 19 20 20 21 24 24 12 15 20 22 20 21 21

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-21

FARMERS LN FARMERS LN EXTENSION FARMERS LN EXTENSION YOLANDA AVE

Route 12 (2001 Plan)

NORTH ST NORTH ST NORTH ST BROOKWOOD AVE BROOKWOOD AVE BROOKWOOD AVE BROOKWOOD AVE ASTON AVE (Allan Way) LINWOOD AVE BROOKWOOD AVE (SB) BROOKWOOD AVE (one-side NB) BROOKWOOD AVE

FRANKLIN AVE FRANKLIN AVE (majority)

Route 11 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a b c d

a b c d e f g h i j k l m

HOEN FRONTAGE RD BENNETT VALLEY RD COLGAN CREEK PETALUMA HILL RD

MERVYN AVE LEWIS RD FRANKLIN AVE PACIFIC AVE 15TH ST COLLEGE AVE 3RD ST SONOMA AVE MAPLE AVE BROOKWOOD AVE ASTON AVE (Allan Way) LINWOOD AVE LINWOOD AVE TOKAY ST

From Street

2 1 1

3 2 2

1 1 3

Land Use

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

SANTA ROSA AVE

PETALUMA HILL RD / YOLANDA AVE

BENNETT VALLEY RD COLGAN CREEK

LEWIS RD NORTH ST PACIFIC AVE 15TH ST COLLEGE AVE 3RD ST SONOMA AVE MAPLE AVE ASTON AVE (Allan Way) SOUTH HENDLEY ST BROOKWOOD AVE TOKAY ST TOKAY ST KAWANA SPRINGS RD

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

N-S Class II and III

1 1

Rank 0-5

2 2

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

3 3 3

3 3

Comm munity Interest

3-22 4 4 4

3 3

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 5 5 3

3 3

Proposed Class

Existing Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

0.19 1.07 0.84 0.50 2.61 0.00 0 40 0.40 0.00 Reference:

Page 9 of 35

--0.19 --Class II --1.07 Class II --0.84 Class II --0.50 TOTAL MILES 0.19 2.42 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) One Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Class II 13 --13 --20 ---

Class II --0.18 0.18 --0.45 --0.45 --0.30 --0.30 --0.25 --0.25 --0.28 --0.28 Class II --0.08 0.08 --0 30 --0.30 0 30 0.30 Class II 0.40 --0.40 Class II 0.50 --0.50 Class II Link in Route 47-segment c Class II --0.10 0.10 Class II --0.40 0.40 --0.40 ----Class II 0.11 0.11 --0 11 0 11 2.48 0.86 3.34 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) 0.40 Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference:

Total Score 15 --Class II 16 Class II Class II Class II 20 --Class II 20 Class III --15 Class III 15 ----Class II 15 ---

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

September 2010 a b c d e f

YULUPA AVE YULUPA AVE YULUPA AVE YULUPA AVE YULUPA AVE BENNETT VALLEY RD

YULUPA CIR MONTGOMERY DR SONOMA AVE SPRING CREEK DR DOUGLAS DR BENNETT VALLEY RD

a MONTGOMERY DR

Route 14 (2001 Plan) HAHMAN DR

Route 15 (2001 Plan)

a b c d

SANTA ROSA AVE PRESSLEY ST COLGAN AVE YOLANDA AVE

From Street

PETALUMA HILL RD PETALUMA HILL RD PETALUMA HILL RD PETALUMA HILL RD**

Route 13 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

2 2

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

MONTGOMERY DR SONOMA AVE SPRING CREEK DR DOUGLAS DR BENNETT VALLEY RD Southern CITY LIMITS

HOEN AVE

PRESSLEY ST COLGAN AVE YOLANDA AVE Southern CITY LIMITS (Hill Rd)

To Street

c Volume Traffic 2

Rank 0-5

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

Comm munity Interest

N-S Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation

---

0.16

Proposed Miles

0.50 --0.60 ---

Existing Miles

Class III Class III --23 Class III 0 Class II 20 ---

--0.60 --0.60 0.00 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 19 Class III

Page 10 of 35

0.16 0 20 0.20 0.23 0.50 1.46 0.18 2.73 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

0.60 0.60 0.00 0 00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

0.16 0.50 0.60 0.32 1.58 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Class II --0.32 TOTAL MILES 1.10 0.48 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

TBD ---

Proposed Class

Miles

--0.16 --Class II 0 20 --0.20 Class II --0.23 3 Class II 0.50 ----1.46 --3 Class II --0.18 TOTAL MILES 2.32 0.41 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) One Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Total Score --Class II Class II 20 ---

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-23

BADGER RD

3 3

Land Use 2

2 3

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

MONTECITO BLVD & BEAUMONT WAY

a BADGER RD MONTECITO BLVD & BEAUMONT WAY b MONTECITO BLVD & BEAUMONT WAY SONOMA HWY

(NB)

CALISTOGA RD CALISTOGA RD

MONTECITO BLVD SONOMA HWY

MONTGOMERY DR SUMMERFIELD RD HOEN AVE CARISSA AVE / BROOKSHIRE CIR BETHARDS DR

Route 18 (2001 Plan) CALISTOGA RD (one-side SB)

MONTECITO BLVD MISSION BLVD MONTGOMERY DR HOEN AVE CARISSA AVE / BROOKSHIRE CIR

To Street

a BADGER RD b MONTECITO BLVD

a b c d

From Street

MIDDLE RINCON RD MIDDLE RINCON RD

Route 17 (2001 Plan)

MISSION BLVD MONTGOMERY DR SUMMERFIELD RD SUMMERFIELD RD SUMMERFIELD RD

Route 16 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

N-S Class II and III

3 5

Rank 0-5

3 4

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

3 4

Comm munity Interest

3-24 3

4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 2

3 2

Proposed Class

Existing Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

---

0.30 ---

0.30 1.07 1.37 0.00 0.30 0 00 0.00 Reference:

---

0.44 0.96 0 96 1.40 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Page 11 of 35

Class II 0.30 ----1.07 --TOTAL MILES 1.37 0.00 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions jurisditions, excluded from Total

18 Class III Class II

Class II

--0.44 --0.96 Class II --0 96 TOTAL MILES 0.44 0.96 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Class II 21 ---

Class II 0.21 --0.21 Class II Link in Route 41-segment q --0.98 --0.98 Class II 0.42 --0.42 --0.54 --0.54 TOTAL MILES 2.15 0.00 2.15 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0 00 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference:

Total Score 21 Class III 25 Class III Class II Class III Class II

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

FRANQUETTE AVE FRANQUETTE AVE FRANQUETTE AVE

Route 21 (2001 Plan)

1ST ST A ST (one-way SB)

Route 20 (2001 Plan)

E ST E ST / SOUTH "E" ST SOUTH "E" ST

Route 19 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a MONTGOMERY DR b SPRING CREEK Bridge c SPRING CREEK Bridge

a B ST b 1ST ST

a COLLEGE AVE & KING ST b SONOMA AVE - WHEELER ST

From Street

2 2

3 3

2 2

3 3

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

SPRING CREEK SPRING CREEK Bridge HOEN AVE

A ST SANTA ROSA AVE

SONOMA AVE WHEELER ST BENNETT VALLEY RD

To Street

c Volume Traffic 2

3 3

Rank 0-5

3 3

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

4 4

Comm munity Interest

N-S Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 5

3 3

Total Score

Class II Class II

Proposed Class

-----

Proposed Miles

Class III

--0.05

0.40

0.40 0.05 0.30 0.75 0.00 0.30 0.00 Reference:

0.10 0.54 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reference:

0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 R f Reference:

Page 12 of 35

Class III --0.30 TOTAL MILES 0.05 0.70 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

20 --Bridge 20 ---

Class II --0.10 --0.54 --0.54 0.10 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

23 --23 Class II

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

0 51 0 51 0.51 0.51 0.27 0.27 Link in Route 10-segment l

Existing Miles

Miles

0.00 0.78 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

22 --22 ---

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-25

a 9TH ST b 7TH ST

DAVIS ST 1 DAVIS ST (one-way WS)

Route 23 (2001 Plan)

From Street

JENNINGS AVE W. COLLEGE CLOVER DR LINK LN TROWBRIDGE ST UMLAND DR HEWITT ST FLORENCE ST

a b c d e f g h

CLOVER DR CLOVER DR LINK LN TROWBRIDGE ST UMLAND DR HEWITT ST FLORENCE ST DUNCAN ST

Route 22 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

7TH ST 3RD ST 3

3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

Land Use 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

DUTTON AVE /S.R. CREEK ACCESS

W. COLLEGE AVE LINK LN TROWBRIDGE ST UMLAND DR HEWITT ST FLORENCE ST DUNCAN ST

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

N-S Class II and III

2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Rank 0-5

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 3

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

--20 ---

-----------------

Existing Class

Proposed Class

Status

Existing Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

Class III --0.37 0.37 Class III --0.38 --Class III --0.38 0.38 Class III --0.11 0.11 Class III --0.06 0.06 Class III --0.09 0.09 Class III --0 05 0.05 0 05 0.05 Class III --0.08 0.08 TOTAL MILES 0.00 1.14 1.14 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.38 Reference:

18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

Total Score

Page 13 of 35

Class III --0.17 0.17 Class II --0.23 0.23 0.00 0.40 0.40 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.23 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions jurisditions, excluded from Total 0 00 0.00 1 Reference: Segment modified by Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (10/9/2007) p. 6-11 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

Comm munity Interest

3-26 Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

September 2010 a b c d

FULTON RD SAN MIGUEL AVE FRANCISCO AVE PINERCREST DR

From Street

a SEBASTOPOL RD b FINLEY AVE

Route 203 | Proposed 2008 MIG/WTrans | Added 2001 - 2006 BRITTAIN LN a W 3RD ST

FRESNO AVE Proposed Connector

Route 202 | Proposed 2008 MIG/WTrans | (Formerly Route 53 in 2001 BPMP)

FRANCISCO AVE FRANCISCO AVE 2 PINERCREST DR PETERSON LN 2

Route 201 | Proposed 2008 MIG/WTrans |

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

1 1

3 3 3 3

1 1

2 2 2 2

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

OCCIDENTAL RD

FINLEY AVE NORTHPOINT PKY

SAN MIGUEL AVE PINERCREST DR PETERSON LN PINER RD

To Street

c Volume Traffic 1 1

2 2 2 2

Rank 0-5

2 2

3 3 3 3

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

2 2

4 4 4 4

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 2 2

3 3 3 3

Existing Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

0 41 0.41 0.41 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

0.34 0.47 0.81 0 81 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Page 14 of 35

--0 41 --0.41 0.41 0.00 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Class II

Class II --0.34 Class II --0.47 TOTAL MILES 0.00 0.81 0 00 0 81 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

---------

Proposed Class

Status

Existing Class

11 --11 ---

22 22 22 22

Total Score

Class II --1.00 1.00 Class III --0.24 0.24 Class III --0.12 0.12 Class III --0.16 0.16 TOTAL MILES 0.00 1.52 1.52 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 2 Reference: Segments proposed by MIG /WTrans to complete roadway connections

5 5 5 5

Comm munity Interest

N-S Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-27

From Street

a SEBASTOPOL RD - STONY POINT RD

a SEBASTOPOL RD b SOUTH AVE

CALISTOGA RD CALISTOGA RD

a SONOMA HWY b Proposed Connector

Route 207 | Proposed 2008 MIG/WTrans | Suggested 2008 Public

WEST AVE WEST AVE

Route 205 | Proposed 2008 MIG/WTrans |

BURBANK AVE HEARN AVE

Route 204 | Proposed 2008 MIG/WTrans | Added 2001 - 2006

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

2 2

3 3

Land Use 1 0

2 2

1 0

2 2

Rank 0-5

2 1

3 3

2 2

3 3

3 1

4 4

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 5 1

2 2

Proposed Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Class II Class II

-----

0.54 0.53 ---

0.54

16 --7 ---

Class III Cl Class I

-----

0 20 0.20 0.06

TOTAL MILES 0.00 1.07 0.54 0 00 1 07 0 54 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.53 3 Reference: City LIMITS extend 494 ft south of SOUTH AVE

19 --19 ---

---

Existing Miles

Miles

0.96 --Link in Route 49-segment a 0.00 0.96 0.00 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.96 R f Reference:

Class II

Proposed Class

Status

Existing Class

20 ---

Total Score

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

Page 15 of 35

0.00 0.26 0.26 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.20 4 Reference: General Plan Fig. 5-1; "Proposed Connector" referrenced because it's not clear if CALISTOGA RD will pass through or simply be a ped/bike bridge.

P Proposed dC Connector t 4 MONTGOMERY DR

SOUTH AVE 3 HEARN AVE

HEARN AVE SMART RR TRACKS

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

N-S Class II and III

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

Comm munity Interest

3-28 Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

RUSSELL AVE HARDIES LN HARDIES LN

Route 330 | Proposed BPAB a RANGE AVE b RUSSELL AVE c PAULIN CREEK

2 2 2 2 2

c Volume Traffic

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

HARDIES LN PAULIN CREEK W STEELE LN

S DAVIS ST HEARN AVE CORBY AVE EXTENSION DOWD DR DOWD DR / WILJAN CT BELLEVUE AVE

CORBY AVE EARLE ST HEARN AVE CORBY AVE CORBY AVE EXTENSION DOWD DR / WILJAN CT

Route 209 | Proposed 2008 MIG/Wtrans EARLE ST CORBY AVE a CORBY AVE b CORBY AVE EXTENSION c DOWD DR d WILJAN CT e

To Street

BELLEVUE AVE

From Street

Route 208 | Proposed 2008 MIG/Wtrans DUTTON MEADOW a HEARN AVE

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

2 2 2 2 2

Curre ent Demand

Rank 0-5

2 2 2 2 2

Comm munity Interest

Rank 1-3

3 3 3 3 3

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

N-S Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

5 5 5 5 5

Techn nical Ease of Implementation

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Proposed Class

Existing Miles

0 11 0.11 0.42 0.21 0.74 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Page 16 of 35

Class III --0 11 0.11 Class III --0.42 Class III --0.21 0.00 0.74 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

-------

-------------

Class III Link in Route 236-segment c Class III --1.04 1.04 Class III --0.10 0.10 Class III --0.14 0.14 Class III --0.54 0.54 Class III 0.21 0.21 --0 21 0 21 TOTAL MILES 0.00 2.03 2.03 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference: 18 18 18 18 18

0.86 0.86 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

Class II 0.86 0.00 0.86 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Total Score 18 ---

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-29

a b c -

Route 334 | Ducker Creek (ES) CULEBRA AVE ACACIA LN ACACIA LN Santa Rosa Creek (NS) BENICIA DR SORRENTO WAY SORRENTO WAY SONOMA HWY 12 MISSION BLVD

a FARMERS LN b TACHEVAH DR

From Street

Route 332 | BENNETT VALLEY RD BENNETT VALLEY RD

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

1 1 2

Land Use 0 0 1

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

CULEBRA AVE/ SORRENTO WAY ACACIA LN SONOMA HWY 12 Santa Rosa Creek (NS) ACACIA LN

TACHEVAH DR BETHARDS DR

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

N-S Class II and III

0 0 1

Rank 0-5

4 4 2

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

5 5 4

Comm munity Interest

3-30 4 4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 2 2 3

Total Score

Proposed Class

Existing Miles

Trail Class III Class III Class III

-------

Page 17 of 35

Link to Route 65-segment d 0.06 0.06 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.10 Link to Route 69-segment v TOTAL MILES 0.00 0.58 0.58 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference:

--16 --16 --17 ---

0.76 0.33 0.76 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

Class II --0.76 Class II --0.33 TOTAL MILES 0.00 0.76 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

-----

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

September 2010 To Street

2 2

1 1

c Volume Traffic

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

DOYLE PARK ENTRANCE (Spring Creek)

DOYLE PARK DR

W. 3RD ST

DOYLE PARK ENTRANCE (Spring Creek) HOEN AVE DOYLE PARK ENTRANCE (Spring Creek) VALLEJO ST

4TH ST TALBOT AVE

a b c

TALBOT AVE DOYLE PARK DR DOYLE PARK ENTRANCE DOYLE PARK ENTRANCE

Route 337 |

a Santa Rosa Creek (NS)

From Street

Route 336 | IMWALLE ST

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

1 1

2 2

Curre ent Demand

Rank 0-5

1 1

Comm munity Interest

Rank 1-3

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

North - South Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

2 2

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 3 5

Total Score

Class III

Proposed Class

---

Existing Miles

0.64

Proposed Miles

Miles

0.64

Total Miles

Page 18 of 35

12 --Cl Class III --0 15 0.15 0 15 0.15 14 --Class III --0.43 0.43 PATHWAY Class I Link in Route 44-segment a PATHWAY Class I 0.30 0.30 TOTAL MILES 0.30 0.58 0.88 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a j Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference:

TOTAL MILES 0.00 0.64 0.64 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (10/9/2007)

---

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-31

WALLACE RD BADGER RD BADGER RD BADGER RD CALISTOGA RD (one-way)

Route 31 (2001 Plan)

HOPPER AVE HOPPER AVE HOPPER AVE HOPPER AVE CLEVELAND AVE

Route 30 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a b c d -

Northern N th CITY LIMITS WALLACE RD & BRUSH CREEK RD MIDDLE RINCON RD BAIRD RD BADGER RD

AIRWAY DR (EB) HOPPER AV

BARNES RD COFFEY LN AIRWAY DR (One-Side WB)

From Street

1 3 3

Land Use 1 2 2

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

MONTECITO BLVD & BEAUMONT WAY

BADGER RD MIDDLE RINCON RD BAIRD RD CALISTOGA RD

COFFEY LN AIRWAY DR CLEVELAND AVE CLEVELAND AVE INDUSTRIAL DR

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

W-E Class II and III

1 2 2

Rank 0-5

1 4 4

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

1 4 4

Comm munity Interest

3-32 2 4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

1 3 3

Class

Proposed

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 19 of 35

Class --0.20 0.20 Cl III 0 20 0 20 Class II 0.25 --0.25 Class II 0.26 --0.26 --0.47 --0.47 --Link in Route 18-segment a TOTAL MILES 0.98 0.20 0.98 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Onen/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference:

8 --22 Class III 22 Class III Class II Class II

--20 Class III Class II 20 -----

Total Score

Class III --0.51 0.51 Class II 0.49 --0.49 --0.15 ----4 Class II 0.15 --0.15 Class II Link in Route 6-segment a TOTAL MILES 0 64 0.64 0 00 0.00 1 15 1.15 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) 0.15 Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference:

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 4

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

HANSEN DR JACK LONDON DR Foot Path up to Tanglewood Park Foot Path thruTanglewood Park MONTE VERDE DR MONTE VERDE DR SAN RAMON WAY MOUNTAIN HAWK DR

Route 33 (2001 Plan)

PINER RD PINER RD COFFEY LN PINER RD RANGE AVE BICENTENNIAL WAY

Route 32 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a b c d e f g j

a b c d

MIDDLE RINCON RD HANSEN DR JACK LONDON DR OAK LAKE AVE GARFIELD PARK AVE CALISTOGA RD MONTE VERDE DR SAN RAMON WAY

FULTON RD PINERCREST DR & MARLOW RD PINER RD COFFEY LN PINER RD RANGE AVE

From Street

1 1 0 0 1 1

3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 2

3 3

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

JACK LONDON DR KLONDIKE CT OAK LAKE AVE GARFIELD PARK AVE CALISTOGA RD SAN RAMON WAY MOUNTAIN HAWK DR SONOMA HWY

PINERCREST DR & MARLOW RD COFFEY LN W STEELE LN CLEVELAND AVE RUSSELL AVE MENDOCINO AVE

To Street

c Volume Traffic 1 1 0 0 0 1

4 3

5 2

Rank 0-5

1 1 1 1 1 1

3 4

4 2

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 5

4 3

Comm munity Interest

W-E Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

2 2 1 1 2 2

3 4

4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

5 5 3 3 5 5

Class

Proposed

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

------------Class III Class III

Page 20 of 35

Class III --0.25 --Class III --0.05 0.05 Class I --0.37 0.37 Class I --0.10 0.10 Class III --0.06 0.06 Class III --0.99 0.99 --0.24 --0.24 --0.55 --0.55 0.79 1.57 2.36 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.25 Reference:

14 14 9 9 13 14

Class II 26 --19 ----21 --23 Class III

Total Score

--1.00 --1.00 Class II --0.40 0.40 Link in Route 04-segment b Class II Class II --0.85 0.85 2 Class II Link in Route 5-segment a 1 Class II 0.52 --0.52 TOTAL MILES 1 52 1.52 1 25 1.25 2 77 2.77 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 1.00 Reference:

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 3 3

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-33

MONTECITO MEADOW DR

b HUMBOLDT ST/BELVEDERE WY c d e f g g

a PARKER HILL RD

CHANATE RD

CHANATE RD FOUNTAINGROVE PKY MONTECITO BLVD MONTECITO BLVD MONTECITO AVE MONTECITO AVE

Route 35 (2001 Plan) FOUNTAINGROVE PKY CHANATE RD

3 3

Land Use 3 3

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

FOUNTAINGROVE PKY BRUSH CREEK RD MISSION BLVD MIDDLE RINCON RD BERRY CREEK PL /BAIRD RD CALISTOGA RD

a MENDOCINO AVE MONTECITO MEADOW DR CHANATE RD BRUSH CREEK RD MISSION BLVD MIDDLE RINCON RD BERRY CREEK PL /BAIRD RD

HUMBOLDT ST

-- VENTURA AVE

MENDOCINO AVE

To Street

CHANATE RD

From Street

ADMINISTRATION DR

Route 34 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

W-E Class II and III

3 3

Rank 0-5

3 3

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

3 3

Comm munity Interest

3-34 4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation Class II 22 Class III 22 Class III Class II Class III

Class II

23 ---

24 Class III

Total Score

Class II

---

Class II

Class

Proposed

--1.27 ---

0.60

0.27

Proposed Miles

0.28 ---

Existing Miles

Miles

1.89 1.89 n/a n/a 0.00 Reference:

0.60 0.50 0 20 0.20 0.30 0.31 0.59 4.04 n/a n/a 0.28 0 28 Reference:

1.27

0.27

0.28

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 21 of 35

--1.89 --TOTAL MILES 1.89 0.00 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Class II

0.50 --3 Class II 0 20 --0.20 3 Class II 0.30 ----0.31 --Class II 0.59 --TOTAL MILES 3.17 0.87 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions jurisditions, excluded from Total

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

GUERNEVILLE RD GUERNEVILLE RD GUERNEVILLE RD GUERNEVILLE RD STEELE LN STEELE LN LEWIS RD LEWIS RD CC ROW 36'

Route 36 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a b c d e f g h

Peterson / Forestview Creeks Western CITY LIMITS FULTON RD RANGE AVE CLEVELAND AVE & W STEELE LN COUNTY CENTER DR & ILLINOIS ST MENDOCINO AVE HUMBOLDT ST

From Street

3 3 3 2

COUNTY CENTER DR & ILLINOIS ST

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

MENDOCINO AVE HUMBOLDT ST FRANKLIN AVE

3 3

1 1

Western CITY LIMITS FULTON RD RANGE AVE CLEVELAND AVE & W STEELE LN

To Street

c Volume Traffic 5 4 2 2

2 2

Rank 0-5

5 5 5 4

4 4

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

5 5 5 4

4 4

Comm munity Interest

W-E Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

5 5 5 4

4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 3 3 3 5

5 5

Class

Proposed

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 22 of 35

Class II --0.33 --Class II --0.25 0.25 --2.20 --2.20 Class II --0.24 0.24 Class II --0.20 0.20 Class II --0.41 0.41 Class II --0.17 0.17 Class II --0.11 0.11 TOTAL MILES 2.20 1.39 3.59 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.33 Reference:

Total Score 23 --23 --Class II --29 --28 --26 --23 ---

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-35

d SMART RR Xing e RANGE AVE f g h i j k l m n o p

Proposed Connector

JENNINGS AVE

HWY 101 Ped/Bike Over Crossing BEAR CUB WAY PACIFIC AVE SPENCER AVE MORLEY WAY 4TH ST 4TH ST / SONOMA HWY SONOMA HWY SONOMA HWY SONOMA HWY SONOMA HWY

ARMORY DR MENDOCINO AVE HUMBOLDT ST PROCTOR DR / MORLEY WY BRYDEN LN FARMERS LN VILLAGE PKY / STREAMSIDE DR MISSION BLVD MELITA RD OAKMONT DR PYTHIAN RD

CLEVELAND AVE

RANGE AVE

JENNINGS AVE via EXETER DR N DUTTON AVE SMART RR Xing

3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3

3 2 2

2 2

3 3 3

2 3

Land Use

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

ROUTE 37 WEST BOUND COUPLET - via CLYDE AVENUE a BRYDEN LN CLYDE AVE b 4TH ST PROCTOR DR / MORLEY WY c CLYDE AVE SPENCER AVE

CLEVELAND AVE ARMORY DR MENDOCINO AVE HUMBOLDT ST SPENCER AVE / PROCTOR DR BRYDEN LN FARMERS LN VILLAGE PKY / STREAMSIDE DR MISSION BLVD MELITA RD OAKMONT DR

a W COLLEGE AVE b EXETER DR c N DUTTON AVE

4TH ST CLYDE AVE PROCTOR DR

To Street

ROUTE 37 WINGLET - via ZINFANDEL AVENUE a PINER CREEK PATHWAY ZINFANDEL AVE b Proposed Connector GAMAY ST c ZINFANDEL AVE JENNINGS AVE

From Street

PUTNEY DR JENNINGS AVE JENNINGS AVE

Proposed Connector ZINFANDEL AVE GAMAY ST

Route 37 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

W-E Class II and III

3 3 3

3 4 4 4 4 4

2 2 4

1 1

Rank 0-5

4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 5 4

3 3

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5

4 4

Comm munity Interest

3-36 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5

4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 3 3 3

3 4 4 4 4 2

0 5 3

5 5

Total Score

-------

---

Class I Class III Class II Cl Class III Class III Class II Class II Class II Class II Class II Class II

-----------

-----

---

BIKE BLVD ---

Class I

0.50 ---

0.35

0.20 0.33 2.42 1 83 1.83 1.61

0.81 0.06

0.16 0 16 0.81 0.06 0.50

0.35

Page 23 of 35

0.07 0.12 0.08 4 18 4.18 n/a n/a 7.32 Reference:

-----------

0.31 --0.49 ---

0.41 1 30 1.30 0.07

0.07 0.16 0.02

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

0.13 ---

0.41 1 30 1.30 0.07

0.07 0.16 0.02

Proposed Miles

0.16 0 16 ---

Existing Miles

Class III --BIKE BLVD --BIKE BLVD ---

Class I Class III Class III

Class

Proposed

Miles

Class II --0.07 Class III --0.12 Class III --0.08 TOTAL MILES 0 66 0.66 3 52 3.52 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

25 --25 --25 ---

22 --27 --26 Class Cl III ----25 Class III 27 --27 --27 --27 --25 ---

22 ---

--21 --22 ---

-------

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

September 2010 a b c c d e f g h i j k

W 9TH ST W 9TH ST W 9TH ST (one side WB) (one-side

W 9TH ST (EB) 9TH ST WILSON ST A ST 7TH ST 7TH ST 7TH ST 7TH ST BEAVER ST CHERRY ST

Route 39 (2001 Plan)

a b c e

W COLLEGE AVE W COLLEGE AVE W COLLEGE AVE COLLEGE AVE

Route 38 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

STONY POINT RD LINK LN DONAHUE ST DONAHUE ST SMART RR TRACKS / PATHWAY W 9TH ST W 9TH ST A ST B ST MENDOCINO AVE HUMBOLDT ST 7TH ST BEAVER ST

FULTON RD STONY POINT RD & MARLOW RD SMART PATHWAY MENDOCINO AVE

From Street

3 2 2 2

3 3 3

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

LINK LN DONAHUE ST SMART RR TRACKS SMART RR TRACKS A ST 3RD ST 7TH ST B ST MENDOCINO AVE HUMBOLDT ST BEAVER ST CHERRY ST E ST

STONY POINT RD & MARLOW RD SMART RR TRACKS MENDOCINO AVE 4TH ST

To Street

c Volume Traffic 2 2 3

3 5 5

Rank 0-5

4 4 4

4 5 4

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

4 5 4

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 4

4 2 2

Class

Proposed

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Miles

23 Class III Class II

--1.00 --Class II 1.25 --Class II --0.58 Class II --0.72 TOTAL MILES 2.25 1.30 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Existing Class

Status

Class II 25 Class III 28 --25 ---

Total Score

1.00 1.25 0.58 0.72 3.55 n/a n/a 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 24 of 35

Class II 0.61 --0.61 --0.46 --0.46 Class II 0.04 0 04 --Class II --0.04 --0.04 --Class III --0.26 0.26 5 4 2 26 Class III Link in Route 05-segment k --Class III --0.10 0.10 5 4 4 24 --Class II --0.10 0.10 5 4 3 23 --Class II --0.10 0.10 5 4 2 23 --Class II --0 10 0.10 0 10 0.10 --Class III --0.11 0.11 --Class III --0.05 0.05 --Class III --0.08 0.08 TOTAL MILES 1.11 0.90 2.01 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) 0.04 Miles in other jurisditions jurisditions, excluded from Total 0 00 0.00 Reference: Segments I, j, and k--2007 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan p. 6-11

4 5 4

Comm munity Interest

W-E Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-37

PIERSON ST W 6TH ST 6TH ST 6TH ST A ST 7TH ST E ST 4TH ST 4TH ST

Route 40

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a b c d e f g

SANTA ROSA CREEK PATHWAY PIERSON ST SMART RR TRACKS DAVIS ST 6TH ST A ST COLLEGE AVE & KING ST E ST COLLEGE AVE

From Street

1 1 1

2 2 3 3

3 3 3

3 3 3 3

Land Use

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

W 6TH ST SMART RR TRACKS DAVIS ST A ST 7TH ST B ST SONOMA AVE COLLEGE AVE BRYDEN LN

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

W-E Class II and III

2 3 4 4

1 4 4

Rank 0-5

4 3 4 4

3 2 2

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

5 4 4 4

4 3 3

Comm munity Interest

3-38 4 4 4 4

3 3 3

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 4 3 3 3

5 5 5

Class

Proposed

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 25 of 35

BIKE BLVD --0.04 0.04 BIKE BLVD --0.17 0.17 BIKE BLVD --0.10 0.10 Class II --0.14 0.14 Class II --0.08 0.08 Class II Link in Route 39-segment e-h Class II Link in Route 19-segment a Class II --0.40 0.40 Class II --0.60 0.60 0.00 1.53 1.53 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference:

Total Score 20 --21 --21 ------24 --22 --25 --25 ---

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

HALL RD W 3RD ST W 3RD ST W 3RD ST (35 MPH) W 3RD ST 3RD ST 3RD ST 3RD ST 3RD ST 3RD ST 3RD ST (one-way West Bound) E ST 2ND ST (one-way East Bound) MONTGOMERY DR MONTGOMERY DR MONTGOMERY DR MONTGOMERY DR MONTGOMERY DR MONTGOMERY DR MELITA RD LOS ALAMOS RD

Route 41 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t

Western CITY LIMITS FULTON RD BRITTAIN LN STONY POINT RD RUSCH CT DUTTON AVE SMART RR TRACKS MORGAN ST B ST SANTA ROSA AVE E ST 3RD ST E ST 2ND ST TALBOT AVE HAHMAN DR JACQUELINE DR MISSION BLVD SPRING LAKE CT MONTGOMERY DR MELITA RD

From Street

3 2

3 3 2 2 2 2

1 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

W 3RD ST BRITTAIN LN STONY POINT RD RUSCH CT DUTTON AVE SMART RR TRACKS MORGAN ST B ST SANTA ROSA AVE E ST MONTGOMERY DR / 2ND ST 2ND ST MONTGOMERY DR TALBOT AVE HAHMAN DR JACQUELINE DR MISSION BLVD SPRING LAKE CT MELITA RD LOS ALAMOS RD SONOMA HWY

To Street

c Volume Traffic 4

3 3 3

3 5 4

Rank 0-5

4 4 4

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

4 4 4

Comm munity Interest

W-E Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

3 4 3

4 4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 1

3 3 3

Total Score

Class II --Class II Class II ------Class II Class II Class II Class II

Class

Proposed

---

0.45 0.42 0.32 0 23 0.23

---------

0.60

0.27

Proposed Miles

0.98 ---

Existing Miles

Miles

0.27 0.98 0.60 0.45 0.42 0.32 0 23 0.23 0.17 0.10 0.21 0.34

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 26 of 35

0.17 --0.10 --0.21 --0.34 Link in Route 19-segment a 22 --Class II --0.33 0.33 23 --Class II --0.39 0.39 0 39 0 39 22 --Class II --0.65 0.65 Class II --0.63 --0.63 Class II --0.52 --0.52 25 --Class II --1.33 1.33 Class II --0.72 --0.72 --Class II --0.07 0.07 --Class II --0 09 0.09 0 09 0.09 4.27 4.55 8.82 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.67 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference:

23 --Class II 22 --Class III Class II 23 Class II Class II --24 --26 --24 ---

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-39

ALDERBROOK DR / CLYDE AVE HOEN AVE / ALDERBROOK DR CYPRESS WAY CREEKSIDE RD

Route 44 (2001 Plan)

GORDON LN MAPLE AVE (one-way WB) MAPLE AVE (one-way WB)

a b c d

SONOMA AVE SONOMA AVE HOEN AVE CYPRESS WAY

SANTA ROSA AVE GORDON LN BENNETT VALLEY RD FARMERS LN HOEN AVE / CYPRESS WAY YULUPA AVE ROUTE 43 COUPLET - MAPLE AVE a BENNETT VALLEY RD b GORDON LN / BRIGHAM AVE c BROWN ST

a b c d e f

BENNETT VALLEY RD (one-way EB) BENNETT VALLEY RD FARMERS LN HOEN AVE FRONTAGE RD HOEN AVE (FRONTAGE RD) HOEN AVE

Route 43 (2001 Plan)

a SANTA ROSA AVE b HAHMAN DR c YULUPA AVE

From Street

Route 42 (2001 Plan) SONOMA AVE SONOMA AVE SONOMA AVE

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

3 3

Land Use 1

2 2

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

CREEKSIDE RD YULUPA AVE

HOEN AVE FRONTAGE RD / CYPRESS WAY

4TH ST

MT OLIVE DR MAPLE AVE BROWN ST SANTA ROSA AVE

GORDON LN FARMERS LN HOEN AVE FRONTAGE RD CYPRESS WAY & HOEN AVE YULUPA AVE SUMMERFIELD RD

HAHMAN DR YULUPA AVE SUMMERFIELD RD

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

W-E Class II and III

3 3

Rank 0-5

4 4

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

4 4

Comm munity Interest

3-40 3

4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

------Class II -----

--0.58 --0.54 ---

1.25 --0.39 --0.18 --0.37 0 37

------20 ---

Class II 0.08 ----0.69 --Class II --0.14 TOTAL MILES 3 71 3.71 0 51 0.51 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Class III Class II ---

Class II Class II Class II SHLD Class II Class II

Class II Class II Class II

Class

Proposed

Miles

1.57 --0.46 --0.52 --2.55 0.00 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions jurisditions, excluded from Total

Class III 23 Class III 24 Class III

Total Score

0.61 0 86 0.86 0.33 0.87 2.67 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

0.08 0.69 0.14 4 22 4.22 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

1.25 0.39 0.18 0.37 0 37 0.58 0.54

1.57 0.46 0.52 2.55 0.00 n/a 0 00 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 27 of 35

Class III --0.61 Class III --0 86 0.86 Class III --0.33 5 Class III --0.87 0.00 2.67 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

3 4

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

MORAGA DR

Newhall Pathway (E. of Flower Ave) SOUTH HENLEY ST ASTON AVE (Allan Way)

CORPORATE CENTER PKY STONY POINT RD BURBANK AVE AVALON AVE SMART TRACKS

Western CITY LIMITS S WRIGHT RD LEDDY AVE FRESNO AVE

From Street

a PETALUMA HILL RD - SOUTH "E" ST b SOUTH HENLEY ST ROUTE 47 WINGLET - via ASTON AVENUE a ASTON AVE

e f g h i

SEBASTOPOL RD SEBASTOPOL RD SEBASTOPOL RD SEBASTOPOL RD SEBASTOPOL RD

Route 47 (2001 Plan)

a b c d

a FULTON RD

SEBASTOPOL RD SEBASTOPOL RD SEBASTOPOL RD SEBASTOPOL RD

Route 46 (2001 Plan)

Route 45 (2001 Plan) OCCIDENTAL RD

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

TOKAY ST

3 3

2 2

3 2

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

HENDLEY ST ASTON AVE BROOKWOOD AVE

STONY POINT RD BURBANK AVE AVALON AVE SMART RR TRACKS OLIVE ST

S WRIGHT RD LEDDY AVE FRESNO AVE CORPORATE CENTER PKY

STONY POINT RD

To Street

c Volume Traffic 2 3

4 3

Rank 0-5

3 4

4 4

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

3 4

4 4

Comm munity Interest

W-E Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 4 3

3 3

Total Score

Class

Proposed

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Miles

------Class II Class II

Class II Class II --Class II

-----

---

0.66 --0.34 --0.47 ---

0.38 ---

0 24 --0.24

0.34

0.12

Class III

----Class II

---

0.38

0.35 --Route 10-segment n 0.40 ---

0.66

0.38

0.40

0.35

0.47 0.33 0 33 0.13 2.67 0.00 n/a 0.34 Reference:

---

0 24 0.24 0.12 0.38 0.34

1.54 1 54 1.54 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 28 of 35

TOTAL MILES 0.75 0.00 0.75 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.38 Reference: Sonoma County BPMP for Moraga St

---

Class I 21 Class II 23 Class III

0.33 0 33 0.13 1.75 0.92 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Class II Class II Class II 25 --22 ---

Class III 24 --Class II 22 ---

--1.54 --1 54 0 00 TOTAL MILES 1.54 0.00 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Class II

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-41

KAWANA SPRINGS RD (EB) KAWANA SPRINGS RD KAWANA SPRINGS RD**

KAWANA SPRINGS RD (one-side WB )

HEARN AVE HEARN AVE SANTA ROSA AVE

Route 49 (2001 Plan)

Proposed Connector NORTHPOINT PKY 1 NORTHPOINT PKY (Future Rd) HEARN AVE DUTTON MEADOW 2 NORTHPOINT PKY (Future Rd)

Route 48 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a b c c d e

a b c d

STONY POINT RD SMART RR TRACKS COLGAN AVE SANTA ROSA AVE SANTA ROSA AVE PETALUMA HILL RD BROOKWOOD AVE

S WRIGHT RD CORRIGAN ST STONY POINT RD STONY POINT RD HEARN AVE DUTTON MEADOW

From Street

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

SMART RR TRACKS SANTA ROSA AVE YOLANDA AVE PETALUMA HILL RD PETALUMA HILL RD BROOKWOOD AVE FARMERS LN EXTENSION

Land Use

Rank 0-5

Techn nical Ease of Implementation Class II 24 --Class II Class II --Class II 13 ---

9 --Class II 8 --Class II 18 -----

Existing Class Class

Proposed

Status

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 29 of 35

--1.01 --1.01 Class II 0.42 0.42 --Link in Route 07 -segment l --0.50 ----Class II --0.50 0.50 --0 50 --0.50 0 50 0.50 5 Class II --0.30 0.30 1.51 1.22 2.73 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.50 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) 0.50 Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference: 3

Total Score

Class II --0.41 0.41 --1.20 --1.20 1 0 0 0 3 3 1 Class II --0.44 0.44 --Link in Route 49-segment a 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 Class II Link in Route 208-segment a Class II --0.34 0.34 TOTAL MILES 1 20 1.20 1 19 1.19 2 39 2.39 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference: 1 Southwest Area Plan, Trumark Development Properties (1/2006); 2 Trumark Development Properties (1/2006)

CORRIGAN ST STONY POINT RD BURBANK AVE DUTTON MEADOW BELLEVUE AVE TUXHORN DR (extension)

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

W-E Class II and III

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

Comm munity Interest

3-42 Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

September 2010 From Street

To Street

a b c d e f g

Mid-Eastern CITY LIMITS STONY POINT RD BELLEVUE AVE SMART RR TRACKS CORBY AVE SANTA ROSA AVE Eastern CITY LIMITS PETALUMA HILL RD

2 2 2 2 0 0

1 1 3 2 3 3

4 3 0 0

2 2

4 4 3 3

3 3

4 4 5 5

3 3

4 4 5 5

3 3

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 4 3 4 4

3 3

17 --17 --Class II 25 --22 --20 --20 -----

---

Existing Class

Class III

Class

Proposed

Status

---

Existing Miles

1.14

Proposed Miles

Miles

1.14

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Class II Class II --Class II Class II Class II Class II Class II

-----------

-----

0.98 0.51 0 51 --Link in Route 02-segment m 1.11 0.21 0.20 0.16 0.87 ---

1.11 0.21 0.20 0.16

0.98

Class III --0.14 0.14 Link in ROUTE 43 COUPLET - segment a TOTAL MILES 0.00 1.14 1.14 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference:

Total Score

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

Page 30 of 35

TOTAL MILES 0.00 2.66 2.66 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 1.38 3 Reference County General Plan 2020 (09/23/08) Circulation and Transit Element, p. CT 17-18 and Figure CT-4e (Planning Area 5 ); 2007 CCMP SECTION "TODD A"

S WRIGHT RD Mid-Eastern CITY LIMITS MULEDEER LN STONY POINT RD SMART RR TRACKS CORBY AVE SANTA ROSA AVE Eastern CITY LIMITS

a SOUTH E ST FARMERS LN ROUTE 50 WINGLET - via BRIGHAM AVE to GORDON LN a VALLEJO ST MT OLIVE / GORDON LN - BENNETT VALLEY RD MT OLIVE DR MAPLE AVE

LUDWIG AVE LUDWIG AVE STONY POINT RD BELLEVUE AVE BELLEVUE AVE BELLEVUE AVE (Proposed O/C) EAST BELLEVUE AVE 3 BELLEVUE AVE (Proposed Ext.)

Route 51 (2001 Plan)

BRIGHAM AVE GORDON LN

VALLEJO ST

Route 50 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

c Volume Traffic

Rank 0-5

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3 Comm munity Interest

W-E Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-43

W STEELE LN W STEELE LN

Route 54 (2001 Plan)

Route 52 (2001 Plan) BETHARDS DR BETHARDS DR

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a MARLOW RD b SMART RR TRACKS (COFFEY LN)

a BENNETT VALLEY RD b YULUPA AVE

From Street

Land Use 2

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

SMART RR TRACKS RANGE AVE

YULUPA AVE SUMMERFIELD RD

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

W-E Class II and III

Rank 0-5

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

Comm munity Interest

3-44 3

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 3

Total Score

Class

Proposed

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Miles

0.58 0.42 1.00 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

0.43 0.46 0.89 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 31 of 35

--0.58 --Class II --0.42 0.58 0.42 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Class II 23 ---

--0.43 0.00 --0.46 --TOTAL MILES 0.89 0.00 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Class II Class II

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

September 2010 From Street

a ARMORY DR

Route 56 (2001 Plan) RIDGWAY AVE

Route 58 (2001 Plan) ELLIOTT AVE (cc ROW 36'-40')

FARMERS LN NEOTOMAS AVE RONNE DR Neotomas Path NEOTOMAS AVE LORNADELL LN

a b c d e f

NEOTOMAS AVE RONNE DR NEOTOMAS PATHWAY NEOTOMAS AVE LORNADELL LN KNOLLS DR

Route 55 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 0 1 1 1

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

MENDOCINO AVE

RONNE DR NEOTOMAS PATHWAY NEOTOMAS AVE LORNADELL LN KNOLLS DR BETHARDS DR

To Street

c Volume Traffic 3

1 1 0 1 1 1

Rank 0-5

2 2 2 2 2 2

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

4 4 4 4 4 4

Comm munity Interest

W-E Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

3 3 4 3 3 3

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 3

5 5 2 5 5 5

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

0.47 0.47 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

0.44 0.44 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

0.46 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.66 1 25 1.25 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 32 of 35

Class II --0.47 TOTAL MILES 0.00 0.47 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

24 ---

Class II --0.44 0.00 0.44 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

24 ---

-------------

Class

Proposed

Miles

Class III --0.46 Class III --0.01 Class I --0.05 Class III --0.03 Class III --0.05 Class III --0.66 TOTAL MILES 0 00 0.00 1 25 1.25 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Total Score 18 18 14 18 18 18

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-45

From Street

a FULTON RD b FRANCISCO AVE c SMART RR TRACKS

LOWER TIMBER SPRINGS DR-PATHWAY d PATHWAY-TIMBER SPRINGS DR e LOWER TIMBER SPRINGS DR-PATHWAY WHITE OAK DR f PATHWAY OAKMONT DR

TIMBER SPRINGS DR PATHWAY WHITE OAK DR

1 0 1 1 1 1

2 2 2

Land Use

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

a MONTGOMERY DR b DAM Overcrossing c ANNADEL STATE PARK (PK Lot)

DAM Overcrossing ANNADEL STATE PARK (PK Lot) PATHWAY-TIMBER SPRINGS DR

MIDDLE RINCON RD

FRANCISCO AVE SMART RR TRACKS COFFEY LN

To Street

CHANNEL DR CHANNEL DR ANNADEL STATE PARK Trail (SB)

Route 231 | Proposed 2008 MIG/Wtrans | Added 2001 - 2006

Route 229 | Proposed 2008 MIG/Wtrans | Added 2001 - 2006 RINCONADA DR a MISSION BLVD

SAN MIGUEL AVE SAN MIGUEL AVE SAN MIGUEL AVE

Route 225 | Proposed 2008 MIG/Wtrans | Added 2001 - 2006

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

W-E Class II and III

0 0 0

1 1 0

Rank 0-5

5 5 5

4 5 5

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

5 5 5

Comm munity Interest

3-46 3 3 3

3 5 3

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 5 5 5

5 4 5

Class

Proposed

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Miles

Class III Class III Class I

-------

Page 33 of 35

0.23 0.21 0.16 1.19 0.00 n/a 1.19 Reference:

0.59

0.42 0.42 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

0.51 0.43 0.34 1.28 0.00 n/a 0 00 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

0.59 1 05 --1.05 0.14 --Class III --0.23 Class I --0.21 Class III --0.16 0.00 1.19 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) OneMiles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

21 --21 --21 ---

21 --22 --21 ---

Class III --0.42 0.00 0.42 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

20 ---

Class II --0.51 Class III --0.43 Class III --0.34 0.00 1.28 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions jurisditions, excluded from Total

Total Score 21 -------

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

September 2010 From Street

a b c e

SEBASTOPOL RD OLIVE ST S DAVIS ST S A ST

a SONOMA HWY b OAKMONT DR c VALLEY OAKS DR

Route 240 | Proposed 2008 MIG/Wtrans | Added 2001 - 2006 COLGAN AVE a SANTA ROSA AVE

OAKMONT DR VALLEY OAKS DR PYTHIAN RD

Route 239 | Proposed 2008 MIG/Wtrans | Added 2001 - 2006

OLIVE ST EARLE ST Pedestrian Bridge EARLE ST

Route 236 | Proposed 2008 MIG/Wtrans | Added 2001 - 2006

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

1 1 2

2 2 3 3

1 1 2

1 1 0 1

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

PETALUMA HILL RD

VALLEY OAKS DR PYTHIAN RD SONOMA HWY

EARLE ST S DAVIS ST S A ST SANTA ROSA AVE

To Street

c Volume Traffic 2

2 1 2

1 1 0 1

Rank 0-5

3 3 3

3 3 4 3

Curre ent Demand

Rank 1-3

4 4 4

4 4 5 4

Comm munity Interest

W-E Class II and III

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

3 3 3

3 3 5 3

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 5

5 5 5

5 5 2 5

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

0.35 0.35 0.00 n/a 0 00 0.00 Reference:

1.53 0.12 0 12 0.81 2.46 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Page 34 of 35

Class II --0.35 TOTAL MILES 0.00 0.35 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions jurisditions, excluded from Total

20 ---

Class III --1.53 Class III --0.12 0 12 Class III --0.81 TOTAL MILES 0.00 2.46 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

19 --18 --21 ---

----O/C ---

Class

Proposed

Miles

Class III --0.22 0.22 Class III --0.09 0.09 ----0.10 0.10 Class III --0.17 0.17 TOTAL MILES 0.00 0.58 0.58 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference: BPAB Segments a and b

Total Score 19 19 19 20

Existing Class

Status

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-47

From Street

a b c d -

a b c d e f g h i j k

Route 340 Ducker Creek (ES) ACACIA LN PROSPECT AVE SHERBROOK DR MISSION BLVD SHERBROOK DR Brush Creek Pathway

Route 342-SW 342 SW Connector BARHAM AVE W. BARHAM AVE DUTTON AVE SOUTH AVE WEST AVE DELPORT AVE McMINN AVE HUGHES AVE COMMALI ST LAZZINI AVE LAZZINI AVE OLIVE ST SMART RR TRACKS W. BARHAM AVE DUTTON AVE SOUTH AVE WEST AVE DELPORT AVE McMINN AVE HUGHES AVE COMMALI ST STONY POINT RD

BENICIA DR SORRENTO WAY SORRENTO WAY PROSPECT AVE MONTECITO BLVD MISSION BVLD MONTECITO BLVD

a BENNETT VALLEY RD b MESQUITE DR

TACHEVAH DR (cc ROW 40') TACHEVAH DR (cc ROW 36')

Route 241 | Proposed 2008 MIG/Wtrans | Suggested 2008 Public

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

0 0 0 0

2 2

1 1 1

3 3

Land Use

REV - 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

SMART RR TRACKS DUTTON AVE SOUTH AVE WEST AVE DELPORT AVE McMINN AVE HUGHES AVE BURBANK AVE LAZZINI AVE STONY POINT RD MARBLE ST

CULEBRA AVE/ SORRENTO WAY PROSPECT AVE SHERBROOK DR MISSION BVLD MONTGOMERY DR Proposed Bridge 64 (Brush Creek) SANTA ROSA CREEK

MESQUITE DR YULUPA AVE

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

W-E Class II and III

0 0 0

1 1

Rank 0-5

4 4 4

3 3

Curre ent Demand

Street

Collis sion History

West - East Class II & III - Bike Lanes and Routes

5 5 5

4 4

Comm munity Interest

3-48 4

4 4 4

3 3

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-1 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation

Class

Proposed

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Miles

Trail Class III Class III Class III

-------

0.14 0.41 0.55 0.00 n/a 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 35 of 35

Class III --0.24 0.24 Class III --0.20 0.20 Class III --0.11 0.11 --Class III --0.11 0.11 Class III --0.07 0.07 --Class III --0.17 0.17 --Class III --0.16 0.16 --Class III --0.28 ----Class III --0.16 0.16 --Class III --0.22 0.22 --Class III --0.10 0.10 TOTAL MILES 0.00 1.54 1.54 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.28 Reference: BPAB

-----

--16 --16 --16 ---

Class III --0.14 Class III --0.41 0.00 0.55 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

21 --21 ---

Total Score

Link to Route 65-segment d 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.05 Link in Route 16-segment c 2 16 --Class III --0.04 0.04 0 04 0 04 Link in Route 60-segment a TOTAL MILES 0.00 0.48 0.48 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) 0.00 One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference: 2 2 2

5 5

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

Ducker Creek (WS) Ducker Creek (WS) Ducker Creek (ES) Ducker Creek (ES)

Route 65 (2001 Plan)

Colgan Creek Colgan Creek DUTTON AVE (proposed extension) HEARN AVE

F From Street St t

a b c d

a b -

MIDDLE RINCON RD Bridge 22 RINCONADA DR BENICIA DR

STONY POINT RD BELLEVUE AVE HEARN AVE STONY POINT RD

a MONTECITO BLVD b Brush Creek Pathway

Route 64 (2001 Plan)--West of Hwy 101

Route 60 (2001 Plan) Brush Creek Pathway SANTA ROSA CREEK

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

ollision History Co 0

Te echnical Ease of Im mplementation 2

Bridge 22 RINCONADA DR BENICIA DR CULEBRA AVE/ SORRENTO WAY

0 0 0 0

Proposed Cl Class

Existing Mil Miles

Proposed Mil Miles Total Miles

Miles

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

2 2 2 2

16 16 16 16

--Class I

---

1.06 ---

CLOSED Trail --0.07 --CLOSED Trail 1 --0.17 --CLOSED Trail 1 --0.07 --1 CLOSED Trail --0.14 --TOTAL MILES 0.00 0.45 0.00 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing n/a g mileage g ( excluded in total miles)) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference: 2007 CCMP "BRUSH SECTIONS C and D" Map; 1 Closed trail proposed to be open

0 0 0 0

REV 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

1 1 1 1

Class I 17 ---

Class I Class I

Existing Cl Class

Status

--1.59 --1.59 --0.18 --0.18 TOTAL MILES 1.77 0.00 1.77 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference: 2007 CCMP "SANTA ROSA SECTIONS C,D,E, F" Map

To otal Score

--1 11 1 11 1.11 1.11 Link in Route 4 -segment "j" NORTHPOINT PKY EXT / TUXHORN DR Link in Route 49 -segment "a" SMART RR TRACKS TOTAL MILES 0.00 1.11 1.11 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 1.06 Reference: 2007 CCMP "SOUTHERN SECTIONS F and G" Map; Sonoma County Regional Parks Department Plan

BELLEVUE AVE DUTTON AVE (proposed extension)

SANTA ROSA CREEK YULUPA AVE

T Street To St t

Traffic Volume

Rank 0-5

Cu urrent Demand

Rank 1-3

La and Use

Street Co ommunity Interest

N-S Class I

North - South Class I - Bike Paths

Ov vercomes Barriers/ Inc creases Connectivity

Table 3-2 Bicycle Project List

Page 1 of 3

Bicycle Facilities

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-49

a RIVER RD (outside city limits) b JENNINGS AVE c COLLEGE AVE d 3RD ST

SMART Pathway SMART Pathway SMART Pathway

Peterson Creek (WS) Peterson Creek (WS) GUERNEVILLE RD Forestview1/Peterson Creeks

a (FULTON RD) Youth Community Park Western CITY LIMITS Bridge 52 - Peterson / Forestview Creeks b GUERNEVILLE RD

Route 200 | Proposed 2008 MIG/Wtrans | Added 2001 - 2006

Route 67 (2001 Plan)

Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Pathway

PETALUMA HILL RD PETALUMA HILL RD YOLANDA AVE PETALUMA HILL RD FARMERS LN EXTENSION Outside CITY LIMITS

T Street To St t

2 2

0 0

ollision History Co 0 0

Rank 0-5

4 4

5 5

3 3

Te echnical Ease of Im mplementation 2 2

Class I

Class I Class I

Proposed Cl Class

Status

Existing Cl Class

16 --16 ---

To otal Score

Proposed Mil Miles Total Miles

Link in Route 240 -segment "a" 0.58 --0.58 Link in Route 13 -segment "c" Link in Route 49 -segment segment "c" --0.69 0.69 --0.74 ---

Existing Mil Miles

Miles

---------

Class I Class I Class I Class I

---------

2.87 --0.56 --0.89 --2.60 ---

Western CITY LIMITS Bridge 52 GUERNEVILLE RD Western CITY LIMITS Santa Rosa Creek

0 0

4 4

5 5

4 4

2 2

18 ---

18 --18 ---

Class I

Class I Class I

0.24 0.24 0.71 --36 segment a Link in Route 36-segment --0.54 ---

-----

September 2010

REV 12-14-09 DRAFT Bike Project List

TOTAL MILES 0.00 0.24 0.24 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 1.25 Reference: 2007 CCMP "PINER F and G" Map; and Sonoma County Regional Parks Department Plan

0 0

3 3

0.00 6.92 0.00 TOTAL MILES Miles (included Mil off one-way ffacilities iliti (i l d d iin ttotal t l miles) il ) n/a / n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 6.92 Reference: May 2004 "SMART CORRIDOR SCHEMATICS,"-- SMART Draft Environmental Impact Report, Appendix E for alignment and details

COLLEGE AVE 3RD ST BELLEVUE AVE

JENNINGS AVE

TOTAL MILES 0.58 1.80 4.55 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.74 Reference: 2007 CCMP "SOUTHERN SECTIONS E and F" Map; Sonoma County Regional Parks Department Plan; 2 Additional segment suggested through public workshops

a b c

SANTA ROSA AVE COLGAN AVE COLGAN AVE SANTA ROSA AVE KAWANA SPRINGS RD FARMERS LN EXTENSION

F From Street St t

COLGAN AVE Colgan Creek (NS) PETALUMA HILL RD KAWANA SPRINGS RD Colgan Creek (NS) Colgan Creek 2

Route 66 (2001 Plan)--East of Hwy 101

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

La and Use

Rank 1-3

Traffic Volume

Street

North - South Class I - Bike Paths

Cu urrent Demand

N-S Class I

Co ommunity Interest

3-50 Ov vercomes Barriers/ Inc creases Connectivity

Table 3-2 Bicycle Project List

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

Page 2 o

Bicycle Facilit

September 2010

Santa Rosa West County Trail Santa Rosa West County Trail Santa Rosa West County Trail Santa Rosa West County Trail

a b c d

F From Street St t

Santa Rosa Creek HALL RD Proposed Bridge 82 Proposed Bridge 81

Route 322 | Santa Rosa West County Trail |

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

OCCIDENTAL RD

Rank 0-5

To otal Score

Te echnical Ease of Im mplementation

ollision History Co

CLOSED -------

Existing Cl Class

Class I Class I Class I Class I

Proposed Cl Class

Status

---------

Existing Mil Miles

0.44 0.12 0.30 0.49

---------

Proposed Mil Miles Total Miles

Miles

0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing n/a g mileage g ( excluded in total miles)) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 1.35 Reference: 2007 CCMP "SANTA ROSA L and SOUTHERN I" Maps; and Sonoma County Regional Parks Department Plan

Proposed Bridge 81 (Countryside Creek)

HALL RD Proposed Bridge 82 (Irwin Creek)

T Street To St t

Traffic Volume

Rank 1-3

La and Use

Street

Cu urrent Demand

North - South Class I - Bike Paths

Co ommunity Interest

N-S Class I

Ov vercomes Barriers/ Inc creases Connectivity

Table 3-2 Bicycle Project List

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-51

Bicycle Facili

Route 68 ((2001 Plan))

( ) Coffeyy Creek (ES)

Piner Creek (NS) Piner Creek (SS) Piner Creek (NS) Piner Creek (NS) Piner Creek (NS)

a b c d -

SUMMERFIELD RD (Main Entrance) Upper Oak Parking Lot (Spring Lake) Park Boundary (Spring Lake) Park Headquarters MONTGOMERY DR

a MENDOCINO AVE b STAGECOACH RD

From Street

Bay Area Ridge Trail 1 (Entrance) Spring Lake Park Boundary (Spring Lake) Park Headquarters 2 CHANNEL DR DAM Overcrossing

STAGECOACH RD PARKER HILL RD

To Street

Collis sion History 0

Rank 0-5

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 4

Class I Class I Class I 19 ---

Class I Class I

Existing Class

Proposed Class

Status

Existing Miles

------Class I

---

0.23 --0.56 --0.78 ---

0.23 0.56

1.41 0.75 2.16 n/a n/a 0.00 Reference:

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

--1.41 ----0.75 --2.16 0.00 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

Total Score

3 3 3 3 3

REV 12-14-09 Bike Project List

a SANTA ROSA CREEK Steele Creek (Proposed Bridge) b Steele Creek Paulin Creek (Proposed Bridge) c Paulin Creek MARLOW RD d MARLOW RD Coffey Creek e Coffey Creek SMART PATHWAY ROUTE 68 WINGLET - via Coffey Creek to PINER RD a Piner Creek ((NS)) PINER RD

0 0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3

Class I Class I Class I Class I Class I

-----------

1.02 0.50 0.46 0.59 0.17

Page 1 of 5

Class I --0.22 0.22 0.00 2.96 2.96 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.98 Reference: 2007 CCMP "PINER SECTIONS C,D,E, F" Map

----------19 ---

19 19 19 19 19

--0.09 --Link to Route 231-segment a TOTAL MILES 0.79 0.00 0.79 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.87 1 2 Reference: Howarth Park's "Old Fishermans Trail" is the beginning of the Bay Area Ridge Trail to Annadel State Park; Per discussions with Sonoma Regional Parks TAC Representative; Howarth Park Map & Trail Guide; Spring Lake Regional Park Map

Howarth Park Pathway Bay Area Ridge Trail (Howarth Park) Spring Lake Park Pathway Spring Lake Parks Pathway CHANNEL DR

Route 63 (2001 Plan)

Fountaingrove Parkway g y Fountaingrove Parkway

Route 62 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

Land Use

Rank 1-3

c Volume Traffic

Street

West - Easst Class I - Bike Paths

Curre ent Demand

W-E Class I

Comm munity Interest

3-52 Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-2 Bicycle Project List

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

September 2010 From Street

To Street

Santa Rosa Creek (NS) Santa Rosa Creek (NS) S t Rosa Santa R Creek C k (NS)

t Proposed Bridge 5 u W. of MISSION CIR. v MISSION BLVD

1 1 0 0

2 1 2 2

0 0 0 0

2 2 3 3

REV 12-14-09 Bike Project List

W. of MISSION CIR. MISSION BLVD ACACIA LN

Santa Rosa Creek (NS) a Western CITY LIMITS (Piner Creek) FULTON RD Proposed Bridge 18 (E. of Placer CT) Santa Rosa Creek (NS) b FULTON RD Proposed Bridge 17 (MARKHAM PL) Santa Rosa Creek (NS) c Proposed Bridge 18 Proposed Bridge 16 (College Creek1) Santa Rosa Creek (NS) d Proposed Bridge 17 Santa Rosa Creek (NS) e Proposed Bridge 16 Proposed Bridge 15 (E. of Link Ln) Santa Rosa Creek (NS) f Proposed Bridge 15 PIERSON ST Santa Rosa Creek (Prince Memorial) g PIERSON ST SANTA ROSA AVE Santa Rosa Creek (NS) h SANTA ROSA AVE BROOKWOOD AVE Proposed Bridge 8 (S. of LELAND ST) Santa Rosa Creek (SS) i BROOKWOOD AVE Memorial Hospital Property NE Corner Santa Rosa Creek (SS) j Proposed Bridge 8 Memorial Hospital Property k Santa Rosa Creek (SS) DOYLE PARK DR DOYLE PARK ENTRANCE (Spring Creek) DOYLE PARK DR - TALBOT AVE LEONARD AVE l TALBOT AVE SHORTT RD SHORTT RD m LEONARD AVE Santa Rosa Creek (SS) Proposed Bridge 6 (E. of Farmers Ln) Santa Rosa Creek (SS) n SHORTT RD Santa Rosa Creek (SS) o Proposed Bridge 6 FRANQUETTE AVE HARTLEY DR p FRANQUETTE AVE YULUPA AVE YULUPA AVE - YULUPA CIR MONTGOMERY DR Santa Rosa (NS) / Brush Creek (WS) q YULUPA AVE Brush Creek Bridge 29 Santa Rosa Creek (NS) r Brush Creek CALLOWAY DR Santa Rosa Creek (NS) s CALLOWAY DR Proposed Bridge 5 (SHADOW LN) ROUTE 69 WINGLET - via SHADOW LN to MONTGOMERY DR Proposed Connector Path a Santa Rosa Creek (NS) Proposed Bridge 5 SHADOW LN SHADOW LN b Proposed Connector Path MONTGOMERY DR

Route 69 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

Land Use

Street

Collis sion History 0

1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

Rank 0-5

3 2 4 4

5 5 5 5

Curre ent Demand

West - Easst Class I - Bike Paths

3 1 4 4

5 5 5 5

Comm munity Interest

W-E Class I

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 2

5 4 2 2

4 4 1 1

16 --Class I 16 Class I

Class I Class III

----Class I

Class I Class I 16 --19 -----

Class III Class III Class I Class I Class III

-----------

18 12 16 16

----Class I Class I Class I Class III

Class I ---

Proposed Class

Status

Existing Class

20 --Class I Class I Class I Class I Class I Class I 20 --20 --18 --18

Total Score

-----

---

-----------

---------

---------------

0.14 0.12

0.21 0.21 0.11

0.40 0.16 0.29 0.32 0.20

0.11 0.28 0.31 1.59 0.49 0.79 0.60 0.60 0.10

Total Miles

0.45 ---

Proposed Miles

Bicycle Facilities

0.60 0.60 0.10 0.07 --Link in Route 9-segment k 0.40 0.16 0.29 0.32 0.20 Link in Route 15-segment a 0.21 0.21 0.11

0.11 0.28 0.31 1.59 0.49 0.79

Existing Miles

Miles

Page 2 of 5

Class I --0.04 0.04 --0.13 0.13 4 2 --0.36 0.36 4.48 3.08 7.56 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.52 Reference: 2007 CCMP "SANTA ROSA SECTION L, K, J, I, H, G, F, E, D" Map

3 3 4 4

4 4 4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-2 Bicycle Project List

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-53

Austin Creek Trail Austin Creek Trail Austin Creek Trail Austin Creek Trail EL ENCANTO DR DESOTO DR OWLS NEST DR

Route 71 (2001 Plan)

Paulin Creek MARLOW RD (40 MPH) Northwest Community Park Paulin Creek Paulin Creek Paulin Creek (SS) HARDIES LN Paulin Creek (NS)

Route 70 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

a b c d e f g

a b c d e f

Brush Creek Trail MIDDLE RINCON RD BOAS DR CALISTOGA RD Austin Creek Trail (via El Encanto Wy ) EL ENCANTO DR (via St. Francis Rd ) DESOTO DR

Piner Creek PINER RD MARLOW RD (entrance) W STEELE LN SMART RR TRACKS COFFEY LN RUSSELL AVE HARDIES LN

From Street

1 1 1

REV 12-14-09 Bike Project List

MIDDLE RINCON RD BOAS DR CALISTOGA RD EL ENCANTO WY ST FRANCIS RD ST. OWLS NEST DR SAN RAMON WY

MARLOW RD W COLLEGE AVE W STEELE LN SMART RR TRACKS COFFEY LN HARDIES LN PAULIN CREEK MCBRIDE LN

To Street

Land Use

Rank 1-3

0 0 0

c Volume Traffic

Street

West - Easst Class I - Bike Paths

Collis sion History 0 0 0

Rank 0-5

2 2 2

Curre ent Demand

W-E Class I

4 4 4

Comm munity Interest

3-54 4 4 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-2 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 2 2 2

---

Existing Miles

Proposed Miles

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Page 3 of 5

13 Trail --0.69 --0.69 13 SVC Road Class I --0.57 0.57 13 SVC Road Class I --0.25 0.25 SVC Road Class I --0.24 0.24 --Class III --0 19 0.19 0 19 0.19 --Class III --0.22 0.22 --Class III --0.40 0.40 0.69 1.87 2.56 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference: 2007 CCMP "BRUSH BRUSH H and II" segments 'd' d thru 'g' g

Class I

Proposed Class

Miles

0 55 0 55 0.55 0.55 Link in Route 2-segment a Pathwway --0.45 --0.45 Trail --0.37 --0.37 CLOSED Pathwway --0.08 0.08 Trail --0.36 --0.36 Link in Route 320-segment b Trail --0 28 --0.28 0 28 0.28 1.46 0.63 2.09 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 0.00 Reference: 2007 CCMP "PAULIN SECTIONS E,F" Map; p.188

Total Score 15 ---

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

September 2010 a b c d e f g

"Joe Rodota Trail" SEBASTOPOL RD "Joe Rodota Trail" Joe Rodota Trail" Trail "Joe "Joe Rodota Trail" "Joe Rodota Trail" Santa Rosa Creek (Prince Memorial) "Joe Rodota Trail" 3RD ST "Joe Rodota Trail"

Route 73 (2001 Plan)

a b c d e f g h

Roseland Creek (WS) Roseland Creek (WS) Roseland Creek (WS) Roseland Creek (SS) Roseland Creek (SS) Roseland Creek (NS) Roseland Creek (NS) BURBANK AVE Roseland Creek Trail

Route 72 (2001 Plan)

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

MERCED AVE Western CITY LIMITS Western CITY LIMITS N WRIGHT RD STONY POINT RD HWY 12 Overpass PIERSON ST Prince Memorial Greenway SMART RR TRACKS W 3RD ST

LLANO RD LUDWIG AVE Proposed Bridge 68 Proposed Bridge 69 SUNNYWOOD CIR STONY POINT RD Proposed Bridge 80 SEBASTOPOL RD BURBANK AVE

From Street

0 0

2 2

Collis sion History 2

2 4

4 4

4 2

Techn nical Ease of Implementation ------14 --Class I 14 -----

Existing Class

Class I Class I Class I Class I --Class I Class I

Proposed Class

Status

--Class I ------Class I Class I

Class I --Class I Class I Class I -----

---

-----

---------

1.68 0.26 0.43 0.32

0.26 0.43 0.32 0.38 0.71 0.24

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

0.38 ---

Existing Miles

Miles

0.40 ----Link in Route 46-segment a 0.31 --1.52 ----1.14 ----0.12 ----Link in Route 69-segment g 0.07 --Link in Route 41-segment f 0.18 ---

REV 12-14-09 Bike Project List

Page 4 of 5

TOTAL MILES 0 00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0 00 0.00 Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 3.74 Reference: DSASP 2007 Figure 6-4; 2001 MTC Regional Bicycle Plan and Update, "Draft" Sonoma County Unincorporated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

Western CITY LIMITS S WRIGHT RD N WRIGHT RD STONY POINT RD HWY 12 Overpass Prince Memorial Greenway SANTA ROSA AVE W 3RD ST MORGAN ST W 6TH ST

Rank 0-5

Total Score

0.71 0.24 Link in Route 204-segment a 3 0 0 2 4 4 2 15 --Class I --0.23 0.23 0.38 2.19 2.57 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) n/a Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 1.68 Reference: 2007 CCMP "SOUTHERN SECTIONS D, C, B and A" Map; and Sonoma County Regional Parks Department Plan

SUNNYWOOD CIR STONY POINT RD Proposed Bridge 80 (GIFFEN AVE) Proposed Bridge 86 (BURBANK AVE) HEARN AVE MCMINN AVE

Proposed Bridge 69 (S. of MAITLAND AVE)

Proposed Bridge 68 (YUBA DR)

Southern CITY LIMITS (LUDWIG AVE)

To Street

c Volume Traffic

Rank 1-3

Land Use

Street

Curre ent Demand

West - Easst Class I - Bike Paths

Comm munity Interest

W-E Class I

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-2 Bicycle Project List

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

3-55

Vacant HWY 12 ROW Vacant HWY 12 ROW

Route 310 | Conforming CCMP

BOLD indicates indicates priority segment

Segment

To Street

REV 12-14-09 Bike Project List

a HOEN AVE FRONTAGE RD / CYPRESS WAY SUMMERFIELD RD b SUMMERFIELD RD SPRING LAKE COUNTY PARK

From Street

Land Use

Rank 1-3

c Volume Traffic

Street

West - Easst Class I - Bike Paths

Collis sion History 0

Rank 0-5

Curre ent Demand

W-E Class I

Comm munity Interest

3-56 4

Overc comes Barriers/ Increa ases Connectivity

Table 3-2 Bicycle Project List

Techn nical Ease of Implementation 3

Total Score

Class I Class I

Proposed Class

-----

Existing Miles

1.09 --0.54 ---

Total Miles

Bicycle Facilities

Proposed Miles

Miles

Page 5 of 5

0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL MILES Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles) n/a n/a One- side existing mileage ( excluded in total miles) Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total 1.63 R f Reference: 2007 CCMP "MATANZAS C and d F"

16 ---

Existing Class

Status

R E C O M M E N D E D P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E WAY N E T W O R K

September 2010

Chapter 4 PEDESTRIAN - BICYCLE: EDUCATION AND SAFETY INTRODUCTION The streets of Santa Rosa are busy. Each and every road user has a duty to care for the safety all other road users. Bicycle education is critical for encouraging both bicycling and bicycle safety. Although improving bicycle facilities is the most effective way to increase bicycle use, bicycle education and safety encourages safe bicycling. Unfortunately, too many bicyclists in the United States lack the basic skills or knowledge to safely ride a bicycle in traffic. Bicycle education programs are designed to increase bicycle safety by improving the ability of cyclists to ride with traffic as well as heightening motorist awareness. The difficulties faced in helping cyclists to develop this skill and knowledge stem from the wide range of age groups that require this training and the necessity of tailoring the programs for each one. For example, young children should be taught the basic rules of the road in conjunction with hands-on bicycling instruction. Adults benefit most from a program designed to impart the responsibilities of bicycle riding by both demonstrating how to safely share the road with motor vehicle traffic and providing tips on the benefits and methods of bicycle commuting. Bicycle education programs should be directed at the following groups: • • • •

Child Bicyclists Adult Bicyclists Motorists Law Enforcement Officials

Attempts by a community to provide all of these programs can definitely put stress on a system that is already overloaded; money and staffing are in short supply in every jurisdiction. For this reason, a community must explore all possible avenues in designing and implementing a bicycle education strategy. Public agencies such as city planning, public works, police, public health, community development and school districts must be brought into the effort. Community and civic organizations, employers, local businesses and cycling clubs should also be tapped as resources. Some of the most successful programs are the result of coalitions of public agencies and private groups working together toward a common goal. In general, bicycle education programs can be described as those which develop awareness and provide information such as posters, brochures, videos and online content; and those which change behavior and/or develop skills, such as programs with on-bike instruction. Programs vary, including handson riding instruction, teaching adults who supervise children, public awareness campaigns, and instruction for motorists, law enforcement officers and community events. The key to any bicycle education program is to reach your target audience, in other words, getting people to participate and establish that necessary buy-in. Bicycle promotion programs, discussed at the end of this chapter, are intended to raise community awareness curtail collisions, and improve safety for bicyclists. The following sections discuss the characteristics of the bicycle education programs most suitable for each group listed above.

P E D E S T R I A N - B I C Y C L E : E D U C AT I O N A N D S A F E T Y

Child Bicyclists Existing Local Programs Children are at the greatest risk for injuries due to bicycle-related accidents. Therefore, children tend to receive more attention in bicycle education strategies than do adults, motorists and law enforcement officials. The Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Public Works Department developed an educational program that focused on promoting walking and bicycling to schools in 2009. It is a pilot program working with Santa Rosa City Schools and is scheduled to be completed in the Fall of 2010. The program sets up the framework for future efforts as resources become available. The Santa Rosa Police Department received a bicycle and pedestrian safety and education grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Outreach Program. The program focuses on traffic safety and follows a comprehensive community outreach approach providing workshops and presentations for elementary, middle and high school students. The primary focus of this program consists of bicycle rules of the road and the importance of helmet compliance for those under 18. The information is disseminated via pamphlets, presentations, bicycle safety helmet day, community events and safety fairs, radio and community media segments, and up to ten bicycle rodeos a year. The grant also provides funding for the purchase of 1,000 free bicycle helmets to low-income youth over a period of two years. The curriculum used for the classroom workshops and presentations provides an overview of traffic laws, rules of the road, essential safety equipment, visibility and predictability and traffic hazards. The program also provides a pedestrian safety component that establishes guidelines that are necessary and essential to address pedestrian safety to those most vulnerable. Children under the age of 15 and older adults ages 65 and over have been the ideal target audience for the pedestrian safety campaign under the grant. Presentations are delivered in schools through assemblies where a complete street layout is brought to demonstrate how to safely cross a street and what to watch out for. The street layout includes large size toy vehicles, an actual crosswalk countdown signal, a street light and other visual aids. The older adult community has also benefited greatly by revisiting pedestrian safety guidelines through interactive thirty minute workshops. In these workshops, several interactive tools are utilized to remind older adults to exercise caution when crossing the street, while walking in parking lots, and during winter weather. Visual aids as well as an engaging board game are brought to the workshops. In Sonoma County, several nonprofit bicycle advocacy groups and government committees participate in bicycle education for children. Sonoma County Transit hosts the web site www.BikeSafeSonoma.com, which lists resources for safe bicycling. The Sonoma County Transportation Authority provides funding in collaboration with the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition and the Sonoma County Department of Public Health for a countywide Safe Routes To School program. General Guidelines School children benefit most from an action-oriented teaching approach. Most bicycle safety programs target elementary school-aged children and their parents. Programs targeted at beginning bicyclists, between the ages of five and eight, focus on the role parents play in selecting the proper size and type of equipment, in supervising their childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use of that equipment, and in teaching the basic mechanical

4-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

skills needed to start, balance, steer and stop a bicycle. Parents may be reached through parent-teacher associations and children through programs sponsored by the schools, day care centers, summer camps, and boys and girls clubs. Children pose a special safety problem as they learn to ride bicycles. Skills such as learning to ride by the rules, looking for traffic and using hand signals need to be learned. Bicycle education programs should start as early as children learn to ride, and should be modified as the years go by to focus on the needs of each age group. There is a critical window of opportunity for learning and integrating traffic skills defined by children’s development on one end and the age at which they are most at risk for crashes and injuries on the other end. Children between the ages of nine and ten are the optimal target for learning how to enter and exit the roadway; scanning ahead, behind and to the side while riding straight, and communicating and cooperating with other road users. Bicycle education programs directed at children should include basic instruction on rules of the road and training to develop the skills necessary to ride a bike. Using bicycle rodeos, presentations and helmets to develop safe bicycling skills are only the first steps toward encouraging safe bicycling. Highlighting bicycle enjoyment by giving children tours of their neighborhoods and parks is fundamental to building confidence and encouraging bicycle riding both as children and as future adults. Several models for these types of programs already exist. San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle and Portland all offer extensive programs through community and school-related bicycle club programs geared towards educating kids about defensive bicycle riding and bicycle repair. Programs range from taking children on neighborhood bike rides to offering free classes in bicycle maintenance in exchange for several hours of volunteer time. East Palo Alto and other Bay Area communities have programs that teach at-risk youth to fix old bicycles. Professor William Moritz at the University of Washington has proposed that the one-shot method of Driver’s Education for high school sophomores be replaced with a curriculum that spans most of their primary and secondary school career. Four major areas of instruction would be taught in four stages of students’ development. In Grades K-3, students would learn basic pedestrian skills, stranger danger, crossing residential streets, using pedestrian push buttons, taking a school bus, etc. Older students in Grades 4 to 5 would be ready to learn bike safety and handling skills, including bike operation on streets with supervised bike rides on neighborhood streets. This is being done in many states including Hawaii, Montana, Florida and North Carolina. Later, in Grades 7-9, they would learn basic mobility skills for getting around town, including using transit for utilitarian and recreational trips (reading a bus schedule, executing a transfer, taking rapid transit), and more on safe bicycling practices. By the time students reach Grade 10, they would be transit-independent and able to go places without needing a ride. In tenth grade, students would also take driver’s education, as they do now. But driver’s education would include focused instruction on how motorists should interact with pedestrians and bicyclists, how to predict bicyclist and pedestrian movements, pass safely, learn when different modes have the right-of-way, etc. It is recommended that bicycle education for children should include the following elements: •

Kindergarten through Third Grade - Pedestrian and bicycling safety education/safety training.

•

Fourth and Fifth Grades - Basics of Bicycling (curriculum developed by Bicycle Federation of America) or other classroom/on-bike program to teach bike-handling skills.

•

Middle School and High School - Should cover commuting as well as recreational uses, touring, and racing. High School - include bicycle education as part of driver’s training courses. Street Skills (developed by the League of American Bicyclists) should serve as the foundation for training cyclists to ride safely in traffic and on the road.

September 2010

4-3

P E D E S T R I A N - B I C Y C L E : E D U C AT I O N A N D S A F E T Y

•

Local Universities - Promote cycling on campus, introduce Street Skills as physical education course (similar to racquetball, tennis, etc.).

Bicycle Helmets - Bicyclists under the age of 18 are required by California state law to be wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet. Before 1994 when this law went into effect, over 25% of bicycle accidents involved head injuries. Of these, more than one-half were life-threatening. Many communities have developed special programs to encourage the purchase and use of bicycle helmets. Helmet companies and bicycle shops have offered discounts for community and school programs to provide helmets at little or no cost. ADULT BICYCLISTS Most adult bicyclists have not had any formal bicycle education in childhood outside of learning the basic mechanical skills. At the same time, there are misconceptions, myths and outdated advice that further challenge adult bicyclists’ safety. For instance, some believe a bicyclist should ride facing traffic, and many bicyclists bike at night without the required headlights and reflectors. Bicycle education programs developed for the adult cyclist need to educate cyclists about bicyclists’ rights and responsibilities on the road and techniques for sharing the road with motorists. In addition, publicizing typical behaviors that cause accidents help bicyclists avoid common crashes. Most unsafe bicycle riding occurs simply because the violator does not know the laws. Educating nonEnglish-speaking cyclists poses an additional barrier. The American Automobile Association (AAA) has numerous brochures in English and Spanish on the vehicle codes. The City of Half Moon Bay implemented an aggressive program to educate their Latino/Hispanic communities in response to several bicycle accidents and three fatalities. Spanish-speaking police officers stop cyclists who are riding on the wrong side of the road or at night without a light. Instead of issuing a citation, the officer explains the relevant laws to the cyclist, distributes informational brochures in the cyclist’s native language and, when the cyclist is riding at night without a light, gives them a free light and tells them how to use it correctly. This form of education works because it addresses the problem directly and, in the case of the free lights, the recipient is excited about receiving free equipment. In addition, the Half Moon Bay Police Department also works through employers. Spanish-speaking police officers give bicycle-safety presentations at large nurseries that have a number of Spanish-speaking employees. The Street Skills (for bicyclists) course taught by the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) certified instructors is offered at a variety of locales. These classes are offered through the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition. Promotional events such as the annual Wine Country Century Ride sponsored by the Santa Rosa Cycling Club also provide an opportunity to enhance bicycle education and encourage motorists to share the road. While it is often difficult to get adults to attend classes, community events such as charity bike rides, bike fairs and bicycle rodeos are useful in attracting adults and families in more recreational surroundings. Since most adult cyclists are also motorists, they can also be reached through programs discussed in the next section.

Motorists Motorists are probably the most difficult group to reach with bicycle education. Existing motorist-oriented programs typically reach their intended audience only at specific points. Some amount of bicycle education is distributed during driver’s education courses, driver’s licensing exams and traffic schools for violators, but these events will only occur once every several years and are generally felt to be ineffective in changing driving behavior.

4-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Public awareness campaigns are most useful for educating motorists on how to safely share the road with bicyclists, while at the same time reminding bicyclists of their rights and responsibilities. Media campaigns, community events and family activities can be useful in raising awareness regarding bicycle/motorist safety. For example, the City of Sunnyvale distributes information on sharing the road with bicyclists in its utility bills. In addition, parents who attend bicycle education events with their children may learn something themselves about bicycle/motorist safety that can help to reinforce the safe-cycling of their children. Palo Alto is beginning a program to target minority communities including producing materials in Spanish.

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS The accident analysis revealed that about half of reported bicycle/automobile accidents are caused by bicyclists who failed to follow the rules of the road. The most common violations causing accidents are cycling on the wrong side of the road, failure to stop at stop signs and red light signals, cycling at night without lights, or behaving unpredictably while proceeding down the road. Consequently, enforcement should be viewed as an integral part of the bicycle education program and as an effective way to reduce the frequency of bicycle/automobile accidents. Table 4-1 lists the number of citations issued to cyclists in the past year. The most common citation is for a violation of the helmet safety law for bicyclists under 18 years old. Other common citations are for lacking the appropriate lights and/or reflectors for night riding, and for riding in a skate facility. The City has five bicycle officers who ensure that bicyclists are bicycling safely as well as keeping an eye on motorists and pedestrians. Santa Rosa has a downtown ordinance that prohibits bicycles from riding on sidewalks. Table 4-1 Citations to Pedestrians for Violations of City and Vehicle Codes 2009 # of Citations

Violation

Pedestrian crossing against a traffic red light or red arrow or don’t walk/ wait/upraised hand signal; not yielding to vehicle already in crosswalk; not yielding to vehicles on roadway outside crosswalk; walking on the roadway at other than pedestrian’s left edge.

No skateboarding/City Ordinance

Jaywalking 21955 VC

No skateboarding/City Ordinance

Jaywalking 21955 VC

No skateboarding/City Ordinance

Jaywalking 21955 VC

2008

2007

Source: Rafael Rivero, Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Program, SRPD

September 2010

4-5

P E D E S T R I A N - B I C Y C L E : E D U C AT I O N A N D S A F E T Y

Table 4-2 Citations to Bicyclists for Violations of City and Vehicle Codes 2009 # of Citations

Violation

Lacking appropriate lights/lamp, reflector

Lacking appropriate equipment/brakes

Not riding as close as practicable to right hand curb 21202 (A)

Riding against traffic (21650.1 VC)

Obstructing sidewalk

Not stopping at limit line

Downtown sidewalk/City Ordinance

Riding on City Hall property

Wearing headsets

Not making a stop at Stop Sign

Helmet use under 18

Hitching bike ride

Improper hand movement/unsafe turn/speeding

Failure to yield to pedestrians at crosswalk

Lacking appropriate lights/lamp, reflector

Lacking appropriate equipment/brakes

2008

Not riding as close as practicable to right hand curb 21202 (A)

Riding against traffic (21650.1 VC)

Obstructing sidewalk

Not stopping at limit line

Downtown sidewalk/City Ordinance

Riding on City Hall property

Wearing headsets

Not making a stop at Stop Sign

Helmet use under 18

Hitching bike ride

Improper hand movement/unsafe turn/speeding

Failure to yield to pedestrians at crosswalk

2007

4-6

Lacking appropriate lights/lamp, reflector

Lacking appropriate equipment/brakes

Not riding as close as practicable to right hand curb

Riding against traffic

Obstructing sidewalk

Not stopping at limit line

Downtown sidewalk/City Ordinance

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Table 4-2 Citations to Bicyclists for Violations of City and Vehicle Codes - continued 2007 # of Citations

Violation

Riding on City Hall property

Wearing headsets

Not making a stop at Stop Sign

Helmet use under 18

Hitching bike ride

Improper hand movement/unsafe turn/speeding

Failure to yield to pedestrians at crosswalk

Source: Rafael Rivero, Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Program, SRPD

In order for Santa Rosa’s bicycle traffic enforcement program to work effectively, law enforcement officers need education on how best to approach an offender and what violations should be earmarked for enforcement. Since the start of the bicycle and pedestrian safety and education program, Bicycle Safety Experts have conducted roll call trainings during multiple Patrol Briefings over the past two years. The bicycle fine structure should be reviewed periodically to ensure that fines are not excessive. The Santa Rosa Police Department recently implemented a Parent Notification Program to integrate bicycle safety education with citations and field information cards. When given a citation for illegal (unsafe) riding, a cyclist must attend safety training in lieu of paying the entire fine after appearing in court. Furthermore, juvenile offenders are required to attend a safety presentation with their parents, thereby providing the opportunity to educate both children and adults. The Santa Rosa Police Department’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety and Education Program has launched an awareness campaign and continues to conduct monthly special enforcement operations in high bicycle traffic areas targeting bicycle law violators. To enhance the observance of the traffic regulations by bicyclists, this plan encourages a selected number of Police Department personnel to be assigned to patrol the area by bicycle. Throughout the country, many cities have demonstrated the effectiveness of community-based policing utilizing bicycles in place of patrol cars. Clearly, an officer on a bicycle can speak with greater authority about unsafe cycling practices and code violations committed by bicyclists.

BICYCLE PROMOTION PROGRAMS Since bicycle promotion programs are easily integrated into a city’s overall trip reduction program, since. This section proposes many possible programs and activities which are appropriate for a bicycle promotion program in Santa Rosa. The amount of funding available for staff and programs will determine how many of the following programs can be implemented. Grant funding can be obtained, particularly when tied to a safety program. Local bicycle merchants are natural allies in any effort to promote cycling, and their participation should be solicited. The three main components of a bicycle promotion program are: 1. Identify benefits of bicycle commuting - Bicycle commuting is an enjoyable, low cost and healthy alternative to the traditional motorized commute. Bicycle commuting reduces the costs of commuting to the employee, improves health through exercise, can save time for the employees during the actual commute, and can replace time and money spent in lengthy workouts in a gym. Bicycle commuting also does not pollute the air.

September 2010

4-7

P E D E S T R I A N - B I C Y C L E : E D U C AT I O N A N D S A F E T Y

2. Provide an incentive to use bicycle commuting - Many of the existing TDM programs use monetary or other incentives to lure the prospective participant out of his/her single-occupantvehicle and into a carpool or transit. These TDM programs should be expanded to include incentives for bicycle commuting. 3. Support and applaud bicycle commuting - Endorsement of bicycle commuting by those in charge is a significant aspect of a promotion program. Prospective bicycle commuters are more apt to try out this underutilized mode if it is accepted and supported by elected officials and city department heads. Endorsement from “the people in charge” of city government will go a long way towards persuading individuals to bicycle commute, and companies to establish bicycle commute programs of their own. Description of potential bicycle promotion programs has been divided into two parts, one directed at city employees and the other aimed for the general population of Santa Rosa.

City Employee Campaign Identify Benefits of Bicycle Commuting • • •

• •

Info Flyer - Publish a “Bicycle Commute Info sheet” with information on bicycles and other needed equipment, where safe and secure bicycle parking is located, where bike shops are located, and the available transit-access options. Informational Materials - Make available bicycle route maps, safety information, effective-cycling pamphlets and flyers of upcoming bicycle events. Bicycle Club - Start a bicycle commuter club and information network to advise potential bicycle commuters of their best commute routes, to locate experienced bicycle commuters in their area (“Bicycle Buddies”) who are willing to assist and escort them during their first bicycle commutes, and to find out what events and activities are coming up. 511.org provides this service for potential bicycle commuters, including information about bicycle access on bridges and transit throughout the area. Bicycle Safety Demonstrations – Hold demonstrations during the lunch hour on safe-riding, how to bicycle commute, and bicycle repair. The City, local businesses, local bicycling clubs or advocacy groups can sponsor these events. Bicycle Commute Competition – Hold a competition between city departments and agencies to determine who has the most bicycle commuters during a week.

Provide Incentives for Bicycle Commuting • •

4-8

Parking – Secure and protected long-term parking must be provided. Options include bicycle lockers, bicycle storage rooms, attendant parking or allowing bicycles into the workplace. Cash Incentives – There are many types of cash incentives which can be used to encourage bike commuting. The cost of these programs can be mitigated by soliciting sponsorships from stores, restaurants and other retailers. They include: - Cash dividends for each day of bicycling, similar to a transit subsidy; - Monthly drawings for prizes; - Mileage reimbursement for city business travel by bike; - Discount coupons or credit at bike stores, restaurants or other retail businesses; - Bike purchase financing; - Parking cash-out program.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

•

PLAN

Convenience Incentives – One of the major obstacles to bicycle commuting is the perceived inconvenience factor. The following list of programs addresses these concerns. - ‘Guaranteed Ride Home’ - Fleet bicycles for business travel - Trial commute bikes - On-site bicycle repair kits - On-call bicycle repair services - Flex hours - Showers and locker rooms (or gym membership) - Relaxed dress codes

Support and Applaud Bicycle Commuting • •

“Ride with an Elected Official” – Sponsor a ride for city employees with an elected official and/or department head to demonstrate their support and enthusiasm for bicycle commuting. Special Programs – Organize Santa Rosa bicycle commute events for city employees to coincide with regional and national events such as Bike to Work Day, Earth Day and Transit Week.

Elements of a Citywide Campaign for All Identify Benefits of Bicycle Commuting • • • • •

Media Campaigns – Television and radio public service announcements can help reach a broad audience. A weekly bicycle newspaper column can discuss local bicycling news as well as advertise upcoming events. Bicycle Hot Line – Telephone hot line for reporting potholes, missing bike route signs or other bicycle-related hazards. The system could also be expanded to provide bicycle news on upcoming events. Also provide comparable service on the World Wide Web. Bicycle Safety Demonstrations – Expand the program of demonstrations discussed above to include presentations at schools, fairs or other city events. As described on Page 4-6, the Police Department is now developing and presenting a safety program. “Santa Rosa Bicycle Safety Week” – Develop a week-long event to promote the benefits of bicycling to a citywide audience. Include activities in the schools as part of the program. This event can culminate in a “Santa Rosa Fun Ride”, one evening bringing together all the participants. City Bicycle Rides - To maintain interest and attention on bike commuting after the “Bicycle Safety Week” is over, a monthly or quarterly City ride could be organized. These rides should be supervised and designed with clear safety guidelines and a pre-determined route. A Bike Day could be instituted once a month when everyone is encouraged to use a bicycle for that day’s trips. Alternatively, a ride could be organized with a popular Santa Rosa personality, like a writer or athlete.

Provide Incentives for Bicycle Commuting • •

Bikeways - Implementation of the bicycle network in this Plan will be critical to a successful encouragement program. Bicycle route maps and identifiable route signage systems are also necessary to support the route network. Parking - The provision of secure, protected, convenient and inexpensive bicycle parking, as identified in this Plan, is crucial to lure the commuter to the bicycle.

Support and Applaud Bicycle Commuting The City of Santa Rosa could encourage other Santa Rosa employers to organize bicycle commute programs September 2010

4-9

P E D E S T R I A N - B I C Y C L E : E D U C AT I O N A N D S A F E T Y

of their own. In particular, the City should encourage the junior college and the school district, two of the largest employers in Santa Rosa, to promote bicycling to their staff, faculty, students, and parents. An employer resource kit could be provided to each interested employer. The kit could include: • • • • • • • •

4-10

Text for a letter from the CEO/President explaining the Bicycle Commute Program and urging employees to consider the bicycle when making commute choices. Articles about bicycling as a great commute alternative. These stories can be used in company newsletters, as all-staff memos, bulletin board fliers, or any other outreach method in place at the company. A list of programs and events for use in the company’s program. The list will provide details of existing events as well as new programs that could be implemented. City-sponsored events should be included in this list. A resource list detailing sample bicycle promotion programs, resource centers for bicycle promotion assistance, and local bicycle clubs. This list will be invaluable for companies which may not be aware of the benefits of bicycle commuting. Route maps showing the best bike commute routes in Santa Rosa to the particular employer’s work site could be distributed and/or posted. Bicycle Safety and Road Sharing Brochures developed through the education program earlier in this chapter. Sample bicycle promotional items such as T-shirts, water bottles, etc. Listing of local bicycle stores where employees can find the correct equipment for their bicycle commute.

September 2010

Chapter 5

IMPLEMENTATION AND PRIORITIZATION INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the implementation plan for the pedestrian and bikeway network for the City of Santa Rosa. It first describes the many ways that projects can be implemented. It then presents the prioritization and ranking criteria. It describes the high priority pedestrian and bicycle projects and the cost estimates for these projects. Finally the most common funding sources are identified.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The planning horizon for the projects identified in this plan is the year 2035. The actual implementation of the projects described in this plan will occur incrementally in a variety of ways. Many projects will be incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process and will be implemented as the CIP projects get funded. Others can happen as part of regular maintenance and operations practices and road resurfacing projects. Development and redevelopment in some areas of the City will present the opportunity to implement some of the recommendations of this plan. Finally, outside funding can be obtained to finance the design and construction of other projects, improvements and programs. The most likely funding sources are addressed in the last section of this chapter. It is anticipated that most if not all of the land needed to build pedestrian and bikeway facilities would be acquired as development occurs, through dedications or other voluntary means. Eminent domain would be reserved for property that needed to close critical gaps, subject to the existing City process. It should be noted that while seventeen high priority Pedestrian and fifteen Bicycle projects have been identified, this does not mean that the remaining projects must wait until these priority projects are implemented. Rather, due to the variety of ways that projects can get funded and constructed, all the projects in this plan should be considered important. If an opportunity arises that could implement any of these pedestrian or bicycle facilities within the scope of another project, the project should be considered a high priority. Three common ways this can occur are: 1) After roadway resurfacing, the street can be restriped with bike lanes (or wider curb lanes in the case of Class III-Bike Routes); 2) When the frontage of a regional street is developed, the right of way easement should be widened to accommodate sidewalks per City standard and the roadway widened to have bike lanes; 3) When a roadway is built or extended, sidewalks and bicycle facilities are to be evaluated per polices in Chapter 1-- Goal 3 and Goal 2 – “Pedestrian Design Network and Bicycle Network Design…” as to the need and type (i.e. Class I, II, III or none). The high priority projects are those projects whose implementation should be accelerated by seeking outside funding and using local funds for the local match and programmed accordingly in the CIP.

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

ROUTE PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA Prioritization is a requirement of two of the most common funding sources for bicycle projects: the Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) and the Transportation Development Act, Article III (TDA3) as promulgated in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Resolution No. 8751. To help in prioritizing projects, criteria have been developed. Although the BTA is specific to funding bicycle projects, the TDA3 allows for funding of both bicycle and pedestrian projects. The TDA3 can also be used as a local match to other funding sources that fund pedestrian projects (as well as local match to bicycle projects) through other funding sources. Funding opportunities and strategies are discussed later in this chapter. As previously discussed, some projects may be easier to implement than others for a variety of reasons, including political, financial and/or environmental feasibility. Nevertheless, prioritizing these projects and weighing how feasible they are to implement allows the City to set priorities, manage city resources and implement pedestrian and bicycle projects systematically and efficiently. Consequently because of the difficulty in implementing some projects, other projects lower on the priority list may actually be implemented before projects higher up on the priority list, or projects outside the priority list may be implemented sooner if opportunities arise. Nevertheless, having a prioritized list sets the “road map” for which pedestrian and bicycle projects to begin implementing. As background information, the criteria used in the BTA and a summary of the TDA3 criteria used to process grants are presented below.

Bicycle Transportation Account •

Will the project be used mostly by bicycle commuters?

•

Does the project have the potential to increase bicycle commuting?

•

Is the project the best alternative for this situation?

•

Does the project improve bikeways and/or amenities that support bicycle commuting?

•

Will the project provide or improve bikeway continuity to activity centers?

•

Is the project consistent with the (City’s) Bicycle Transportation Plan?

Transportation Development Act, Article III (TDA3) The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) processes each county’s TDA applications. In Sonoma County, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) is the county entity and Congestion Management Agency that administers the TDA 3. Thus, MTC does not apply criteria directly to the TDA 3 projects, but provides 12 “Suggested Criteria” to consider in the evaluation of projects countywide by the SCTA. The objectives of the MTC Suggested Criteria are to give priority to projects that increase the safety, security, and efficiency of pedestrian and bicycle travel, and to the extent practicable provide for a coordinated system. A summary of the 12 Suggested Criteria appears below. Elimination of problem areas; • 1

5-2

Roadway improvements of continuous interconnected route/high demand access; The Streets and Highway Code Section 891.2(j) makes prioritization of proposed bicycle projects a requirement of a bicycle plan. MTC Resolution No. 875 Revised, Attachment A, p.2 “Priority Setting” requires the county/congestion management agency to establish a process for prioritizing projects.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

•

Access to or bicycle parking in high activity areas;

•

Projects that enhance/encourage bicycle/pedestrian commutes;

•

Continuity of longer routes; and

•

Local support.

For a complete list of the MTC Suggested Criteria for TDA 3, see Appendix G, page 5 of Attachment A.

Ranking Criteria The following criteria was developed by the consultant to provide an objective set of criteria as an essential tool to avoid or reduce controversy among various project proponents as well as to efficiently respond to funding applications. The project ranking criteria were developed in cooperation with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB), the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Plan, and other key City staff. The criteria descriptions discussed in this section serve as a guide for implementing the scoring matrix presented in the following section. The categories reflect individual project desirability, demand and feasibility. It is recommended that the criteria may need to be revisited in the future to ensure they continue to serve as useful tools in the programming of projects. In particular the criteria should be revised to ensure that Class I-Bicycle Paths receive equal consideration, or more applicable criteria since two criteria-Traffic Volume and Collision History--may not be as applicable to Class I facilities. Prior to their ranking, the status of projects was examined to determine whether they were already planned for or in the process of being built. Once the project status was determined, the ranking criteria were applied to create individual scores. The scores were then used to prioritize the project list. There are seven criteria that were used to rank both pedestrian and bicycle projects. The criteria have different scales – ranging from 0 to 3 or 0 to 5 – depending on potential impact on the network and quality or extent of data availability. The prioritization criteria are as follows:

Bicycle and Pedestrian Criteria 1. Traffic Volume 2. Collision History 3. Current Demand 4. Community Interest 5. Closure of a Gap/Increases Connectivity 6. Technical Ease of Implementation

Bicycle Specific Criterion 7. Land Use

Pedestrian Specific Criterion 7. Land Use

Traffic Volume The traffic volume criterion is based on either traffic intensity or gross volume. Data used to inform this criterion is based on actual traffic volumes or public works estimates. A higher ranking value indicates

September 2010

5-3

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

higher traffic volumes and therefore a greater likelihood of dangerous incidents, and a greater number of people who would benefit from this improvement. The higher speeds that tend to accompany higher traffic corridors typically require improvements to allow separation of users. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3 based on the following guidelines: 0. Very Low volume. 1. Low to moderate traffic volumes and low speeds, less than or equal to 30 mph. 2. Moderate traffic volumes and/or vehicle speeds. Average daily traffic equals 4,000 vehicles or greater and speeds equal 30 mph or greater. 3. Traffic volumes exceed 10,000 vehicles per day and/or traffic speeds are 35 mph or greater.

Collision History This criterion highlights the importance of addressing projects at sites with high auto-bicycle, autopedestrian, or cyclist-pedestrian collision histories. Data is based on numbers reported by California Highway Patrolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (CHP) State Wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). This criterion directly addresses issues of safety by focusing on intersections with a history of collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians as listed in Chapter Two. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based on the following guidelines: 0. No collision history / no data available for location. 1. Collision data indicates low crash incidence. 2-3. Collision data indicates moderate crash incidence â&#x20AC;&#x201C; possibly in multiple modes. 4-5. Collision data indicates high crash incidence and/or multiple modes.

Current Pedestrian/Bicyclist Demand This criterion assigns higher points to projects that currently have significant usage. Usage was determined through counts and public input or by proximity to important origins and destinations. Actual counts were used where possible. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based on the following guidelines: 0.

Little or no current use and little expected with improvement.

Cyclist and/or pedestrian use currently, serves very small population - limited potential for increased use.

2-3. Route used frequently, desired for increased usage expressed. More use likely e.g. proposal for a new Class I that has significant public support. 4-5. Route heavily used; likely to see increased use with improvement.

Community Interest This criterion is based directly on public input received during public workshops, results from the questionnaire, direct conversations with staff, input received via the project website, and through written submissions. Points are assigned in correlation to the recorded and perceived interest of community members. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based on the following guidelines:

5-4

Does not address any major issues.

Generally addresses issues raised by public during comment periods.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

2-3. Specifically addresses a location or concern expressed by the public. 4-5. Specifically addresses multiple locations and issues of interest or concern expressed by the public and the advisory teams. May have support from community groups.

Closure of a Gap / Increases Connectivity This criterion focuses on facilities that would close a gap or remove a barrier along an existing route, or would address a major safety concern for pedestrians and bicyclists at transition points such as bridges, interchanges, and other difficult environments for pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based on the following guidelines: 0.

Does not provide significant connection, safety improvement or improved access.

Provides limited connection or safety improvement to a minor route.

2-3. Provides connection on significant route and/or makes pedestrian and bicyclist environments better. 4-5. Provides multiple connections, closes significant gap, significantly improves safety or mitigates major barriers such as US 101, NWP Rail Line, or others.

Technical Ease of Implementation The technical ease of implementation criterion focuses on the actual engineering challenges of a project, emphasizing that the physical requirements of some pedestrian and bicyclist projects such as parking removal, traffic lane removal, or lane re-striping, refuge islands, and signals are not technically challenging from an engineering perspective. Projects requiring elaborate infrastructure and/or acquisition of rightof-way would receive a lower ranking in this category. While physical solutions to some barriers can be identified, they may require additional political support or further evaluation of an impact on the transportation system. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based on the following guidelines: 0.

Engineering very difficult, expensive.

Difficult, environmental issues, jurisdiction questions.

2-3. Moderate to easy terrain, known road or right of width adequate, project engineering not prohibitive. 4-5. No significant impediments (based on type of route).

Bicycle Specific Land Use Criterion The land use criterion ranks projects based on connections or access to multiple land uses. Facilities that provide access to schools, shopping, access to transit, access to public open space or parks rank favorably according to this criterion. Projects that connect compatible land uses or provide a critical link between two or more major land uses ranked higher than projects that did not connect origins with destinations. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3 based on the following guidelines: 0.

Does not go to specified destination; is not part of school, employment, or transit route.

Makes some connection to, or part of, a significant route.

Multiple connections or school route.

Multiple connections and school route or significant employment/shopping route.

September 2010

5-5

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

Pedestrian Specific Land Use Criterion The land use criterion ranks projects based on access to destinations selected during the planning process as locations key to pedestrian corridor identification. Facilities that provide quarter mile access to elementary and middle schools, the junior college, transit, and public parks rank favorably according to this criterion. Projects that will provide safe routes or provide a critical link between two or more major land uses ranked higher than projects that did not connect pedestrians with these land uses. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based on the following guidelines: 0.

Is not within a quarter mile of a school, park, transit center, or junior college.

Is within a quarter mile of one of the above mentioned land uses.

Is within a quarter mile of the above mentioned land uses and/or other significant community destinations.

Is within a quarter mile of two of the above mentioned land uses.

Is within a quarter mile of two of the above mentioned land uses, and/or other significant community destinations or provides access across US 101.

Is within a quarter mile of three or above mentioned land uses.

HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS A summary of the High Priority Pedestrian Projects based on the above criteria are shown below by orientation: North-South • • • • • •

Fulton Road—Piner Road/Wishing Well Way N Dutton Avenue—Tesconi Circle/W College Avenue Fulton Road—Appletree Drive/Guerneville Road Brookwood Avenue—College Avenue/Fifth Street Stony Point Road—Northpoint Parkway/Bellevue Avenue Wilson Street - 4th/3rd Streets

West-East • • • • • • • • • • •

Proposed Connector—Cleveland Avenue/Armory Drive W Third Street/Third Street—Roberts Avenue/Railroad Street Fourth Street— B Street/Morgan Street W College Avenue—Stony Point Road & Marlow Road/Albion Place W College Avenue—Ridley Avenue/Tyara Way Chanate Road—Cobblestone Drive/Chanate Court Hoen Avenue—Brookside Drive/Hahman Drive Guerneville Road—Marlow Road/Ridley Avenue Hearn Avenue—Corby Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue W College Avenue—Marlow Road/Sparrow Creek Street Badger Road—Brush Creek Road/Baird Road

The pedestrian project improvements reflect sidewalk in-fill projects, that is closing the gaps between sidewalks, or adding sidewalks where none exist. Chapter 6 Best Practices and Design Guidelines addresses

5-6

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

other type of pedestrian project improvements for future consideration and an approach for identifying locations that need improvement. A summary of the High Priority Bicycle Projects based on the above criteria are shown below by orientation: North-South • • • • • • •

Route 2 – Marlow Road/Stony Point Road Route 5 – Range Avenue/Frances Street/Cleveland Avenue/Wilson Street/Railroad Street Route 7 – Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Route 10 – Humboldt Street—D Street/Hendley Street/South E Street Route 15 – Yulupa Avenue—Bennett Valley Road Route 55* – Neotomas Ave—Farmers Lane/Knolls Drive/Bethards Drive Route 67* – SMART Pathway—Northern/Southern City Limits

West-East • • • • • • •

Route 34 – Administration Drive/Chanate Road/Fountain Grove Parkway/Montecito Boulevard Route 36 – Guerneville Road/Steele Lane/Lewis Road Route 37 – Halyard Drive/Jennings Avenue/Armory Drive/Bear Cub Way/Pacific Avenue/Fourth Street/Sonoma Highway Route 40 – Sixth Street/B Street/Fourth Street Route 41 – West Third Street/Third-Second Street/Montgomery Drive/Melita Road/Los Alamos Road Route 46 – Sebastopol Road Route 72* – Roseland Creek Trail—Southwestern/Eastern City Limits

* The exceptions to following the above criteria are noted with an asterisk. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended substituting Routes 55, 67, 72 and a Class III Network from the initial routes recommended by the Consultant.

September 2010

5-7

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

COSTS Past Year Expenditures Below is a description of past expenditures for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and future financial needs (Cost Estimates) for projects that improve safety and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists in the plan area. This information is not only useful as a performance measure and estimating future construction costs but as a tool for grant funding. For example, the Bicycle Transportation Account, a Caltrans administered grant, specifically requests that this information be listed in grantee Bicycle Transportation Plans as a condition of grant eligibility. Past Expenditures estimates from 2007 to 2010 includes right of way, engineering costs, and associated signing and striping relating to pedestrian and bicycle projects. Recently completed projects include: Pedestrian Projects/Facilities $3,450,570 a) Vallejo Street Pedestrian Flasher with bulbouts ($119,000) b) Chanate Road Pedestrian Flasher at Sutter Hospital ($15,000) c) Montgomery Drive Pedestrian Flasher at Memorial Hospital ($12,000) d) West Third Street at Brockhurst Drive and North Dutton Avenue at Trowbridge Street Pedestrian Flasher ($183,000) e) Aston Avenue Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Path ($278,000) f) Maple Avenue Pedestrian Path at Brigham Avenue ($10,000) g) Finley Avenue Pedestrian Path ($143,000) h) Safe Routes to School - Middle Rincon Road Pedestrian Activated Flasher (PAF), South Wright Road PAF, Dutton Path, Dupont Drive sidewalk ($125,000) i) West Ninth Street Reconstruction - pedestrian portion ($91,570) j) Pedestrian Ramp projects ($1,404,000) k) Private development ramp projects ($1,070,000) Bicycle Facilities

5-8

$2,006,323

Class II—Bike Lanes: a) Fulton Road – Piner Road to Wood Road ($147,340) b) South Hendley Street – South E Street to Aston Avenue ($38,611) c) Yulupa Avenue – Douglas Drive to Bennett Valley Road ($156,166) d) West Steele Lane – Coffey Lane to Range Avenue ($32,809) e) Mendocino Avenue – College Avenue to Fountaingrove Parkway ($39,084) f) West Ninth Street Reconstruction – Wilson Street to North Dutton Avenue ($147,000) g) Dutton Avenue – Guerneville Road to College Avenue ($43,350) h) Coffey Lane – Piner Road to N. of Steele Lane ($41,572) i) Stony Point Road – Highway 12 to Sebastopol Road ($1,136,788) j) Coffey Lane – West Steele Lane to Guerneville Road ($42,903) k) Summerfield Road – Carissa Avenue to Bethards Drive ($19,811) l) Mendocino Avenue – McConnell Avenue to Fountaingrove Parkway ($83,389) m) Montgomery Drive – Hahman Drive to Jacqueline Drive ($37,000) n) Montgomery Drive – Jacqueline Drive to Summerfield Road ($40,500) September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

Cost Estimates The cost estimates to implement the high priority Pedestrian and Bicycle projects presented in this Chapter are discussed in Appendix U. The cost of the high priority Pedestrian and Bicycle projects are shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 respectively in priority order. Table 5-1 HIGH PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS - TOTAL ESTIMATED COST Priority Order 1

Street Name Proposed Connector**

From Cleveland Avenue

Cost ($1000s)*

Armory Drive

101 Overcrossing $12,500

-- Pedestrian Segments

-- Bicycle Segments $358

$21

West 3rd Street/ 3rd Street

Roberts Avenue

Railroad Street

West College Avenue

Stony Point Road & Marlow Road

Albion Place

$44

West College Avenue

Ridley Avenue

Tyara Way

$22

Chanate Road

Cobblestone Drive

Chanate Court

$291

Hoen Avenue

Brookside Drive

Hahman Drive

$619

Guerneville Road

Marlow Road

Ridley Avenue

$272

Fulton Road (West Side)

Piner Road

Wishing Well Way

$841

North Dutton Avenue (East Side)

Tesconi Circle

West College Avenue

$91

Hearn Avenue

Corby Avenue

Santa Rosa Avenue

$342

West College Avenue

Marlow Road (North East Corner)

Sparrow Creek Street

$49

Badger Road (South Side)

Brush Creek Road

Baird Road

Fulton Road

Appletree Drive

Guerneville Road

$42

Brookwood Avenue

College Avenue

5th Street

$70

Stony Point Road

Northpoint Parkway

Bellevue Avenue

Wilson Street (West Side)

4th Street

3rd Street

$36

4th Street

B Street

Morgan Street

TBD

Subtotal:

$181

$283

$1,126

$4,330

* Costs include construction plus 50% for design, construction management and contingency. Costs do not include right of way. ** Current cost estimate between $10-$15 million for the Hwy 101 overcrossing that is part of this project route. This routes ranks as Priority number 1 on both the pedestrian and bicycle priority lists. The total estimated cost of this project is $12.879K when combined with Pedestrian and Bicycle segments and construction of the overcrossing. For purposes of Table 5-1 only pedestrian cost estimates are shown to avoid double counting for the same project.

September 2010

5-9

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

Table 5-2 PRIORITY BICYCLE PROJECTS - TOTAL ESTIMATED COST Priority Order

Route 37

Name/Description

Cost ($1000s)*

1 2 3 4 5

34 36 40 41

Jennings Avenue - Sonoma Highway -- 101 Overcrossing (Segment 37f )** -- Pedestrian segments -- Bicycle segments Chanate Road - Montecito Avenue Guerneville Road - Steele Lane - Lewis Road 6th Street - 4th Street 3rd Street - Montgomery Drive

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

46 55 2 5 7 10 15 67 72

Sebastopol Road Neotomas Avenue Marlow Road - Stony Point Road Range Avenue - Cleveland Avenue Mendocino Avenue - Santa Rosa Avenue Humboldt Street - D Street*** Yulupa Avenue SMART Pathway**** Roseland Creek Trail

$266 $61 $393 $463 $620 $289 $280 $5,751 $2,719

Various*****

Class III Network Review

TBD

$12,500 ($21) $358

Subtotal:

$12,858 $716 $327 $258 $788

$25,789

* Costs include construction plus 50% for design, construction management and contingency. Costs do not include right of way. ** Current cost estimate between $10-$15 million. The median of $12.5M construction of the over crossing is combined with the bicycle element in this estimate. The pedestrian segment costs for this route appear in Table 5-1. This route ranks as Priority number 1 on both the pedestrian and bicycle priority lists. The total estimated cost of this project is $12.879K when combined with Pedestrian and Bicycle segments and construction of the overcrossing. ***4 of the 15 segments of this route involve a Bicycle Boulevard design. At the time of this printing Public Works was evaluating a pilot design for the Bicycle Boulevard. Initial costs are estimated to be approximately $800,000 based on current design and community input. The $289,426 cost estimate is for the entire route and does not include design costs specific to bicycle boulevard segments as design elements can vary by location and community input. ****Not within City jurisdiction. *****See pages 5-60 and 5-61 for detailed listings of the various routes.

The segments and locations of these High Priority pedestrian and bicycle projects appear at the end of this Chapter in Tables 5-5 and 5-6 with their respective maps. It is estimated that the cost to implement the high priority Pedestrian projects is approximately $4.3 million and approximately $25.8 million to implement the high priority Bicycle projects. The cost to implement the entire bikeway network outlined in this plan would cost about $38.9 million and includes the 15 Priority Bicycle Projects. Because the cost of real estate fluctuates with market demand, the cost of rightof-way acquisition is not included in the above cost estimates. All cost estimates would be recalculated at the time a project is programmed into the Capital Improvement Program and would include right of way costs, if applicable.

5-10

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

This Plan proposes 88 miles of bikeways (Class I, II, III, Bicycle Boulevards). Combined with the existing 77 bikeway miles, the total bicycle network (existing and proposed) is 165 miles. A route summary of total cost estimates and bikeway mileage for the entire bicycle network is presented below in Table 5-3 . Table 5-3 SUMMARY OF BICYCLE NETWORK - TOTAL ESTIMATED COST AND MILEAGE Estimated Cost

Cost ($1000s) Construction

Construction Management*

Subtotal

Priority List Projects**

$17,193

$8,597

$25,790

Other Network Projects***

$8,767

$4,384

$13,151

Total Estimated Costs

$38,941

Sub-Total (Rounded)

Estimated Mileage

(Network) Subtotal by Class

Cost ($1000s)

Existing Class I Path 13.39 Proposed Class I Path 20.33

Class II Bike Lane 45.61

Class III Bike Route 17.94

Class II Bike Lane 40.44

33.72

Class III Bike Route 28.84

86.05

Bicycle Boulevard --

Bicycle Boulevard 5.55

46.78

Total Miles

5.55

Total Bicycle Network Miles (Existing and Proposed)

172

*”Construction Management” includes a 50% mark up for Design, Contingency and Construction Management. **Includes intersection/signal detection costs estimates. ***Excludes intersection/signal detection costs estimates. NOTE: Costs do not include right of way.

It is important to note that these projects are based on a planning-level analysis. Implementation of all projects will require incorporation into the Capital Improvement Program for funding prioritization, as well as public review, project-specific environmental review, and approval through the City Council prior to design and construction.

September 2010

5-11

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

COUNCIL DIRECTED REVIEWS As a result of the City’s previous planning documents, Northern Downtown Pedestrian Linkage Study and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, the Council directed staff to address three items: Sixth Street, Bicycle Parking in the Zoning Code and Wilson Street.

Sixth Street The Northern Downtown Pedestrian Linkage Study (NDPLS) was initiated in 2004 to study the Sixth and Seventh Street corridors through downtown to develop conceptual and design improvement plans that would strengthen linkages between the northern and central areas of downtown. Consensus was not reached on the type of bikeways on two segments of the Sixth Street portion in the NDPLS: a) Sixth Street between Davis and Wilson Streets, and b) West Sixth Street west of the SMART Property to Pierson Street. The 2001 BPMP shows this area of Sixth Street as a proposed Class II facility (Route 40). Council directed staff to convene a sub-committee to review the Sixth Street portion of the study with the community. Upon the sub-committee’s recommendation, the Council approved pursuing implementation of Class II bike lanes as the ultimate improvement along the Sixth Street corridor between A Street and Pierson Street as right of way becomes available. The Council further directed implementation of interim bicycle facilities along Sixth Street to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB) during the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update process. Staff did not find any issues or challenges with this direction nor the sub-committee’s recommendation of incorporating the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition’s “sharrow” proposal (Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking)—a pavement marking alerting motorists to a shared use route and designation of the street as a bicycle route (Class III). At a special meeting, the BPAB voted to follow the NDPLS and Council’s direction. Sixth Street is shown as a proposed Class II-Bike Lane in the Project List (see Chapter 3). Although the Existing Condition column in the project list shows no bikeway, this does not mean that the interim condition proposed by the sub-committee and by the Council cannot take effect. It simply needs to be programmed and prioritized. Once the right of way becomes available, the ultimate improvement of Class II bike lanes can be implemented. Depending on the outcome of the SMART station design and whether the opportunity presents itself for a park west of the 6th Street Play House, on the south side of the street, the Class II bike lanes may not need to extend all the way to Pierson Street, if bicyclists could access the Santa Rosa Creek Pathway via the future park. This would require further study as the area develops and opportunities arise.

Revising the Zoning Code for Bicycle Parking The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan proposed general strategies for ensuring that an appropriate but not excessive amount of parking is available to residents, shoppers and visitors in the plan area. Because the existing Zoning Code, under specified conditions, requires bicycle parking based on a percentage of required automobile parking, there was a concern that if parking requirements were reduced there would be a commensurate reduction in bicycle parking requirements; thereby reducing the incentive to travel by bicycle. This resulted in Station Plan policy SP-T-3.9: As part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: 1. Develop square footage-based bicycle parking standards for the Specific Plan Area 2. Update current standards and requirements for indoor/covered bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities in non-residential development projects. (2007 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan pp. 6-12, 6-17).

5-12

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

Staff reviewed the City’s existing Zoning Code and other zoning codes and guidelines from various municipalities (Palo Alto, Portland, and Berkeley), the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). The proposed Zoning Code amendment is introduced in Chapter 2 and appears in Appendix F.

Wilson Street The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan was initiated in 2006. Its primary goal was creating a program to create a transit supportive environment through land use intensification, improved modal connectivity and circulation, and creation of more walkable environments within the Plan Area. The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan recognized that some of the proposed Class II bicycle facilities would be difficult to implement due to a combination of right-of-way and site constraints, neighborhood parking issues, and the presence of historic structures. The Planning Commission reviewed the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan over a series of meetings and adopted a resolution recommending approval of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan with several modifications, among them that the planned Class II bike lanes along Wilson Street not be changed and that the effort for determining the type of bicycle facility be coordinated with the BPMP update process. Staff recommended to the City Council that the 2001 BPMP be revised from the currently planned Class II Bike Lane to a Class III Bike Route as part of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The City Council, by Resolution (No. 26950) in October of 2007, adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan without accepting staff ’s recommendation to change the Class II designation on Wilson Street, preferring instead that the issue be reviewed further as part of the BPMP update. In October 2008, the consultant on the BPMP recommended Wilson Street as a Class III and the BPAB subsequently supported Wilson Street as a Class III. Recognizing that Wilson Street needed more attention than simply labeling it as a Class III-Bike Route, in January 2009 staff convened a cross section of department representatives to further study and focus on Wilson Street as a multi-modal transportation corridor and held a series of public focus group meetings with the West End neighborhood, Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, Railroad Square Merchant Association, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and a subsequent April 2009 public meeting. The conclusion from the various City department representatives was that Wilson Street needed uniformity and additional street treatments to serve as a pedestrian and bicycle friendly transportation corridor. The uniformity involved making the predominant condition of sidewalk and no parking on the west side consistent throughout the six block corridor by adding a missing sidewalk and removing parking. The street treatments to calm traffic and enhance awareness involved adding stop signs, pavement markings (“sharrows”) and signage, and standardizing the travel lanes in both directions to improve the bicycle experience. An added traffic calming measure is bidirectional bus service. The conclusion of uniformity and street treatments were generally accepted by stakeholders in the public focus group meetings. The existing conditions and proposed street treatments, overview/ultimate design and focus group presentation appear in Appendix U. The Wilson Street segment of Route #5 is proposed as a Class III-Bike Route.

September 2010

5-13

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AND STRATEGIES Traditional Funding Sources This section outlines the most probable funding sources to implement the recommended bikeway projects. While some funding sources are dedicated to the City, many are competitive. Also, the City of Santa Rosa receives funding for roadway projects which can be used to implement some bikeway projects in this Plan. Table 5-4 presents a more comprehensive list of the various local, regional, statewide, and federal funding sources which can be used for roadway, trail or traffic safety (including bicycle safety) projects. The most likely funding opportunities for bicycle improvement projects in Santa Rosa are: • • • • • • • •

Capital Facilities Fee - City of Santa Rosa fee charged as a condition of building permit approval to defray the cost of certain public infrastructure facilities required to serve new development. Revenue distribution includes a set percentage for pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Bay Area Air Quality Management District funds - Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) 40 percent Program Manager Monies/60 percent Regional Surface Transportation Program of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century - This is often used to fund projects with bicycle components. In fact, bicycle facilities enable the project to score higher. Office of Traffic Safety - This funding source is often used for bicycle and pedestrian safety projects. It can be used for traffic calming programs as well. Transportation Enhancements and Transportation for Livable Communities Safe Routes to School

Non-Traditional Funding Sources In addition to the sources listed above and in Table 5-4, there are several non-traditional funding sources that might be available for the long-term implementation of project and program recommendations. The following paragraphs briefly describe several of the unusual or innovative ways that communities have funded parts of their pedestrian and bicycle programs. Grant and Foundation Opportunities - Private foundations provide excellent opportunities for funding

specific capital projects or single event programs. To qualify for these types of funds, the BPAB, or an established non-profit group acting in its behalf, must exist. According to the 1994 “Foundation Directory,” there are over 650 foundations within the State of California, many of them located in the Bay Area. The Directory only includes those organizations which held assets of $2 million or more, or gave $200,000 or more in grant awards in the previous year. In general, private foundations are initially established for specific purposes, e.g. children and youth needs, promotion of certain professional objectives, educational opportunities, the arts, and community development. There are four types of foundations located in the Bay Area: •

Independent Foundations

•

Company-Sponsored Foundations

•

Operating Foundations

•

Community Foundations

5-14

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

A description of several foundations that favor environmentally-related projects is presented in the report â&#x20AC;&#x153;Guide to Bicycle Program Funding in Californiaâ&#x20AC;? published by the Planning and Conservation League Foundation, April, 1995. In general, private foundations prefer to fund programs that are special in nature such as conferences or childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s education events, rather than programs viewed as city responsibilities such as constructing and maintaining roadways. Adopt-A-Trail/Path Programs - Modeled upon the Southern California program of highway maintenance

contributions, this program would post signs to indicate which individual or group has contributed to either the development, installation or maintenance of a particular bike facility.

Memorial Funds - These programs are advertised as potential donor projects to be funded via ongoing

charitable contributions or funds left to a particular project through a will. Most memorial projects include the location of a memorial plaque at a location specific to the improvement or at a scenic vista point. Revenue-Producing Operations - As part of the development of a trail or bike path, plans can specifically

include the location of a revenue-producing operation adjacent to the proposed improvement. For example, bicycle rental facilities, food and drink establishments, bike storage facilities and equipment centers, and/or equestrian centers would be appropriate uses. The ongoing lease revenues from these operations could then be used for trail/path maintenance.

Funding Strategy Some funding sources do not provide more than one or two hundred thousand dollars per year. To fund a million dollar or more project with these sources would commit this one funding source for about ten years or more. This would be to the neglect of many other smaller projects that may be as beneficial. It does not make sense to commit one source of funds for several years to only one project. Rather, smaller sources of funding such as TDA Article 3 and TFCA should be used for funding the less costly projects and larger pools of funding should be sought for the more expensive projects.

September 2010

5-15

5-16

$4.00 sur charge on per motor vehicle registration

TFCA - Regional Fund

Transportation projects that reduce air pollution including: bicycle facili ties such as bikeways, bike parking and bike racks on transit vehicles.

Required 20% match for projects over $100,000

Bicycle projects must be in an adopted countywide bicycle plan or congestion management plan

1:1 matching funds ratio

Urban open space projects and recreation projects (including trails) within or near incorporated areas

Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District

Bay Area Air Quality Man agement District, (BAAQMD)

No local match required for bike/ pedestrian projects

15 bike/pedestrian projects identified in the Measure M Strategic Plan

Eligible Use of Funds

¼ cent sales tax for transportation, 4% for bike/ pedestrian projects

Source

Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA) - Program Manager Fund

Regional Sources

Matching Grant Program

Measure M (Sonoma County)

Local Sources

Funding Program

Restrictions, Including Local Matching Funds

Table 5-4 Summary of Funding Sources for Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects and Programs

Competitive grant.. Maximum per project: $1 million. Minimum $10,000

Formula distribution. Santa Rosa receives approximately $200,000 annually

Varies annually. $2 million in 2009

Maximum Dollar Allocation (Annual unless stated otherwise)

BAAQMD

Apply through SCTA BAAQMD approval required

Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District

Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA)

Agency

http://www.baaqmd. gov/Divisions/ Strategic-Incentives/ Transportation-Fundfor-Clean-Air.aspx

www.sctainfo.org

http://www. sonomaopenspace. org/Content/10119/ matching_grants. html

http://www.sctainfo. org/measure_m_ strategicplan.html

Website

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

September 2010

MTC: STP/CMAQ/ TE funds (see Federal Sources)

Transportation for Livable Communities

Planning or capital bicycle/ pedestrian projects which are “community-based transportation projects that revitalize downtown areas, commercial cores, neighborhoods and transit corridors by enhancing their amenities and ambiance”

20% local match required

Capital or operations projects which improve transportation access for low-income residents

MTC

Projects that make biking and walking to transit easier, faster and safer

$1 bridge toll from Regional Measure 2 through MTC

Safe Routes to Transit

Lifeline Transportation Program

Competitive grant. Projects must have a “bridge nexus,” that is, reduce congestion on state toll bridges by facilitating walking or bicycling to regional transit services

$10,000 - $120,000 per project.

BAAQMD TFCA

Eligible Use of Funds

Bicycle Facility Program

Source

Simplified grant process, first come, first served basis

Regional Sources

Funding Program

Restrictions, Including Local Matching Funds

Table 5-4 Summary of Funding Sources for Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects and Programs

Varies annually. $600,000 in FY 09/10

Maximum Dollar Allocation (Annual unless stated otherwise)

MTC

TransForm and East Bay Bicycle Coalition

BAAQMD

Agency

http://www.mtc. ca.gov/planning/ smart_growth/ tlc_grants.htm

http://www.mtc. ca.gov/planning/ lifeline/

http://transformca. org/

http://www.baaqmd. gov/Divisions/ Strategic-Incentives/ Bicycle-FacilityProgram.aspx

Website

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

5-17

5-18

Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA)

State Sources

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Program

Regional Sources

Funding Program

State Highway Account (Funded by gasoline taxes)

MTC: STP/CMAQ/ TE funds (see Federal Sources)

Source

Development of bicycle facilities, especially those that promote bicycle commuting

Construction of the Regional Bicycle Network, regionallysignificant pedestrian projects, and bicycle and pedestrian projects that serve schools and transit

Eligible Use of Funds

Requires 10% local match and project must be in an adopted local bike plan that complies with Streets and Highways Code (SHC) section 891.2(a) through (k)

Restrictions, Including Local Matching Funds

Table 5-4 Summary of Funding Sources for Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects and Programs

Competitive grant

Maximum Dollar Allocation (Annual unless stated otherwise)

Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit

SCTA/MTC

Agency

http://www. dot.ca.gov/hq/ LocalPrograms/bta/ btawebPage.htm

http://www.mtc. ca.gov/planning/ bicyclespedestrians/ regional. htm#bikepedprog

Website

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

September 2010

State: Gasoline tax returned to source counties

Caltrans

Caltrans Transportation Planning Grants

Source

Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA)

State Sources

Funding Program

Formula distribution. Projects must have CEQA (environmental) clearance. Bike projects must be included in a general plan or adopted bike plan

10% - 20% match in non-federal funds

Right-of-way acquisition; planning, design and engineering; support programs; and construction of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, including retrofitting to meet ADA requirements, and related facilities.

Planning for projects that will provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle mobility and access. Project has to fit in one of these four programs: Environmental Justice Transportation Planning; CommunityBased Transportation Planning; Partnership Planning; or Transit Planning

Eligible Use of Funds

Restrictions, Including Local Matching Funds

Table 5-4 Summary of Funding Sources for Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects and Programs

$50,000 - $300,000 maximum grant, depending on program

Approximately $80,000 annually for Santa Rosa

Maximum Dollar Allocation (Annual unless stated otherwise)

Caltrans

SCTA

Agency

http://www.dot. ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants. html

www.sctainfo.org; http://www.mtc. ca.gov/funding/STATDA

Website

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

5-19

5-20

NHTSA (Federal funds)

SAFETEA-LU*

California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)

Recreational Trails Program

No infrastructure projects

Bicycle and pedestrian safety programs, such as safety programs, education, enforcement, traffic safety and bicycle rodeos, safety helmet distribution, and court diversion programs for safety helmet violators Recreational trails and trails-related projects

Federal funds require 11.5% match

Capital projects only; includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities

Eligible Use of Funds

* SAFETEA_LU expired in 2009, but is due to be reauthorized soon.

State and federal funds combined

Source

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) / Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)

State Sources

Funding Program

Restrictions, Including Local Matching Funds

Table 5-4 Summary of Funding Sources for Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects and Programs Maximum Dollar Allocation (Annual unless stated otherwise)

California State Parks

California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)

Project list created by SCTA; must be approved by MTC and California Transportation Commission (CTC)

Agency

http://www.parks. ca.gov/?Page_ id=24324

http://www.ots. ca.gov/Grants/ default.asp

http://www.mtc. ca.gov/funding/STIP/

Website

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

September 2010

September 2010 CEQA compliance required. 50% match

Funding cycle is open and ongoing throughout the year

K-12 schools

Conservation of habitat, including wildlife corridors and urban trails. Property acquisition, design, and construction Study and implementation of public access to coast, rivers, and streams and for resource conservation

Improve K-12 school commute routes through construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects

California State Parks

California State Coastal Conservancy

Caltrans

Habitat Conservation Fund

Coastal Conservancy

Safe Routes to School (SR2S)

50% match. Sponsors are required to fund the project; to be reimbursed up to 50 percent of the project costs after completion

Planning and acquiring outdoor recreation areas and facilities, including recreational trails

Eligible Use of Funds

Federal

Source

Land and Water Conservation Fund

State Sources

Funding Program

Restrictions, Including Local Matching Funds

Table 5-4 Summary of Funding Sources for Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects and Programs

$20 million throughout state. Maximum per project $500,000.

$2 million per year throughout state.

Maximum Dollar Allocation (Annual unless stated otherwise)

Caltrans

California State Coastal Conservancy

California State Parks

Agency

http://www. dot.ca.gov/hq/ LocalPrograms/ saferoutes/saferoutes. htm

http://scc.ca.gov/ category/grants/

http://www.parks. ca.gov/?page_ id=21361

http://www.parks. ca.gov/?page_ id=21360

Website

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

5-21

5-22

MTC: SAFETEALU*

MTC/Caltrans SAFETEA-LU*

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improve ment (CMAQ)

Surface Transportation Program (STP)

Transportation En hancements

SCTA/MTC

Must be mainly for transportation rather than recreation; requires local or state match

Match required.

Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities

Bicycle and pedestrian projects which strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the transportation system

Caltrans

Agency

SCTA/MTC

Infrastructure projects must be within 2 miles of a grade school or middle school

Maximum Dollar Allocation (Annual unless stated otherwise)

Must be mainly for transportation rather than recreation

Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities or bicycle safety pro grams

Improve K-8 school commute routes through construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects

Eligible Use of Funds

* SAFETEA-LU expired in 2009, but is due to be reauthorized soon.

SAFETEA-LU*

Source

Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

Federal Sources

Funding Program

Restrictions, Including Local Matching Funds

Table 5-4 Summary of Funding Sources for Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects and Programs

www.dot.ca.gov/ hq/TransEnhAct/ TransEnact.htm

http://www.mtc. ca.gov/funding/ STPCMAQ/

http://www. dot.ca.gov/hq/ LocalPrograms/ saferoutes/saferoutes. htm

Website

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

September 2010

SAFETEA-LU*

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Caltrans

Safety improvement projects on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail. A safety improvement project corrects or improves a hazardous roadway condition, or proactively addresses highway safety problems

Agency

FHWA

Maximum Dollar Allocation (Annual unless stated otherwise)

Plan and implement strategies which improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of transportation, ensure access to jobs, services and activity centers, and examine development patterns to improve transportation efficiency

Eligible Use of Funds

* SAFETEA-LU expired in 2009, but is due to be reauthorized soon.

SAFETEA-LU*

Source

Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program (TCSP)

Federal Sources

Funding Program

Restrictions, Including Local Matching Funds

Table 5-4 Summary of Funding Sources for Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects and Programs

http://www. dot.ca.gov/hq/ LocalPrograms/hsip. htm

http://www.fhwa.dot. gov/tcsp/pi_tcsp.htm

Website

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

5-23

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

HIGH PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS Project Descriptions The 2001 Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update did not include a list of high priority pedestrian projects. Through the planning process, a set of criteria was designed to rank high priority pedestrian projects similar to bicycle project criteria. The land use criterion for pedestrian projects also relates the proximity of sidewalks to key destinations. The ranking criteria evaluated whether sidewalks were missing on one or both sides of a street. The project table provided in this section identifies the following characteristics of the high priority pedestrian projects: • • •

From Street – regional or transitional street location where the segment begins. To Street – regional or transitional street location where the segment ends. Total Length of Sidewalk Needed – linear feet of sidewalk length needed on one or both sides of street segment.

Projected Planning Level Estimated Cost is based on typical five-foot wide concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, and pedestrian ramp at street intersections. Costs are based on assumptions specified in Appendix U. The planning level costs serve as general guidelines and should not be used to estimate actual costs for the design and build of specific projects. These cost estimates do not include right of way, but do include 50% for design, construction management and contingency. These projects and segments are depicted in the three maps (Figure 5-1) following Table 5-5. As discussed in Chapter Two, the pedestrian network includes sidewalks, multi-use pathways and unpaved pathways. Based on the ranking described in the previous section, there are 16 high priority pedestrian projects. The high priority projects are listed in order of their ranking.

5-24

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

Table 5-5 Characteristics of High Priority Pedestrian Projects Street

From Street

To Street

Total Length of Sidewalk Needed

Total Number of Curb Ramp Sites Cost ($1000s)* Needed

Project 1 Proposed Connector**

CLEVELAND AVE

ARMORY DRIVE

158

N/A

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%) Total

$21,000

Project 2 W 3RD ST/ 3RD ST

ROBERTS AVE

RAILROAD ST

947

$121

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$60

Total

$181

Project 3 W COLLEGE AVE

STONY POINT RD & MARLOW RD

ALBION PL

277

$30

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$15

Total

$45

Project 4 W COLLEGE AVE

RIDLEY AVE

TYARA WAY

102

$14

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

Total

$21

Project 5 CHANATE RD

COBBLESTONE DR

CHANATE CT

1,719

$194

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$97

Total

$291

Project 6 HOEN AVE

BROOKSIDE DR

HAHMAN DRIVE

3,922

$413

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$206

Total

$619

Project 7 GUERNEVILLE RD

MARLOW RD

RIDLEY AVE

2,022

$181

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$91

Total

$272

Project 8 FULTON RD (W-side)

PINER RD

WISHING WELL WAY

5,617

$560

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$280

Total

$840

Costs include construction plus 50% for design, construction management and contingency. Costs do not include right of way.

Current cost estimate between $10-$15 million for the Hwy 101 overcrossing that is part of this project route. This routes ranks as Priority number 1 on both the pedestrian and bicycle priority lists. The total estimated cost of this project is $12.879K when combined with Pedestrian and Bicycle segments and construction of the overcrossing. For purposes of Table 5-1 only pedestrian cost estimates are shown to avoid double counting for the same project.

September 2010

5-25

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N Table 5-5 Characteristics of High Priority Pedestrian Projects (continued) Street

From Street

To Street

TESCONI CIR

W COLLEGE AVE

Total Length Number of of Sidewalk Curb Ramp Cost ($1000s)* Needed Sites Needed

Project 9 N DUTTON AVE (E-side)

568

$60

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$30

Total

$90

Project 10 HEARN AVE***

CORBY AVE

SANTA ROSA AVE

2,365

$228

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$114

Total

$342

Project 11 W COLLEGE AVE

MARLOW RD (NE corner)

SPARROW CREEK ST

314

$33

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$16

Total

$49

Project 12 BADGER RD (S-side)

BRUSH CREEK

BAIRD RD

1,664

$189

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$94

Total

$283

Project 13 FULTON RD

APPLETREE DR

GUERNEVILLE RD

257

$28

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$14

Total

$42

Project 14 BROOKWOOD AVE

COLLEGE AVE

5TH ST

406

$46

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$23

Total

$69

Project 15 STONY POINT RD

NORTHPOINT PKY

BELLEVUE AVE

7,295

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%) Total

$750 $375 $1,125

Project 16 WILSON ST (W-side)

4TH ST

3RD ST

280

N/A

$24

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

$12

Total

$36

Project 17 4TH ST

B ST

MORGAN ST

913

TBD

Design, Construction Management & Contingency (50%)

TBD

Total

TBD

Sub-Total * **

***

5-26

TBD

$4,330**

Costs include construction plus 50% for design, construction management and contingency. Cost do not include right of way. Current cost estimate between $10-$15 million for the Hwy 101 overcrossing that is part of this project route. This routes ranks as Priority number 1 on both the pedestrian and bicycle priority lists. The total estimated cost of this project is $12.879K when combined with Pedestrian and Bicycle segments and construction of the overcrossing. For purposes of Table 5-1 only pedestrian cost estimates are shown to avoid double counting for the same project. Will be addressed as part of the Hearn Avenue Overcrossing CIP Project

September 2010

Para dise Ln

Judson Ln Winberie Knls

Green Acre Ln

Forestview Dr

Sequo ia Cir

Guerneville Rd

Dorr it Av e

Jenn in

hti

ng t

Miwok Ct

7 Guerneville Rd

S le

yllis

Umlan d

8T hS

Hwy 12

Tr owb r

Dutton Av e

Pfist er Rd

pl e n Ap e k L e r C

id ge S t

Decker St

Parks

mi ta s Projects AvPedestrian e Sy ca mo Railroads re Av e Hy l an Waterways d Dr

0.125 0.25

Benton St College Ave

Klu te St 10Th St

i on

Way

P on ie rs

Fenwick Dr

Rusty Dr

Fulto n Rd

Countryside Dr

3Rd St

College Ave

Bear Cu b

Pr of e

ul i

Caven dish Av e

9Th St

in gs Jenn e Av

ar ds E dw e Av

Mcbride Ln

oo d

Darek Dr Brittain Ln

Figure 5-1 High Priority Pedestrian Projects

he oc

State Farm Dr

Russell Ave

dw Re

Lem

jo St

Steele Ln

r Larry D

College Ave

gs A v

Nig

Manning Ct

al e

y on d S t nt R i Po

0.5 Miles

Bosley St

rS Wh eele t Mill S Pin e S t t Oa k S

Santa Rosa Ave

Julio Ln

Ga ds Hill St

Velm a Av e

rf ie ld D

Moonlight Way

Westv iew Way

Sundance St

Marsh Rd

Nava

Bay Village Cir

Kowell Rd Manhattan Way Ridley Av e

3Rd St

ppe

Streiff Ln

Flo ra Wa l y

Bodie St Hardies Ln

Lin k Ln

WeROSA PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS - NORTHWEST SANTA t s tga te ur S C

Woodacre Trl

Fulton Rd

13 Ya rdley S

Piner Rd

lto

Iroquois St

Plumeria Dr Ditty Ave

ks ac Tr Maxwell Dr

Nikki Dr

Heidi Pl

Lariat St Ethan Dr

ba r k Ir on Halyard Dr

Arm ory Dr

Peterson Ln

Cu n ni n W g ha ay m

Arden Way

Marc Way Belair Way

Charro Dr

l Nyla P

Nordyke Ave Meyers Dr

r nee Pio ay W

Elmendorf Pl

Dr Sta nis la Way

Living Oak Ct Senna Dr

Marlow Rd Moonview Ct Bruce Ct Frederick St

Coffey Ln

Wild Rose Dr

Cle veland Ave

ils W

BS t AS

Countr y r Ma nor D r

Ave Eard le y

Br oa

Clo ver D

Range Ave

n tto Du v e A

Lanc e

c ks

n Mo rga

Sa Burb alem Av e nk Cir

pa D r Anaca

a Tr

o n Ln

Cedarwood Dr

St Raco

Davis St

Slater St

r la D

North St

Tracks

County r rD Cente

Hum boldt St

September 2010 Hum boldt St Orch ard St

ac Ap ks ac Tr he

r St Sla te

Kingwood St Sara cen Rd

o c in ndo Me r D e s Cir r R ow ley D Em eritu Berk e r D e Lilli

Ave

Orch ard St

Dr ebell rel

e Beaver St

Blu Est

Av King St

an Fr

n kli

Wright St

Wrigh t St

Piner Rd

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

y St Olive

e Av S t ber t s R o w a St Io en S t Ga rd

te Ga y Wa

ay Stonybrook W

5-27

dBarn

Bl vd

ta Pk i

in u n ta

d nR

n Altr ur ia D r Bell a Vista Way Lak e Par k D r

y Bear Cu b Wa

a Schol

rs D

on d Richm

Fisca lD

Cir

Kelsey Knl

view

Pa rker Hill Ct

H eD ll r D r d Dr

tw oo

g Ri Windin

Had l ey Hill Dr

rd P l

Fo ot Norte hill D r y Wa Dr

b Z ie

Va ll ey Rd rr

Ha pp y

n Park St 16Th St 15Th St Ln 14 Th St S arian Ln h M e John ve T 13Th St tl A 4 Lit ard 12Th S t ir t Leon a C F s l et Ln Scar ak Will Robin O d Ln Hoo

Br yd en L

a Ct r Rd Badge

J ean

ks ac Tr D

Ave Me ndocin o

Coulte r St

M is s i Dr h Ci n

r R and

Hoen Ave

S pri n g Cree k Dr

r nD owa ve Magnoma nAt Dr rvel Dr r So remo Ca lin D k Cla Pati o Ct Roc

ur rkh Pa

M 0.3 ont

Mulbe rry Dr r nt D r

0.15

Parks e

Ye Bue rba na 0.6 V Miles

ont Way Railroads C re st m Waterways on

c ale

Es Pedestrian Projects

Gold

Dr ar to Dr Ci eso Rainbow Dr OwDl Hil l Av e Rainbow Ra ter s Dr

Diane Way Dr

M on tg s om P eryl

Tr l

r artz D Qu Bo H u ld er rn e a G t a a an g Sl w Ne Ave Dr n eek Dr er L g CnrW n n i r ge m S p e to Su hed e c n Ct in Ho en Sto gto n Pr ayet te M Ave Rough Ave Sha Go Tree L len Dr n Dr er Co ttsb r y Ct Tarto n Dr ai l Dr Parktr

Slate Ct

Qu Hi a rry ll Ct

ay le nW Tr l ll iva Su

ck bu ar St Ave r r Cir cle D D y Ja e Jac k so Blu mi nD sh Ka r

D oe Ta h ve aA

Ave klyn Mac ot Ave Talb le Doy Dr P a rk St nd St oo d a l okw Le rce Bro Ave e i P

t BS

Figure 5-1 High Priority Pedestrian Projects (cont.)

Va lle jo

er Sh

k oo

Mon t ecito vd

Tunisia Gold Ave Lake Dr k r s r Sna ie Lisa Ave Alg ve Way A El Encan to S ea r fD Wol M oroc co Ave t S l o Scho ma Hw y Sono

yo n Ca n

n re L Leisu r D da na r t ra pec ci a D G r os Br P Ave ee d

lup Yu ndaSt aathyy KW r Wa r D n rd D sto Harva Alber t Dr Ea

Ln ow ad t Sh Dr Sandra C y ir Wa ra er r m ed e Dr i P da D Ahl go n t e i on N M r Hac eb D Dr ra ay tley r w a d H Mi t C k r Pa

Sunrise G Sunris e Ave

t h S Montgo mer y Dr 5 T St h St 4T St ss Ro Rdd St 3 t Boyce S ve 2N t aA S h PEDESTRIAN NORTHEAST SANTA ROSA StPROJECTS - S t St onom 7T h 1 S 6T

Byrne Ct Co x Dr Plu t mM wC e o a d Sha Trai d y Cr eek lw oo Ct d Heimp s M cke Dr o n buc Ct tr Way h Way t o C oo d Parkwoo w d d Ct Re

il Ln

Me l ita

a Ct

Willia ms Rd

nie L Cha na te Rd n to an C t ob Ave d Knill D In c H dlebr o o k o id M r R Normandy Dr Incli n Meadowm o nt Ln

B on

Deer Park Ct

Fox l Hill P

F ar mers L

Colle ge Ave

Howar d St Beaver Ln Royal St

Ea s

Cha n

Castl e

xe m Av e

ea r C Rild ge

B Rut eaufo herf o

Fl a ck

Klute St Lincoln St h St 11 Th St Ct10 Tt S Ripley s i St t 9 Th S 8T h

ay Ridg w Ave Denton Way Be nton St Carrillo St

st D r C re He

Chan ate Rd

Carr Ave Mcco nne ll Ave Louis a Ct Pacific Louisa Dr Ave

rosa Lew y Wa

ay Stonecres t Ct Bicen ten n i al W Bu Vis ena Russe l l Av e ta Sheriffs De Dr Lom itas A ve Pauli

Daw

Armo ry D r

Ripley St

bbles Co Dr tone

oc Un

Nordyke Ave Meyers Dr

Pa rker Hill Rd t o c k CAa a te Ct B ro D r n on i Hidd e n t a i Vis Valle y k Dr ta D e Dr Sleep M r y Ho o s s Hollow l low Dr

it Emer

Quail C

win W Bald ay

Humbold t S t Orchar d St

Sla te r St Hum bo ld t St Orchard St N ea l D Kin g St Wrigh t St Stewa rt North St St

ridg

Su n

dge Rd M on t Av ecito e

Alta Vista Ave

Mon roe St Te r r a ce W y J e we Aus tin ll G ra GWay hn ro s G t Dr se e a G B A r e lm o v y e D n D e ra c e t r C le v D t Ele W an r T h A an o a y o ve r S i e Ha m a R sta ven s D o r g L W e rs n D r ay

Br ush Creek Rd

Zimmer man Ln Tran quilo Ca lle

Pue blo Ct

al d

Firestone Pl

Beni

Brid

Rd Dr ield i n g Dr erf m m a m yo sk Su W y d yR rle rado a C olo d C Blv

Dav

Tr l

arkspur D MaLyw ood r Dr Pert

tors Park Dr

ray C M ur

Old Quarr y

St Fra ncis R d

Meliss Rick D r

t Pl

Hidden Creek Pl

a r stone Way d

Du p i tD o

te Cir

e Dr

n kl i a n ve r F A Pl

Ct rris Mo r no t Ho k C n L

Ki ns in

Sh a

Boas Dr

l R oy a g Gor Ct F olia

dy ck s An ay Rd be W sn ve l ie N r Dr er nda D nif Ter ra Li Mu rdock Dr St e o g C d i n rkr Hend e r s o ter St Ki Ci r Sla i po ew Vi Ave alem Ave no oci e Dr S Ct d n Me Ro w Ha rris r r t East p Way n Dr L illie Dr tariu m P lane t Illin o is S C o unty C e n ter Dr Clevela nd Ave ve M adf rds A E dwa eD dsid W oo Dr y s a g min ly W C um Bev er

id i

a ll

F er

ls Hil

Cir mma

te Lee Av e

nC t

M Calisto ga Rd Park Ave d l ie Garf erald Em rk Ct Pa

Brey Rd ti R d

O Ne wls st

k oa Ct Gro ve Ave

Viole t

Ct r ne D de Elai gla r e d Dr Rd t on R Ev in s l lin R inc Va l e S Bair d Rdenjam Ha iddle M Br r D Spe e rs Rd rD Es t e s Calle t S Gan d u l en ay yW er g Dr b r ns in l nt D HaRedwdi na ci n mo r o te lL F re n Ca a y r o W M d r Blv a Dr Mission k DDr r a e o Shady Riv pe d t sl o rC ny W c indso n W la Su Li er h us n Br e k L Tree t o i e r c C Wa y nte Lo s Mo e O vo s Av ue Plli l B k a O He lf o a in y t n Fou P k al Pl e Gr ov Pl pa a rd d W h y r H a pp t C yC Valle

en Gl

t Dr Sa n t Jua n S l Yerba P

Evenin g W ay

d er

Cir

Mo t eC os ntr

Ba ja Ct Cas it

T rl

Ha w k Dr M Fis oun t a i n he r Rd

m au

5-28 R

st o ne

un Fo v e o Gr

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

ble ob C

ge r Fo u l de

yo Arro a Cir r r e Si o sa a rip M y a Dr

e q u e tt Fran e v A

September 2010

C o rp Ce ora te nt P k er y

Giffen Av e

Hear n Av e

be ll D r

Butler Ave

Ludwig Ave

Ga rd ner Av e

Dix ie Pl

0.4 Ca mp Miles

Northpoint Pky

Yuba Dr

Apollo 0.1 Way 0.2

Parks

Waterways

Ash D r

an D r

Lazz ini Av e

K eeg

Barndance Ln

Ir o n s Ci ton e r

Railroads

Ln S ky Blu e n Rose L Yellow

m De

Bellevue Ave

Liscum St Red Tail St Arabian Ln

Pedestrian Projects

Lia n

ll Od e

Hearn Ave

Glor ia

Bellevue Ave

Mojave Ave

Tupelo Ave

s Ct

Pin ewood Dr Cherrywood Dr od D r Ashwo

Dr My rtlewood

Ing lewood Dr

Cottonwood Dr

Duke Ct

Colga

Frazier Av e

n Ave

Flower Ave

r ke Ba v e A

El C

Butterfly Ln

El Crystal Dr

en t ro W ay

rd Cir ur ty a

Yolanda Ave

Coachman Ln

Kawana Springs Rd

Shady Ln

Hearn Av

Corb y Ave

Cranbrook Way eo te y An Wa

Darlyn Way

pl a

m ar

Figure 5-1 High Priority Pedestrian Projects (cont.)

Oasis Dr

Jam e

Faletto Ct

Ave out h

Dr Leo Dr o w od South Va le rie Way

a Dr

Rain Dance Way

Barh am Av

Tracks

my Em C t Lou

Wh itewood Dr

Rose Av e ay aW s e M Dr o r Jane

15 Stony Point Rd

Kenton Ct

St al l

A t on

to n Mil

Bedford

O P et l d a Hill lu m a Rd

Cedar Berry Ave

Mille r Rd

l em

San Domingo Dr

Dutton Me adow

Corby Ave

N ew

PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS - SOUTH SANTA ROSA

Daniels Ave

Silve r Spur Dr

Burgess Dr

Wes t Creek Ln Sweet Gr ass Ln

Weber Ln Webber Ln Wilder Rd

Colem an Glen Ln

Dutton Ave

Rosevin e Ln Silve r St one Ln Arbo r Grove Ln Desert Ro se Ln

Tracks

Fre sno Ave

Wilja n Ct

Buss Dr

Dowd Dr

r aD

nt a

ew h

Squire Ln

Lom bardi Ln Santa Rosa Ave

St Sto ny Point Rd

Santa Rosa Ave

Burb ank Ave Summ ercreek Dr

Am es Ct

Bond St

le rb Ma r Victoria D

ek r cre a

Biwa na Dr

ke P ar Ter r im

Wes t Ave Meadow Way

Com alli St Dutton Av e

na wa K a er T

a m lu ta Rd e l P il H

y Ln

Mcm in n Av e Pl Cedar Creek St

September 2010 n ada

Ta Vie ylor wD r

Ln Str ove n Page Ct

Topaz Way

spla La E

ay Malachite W Margarita Way

Olive St

Turquoise Way Moraga Dr

Sebasto pol

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N

k Dr

5-29

Citrine Way

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

HIGH PRIORITY BICYCLE PROJECTS Project Descriptions The 2001 Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan listed 15 High Priority Bicycle capital Projects; this update also proposes 15. Historically, 15 is the number used to represent the high priority projects in order to efficiently plan and organize and focus City resources in delivering these capital projects. The criteria for ranking these bicycle projects were developed similarly to that for the pedestrian projects during the planning process and reviewed with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB). The projects included in this list were the highest scoring projects, based on the criteria, with the exceptions of Routes 55, 67, and 72 that the BPAB recommended. The BPAB also recommended the establishment of a “Class III Network” with a combination of 7 existing proposed and 14 new proposed Class III-bike routes to supplement the overall bikeways network. While the concept has merit, it would require evaluation studies for further consideration; therefore the evaluation study for a Class III network is included in the high priority bicycle project list (See Table 5-2). Characteristics of each of the remaining 14 high priority bicycle projects including route segments, bikeway type, estimated cost along with a map of each route follows. Note that segments listed in the tables that are outlined in red will require further study; and segments outlined in blue dashes and periods lie outside the city’s jurisdiction, which will require cooperation with neighboring agencies for implementation.

5-30

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #1 (Route 37) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

To Street

Total

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment Route 37 (2001 Plan) ROUTE 37 WINGLET - via ZINFANDEL AVENUE Proposed Connector

PINER CREEK PATHWAY

ZINFANDEL AVE

---

0.07

ZINFANDEL AVE

Proposed Connector

GAMAY ST

---

III

---

0.16

GAMAY ST

ZINFANDEL AVE

JENNINGS AVE

---

III

---

0.02

HALYARD DR

W COLLEGE AVE

JENNINGS AVE

---

III

---

0.34

JENNINGS AVE

HALYARD DR

N DUTTON AVE

---

III

---

1.42

JENNINGS AVE

N DUTTON AVE

SMART RR Xing

---

III

---

0.07

Proposed Connector

SMART RR Xing

RANGE AVE

---

0.13

---

JENNINGS AVE

RANGE AVE

CLEVELAND AVE

---

III

---

0.35

HWY 101 Ped/Bike Over Crossing

CLEVELAND AVE

ARMORY DR

---

0.31

---

BEAR CUB WAY

ARMORY DR

MENDOCINO AVE

---

III

---

0.49

---

PACIFIC AVE

MENDOCINO AVE

HUMBOLDT ST

III

0.16

---

0.16

SPENCER AVE

HUMBOLDT ST

PROCTOR DR / MORLEY WY

III

---

0.81

MORLEY WAY

SPENCER AVE / PROCTOR DR

BRYDEN LN

---

III

---

0.06

4TH ST

BRYDEN LN

FARMERS LN

III

0.50

---

0.50

4TH ST / SONOMA HWY

FARMERS LN

VILLAGE PKY / STREAMSIDE DR

---

0.20

---

SONOMA HWY

VILLAGE PKY / STREAMSIDE DR

MISSION BLVD

---

0.33

---

SONOMA HWY

MISSION BLVD

MELITA RD

---

2.42

---

SONOMA HWY

MELITA RD

OAKMONT DR

---

1.83

---

SONOMA HWY

OAKMONT DR

PYTHIAN RD

---

1.61

---

ROUTE 37 WEST BOUND COUPLET - via CLYDE AVENUE 4TH ST

BRYDEN LN

CLYDE AVE

---

0.07

CLYDE AVE

4TH ST

PROCTOR DR / MORLEY WY

---

III

---

0.12

PROCTOR DR

CLYDE AVE

SPENCER AVE

---

III

---

0.08

TOTAL MILES 0.66

3.57

4.23

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Requires further study

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

n/a

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

7.32

Reference:

Subtotal Construction: $8,571,702 50% design, construction management & contingency: $4,285,851 Total Cost Estimate: $12,857,553

September 2010

5-31

Fr an ci sco

S to

He ar n

t Ellio t

S tee le

Leo

ay Ri dg w

le Ma p

n lga

Ro b les

B urt

Yola nda

K awa n a S pr ing s

A ld

A ll an

oth il

Cha nat e

R ie b li

n 4th

F a rm e r s

t on As

yd e

e Mon t

n de

Santa Rosa - SCT HWY 12/Brookwood Ave

Ta lm ad ge

He a rn

C o lle g e

5 th4th M o n tgo mery

3rd a m t 1s S o n o

2nd St. Transit Mall

m B arh a

S p e n cer

P a cific

ta Pe lu m

Du tto n

Sonoma County Transit HQ

B elle vu e

te r

County Center

ris

n ta i ou

Cor b y

L u dw ig

B ri tt ai n C or by

Yuba

Stony P o in t

Burba nk

Southside Community Park

Ra n

We st

Pe a rb lo sso

3 rd

No rthp o in t

9 th

C o lle g e

ngs

i al

en do ci

Santa Rosa Junior College

Coddingtown Mall

le v il

Bice n ten n

t Dut

G iffe n

mas L a ke

S t And

S e ba s to p

In d u stri

g in

ls o Wi

O ccid en ta l

A i rw ay

Golden Gate Transit

n ni Je

Gu e r n

S te e le

er Pi n Coff

San M ig u el

S st We rk

Finley

Mar sh

Ho p per

D e n ni s

C offey

Westside ny Po in Transit Santa t Center Rosa 3 rd Citybus HQ

C o lle ge

ood

SCT River Rd/HWY 101

Wa ltze r

Rive r

M a rlow

g ro

tt Vall ey

t age r on eF yp

B en ne

Hoe n

H oen Valle jo

om S on

Eastside Transit Center

S on

B e th ar d s

v che a h Ta

Cree

en Ho

k s ide

a om

on nc Ri

om tg on

res s

cit

Mo nte

V a lley

Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

Fre sn o

l Cle ve d Boy

or ate C ent er

O live a um ta l

Co rp

Ve n tu ra

e un ty C n Co

A rm ory

Ra n g e

Th o

M o rg

D Pe

Ston y P oint

Ex e te r

Du tto n M e a do w

cit o ok er bro

W ilja n

R i dl ey Fa rm ers

n ny o Ca

r Ba d ge

rk h Pa

s ur

M el ita

a B ue na

Y e rb

Hw y

n n Moun e

M o ntg om ery

a wk tain H s

S to n e B ri

dg e hite Oak W

Oa km

O ak

12 a irfield

Hw y

ea f Oa

SCTA 1-4-2010

hia n

Oa k m

ROUTE 37

t on

S tan d is h

F M e nd ocin o

Ba i rd

H um b o ld t

C al

Du tton

tt Du

l bo Ta ue tte

Dow d

Creek B rus h

Fr anq

S a nta Rosa

Fountain g r o v e

ie ld

tV et nn Be

M o o rla n d

kl in an No r th

n rso

e ace

Pe t e

ey k r ee

lup

fie er mm

S an ta R osa

ary St M

B ro okwood

Fr us h C

Ro ge

B Yu

es M issi on

a po

rn Ba S t Fra n cis

d edw oo Old R

velan d C le

e rf mm

Yu lu p a

o Q ue en

rker Hi ll Pa

Al am o

Lo s

in con dle R

lley Va

5-32 ce alla

Mid

P yt

s o ga

Ca list

r ew

Ol d

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

Ca listog a

ley

ill

Hill

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #2 (Route 34) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

To Street

Total

Miles

0.28

---

0.28

BOLD indicates priority segment Route 34 (2001 Plan) ADMINISTRATION DR

VENTURA AVE

MENDOCINO AVE

III

CHANATE RD

MENDOCINO AVE

HUMBOLDT ST

---

0.27

CHANATE RD

HUMBOLDT ST/BELVEDERE WY

MONTECITO MEADOW DR

---

1.27

---

1.27

CHANATE RD

MONTECITO MEADOW DR

FOUNTAINGROVE PKY

0.60

FOUNTAINGROVE PKY

CHANATE RD

BRUSH CREEK RD

0.50

---

0.50

MONTECITO BLVD

BRUSH CREEK RD

MISSION BLVD

III

0.20

---

0.20

MONTECITO BLVD

MISSION BLVD

MIDDLE RINCON RD

III

0.30

---

0.30

MONTECITO AVE

MIDDLE RINCON RD

BERRY CREEK PL /BAIRD RD

---

0.31

---

0.31

MONTECITO AVE

BERRY CREEK PL /BAIRD RD

CALISTOGA RD

III

0.59

---

0.59

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Requires further study

September 2010

TOTAL MILES

3.17

0.87

4.04

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

n/a

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

0.28

Reference:

Subtotal Construction:

$477,398

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$238,699

Total Cost Estimate:

$716,097

5-33

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

SCTA 12-24-2009

Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Riebli

ri n Mark W e st S p

St Andre

e ac

Wa ll

omas L ake Th

r Ha

Ca lis

in g r

to g a

o ve

H i ll

er Ba d g

nd v ela C le

Yer b a

B aird

k Cr ee c

ush Cre e

l ey al

cit o

ace

Gr ah n

H u mb o l d t

Mendocino

4th Al

Cre e

k side

Tach e va h

ROUTE 34 d el

r fi me

il l aH

y pre ss

S um

talum

Corby

oo d ok w

B ro

Bo y

West

A l la

tt Valley

Yu lupa

B enne

o sa S a n ta R

n tto

age r on t

Ho e n

p le Ma

Santa Rosa - SCT HWY 12/Brookwood Ave

u e tte

ils

en Ho

F ra nq

Val lejo

F ar m er s

H oen

Eastside Transit Center

lu Yu

iel

ot lb Ta

M o rg

C l ev

o ma

erf mm

So n

om a So n

Montgom ery

h St.

om So n

y er

ro ok

N orth

5 th 4 t h

2nd Transit Mall t 3rd 4t

m go nt Mo

og e

derb

tto 7th

9 th

B a rh a m

ita

Spen cer

Earle

e ry

Foo th il

Arm ory

Pac ific

3 rd

M o n tg o m

Du 9 th

R an

te Mo n

C alis toga

Vent ura

D upo nt

in c dle R

n kl i an

Santa Rosa Junior College

Buena

sion

n te Ce

t El li o t

e idd

Co llege

5-34

on a nc

M is

Ch anate

Steele

R id g w

po l

M id

County Center

Cou n t y ings

a st o

yo n Ca n

Coddingtown Mall

S eb

Bru sh

Chanate

ci no

ial

S teele

Je nn

ito

Mo n te

ary

B icentenn

k Pa r

St M

Piner

Range

in grove

r Hi ll rke Pa

o od dw Re M

i te c Mon

ta un Fo

O ld

Fou

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #3 (Route 36) Street

Status

Segment

From Street

To Street

Miles

Total

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment

Route 36 (2001 Plan) GUERNEVILLE RD

Peterson / Forestview Creeks

Western CITY LIMITS

---

0.33

---

GUERNEVILLE RD

Western CITY LIMITS

FULTON RD

---

0.25

GUERNEVILLE RD

FULTON RD

RANGE AVE

---

2.20

---

2.20

---

0.24

GUERNEVILLE RD

RANGE AVE

CLEVELAND AVE & W STEELE LN

STEELE LN

CLEVELAND AVE & W STEELE LN

COUNTY CENTER DR & ILLINOIS ST

---

0.20

STEELE LN

COUNTY CENTER DR & ILLINOIS ST

MENDOCINO AVE

---

0.41

LEWIS RD

MENDOCINO AVE

HUMBOLDT ST

---

0.17

LEWIS RD CC ROW 36â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

HUMBOLDT ST

FRANKLIN AVE

---

0.11

1.39

3.59

TOTAL MILES 2.20

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Requires further study

September 2010

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

n/a

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

0.33

Reference:

Subtotal Construction:

$218,280

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$109,140

Total Cost Estimate:

$327,420

5-35

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian MasterOldPlan dw

SCTA 12-30-2009

L ake

i arr

Thomas

Coffey

Dennis

es rn

Indust rial

Cami no

o Ov

Piner

ia l

Ra nge

Coffey

A dm in i str

County Center

Fulton

Coddingtown Mall

wi s Le

Steele

E ll i ot

Steele

C h anat e

rlow Ma

Santa Rosa Junior College G uer n e vi l

Guernevill e

s i ng

e F rances

Pac ific

Spenc er

E x e ter

A rm o r y

n Je n

Jenni n gs

R i dg

way

to n

Put

R idley

ney

C arrillo

Coll ege

College

Co llege

r ga 9 th

oin

9 th

7th

4th

o ils n

3rd

t 2nd

D ut pol a sto

M ap l Earle

Santa R os

C orby

W est

Burbank

Laz z i n i

H ill

Ba rh a m

Stony Point

5-36

te r C orpora te Ce n

Fres no F i n le y

S ebastopo

S ebas to pol

P eta lu

W ri ght

C hico

d Bo y

Se b

O liv e

n to

B rit ta in

3rd

O ccidental

St. S o n Transit Mall

ilr d Ra o a

F ulto n

3 rd

4th

3r d

5 th

St on

ve Cl e

Santa Rosa Citybus HQ

Westside Transit Center

Hall

k li an

so ter

a tio

C ou nt y C e

M arsh

ci no

Vent ura

W altzer

P in

nd v e la C le

Bi cente nn

en do

Hum boldt

S an Miguel

c in

M e n d o ci n o

Golden Gate Transit

Airway

S an Miguel

o nd

Del Prado

Hea ld sburg

F ulton

nt Fo u

Hop per

Hopper

Delam e re

Piner

e rov

F rancisco

ROUTE 36 Bake r

Co lg

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #4 (Route 40) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

To Street

Miles E

Total

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment

Route 40 PIERSON ST

SANTA ROSA CREEK PATHWAY

W 6TH ST

---

BIKE BLVD

---

0.04

W 6TH ST

PIERSON ST

SMART RR TRACKS

---

BIKE BLVE

---

0.17

6TH ST

SMART RR TRACKS

A ST

---

BIKE BLVD

---

0.24

A ST

6TH ST

7TH ST

---

0.08

7TH ST

A ST

B ST

---

Link in Route 39-segment e-h

E ST

COLLEGE AVE & KING ST

SONOMA AVE

---

Link in Route 19-segment a

4TH ST

E ST

COLLEGE AVE

---

0.40

4TH ST

COLLEGE AVE

BRYDEN LN

---

0.60

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Requires further study

TOTAL MILES 0.00

1.53

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

n/a

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

0.00

Reference:

September 2010

Subtotal Construction:

$172,125

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$86,063

Total Cost Estimate:

$258,188

5-37

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

Clevel and

Ellio tt

SCTA 12-30-2009 N orte Gr ah

Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

Te rr a ce

Mcdona ld

on te

cit

Santa Rosa Junior College

P acifi c

Bry d

Spencer

Ar m o

R idg w

de Al

ry Carrillo

North

Hum boldt

Mendocino

r brook

4t h

or g M

H eal d s burg

ot lb Ta

C oll ege

ve lan

7th

m er n tg o Mo

9t h

okwo od

yo m

B ro

S oto

3rd

9 th

4 th

S on

ilso n B

2nd St. Transit Mall

o ma

Va llejo

Railro a d

Santa Rosa - SCT HWY 12/Brookwood Ave

S anta

3rd

R o sa

O l iv

e M aple

pol a sto

n e tt Be n

ey Vall

o kw

Boy

o Br o

Se b

Earle

C orby

Dutton

ma a lu Pe t

Ba rha m

H ill

5-38

A l la

Aston

ROUTE 40

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #5 (Route 41) Street

Status

Segment

From Street

To Street

Miles

Total

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment

Route 41 (2001 Plan) HALL RD

Western CITY LIMITS

W 3RD ST

---

0.27

W 3RD ST

FULTON RD

BRITTAIN LN

---

0.98

---

0.98

W 3RD ST

BRITTAIN LN

STONY POINT RD

---

0.60

W 3RD ST (35 MPH)

STONY POINT RD

RUSCH CT

III

0.45

---

0.45

W 3RD ST

RUSCH CT

DUTTON AVE

---

0.42

---

0.42

3RD ST

DUTTON AVE

SMART RR TRACKS

---

0.32

---

0.32

3RD ST

SMART RR TRACKS

MORGAN ST

---

0.23

3RD ST

MORGAN ST

B ST

---

3RD ST

B ST

SANTA ROSA AVE

---

3RD ST

SANTA ROSA AVE

E ST

---

3RD ST (one-way West Bound)

E ST

MONTGOMERY DR / 2ND ST

---

E ST

3RD ST

2ND ST

2ND ST (one-way East Bound)

E ST

MONTGOMERY DR

---

0.33

MONTGOMERY DR

2ND ST

TALBOT AVE

---

0.39

MONTGOMERY DR

TALBOT AVE

HAHMAN DR

---

0.65

MONTGOMERY DR

HAHMAN DR

JACQUELINE DR

---

0.63

---

0.63

MONTGOMERY DR

JACQUELINE DR

MISSION BLVD

---

0.52

---

0.52

MONTGOMERY DR

MISSION BLVD

SPRING LAKE CT

---

1.33

MONTGOMERY DR

SPRING LAKE CT

MELITA RD

---

0.72

---

0.72

MELITA RD

MONTGOMERY DR

LOS ALAMOS RD

---

0.07

LOS ALAMOS RD

MELITA RD

SONOMA HWY

---

0.09

4.55

8.82

---

0.23

0.17

---

0.10

---

0.21

---

0.34

Link in Route 19 segment a

TOTAL MILES 4.27

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

0.67

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

0.00

Reference:

Requires further study

September 2010

Subtotal Construction:

$525,375

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$262,688

Total Cost Estimate:

$788,063

5-39

Ludw ig

B urban k

Marlow

B r itta in

W ri gh t

B e lle vue

Du tto n

Y u ba

Ea rle

He a rn

am Ba rh

4t h d 3r t 1s

2nd St. Transit Mall

C o rb y

H e arn

L eo

n tt o

Pea r blos so m

P a cifi c

pl e ey M aet t Vall n Be n

C o lle g e

Burt

Yola nda

K a wan a S pr in g s

B ake r

5t h

n lga Co

S on

7th

Sp e n ce r

ill

l st op o Se ba

n ls o

d Bo y aH

Southside Community Park

Giffe n

ay R idg w

an lr d R ai o a

um Pe ta l

No r thpo i n

Ch a n a te

Santa Rosa Junior College

E llio

S e b asto p ol

3rd

S tee le

County Center

l ve D

Occi d en ta l

3 rd

9th

Co ll eg e

Coddingtown Mall

lle

ia l

ta i

n te

yd en

en dd

4th

Foo th il

Ch a n ate

om a

Valle jo

H o en

S on

F a rm e r s

Asto

A lla

age

tt Va lle y

nt Fro

Cy pre s s

o ma Son

on nc

e om tg on

Eastside Transit Center

B e nn e

n Ho e

Foun tai n g ro ve

Santa Rosa - SCT HWY 12/Brookwood Ave

s i de

B e th ar d s

Tache v ah

Cree k

Can

en Ho

y on

er Ba d g

u rk h Pa

o ci t nt e Mo

L udw ig

Rid ley

Westside St on Transit yP o Center Santa int Rosa Citybus HQ

gs n in Je n

r ue G

vi ne

Bi cente nn

en do ci

C le

Fin le y

Steel e

Ai rwa y

Golden Gate Transit

rove ng

P ric e

Je nni n gs

Gu e rn e vil le

Mars h

Coffe

er Pi n

S an M ig u e l

Fa rm er s

Chi co

Fu l ton

F u lto n

In du strial

M o rg oyo m

Col lege

so n

P eter

C offe y

Ho p pe r

Fo u

a ll e y

S ot

Hall

P i ner

S a n M ig u e l

Fu lto n

De la mer

D en n is

cit o

ot lb Ta ett e

M erced

f ield

Wrig ht

Wa ltze r

E xe t e r

Rang e

n t to Du D u tton Me a d ow

P utn

Ra n

b ro lde r Fr an qu

F re sn o

Arm ory

Fr a n cisc

tV et nn Be

S to ny Po in t

ar y

W ilja n

B ru sh Cr e ek

k re e

Do w d

Hu m b o ld t

Ve ntu r a

e nter yC lu Yu

ld r fie me

ta Pe

lu m

M o orlan d

li n nk

Me n doci no

v elan d C le

r Te ace r

Co u n t

ah n

a Fr Pa

r Hil l rke Pa

N o rth

r me

S an ta Ro sa

San ta R o sa

Bro okwood

W alla c e

nte ci

i sion Mis

B r us h C

ge rs

e n Rin co

B a ir d

dle Mid Yulu pa

5-40 rn Ba o w ed ood

a B u ena Y erb

Hw y

in Haw nta

Sa n Ramo n

la m os

ROUTE 41

SCTA 12-30-2009

Mo u

M ontg om ery

Me lita

S t Fr a nc is

Ol d R St M

Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

Ca li stoga

ley

ill

rby Co

Du tto n

W est

Sto ny Poi nt

te r C o rp ora te C en

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #6 (Route 46) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

To Street

Miles

Total

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment

Route 46 (2001 Plan) SEBASTOPOL RD

Western CITY LIMITS

S WRIGHT RD

III

0.24

---

0.24

SEBASTOPOL RD

S WRIGHT RD

LEDDY AVE

---

0.12

SEBASTOPOL RD

LEDDY AVE

FRESNO AVE

---

0.38

---

0.38

SEBASTOPOL RD

FRESNO AVE

CORPORATE CENTER PKY

---

0.34

SEBASTOPOL RD

CORPORATE CENTER PKY

STONY POINT RD

---

0.66

---

0.66

SEBASTOPOL RD

STONY POINT RD

BURBANK AVE

---

0.34

---

SEBASTOPOL RD

BURBANK AVE

AVALON AVE

---

0.47

---

0.47

SEBASTOPOL RD

AVALON AVE

SMART RR TRACKS

---

0.33

SEBASTOPOL RD

SMART TRACKS

OLIVE ST

---

0.13

0.92

2.67

TOTAL MILES 1.75

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Requires further study

September 2010

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

0.00

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

0.34

Reference:

Subtotal Construction:

$177,443

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$88,722

Total Cost Estimate:

$266,165

5-41

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

P acifi c

Sp e n c e r

tto

E x e ter

R id g w

n Carrillo

Coll ege

College

Co llege

Westside Transit Center

He a ld sburg

R id ley

tney

r ga

Santa Rosa Citybus HQ

on y

9t h

9th

int

5th 4 th

3 rd

d Railr o a

F ulton

t 1s

ton ut

Britt ain

e O l iv

3r d

p asto

Bo y

Se b

Earle

Occidental

S ebastop ol

F inley Price

Burbank

Hear n Dowd

y orb Talmadge

Wi lj an

Ludwig

S tony P oint

B ellevue

5-42

Dutton

Dutton Mead ow

Hearn

Yuba

Ludwig

He ar n

B ellev u e

Santa Rosa

Fresno

Southside Community Park

W right

C or by

N ort hpoin t

Pea rbloss

B ake r

Le o

G if fen

Northpoint

S anta Rosa

Lazzi n i

Dutton

Chico

West

Stony Poi nt

t er Corporat e Cen

S ebast opol

Barh a m

Moorland

Wright

2nd St. Transit Mall d

lso Wi

Hall 3rd

7 th

Mendocino

F rances

Arm o r y

s n i ng Je n

Jenni n s g

Santa Rosa Junior College

Guern ev ille

Guernev ille

SCTA 12-30-2009

tt E ll i o

Humboldt

rlow

R a ng

Pete rson

F ulton

Coddingtown Mall

C levelan d

ff Co

ey Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

ROUTE 46

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #7 (Route 55) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

To Street

Miles

Total

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment

Route 55 (2001 Plan) NEOTOMAS AVE

FARMERS LN

RONNE DR

---

III

---

0.46

RONNE DR

NEOTOMAS AVE

NEOTOMAS PATHWAY

---

III

---

0.01

NEOTOMAS PATHWAY

RONNE DR

NEOTOMAS AVE

---

0.05

NEOTOMAS AVE

NEOTOMAS PATHWAY

LORNADELL LN

---

III

---

0.03

LORNADELL LN

NEOTOMAS AVE

KNOLLS DR

---

III

---

0.05

KNOLLS DR

LORNADELL LN

BETHARDS DR

---

III

---

0.66

1.25

TOTAL MILES 0.00

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Requires further study

September 2010

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

0.00

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

0.00

Reference:

Subtotal Construction:

$40,397

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$20,199

Total Cost Estimate:

$60,596

5-43

as m to eo Ave

it e Dr

qu es

Yulupa Ave

Yucca St

B e tha rd sBethGaaridnssbDorr

Pol led Herefo rd Dr

Oak Gl e n

Sag

Can in Ct

Y u lu p

elo Ci

YAuvleu

norama D Pa

Cac tus A ve

l oo ps Ct

o aw

e St

Ho l

D la n d

s Dr Kn ollne tt B en R d ey

Ka m

ll eyVall Va

Janssen L

ona aw W Dr t C a

Ma y n e s C t

K n ls l Hi

nn e tt

ol l Ci s r

adre Dr mp Co

lley Va Dr w V ie

V erdi V ista D r

Tamarisk Dr

as ho e

Tus can D r

eR d

W oodlake

B oston Ct

ll L n B enne tt M eado ws Ln

a de

Lo r n

K noll s Ln

ksid

Mimo sa C t M imosa St

Mo nte rey M orse Dr W ay Matanzas Rd

hevah Tac

Cr ee

ah ev ch Ta

A ve nt o me n ix e o Ph v e A

Little Rock Ave

B isma rk C t

De er Ru n

Po st R an ch Rd

fg reen D r

Fr Ho on

F arm ers To w Ln

er s m

nne Dr ey e Ch

Ln r dD

Gre Hill en Dr

rr e Pie

B o ise Ct

tori D r Sar

Fa r

ra Sac

Dr Ct

Kn o D r l ls

n do Gor n lla

nt a Sa D r Fe

Elm Dr

Ma tanzas Way

Ma e s Pl

Hahman Dr

F arm ers Ln

Ho en

Berth

rida She n

er Ct

B ra sh St Va l le jo

oe Ta h r D

a lup Yu ve A

C rd

Dr ra nd

Neot o B rookhaven Ave mas or st mo E a Dr

Be V al nnet ley R

Ct cie r Dr Gla en Lass t C n se La s t ne C lum Tuo nity T ri Dr

T i s se

sD u gla Do

pa lia Hil Dr

Im pal Ct

lu Yu

dC p ar S he n L yn Ct

r r

rn Elk h o Ct ou Ca r ib Ct

Ja ck y Dr Ja ne t Wa y

rD S

D by e ar

re st e nc Gr e

Falle Lea n Rd f Dr en r gre Ev e CreeksidesRd d e r k i

Ro n n e Dr

B en net t Valley R d

en md Ca Ct

Neo to m as Ave

rD Fi

C yp re Cy pre ss sWsa y

n vi e w Av e

A tl a n t a Ln C t Pe n n y

Tow

Sidney Sq

iew illv r Te

ie w nv

s Pl

A lb ert

re s Cyp

e Rd

M oor

e ve Av Rnd A en o gee a Ht

age r ont

en Ho

en Ho e Av

ope Co l Caro Ln

ry S t J effe

Vall ejo St

H wy 12

Va l le

e tt

H o en AHoen ve Montere

a ha W

ejo

Ma rt

Va ll

Me lb W a roo k y

a Ln

tte Ma ye Av e

St Ka thy n d a Wa r d D r W ay

Ro ck C reek D r

e e q u e tt que tt Fra n ra n AFve

outh

H a r va

D artm

K od ia Ct

r Y ale D

ns E va r D

Benn

ng Sp ri D r k Cr e e

rad

n Gr ee Way liv e

io Pat

e ll D r Co r n

Vi l l a

h St Chu rc

o od

Al va

r no D ol a

Mt O

ntw

Ho Av en e

t eC M t O li v live tO M ay W

M o r to n Way S

B re

t or s Doc Dr k P ar

ng S pr i k D r Cr e e

y n Wa SCTA Prin ceto12-30-2009

P rin ceton D r

W o o dw ar d D r

ge Villa e

Sid e a nAovm r SantaSSoRosa and Pedestrian Master Plan DBicycle Ct

Le a

o no m

l D e Dr r Ma

Midway Dr

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

Ave

H astin g s Ct

ough

W arwick D r

D lor ay

Lak ev Dr

B Va en l le net y t Rd

Be n Vi e w n e t t Dr

Fa b

Kaw a T er na

Earlena Ln

Ra y m o nd W ay e

Li nw oo d A ve

t erb u ry

Aven id La s B a D e risas iew go st a LuWa y ce ro Lu Ct na Ct

La i

Ca n

le C t

ROUTE 55

5-44

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #8 (Route 2) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

To Street

Miles

Total

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment

Route 02 (2001 Plan) MARLOW RD

(40 MPH)

PINER RD

W COLLEGE AVE

---

1.53

---

1.53

W COLLEGE AVE

SANTA ROSA CREEK

---

0.69

---

0.69

STONY POINT RD

SANTA ROSA CREEK

W 3RD ST

---

0.33

STONY POINT RD

W 3RD ST

JOE RODOTA PATHWAY

---

0.29

---

0.29

STONY POINT RD

JOE RODOTA PATHWAY

SEBASTOPOL RD

---

0.20

STONY POINT RD

SEBASTOPOL RD

TROMBETTA ST

---

0.28

STONY POINT RD (SB)

TROMBETTA ST

LAZZINI AVE

---

0.06

STONY POINT RD (one-side NB)

TROMBETTA ST

LAZZINI AVE

---

0.06

---

STONY POINT RD

LAZZINI AVE

MARBLE ST

---

0.05

---

0.05

STONY POINT RD (one-side SB)

MARBLE ST

CAMPBELL DR

---

0.09

---

STONY POINT RD (NB)

MARBLE ST

CAMPBELL DR

---

0.09

STONY POINT RD (one-side SB)

CAMPBELL DR

GIFFEN AVE

---

0.13

STONY POINT RD (NB)

CAMPBELL DR

GIFFEN AVE

STONY POINT RD

GIFFEN AVE

ROSELAND CREEK

---

STONY POINT RD (one-side SB)

ROSELAND CREEK

HEARN AVE

STONY POINT RD (NB)

ROSELAND CREEK

HEARN AVE

STONY POINT RD (45 MPH)

HEARN AVE

STONY POINT RD (SB)

BELLEVUE RANCH

STONY POINT RD (one-side NB)

STONY POINT RD

0.13

---

0.21

---

0.22

---

SHLD

---

0.22

BELLEVUE RANCH

SHLD

---

0.27

MULEDEER LN

SHLD

---

0.20

BELLEVUE RANCH

MULEDEER LN

---

0.20

---

MULEDEER LN

BELLEVUE AVE

---

0.25

---

0.25

1.99

4.80

TOTAL MILES 2.81

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

n/a

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

0.70

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

0.00

Reference:

Requires further study

September 2010

---

Subtotal Construction:

$262,235

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$131,118

Total Cost Estimate:

$393,353

5-45

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

Golden Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Gate

Vent ura

Range

C o u nt y

Marsh

Elli ott

Santa Rosa Junior College

rlow Ma

Guerneville

l in nk

ter

vi ne er u G

wi s Le

S teele

P aci fic

e Franc es

S p e n ce r R i d gw

tt o

E x e ter

A rm o r y

gs n in Je n

Jenni n g s

n C ollege

C ollege

ilr d Ra o a

O live

ton o po l

S anta Ro

C orby Dowd

Talm adge

W ilja n

L udwi g

Bur t

Bellev u e

M oorland

B ellevue

Santa Ro sa

Dut ton M ead ow

S tony P oin t

F resno

y orb

Wrigh t

Yoland a

Dutton

Yuba

Hearn

rn He a

Hearn

lgan Co

Le o

Southside Community Park

Pearbloss om

Bake r

G if fen

H il

Price

Northpoin

Laz z in i

Burbank

Finley

W est

Pet alu

Ba rh a m

t Stony Poin

Merc ed

l S ebasto po

S ebastopol

C h i co

Ludwig

M ap l

Bo y

a st S eb

C orporate Ce n ter

o top

t Du

Brit tai n

3rd

St. S o n Transit Mall

Earle

Wright

s ba Se

t 1s2nd

F ulton

ils

3rd

O ccidental

4th

4 th

3r d

3rd

5 th

9 th

7th

ino oc

9t h

e ev

M or

Westside Transit St Center on y Santa Rosa Poi nt Citybus HQ

He a ld sburg

P ut

R idley

ney

College

Hall

a Fr

Coddingtown Mall le

C hanate

County Center

S teele

ra ti

Hum boldt

W altzer

in o Adm in i st

so ter

Ful ton

Coffey

n ve la

Transit

SCTA 12-30-2009 ni al

C le

Piner

P in e

Bic en te n

ROUTE 2

5-46

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #9 (Route 5) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

To Street

Miles

Total

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment

Route 05 (2001 Plan) RANGE AVE

PINER RD

RUSSELL AVE

III

0.25

---

0.25

RANGE AVE

RUSSELL AVE

PAULIN CREEK

III

0.40

---

0.40

RANGE AVE

PAULIN CREEK

W STEELE LN

---

0.23

0.30

RANGE AVE

W STEELE LN

EDWARDS AVE

---

0.30

RANGE AVE

EDWARDS AVE

JENNINGS AVE

---

0.10

RANGE AVE

JENNINGS AVE

BRIGGS AVE / FRANCES ST

---

0.30

FRANCES ST

BRIGGS AVE

CLEVELAND AVE

---

0.10

CLEVELAND AVE

FRANCES ST

CARRILLO ST

---

0.25

CLEVELAND AVE

CARRILLO ST

LINCOLN ST

---

0.20

CLEVELAND AVE

LINCOLN ST

9TH ST

---

0.25

WILSON ST

9TH ST

3RD ST

---

III

---

0.40

RAILROAD ST

3RD ST

SANTA ROSA CREEK

---

0.10

OLIVE ST

SANTA ROSA CREEK

SEBASTOPOL RD

---

0.20

2.13

3.15

TOTAL MILES 0.95

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Requires further study

September 2010

0.30

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

0.00

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

0.00

Reference:

Subtotal Construction:

$308,450

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$154,225

Total Cost Estimate:

$462,675

5-47

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

SCTA 12-30-2009

e en

M l C

ve d ocino O v M en Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan do

nd la

Golden Gate Transit

A irwa y

San M iguel

ci no

Bic ente n

nial

r P ine

County Center

C ha nate

tion i s tra min

dt H um b o l

Range

Vent ura

Coffey

c nd o Me

e n te r

ino

C o u nty C

w is Le

St eel e

in kl

ille

Hu mboldt

an d el

Coddingtown Clev Mall

Illin ois

rnev Gu e

Steele

El liott

Santa Rosa Junior College Jen n

i ng s

P acifi c

G uernev il le

n g e F rance s

S p e n ce r

Arm o r y

J ennin gs

R id g

way

North

Mendocino

R id ley

Carrillo

dt bo l

r ga

Hum

H e a l d s b u rg

C ollege

College

7th

4th A

9th

St o

ilso

oint

3 rd

2nd St. Transit t Mall 1s

n tto

O l iv e

5-48

nt a ide cc

a sto S eb

pol

m no

sa S anta Ro

Rai lr o a d

3r d

P ny

4th

5 th

9th

ROUTE 5 M aple

n e tt Be n

Vall

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #10 (Route 7) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

To Street

Miles

Total

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment

Route 07 (2001 Plan) OLD REDWOOD HWY / MENDOCINO AVE

Northern CITY LIMITS

FOUNTAINGROVE PKY

---

0.79

---

0.79

MENDOCINO AVE

FOUNTAINGROVE PKY

BICENTENNIAL WAY

III

---

0.43

MENDOCINO AVE

BICENTENNIAL WAY

STEELE LN & LEWIS RD

---

0.72

MENDOCINO AVE

STEELE LN

MCCONNELL AVE

---

0.43

MENDOCINO AVE

MCCONNELL AVE

COLLEGE AVE

---

0.63

---

0.63

ROUTE 07 SOUTH BOUND COUPLET - B STREET HEALDSBURG AVE (oneway SB)

MENDOCINO AVE

7TH ST

---

0.26

B ST

7TH ST

3RD ST

III

---

0.24

3RD ST

B ST

SANTA ROSA AVE

---

0.10

SANTA ROSA AVE

3RD ST

SONOMA AVE

---

0.22

SANTA ROSA AVE

SONOMA AVE

MAPLE AVE

III

---

0.36

SANTA ROSA AVE

MAPLE AVE

COLGAN AVE

---

0.74

---

0.74

SANTA ROSA AVE

COLGAN AVE

YOLANDA AVE

---

0.55

---

0.55

---

0.79

---

0.79

SHLD

---

1.02

---

(one-way SB)

SANTA ROSA AVE

YOLANDA AVE

BELLEVUE AVE Southern CITY LIMITS

SANTA ROSA AVE

BELLEVUE AVE

TODD RD

ROUTE 07 NORTH BOUND COUPLET - B STREET MENDOCINO AVE (oneway NB)

4TH

COLLEGE AVE

---

0.41

SANTA ROSA AVE (oneway NB)

3RD ST

4TH ST

---

III

---

0.06

3.23

6.73

TOTAL MILES 3.50

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

0.97

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

1.02

Reference:

Requires further study

September 2010

Subtotal Construction:

$413,541

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$206,771

Total Cost Estimate:

$620,312

5-49

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

as Lake Ha r

SCTA 12-30-2009

d Re Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan dw

gr ov

Coffey

Baird

Cre e

a l le

Dowd

Dut ton Meadow

u sh

cit o

Br ge rs

tt Valle y

res s Cree k

s ide Tache v ah

A l la n

Ast o n

Brookwood

Yul u p a

B ethard s

n olga

Yola nda

F ar m e r s

B u rt

Talm adge

S anta Rosa

M oorland

D u tto n

B el lev ue

Robles

Sonoma County Transit HQ

Standi sh

S tony Poin t

Te ace r

North Sa nta Rosa

Corby

orate C e nte

fiel n H oe

tage ron

C or p

Gr ah n

Humboldt

Ar mory

M arlow e Ex t er

P ut

r me um

q ue tte

F re sn o

on t ec

Ventur a

Range

Peter

F ulto n

Wri ght

om a

lu Yu

F ra n

F armers

B enne

o wo ok Br o

Ludw ig

t al Pe

Yuba

t go

K aw ana S prings

rby Co

H e a rn

Eastside Transit Center

Santa Rosa - SCT HWY 12/Brookwood Ave H oe n

H ill

Dutton

Community Park

Leo

Vall e jo

lu Pet a

W est

B urbank

Ba k e r

Gif fen

Hoen

Bo y

Barh a m

n Mo

oo k

O live

S ebas topol

So n

e ry tg o m Mo n

le Ma p

po l

th i

br de r

to ebas

O ccidental

North p o int Southside

o ma Son E

4th

i ls o W

4 th

3rd

ot lb Ta

n to S

Hea

Foo

1 2nd St. Transit Mall

D ut

Br it ta i n

3r d

Pe a rb lossom

yd en

5 th h

7 th

3rd

Finley

C oll eg e

M o r ga

C le ve

n inco

r Pa

Carr illo

9th

Spenc er

ay R idg w

C olle ge

Westside S to ny Transit P Center Santa oin t Rosa Citybus HQ

Mo n t

Santa Rosa P aci fi c Junior College

ng s

en dd

n t to Du

ni Jen

Ridley

C ollege

i ll e

t El lio t

Coddingtown Mall

kl i an Fr

e S te e l

S teele

sion M is

Chanate

County Center

Marsh

G u er n

n n yo Ca

ad on nc R

d le R

veland

F u l to n

ci n

M id

C le

P iner

ni al

Chanat e

B icenten

Golden r Pin e Gate C off Transit

i to

W alt zer

M en

Ba dg

A irw ay

F ulton

ill Pa rk e r H

s re

In dustr a San Miguel

ney

e lac al

ingro v e u nta Fo

e rn Ba o

ta i oun

H opper

r Hop p e

Gu ernev ille

Hill

Dennis F rancisc

Dela me

r ke

ris

Th om

ROUTE 7

5-50

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #11 (Route 10) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

To Street

Miles

Total

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment

Route 10 (2001 Plan) HUMBOLDT ST

CHANATE RD

MERVYN AVE

---

0.09

HUMBOLDT ST

MERVYN AVE

LEWIS RD

---

BIKE BLVD

---

0.15

HUMBOLDT ST

LEWIS RD

PACIFIC AVE

---

BIKE BLVD

---

0.60

HUMBOLDT ST

PACIFIC AVE

COLLEGE AVE

---

BIKE* BLVD

---

0.50

HUMBOLDT ST

COLLEGE AVE

5TH ST

---

BIKE* BLVD

---

0.29

5TH ST

HUMBOLDT ST

D ST

---

III

---

0.06

D ST

5TH ST

3RD ST

---

III

---

0.10

D ST

3RD ST

SONOMA AVE

---

III

---

0.20

RAE ST PARK PATHWAY

D ST & SONOMA AVE

BROWN ST

---

Path

---

0.08

BROWN ST

RAE ST PARK PATHWAY

WHEELER ST

---

III

---

0.18

WHEELER ST

BROWN ST

SOUTH “E” ST

---

III

---

0.35

E ST / SOUTH “E” ST

COLLEGE AVE & KING ST

WHEELER ST

---

Link in Route 19 segment a

SOUTH “E” ST

WHEELER ST

BENNETT VALLEY RD

---

0.25

SOUTH “E” ST

BENNETT VALLEY RD

SOUTH HENDLEY ST

---

0.07

SOUTH HENDLEY ST

SOUTH “E” ST

ASTON AVE

---

0.43

---

0.43

2.92

3.35

TOTAL MILES 0.43

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

0.00

Reference:

Requires further study Subtotal Construction:

$192,951

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$96,475

Total Cost Estimate:

$289,426*

*Four of the fifteen segments of this route involve a Bicycle Boulevard design. At the time of this printing Public Works was evaluating a pilot design for the Bicycle Boulevard. Initial costs are estimated to be approximately $800,000 based on current design and comuunity input. The $289,426 cost estimate is for the entire route and does not include design costs specific to a bicycle boulevard segments as design elements can vary by location and community input.

September 2010

5-51

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

SCTA 12-30-2009

Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master CPlan ha nat e n Me

n te

c it o

Ventura

o cin A dm

tr ini s

Humbo l d

County Center

n ati o

t y

t er C ou n ty C en

l Va

R ange

L ew

Illin ois

S tee le

in kl

r so

Santa Rosa Junior College

Norte

El liott

Humboldt

d an

lev el

St eele

F ooth

ill

Te rra

en 4th

S p e n ce r

Arm o ry

Frances

ge rs

P aci fic

in g s

Mcdona ld

Je n n

on t

ec it

Coddingtown Mall

a Ri d gw

e rbr

North

n to ut

Carrillo

Hoen

H e a l d s b u rg

lso B

2nd St. Transit t Mall 1 s

4 th

Valle jo

a m no

Rail r o a d

n to ut

3rd

Santa Rosa - SCT HWY 12/Brookwood Ave

n ett Valle y Be n

O live Ma p

pol a sto

B ro

Bo y

Se b

o ma

e yo m S oto

d 3r

e ry

Farm ers

Son

4t h

9t h

9 th

ot lb Ta

5th

old

v Cle

7th

tg om M on

ood

Humb

w Brook

College

e la n

k oo

Mendocino

d oo ok w

d ma

l Hil

C orby

5-52

Aston

n A lla

Brookwood

Ba rh a m

t alu Pe

West

San ta

Earle

ROUTE 10

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #12 (Route 15) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

Miles

Total

To Street

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment Route 15 (2001 Plan) YULUPA AVE

YULUPA CIR

MONTGOMERY DR

III

---

0.16

---

0.16

YULUPA AVE

MONTGOMERY DR

SONOMA AVE

III

0.20

---

0.20

YULUPA AVE

SONOMA AVE

SPRING CREEK DR

---

0.23

YULUPA AVE

SPRING CREEK DR

DOUGLAS DR

III

0.50

---

0.50

YULUPA AVE

DOUGLAS DR

BENNETT VALLEY RD

---

1.46

---

1.46

BENNETT VALLEY RD

Southern CITY LIMITS

---

0.18

0.41

2.73

TOTAL MILES 2.32

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Requires further study

September 2010

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

0.00

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

0.00

Reference:

Subtotal Construction:

$186,875

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$93,438

Total Cost Estimate:

$280,313

5-53

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

SCTA 12-30-2009

r Quar tz D

Ln u ld er Bo

f w oo d C ir

C on tra C os ta D r

C ar is s a A ve

el n ad An g ht s Dr i He Ran Old ch Dr

ee e ks Dr

S ag e St

Po He re lled fo r dD r

d el rfi

St Dr l au

Cac tus Av e

y lle

Yu l

Sum

e Joyc

Jas on Dr

W arwick Dr te n D rb lle ne t r ur y yR t d

oro l ls b Hi Cir

Ca n

T ee t wC Vie

M imo sa S t Yul upa A ve

ide

m ar Dr isk

j an D r d ro

Las Mesitas D r

s se

it e

st Dr cre ky

l dP lf o G Ct w Vie

Be Va

Muirfield Ct

Ra ym o nd W ay e

iew

Lak ev Dr

Yu lup a Ave

Oa G le k n

m f re y Pl

Tarto n D r

e Al

qu es

en re D r ill

ra Pano ma Dr

r ro w Ct

Foxw o

W oo dw ard Dr

T is

Elm Dr Le af gr ee n D r

se r a n Dr d

O lym pia Av e M arin D r

y w

De e r R un

e ve tte

Yulupa Cir

Del Rosa A ve ed ra L n

Ho n

Bro

ir re C

e ad n Sh e L e r T

s hi ok

Tow

er ulg Fo Dr

W oodlake Dr

Bet har ds

a Le

Hor

Janssen Ln

Rd C r

n St

d ld R

S to n eh e d g e

ire

ts Avo Dr

ta San r Fe Denne ey Ch r D

rre D r Pieartori S Dr T uscan D r

side

sh on

n no nca G le

e rf i

v De

en r

no l l s l ls Cir

lley Va w Dr e Vi

Dr nd ll a Ho V e r d i r V ista D

h va

hevah Tac

r no H o k Ct Oa Hoen Ave

Ct ran

L uc y Ct

e mm r a Ci r

o ent ra m Sa c A ve

C re

e ch Ta

ood Linw ve A

s es

okh Bro D av r B en net t Valley R d

Dr as ar osa la v a rip Ca M Dr

s gla Dou r D

Neotom as Ave

S Cre ier e

oe Ta h r D

en Ho e Av

oy o Ar r Cir ra Sier

Ja ne t Wa y

da Wa n Wa y

lu Yu

th a Ma r W ay

Kie

nga wa Ne Ave

e Ro nne

Cy pr e Wa y ss

a lup Yu ve A

quett

a ge

St n vi e w Av e

n eto nc ay W

F ran

Vi l l

h Chu rc

Farmers L n

w vie

Tow

Park ta C Vis t rL ne Su m

y Ma A

r est enc Gre Dr

H oen

Pr i

Pri nceto n D r r Yale D

r Sl ate D

Av e

n tag Fro Av e n e

r sD xa

iga

o Dr Id a h ng S p ri D r ek Cr e

lin D r Rock

H oen Ho en t

i ch M

el D

R oc k Dr S prin gs

Rd ley

Ca rv

as ns

a di c

om a

r nt D em o C la r r er D t n e Eastside Transit lle y C a V e Center illa g V S ide Ct P a tio p rin g S k Dr Cr ee

V allejo S

ka as A l Dr

m an Ha h Dr

S on

r fie me Sum Rd

nD ow a

o ad lor C o lvd B

ma S o no e Av

om a S on e Av

e ry tg o m y id wa

l ia C or d e

q ue tt F ra n e Av

Farme rs

M on

m go

So n o m a

t on

a lup Yu ve A

it rm He a y W r yD rt le Ha

aD ien d H ac r line Lu y Wa

e l in ue cq r Ja D

Hw y

i se nr Su A ve e Dr dg n ri Su

ie er f

ce Ali

i et J ul d R

Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

Mt T

Be n Vie ne tt wD r

r lo

t et d nn R B e ll ey Va

b le

Fa wn w Ln Hollo

Dr t

ROUTE 15

5-54

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #13 (Route 67) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

To Street

Miles

Total

Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment Route 67 (2001 Plan) Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Pathway

RIVER RD (outside city limits)

JENNINGS AVE

---

2.87

---

SMART Pathway

JENNINGS AVE

COLLEGE AVE

---

0.56

---

SMART Pathway

COLLEGE AVE

3RD ST

---

0.89

---

SMART Pathway

3RD ST

BELLEVUE AVE

---

2.60

---

6.92

0.00

TOTAL MILES 0.00

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

n/a

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

6.92

Reference: May 2004 “SMART CORRIDOR SCHEMATICS,”-- SMART Draft Environmental Impact Report, Appendix E for alignment and details

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Requires further study

September 2010

Subtotal Construction:

$3,833,680

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$1,916,840

Total Cost Estimate:

$5,750,520

5-55

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

Thom

r Hill ke

ov gr

rker H ill Pa

Chanat e

cin

i al

Ch anate

k B r us

ace

og er s

Arm ory

hC re e

a l le

Hum boldt

M arlow

North

Sa nta Rosa

Corby Dowd

Dut ton Meadow

Yolanda Bur t

ll Hi

M oorland

F ar m e r s

Du tton

n A ll a

lu ta Pe

S ton y Poi nt

Ast o n

n lga

S anta R osa

te r

Valley

Brookwood

E xe t e r

Put

p orate C en

re s s

Co r

o kw

F re sn o

tage C

F ulton

q ue tte

r on

K awana Springs

rby Co

Wright

F ra n

F armers

Benne tt

H ill Co

Talmadge

Be llevue

Eastside Transit Center

Santa Rosa - SCT HWY 12/Brookwood n Ave Ho e o Br o

a l um Pet a

Leo

Dutt on

Ludwig

Bo y

M erced

oo k

O live

H e a rn

le Ma p

West

He a

br de r

on p asto

Valle jo

ils

m 1st S o no 2nd

B a ke r

Southside Community Park

Yuba

Ludwig

3r d

Hw y

y me r n tgo Mo a m o So n

5 th

W n to

Pe a rb los som

en 4th

D ut

Burba nk

G iff en

Northp o int

Hoen

4 th

Barh a

Stony P oint

Finley

F oo thi

St. Transit Mall

Se b

Chico

t lbo Ta

l Cl e ve

3r d

S ebastopol

Sebast opol

P rice

Ridley

ba Se

C olle g e

3rd B rit ta i n

po s to

S p e n ce r

7th

Occ ident al

Santa Rosa Pac ific Junior College

Carrillo

9th

Mon t

ay Ri dg w

C ollege

Westside St o ny Transit Po Center Santa in t Rosa Citybus HQ

3rd

on ut t

ngs

il le

ni J en

ney

Hall

Coddingtown Mall

G ue r n

G uernevil le

tt Elli o

Peter

S teele

St eele

kl i an Fr

F ulton

County Center

Mars h

cit o

Range

Bicen ten n

Golden e r Gate P in C off Transit

Pi ner

Gr ah n

veland Cle

W alt zer

San Miguel

Ventura

A irw ay

Industri San Migu el

College

ingro v e u nta Fo

e es r rn Ba o

n ta i ou

Hopper

r Hop pe

D ela me

C offey Dennis Francisc

Piner

SCTA 12-30-2009 ar

Fulton

ris

as Lake Ha r

al l a W

ld R Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ed w

Standi sh

Robles

Sonoma County Transit HQ

ROUTE 67

5-56

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #14 (Route 72) Street

Status/Class

Segment

From Street

To Street

Miles

Total Miles

BOLD indicates priority segment Route 72 (2001 Plan) Roseland Creek (WS)

LLANO RD

Southern CITY LIMITS (LUDWIG AVE)

---

1.68

Roseland Creek (WS)

LUDWIG AVE

Proposed Bridge 68 (YUBA DR)

---

0.26

Roseland Creek (WS)

Proposed Bridge 68

Proposed Bridge 69 (S. of MAITLAND AVE)

---

0.43

Roseland Creek (SS)

Proposed Bridge 69

SUNNYWOOD CIR

---

0.32

Roseland Creek (SS)

SUNNYWOOD CIR

STONY POINT RD

---

0.38

---

0.38

Roseland Creek (NS)

STONY POINT RD

Proposed Bridge 80 (GIFFEN AVE)

---

0.71

Roseland Creek (NS)

Proposed Bridge 80

Proposed Bridge 86 (BURBANK AVE)

---

0.24

BURBANK AVE

SEBASTOPOL RD

HEARN AVE

Roseland Creek Trail

BURBANK AVE

MCMINN AVE

Link in Route 204 segment a ---

---

TOTAL MILES 0.38

0.23

2.19

2.57

Miles of one-way facilities (included in total miles)

n/a

One-side existing mileage (excluded in total miles)

n/a

Miles in other jurisditions, excluded from Total

1.68

Reference: 2007 CCMP “SOUTHERN SECTIONS D, C, B and A” Map; and Sonoma County Regional Parks Department Plan

E - Existing P - Proposed

Other Jurisdiction

Link to another route or winglet

Requires further study

September 2010

Subtotal Construction:

$1,812,941

50% design, construction management & contingency:

$906,471

Total Cost Estimate:

$2,719,412

5-57

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

len bro ok D r

D utton Mead ow

Circad Wa Corporate Center Pky

ldpa n Cir

B T apadera D r

L udwig Daniels Ave

Bel levue Ave

Bellev ue

P hillips A ve

To bin Dr

Stony Point Rd

Primrose Ave

Butler Ave

Dutton Meadow

Ludwig Ave

Ludw ig

C ass Rd

Elk Ln

W il der R d

Yu ba Yu ba D r

Burgess Dr

W right Wri gh t R d Wrig ht

He arn Ave

S to n y Po in t R d

E va Av e

Wright Rd

Merced A ve

Ll oyd Ave

Merce d

a Dr Lia n Dr o e L

anjo Dr

Lu d A wi ve g

st C t

Stroven Ln

M er ce d Ave

West Av e

min n Mc ve A

Hea

er Dr

Burba nk

Ston y P oint

Southside Community Hearn A ve Park

Hearn

Madera Av e

Burban k Av e

r sD

G iff e n

L ath r o p Dr

et S un s Av e

R ose Ave es Hu gh A ve

Bus

Hobbie Ln

lle y

L azzini Av e Marble St

Pe arblos som

Ash Dr

s to p Se b a

Me sa W ay Dr n Ja e r o

N o rth p o

Fresno

Wilbur Ave

Pyle Av e

Ludwig

A po llo W ay

N orth point Pky

Conco rd Ave

ian y

Gif fen Ave

K irby Ln

Hw y 12

T ro mbetta S t

Finley inley A ve F

Jobe L n

Price ce Av e Pri Mil es A ve

G olden G ate Av e

Lom bard i Ln

Chico Ave

Ken more Ln

Sebastopol Rd

Fresn o A ve

ol top Ch ic o as

Joe Ro dota Trl

A ussie Av e

Leddy Av e

to as eb

b Se d

O ccide n

R ta l

l ta mine Jas Cir

H wy 12

n O cc i de

Stony Poin t Rd

L eisure Park C ir

Occide nt al C ir R ach el D r l nta ide Occ

3 r d 3 Rd S t Wa

Donah ue Av e

Westgate Cir

Ci r

W eber W ebber Ln Ln

Mallard Dr

Jose Av e

L emur St

SCTA L uc a s 12-30-2009

ple Ap k Ln ee Cr

Julio Ln

Ca ri na D r Darek Dr

M a ri Lu z C a t

Brittai n Ln

Fulton Rd

N ikki D r Rusty Dr

H ea t he rD

Demeo St

Senna Dr

Ston y P oin t

3 rd

G 3 R C arr o Santa Rosa BicycleD arand Pedestrian Master Plan la dS t t

Oasis Dr

St Ct lga An gus W ay

an Ll o

5-58

Pri mrose Av e

Todd R d

S to ny Po in t R d

Mel con L n

Wal ker Ave

Na tu re Ln

Stony Point

Rd To dd R d Todd Rd

ROUTE 72

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R P L A N Table 5-6 Characteristics of High Priority Bicycle Projects Project #15 (Route —various)

Unlike the previous 14 projects, which are capital projects, the 15th is a planning project to study creating a network of Class 3—Bike Routes covering most of the city. The intent is to facilitate mobility through bicycling as another viable transportation option in the city. The list of additional routes for further study is as follows (existing routes are shown in parentheses preceded by “#”): •

Hoen Avenue-Cypress Way-Creekside Road: From Sonoma Avenue to Bethards Drive (#45) continuation on Creekside Road from Yulupa Avenue to Bethards Drive

•

Spencer Avenue-Clyde Avenue-Alderbrook Drive: Runs from Mendocino Avenue to Sonoma Avenue

•

Rinconada Drive-Benjamins Road-Canyon Drive-Garfield Park Avenue-Monte Verde Drive: Runs from Montecito Boulevard to Skyhawk Boulevard (#33 partial)

•

Kawana Springs Road-Tokay Street-Taylor View Drive-Gordon Lane-Brigham Avenue-Vallejo StreetSanta Rosa Avenue/Petaluma Hill Road: To downtown and Bennett Valley Road

•

Hexem Avenue: From Franklin Avenue to Hidden Valley Drive

•

Spring Creek Drive: From Hahman Drive to Yulupa Avenue to Summerfield Road

•

El Camino Way-Augustan Avenue-La Paloma Avenue: Connects Montecito Boulevard to Rodgers Way/ 4th Street @ Safeway.

•

Peterson Lane: From Piner Creek Drive to San Miguel Road

•

San Miguel Road at Fulton Road-Coffey Lane: To Steele Lane from Steele Lane to Fulton Road

•

Francisco Avenue-Pinecrest Road-Marlow Road: From Fulton Road to Guerneville Road

•

West Avenue: From Sebastopol Road to Hearn Avenue

•

Marsh Road: From Peterson Lane to Marlow Road

•

Vallejo Street: From South E Street to Farmers Lane (#51) /Highway-12

•

Foothill Ranch Road/El Camino Way: From Montecito Boulevard to Rodgers Way/4th Street at Safeway

•

Dupont Drive: St Francis Road to Boas Drive

•

Clover-Link: From Jennings Avenue to Santa Rosa Creek Drive (#22)

•

Coffey Lane-Russel Avenue/Ditty Avenue-Hardies Lane-Range Road-Bicentennal Way: To Mendocino Avenue (also Hardies Lane to West Steele Lane (#32)

•

Sebastopol Road-Olive Road-Barham Avenue-Dutton Avenue-Southwest on Hughes Avenue, Comalli Street, Lazzini Avenue across Stony Point Road, Marble Street, Gardner Avenue: To serve Cook Middle School and on Lombardi Lane to Sebastopol Road

•

Neotomas Avenue-Knolls Drive: From Farmers Lane to Bethards Drive (#56)

•

Altruria Drive near Fountain Grove Parkway extended down to the Nielsen Ranch Park area via 2 nonvehicular links to Terra Linda Drive and Baldwin Way-Andy Way to Chanate Road

•

El Camino Way-Augustan Avenue-La Paloma Avenue: Connects Montecito Boulevard to Rodgers Way/4th Street @ Safeway

•

Aston Avenue-Petaluma Hill Road: to Hendley Street

•

Hoen Avenue-Frontage Road to Townview Avenue-Townview Lane-Neotomas Avenue to Farmers Lane

•

Guerneville Road-Gamay Street-Jennings Avenue-Exeter Drive-Putney Drive-Truckee Drive-Rubicon Way-Santa Rosa Creek Road

September 2010

5-59

I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

•

West Steele Lane-Iroquois Street-Guerneville Road-Lance Drive-Jennings Avenue-Santa Rosa Creek Road

•

Coffey Lane-Russel Avenue-Ditty Avenue-Hardies Lane-Range Avenue-Bicentennial Way to Mendocino Avenue

•

Mayette Avenue-Summerfield Road to Franquette Avenue

•

Sacramento Avenue: From Creekside Road to Calaveras Drive

•

Montecito Meadows: From Chanate Road to Montecito Boulevard

•

Melita Road: From Highway 12 to Montgomery Drive

•

Queen Anne Drive: From Highway 12 to Melita Road

•

Pressley Street: Connects Hendley Street to Petaluma Hill Road

•

Burt Street: Connects Santa Rosa Avenue to Petaluma Hill Road

•

Aston Avenue-Moraga Drive: To Amethist Way connects to Kawana Springs Road/Class 2

•

Aston Avenue: From Hendley Street to Moraga Drive needs Class 2, then Class 3 up Moraga Drive to Amethist Way connecting to Kawana Springs Road

•

Pinecrest Drive: From Peterson Lane to Guerneville Road

•

Cross Creek Road., etc.: Connecting Fountain Grove Parkway to Riebli Road/Mark West Springs Road

•

Bridgewood Drive, etc., north of Montecito Boulevard (an extension of the Brush Creek Trail through the neighborhood)

•

Hoen Avenue and Newanga Avenue: Summerfield Road to Spring Lake Park (heavy current demand)

•

Parktrail Drive-Summerfield Road: To Annadel Park (extremely heavy current demand)

•

Todd Road: From Santa Rosa Avenue to proposed Todd Creek

NOTE: Each route should be evaluated for its feasibility and applicability to a Class III Bike Route as defined in the California Highway Design Manual Sections 1002.1(1), 1002.1(4) (a) and (b), and 1003.3(1). Streets determined to be high demand routes may require additional street treatments to function as a Signed Shared Roadway (Class III-Bike Route) where the street width may be too narrow to share side by side with motor vehicles.

5-60

September 2010

GLOSSARY Disclaimer: These terms are defined relative to the transportation, which may be different from their definitions in general usage. access; accessibility The characteristic of a location allowing approach and use. accessible Meets the requirements of ADAAG (see below) in accommodating wheelchairs and other disabled users. Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) Accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities. alternative modes A term commonly used to refer to modes of transportation other than the single-occupant automobile. These include walking, bicycling, transit, and ridesharing/carpooling. While “alternative” suggests to some a secondary or less than preferred option, in the context of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, it means “choice”. Users are not limited to just one option in their mobility choices; they have different transportation alternatives to chose from. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) A federal law prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities. Requires public entities and public accommodations to provide accessible accommodations for people with disabilities. arterial See “Regional streets”, which has replaced the term ‘arterial’. at-grade crossing Where a roadway or path intersects another roadway or path (or rail tracks) at the same elevation/ plane. barrier An object that blocks access to, or use of an area. bicycle A device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels. (Persons riding bicycles are subject to the provisions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5 CVC.1)

GLOSSARY

Bicycle Boulevard A residential street with low volume, low speed where bicycles have priority over automobiles by discouraging non-local motor vehicle traffic. Conflicts between bicycles and automobiles are minimized and bicycle travel time is reduced by the removal of unwarranted stop signs and other impediments to bicycle travel. Design features include a variety of different street treatments such as traffic calming, traffic diverters, and bicycle actuated traffic signals. bicycle commuter A person making a trip by bicycle primarily for transportation purposes, including, but not limited to, travel to work, school, shopping, or other destination that is a center of activity, and does not include a trip by bicycle primarily for physical exercise or recreation without such a destination.2 bike facilities Facilities designed for the end use of bicyclists; may include: roadways, dedicated paths, user activated traffic controls, secure parking structures, bike racks, lockers and shower-rooms, bike repair facilities. bike lane See “Class II–bicycle lane” bike path see “Class I-bicycle path” bike route see “Class III-bicycle route” bike detection The capability of a traffic signal control system to detect the presence of bicycles, and respond with the appropriate signal phase or timing cycle. bikeway A generic term for any road, street, path or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes.3 For example, Class I bike paths, Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes are all bikeways. bikeway network The combined system of all designated existing and proposed bikeways in the City for transportation and recreational purposes. bollards A barrier, typically a rigid post, placed in a roadway or path so as to limit access or traffic of certain widths or types.

Glossary-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

BPAB – Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (City of Santa Rosa) A City board of citizens established to provide input on pedestrian and bicycle issues to the City Council. Bicycle Transportation Acccount (BTA) The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) provides state funds for city and county projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. (To be eligible for BTA funds, a city or county must prepare and adopt a Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) that complies with Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2) bulb out See “curb extension” cargo bikes Bicycles designed and constructed specifically for transporting large loads. Bicycle designs include a cargo area consisting of a steel tube carrier, an open or enclosed box, a flat platform, or a wire basket. These are usually mounted over one or both wheels, low behind the front wheel, or between parallel wheels at either the front or rear of the vehicle.4 chirpers A safety warning device which produces a repetitive, high-pitched sound to indicate a hazardous situation such as a traffic crossing. Class I–bicycle path A path providing a completely separate right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with the cross-flow minimized. (NOTE: Per California Highway Design Manual a Class 1 is a paved right-of-way.) Class II bicycle lane A portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Class III bicycle route A paved, shared roadway which has been designated by signing as a preferred route for bicycle use. Also known as a “SIGNED SHARED ROADWAY (or SIGNED BIKE ROUTE).” Shared facilities serve either to: (a) Provide continuity to other bicycle facilities (usually Class II bikeways); or (b) Designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. collector (street) See “transitional (street)” which has replaced the term “collector.” Complete Streets The policy/concept where the entire right of way is planned, designed and operated for all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, transit-users, and motorists.

September 2010

Glossary-3

GLOSSARY

controlled intersection An intersection with a traffic light or other traffic control device to regulate traffic flow. core area See “downtown core” crosswalk The horizontal portion of roadways, usually at intersections, reserved for pedestrian crossing; it may be marked or unmarked. curb extension A section of sidewalk extending into the roadway at an intersection or midblock crossing that reduces the crossing width for pedestrians, facilitates line of sight for drivers to see pedestrians waiting to cross and may help reduce traffic speeds. curb ramp A combined ramp and landing to provide access between street level and sidewalk level, usually at intersections or designated crosswalks. Curb ramps are intended to provide street/sidewalk access to all types of pedestrians. designated bikeways Bicycle facilities (designated on the bicycle planning map) that are/will be used for commuting and local transportation. These designated bikeways take into consideration motor vehicle speed, volume, roadway and intersection geometry and operations. Designated bikeways are intended to accommodate most bicycle users. Bicyclists may or may not chose to use designated bikeways, based on their individual levels of experience and confidence. design guidelines Adopted specifications governing the visual elements of development maintained by the City of Santa Rosa Department of Community Development. direction of travel Particularly for utilitarian pedestrian and bicycle trips, the most direct route between origins and destinations along pedestrian and bicycle facilities to maximize convenience and minimum distance for users. diverter A barrier used as a traffic calming device that directly reduces the volume of automobile traffic by either completely blocking both directions of travel, blocking one direction of travel, or diverting vehicles at an intersection such that through movements are not allowed.

Glossary-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

downtown core An area of the City located in the “Downtown Commercial District” designated by Article 20-20 of the Santa Rosa City Code, Title 20, Zoning Code and the General Plan (3-2) defined generally as College Avenue on the north, Brookwood Avenue on the east, Santa Rosa Creek on the south, and the North Western Pacific Railroad tracks on the west. essential commercial services Businesses that provide basic needs. gateway A designated or marked entrance to a pathway or area. geographic information system (GIS) GIS refers to systems of hardware and software used for storage, retrieval, mapping and analysis of geographic data. grade-separated crossing Where a roadway or path intersects another roadway or path (or rail tracks) at a different elevation by an underpass or overpass or bridge. greenhouse gas (GHG) Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons. These gases act as a shield that traps heat in the earth’s atmosphere. The resulting greenhouse gas effect is thought to contribute to climate change and global warming. hard paths An asphalt paved path (or concrete in case of some special project areas) 8’ to 12’ wide (proposed to meet design standards of a Class I bike route). This category includes upgrades of informally created footpaths to formally improved Paved Trails. highway A way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.5 infill development Development adjacent to or on the same lots as existing buildings, utilizes pockets of un- or underdeveloped real estate contiguous with existing development. landscaping Alteration of the ground through grading, planting and contouring. lead pedestrian interval (LPI) The pedestrian walk phase of a traffic signal that begins several seconds prior to the green light for vehicles. This reduces the conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians when turning vehicles encroach onto the crosswalk before the pedestrian leaves the curb. September 2010

Glossary-5

GLOSSARY

loop detector A cable embedded in the pavement that provides information to traffic signal control systems on the presence of vehicles and/or bicycles at intersections. median A barrier - paved, landscaped, or planted – separating two traffic lanes. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the transportation planning, coordinating and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. midblock crosswalk A legally established crosswalk that is not at an intersection. (Also known as ‘midblock crossing’) multi-family unit A residential facility designed for occupation by more than one household under one roof or at one location; includes townhouse and row house developments. multi-use path A bicycle and pedestrian path separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space, barrier or curb. Multi-use paths typically accommodate two-way travel. path of travel In pedestrian circulation planning, the area of a pathway (e.g. sidewalk) that provides an accessible (unobstructed) route and is the predominant walking area. paving treatment The application of materials, utilitarian and /or decorative, to mark, level and condition pathway and roadway surfaces. pedestrian A person who is afoot or who is using a means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle. “Pedestrian” includes any person who is operating a self-propelled wheelchair, invalid tricycle, or motorized quadricycle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian, as specified in subdivision (a) of CVC 467.6 pedestrian accessibility Consideration of pedestrian circulation and direct line of travel access in development and transportation facilities. pedestrian activated flashers A pedestrian operated traffic control device featuring flashing lights, designed to interrupt the flow of traffic to permit pedestrians to use a crosswalk.

Glossary-6

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

pedestrian amenities Examples of pedestrian amenities include benches or seating areas, shade, water fountains, restrooms, lighting, and way-finding signage. pedestrian crossing A designated or undesignated location where pedestrians are permitted to cross a roadway or path. pedestrian district A place where walking is prioritized as a mode of travel. A district can be an entire neighborhood (or a node within a neighborhood). Pedestrian districts can also be linear Pedestrian districts can abut and overlap.7 pedestrian element The portion of a plan geared toward pedestrian transportation, interests and issues. pedestrian infrastructure Physical structures that support pedestrian access, comfort and safety. phased plan A plan which is broken into multiple, sequential steps with goals and implementation tasks for each step of the plan. public access trail A non-paved trail designated for public use. See “soft path”. regional street (Formerly known as ‘arterial’.) A street type that includes boulevards and parkways, which connect town centers to the greater region. regional trail system A trail system that crosses jurisdictional lines. ridership The number of people using a particular mode of public transportation. right-of-way A strip of land granted for a rail line, highway, or other transportation facility. riparian Of, or pertaining to rivers and river ecosystems. roadway see “highway”

September 2010

Glossary-7

GLOSSARY

routine accommodation The planning, design, construction, reconstruction, or operation of highways and other transportation infrastructure by local agencies which fully consider and accommodate all users of the highway as needed to provide for reasonably safe and convenient travel. Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) A program focusing efforts on improving the paths and routes used by children to commute to and from school. Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T) A program focused on improving pedestrian and bike access to transit stations/stops. shared roadway A roadway that is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel. Unless bicycle travel is explicitly prohibited, all highways, roads and streets are “Shared Roadways.” sharrow An informal term for the Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking (California MUTCD: Figure 9C-104) signed bike route See “Class III bicycle route” Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) SMART is implementing passenger train service along a 70-mile corridor between Cloverdale and Larkspur, connecting to ferry service to San Francisco. (Approximately 54 of the 70 miles will have a multi-use path within the SMART right of way.) soft paths A new, formally-improved pedestrian (and potentially mountain bike and/or equestrian) path with compacted earth, decomposed granite or other “soft” surface. This category includes upgrades of informally created footpaths to formally improved trails. 8 street furniture Permanently installed amenity fixtures along roadways, sidewalks and paths; including but not limited to lamp-posts, bollards, refuse and recycling containers, benches, bike racks, water fountains, planters, etc. streetscape The overall appearance and functionality of the roadway, incorporating the rights-of-way, landscaping, built features and adjacent land uses. transit hub A location /station where multiple public transportation systems converge, to facilitate transfers.

Glossary-8

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

transitional (street) Transitional streets connect residential neighborhoods to commercial centers and service commercial districts. Avenues and Main Streets are transitional roadways. transportation demand management Transportation demand management (TDM) is the all-inclusive term given to a variety of measures used to improve the efficiency of the existing transportation system. TDM includes encouragement to use alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle such as carpools, vanpools, transit, bikes, and walking. Alternative work-hour programs such as the compressed work week, flextime, and telecommuting are also TDM strategies, as are parking management tactics such as preferential parking for carpools and parking pricing. uncontrolled intersection An intersection without a traffic light or other traffic control device to regulate traffic flow. “users of the road” (street or highway) Includes not only motorists, but pedestrians, bicyclists, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation. utilitarian trips Trips made to secure basic needs and services; e.g. grocery, pharmacy, local commerce etc. wrong-way-riding Bicycles riding against the flow of traffic. zoning Regulation by a governing agency to specify permitted land uses for a given area.

California Vehicle Code Section 231 and Streets and Highway Code 890.2

Streets and Highway Code 890.3

Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999, p.3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

Wikipedia, “Freight bicycles”

CVC 360

California Vehicle Code Section 467

Metropolitan Transportation Commission.Pedestrian Districts Study, January 4, 2006, p.1-2, Oakland, CA.

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan – February 2007

September 2010

Glossary-9

ACRONYMNS

AASHTO ADA ADAAG ADT APBP BAAQMD BPAB BPMP BTA BTWD CALTRANS CBD CC CCMP CD CEQA CIP CMAQ CTCDC CVC DSASP EIR FHWA GHG GIS GP HCM HDM HOV LOS LPI MTC MUTCD CA MUTCD PCC ROW RTP R/UDAT SAFETEA-LU SCTA SCWA

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials American with Disabilities Act Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines Average Daily Traffic Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (City of Santa Rosa) Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (City of Santa Rosa) Bicycle Transportation Account Bike to Work Day California Department of Transportation Central Business District Curb to Curb (Right of Way) Citywide Creek Master Plan (City of Santa Rosa) Community Development Department (City of Santa Rosa) California Environmental Quality Act Capital Improvement Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (Improvement Program) California Traffic Control Devices Committee California Vehicle Code Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (City of Santa Rosa) Environmental Impact Report Federal Highway Administration Greenhouse Gas Geographic Information System General Plan Highway Capacity Manual (California) Highway Design Manual (a Caltrans document) High Occupancy Vehicle Level of Service Lead Pedestrian Interval Metropolitan Transportation Commission Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (federal level) California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Portland Cement Concrete Right-of-Way Regional Transportation Plan (MTC) Rural/Urban Design Assistance Team (City of Santa Rosa) Safe Accountable Flexible Efficiency Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) Sonoma County Transportation Authority Sonoma County Water Agency

APPENDIX S

SHC SMART SPVD SR2S SR2T SWITRS TAC TCM TDA TDA III/TDA3 TDM TEA-21 TTC VMT VPD

S-2

Streets and Highways Code Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Self-Powered Vehicle Detector Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to Transit Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (a CHP collision data base) Technical Advisory Committee Transportation Control Measures Transportation Development Act (California) Transportation Development Act Article III Transportation Demand Management Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) Temporary Traffic Control Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicles per Day

September 2010

Appendix A PLANNING DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Previous and Concurrent Planning Efforts The current planning effort builds on work done in recent years for several aspects of infrastructure and transportation planning in Santa Rosa. As a result of these efforts there are several documents related to Santa Rosa’s pedestrian and bicycle system. The documents summarized in this appendix are of particular relevance and importance in understanding the planning environment and conditions in Santa Rosa. Within these documents there are several key themes that can be applied to the BPMP, including: • • • •

Create a comprehensive and well-connected pedestrian and bicycle network; Provide attractive and safe streets for all modes of transportation; Prioritize projects and maintenance needs that match available funding; and Promote transportation options that accommodate the diverse needs of City residents.

City Of Santa Rosa Update Of The Bicycle And Pedestrian Master Plan, 2001 The purpose of the 2001 Update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2001 BPMP) was to update the 1994 Bicycle Master Plan and identify suggested improvements to the existing system through the year 2020. The pedestrian element of the plan is limited to pedestrian use of the multi-use pathways. The Vision from the 2001 Plan is to promote pedestrian and bicycle use as viable, attractive, and non-polluting forms of transportation, as well as to assure safe and convenient access to all areas of the City. The two main objectives identified in the plan are: •

•

Identify and implement a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network that will provide the public with an attractive transportation alternative to the automobile; and Continue the City’s eligibility for obtaining grant funds for pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

As an update to the 2001 Plan Update, this Plan will build on the long-term vision, goals and objectives of the City’s pedestrian and bicycle system. This plan will also strengthen previous planning efforts by reinforcing the pedestrian component, and by reviewing conditions and priorities to bring them up to date with current needs.

Citywide Creek Master Plan The 2007 Citywide Creek Master Plan (CCMP) is a blueprint for the restoration, preservation and development of access opportunities for the City’s extensive creek network. The Plan presents a set of policies and recommendations for site-specific improvements to the nearly ninety miles of creeks that flow through Santa Rosa. It presents strategies to protect, enhance and restore waterways and associated riparian vegetation within the City, and to develop a network of trails alongside the creeks to provide access to these corridors and to serve as alternative transportation routes for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the City.

APPENDIX A

The CCMP includes recommendations for creek-side pathways for a variety of recreational trail users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, wheelchair users and pedestrians with strollers. It also offers recommendations for enhancing access to these trails, as well as suggestions for the creation of trailheads and trailside parks. Based on the CCMP, trails will be part of an open space network that in many places will function as linear parks or greenways and provide off-street linkages to locations of interest. Connections to regional trails and locations of interest such as schools and parks will be indicated by signage. The system will be designed to be safe and convenient, be consistent with City and County policies, and to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The BPMP Class I facilities corresponds to the CCMP designation of paved and unpaved paths along designated creeks. In addition, the BPMP corresponds to the recommended “Transportation Facility Design Standards” (crossings, signage requirements etc.) identified in Section 3.3.1 of the CCMP.

City Of Santa Rosa Recreation And Parks Department Business And Strategic Action Plan, 2008 The Business and Strategic Action Plan (BSAP) serves as an updated framework for future Recreation and Park Department decision making, priority setting and budgeting. Santa Rosa’s previous Recreation and Parks Strategic Plan was completed in August of 1994. Although the BSAP is largely focused on development of the Recreation and Park Department, the plan contains goals that are pertinent here. Establishing physically accessible recreation programs, creating a system of well connected trails, and the promotion of education and information are all themes that are carried into the 2009 BPMP Update.

Santa Rosa 2035: General Plan, November 2009 The Santa Rosa General Plan (GP) is a long-term plan that addresses issues related to physical development, growth management, transportation services, public facilities, community design and conservation of resources in the Santa Rosa planning area. The plan creates a vision for future development, establishes a basis for judging all public and development projects, and sets priorities for policy and project implementation. In particular, the transportation element of the GP relates to the current BPMP through its Transportation element: • •

A-2

Establishes a roadway classification system; Recognizes the three categories of bikeways;

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

• •

PLAN

Recognizes five criteria for prioritizing bikeway projects: route safety, bicyclist demand, linkages to downtown, connectivity, and feasibility of implementation; and Acknowledges that walking is the most basic form of transportation and recommends that the City work to create a continuous sidewalk network, improve pedestrian crossings, and establish safe routes to schools.

The General Plan also includes Guiding Principle #4 which focuses on pedestrians and bicycles. The Goal serves to, “Reduce dependence on the automobile by improving pedestrian, bicycle, and transit alternatives and by locating essential commercial services in proximity to housing.” Methods to adhere to this principle include: • •

•

Provide attractive and safe streets for pedestrians and bicyclists; Develop a safe, convenient and continuous network of pedestrian sidewalks and pathways that link neighborhoods with schools, parks, shopping areas and employment centers; and Develop a citywide system of designated bikeways that serves both the experienced and casual bicyclist, and which maximizes bicycle use for commuting, recreation, and local transportation.

Because the General Plan provides guidance for regulatory documents to enforce, it is important that other implementation standards effectively follow the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Recommendations outlined in Chapter Six of the BPMP update can be used to revise goals and objectives of the General Plan that are not being implemented as efficiently as they could be.

Other Planning And Source Documents Reviewed A list of some of the other, but not all, planning and source documents consulted include: 1 American Association of State Highway and Transportation. Official’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2 California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Reports and Research Papers. www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates 3 California Department of Transportation. Guidelines for the Installation of Marked Crosswalks. 4 California Department of Transportation. Highway Design Manual. www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/

September 2010

A-3

APPENDIX A

hdm/pdf/chp1000.pdf 5 California Department of Vehicles. California Vehicle Code. www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/ vc.htm 6 California Law. California Streets and Highways Code. www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?c odesection=shc&codebody=&hits=20 7 City of Santa Rosa. Design and Construction Standards. http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/ publicworks/engineering/design_const/Pages/default.aspx 8 City of Santa Rosa. Design Guidelines. http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/communitydev/ development/Pages/DesignGuidelines.aspx 9 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Planning: Bicycles/Pedestrians. www.mtc.ca.gov/ planning/bicyclespedestrians/ 10 U.S. Census. 2006 American Community Survey. 11 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.

A-4

September 2010

Appendix B HDM CH 1000 BIKEWAY PLAN & DESIGN HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-1 September 1, 2006

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX B

1000-2

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

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

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

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

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

(f) Section 21208 -- Specifies permitted movements by bicyclists from bike lanes. (g) Section 21209 -- Specifies permitted movements by motorists in bike lanes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

B-2

(e) Section 21207.5 -- Prohibits motorized bicycles on bike paths or bike lanes.

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

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

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-3 September 1, 2006

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

September 2010

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

B-3

APPENDIX B

1000-4

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

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

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

Where heavy bicycle volumes are anticipated and/or significant pedestrian traffic is expected, the paved width of a two-way path should be

B-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-5 September 1, 2006

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

September 2010

B-5

APPENDIX B

1000-6

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.1B Typical Cross Section of Bike Path Along Highway

B-6

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-7 September 1, 2006

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

September 2010

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

B-7

APPENDIX B

1000-8

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

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

Design Speed (mph) 25 30 30

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

B-8

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

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

1000-9 September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.1C Curve Radii & Superelevations R=

V2 15(0.01e + f)

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

Friction Factor-f

Superelevation-e (%)

Minimum Radius-R (ft)

0.31

0.28

0.25

155

0.21

261

0.31

0.28

0.25

149

0.21

250

0.31

0.28

0.25

144

0.21

240

0.31

0.28

0.25

139

0.21

231

September 2010

B-9

APPENDIX B

1000-10

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

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

S= Where : S

V2 + 3.67 V 30(f - G)

= Stopping sight distance (ft)

V = Velocity (mph) f

= Coefficient of friction (use 0.25)

G = Grade (ft/ft) rise/run

B-10

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

PLAN

1000-11 September 1, 2006

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

S= Where : S

V2 + 3.67 V 30(f + G)

= Stopping sight distance (ft)

V = Velocity (mph) f

= Coefficient of friction (use 0.25)

G = Grade (ft/ft) rise/run

September 2010

B-11

APPENDIX B

1000-12

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

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

B-12

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

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

PLAN

1000-13 September 1, 2006

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

1456 A

Double line represents S = L

when S > L

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

AS 1456

S = Stopping sight distance – feet

when S < L

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

Height of cyclist eye = 4½ feet A (%)

Height of object = 4 inches 110

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

3 4 5 6

S>L

230

250

270 290

56 129

96 169

15 136 209

55 95 176 216 249 289

16 89

137

177

217

258

300 347

132

172

212

254

300

350 404

118

158

198

242

291

343

401 462

138

179

223

273

327

386

451 520

10 11

34 48

74 88

114 128

155 170

198 218

248 273

303 333

363 400

429 472

501 578 551 635

12 13

19 28

59 68

99 108

139 151

185 201

238 258

298 322

363 394

436 472

515 558

601 693 651 751

14 15 16

3 9

36 43 49

76 83 89

116 125 133

163 174 186

216 232 247

278 298 318

347 372 397

424 454 485

509 545 581

601 644 687

701 809 751 866 801 924

17 18 19 20

14 19 23 27

54 59 63 67

95 100 106 111

141 150 158 166

197 209 221 232

263 278 294 309

337 357 377 397

421 446 471 496

515 545 575 606

618 654 690 727

730 773 816 859

851 901 951 1001

982 1040 1097 1155

21 22 23 24 25

31 34 37 39 42

71 74 77 81 84

117 122 128 134 139

175 183 191 199 208

244 255 267 279 290

325 340 355 371 386

417 437 457 476 496

521 545 570 595 620

636 666 697 727 757

763 799 836 872 908

901 944 987 1030 1073

1051 1102 1152 1202 1252

1213 1271 1329 1386 1444

September 2010

S<L

B-13

APPENDIX B

1000-14

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

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

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

B-14

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

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

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

100

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

220

240

260

280

300

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

PLAN

1000-15 September 1, 2006

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

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

September 2010

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

B-15

APPENDIX B

1000-16

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

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

B-16

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

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

PLAN

1000-17 September 1, 2006

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

September 2010

B-17

APPENDIX B

1000-18

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

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

B-18

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

1003.3 Class III Bikeways Class III bikeways (bike routes) are intended to provide continuity to the bikeway system. Bike routes are established along through routes not served by Class I or II bikeways, or to connect discontinuous segments of bikeway (normally bike lanes). Class III facilities are shared facilities, either with motor vehicles on the street, or with pedestrians on sidewalks, and in either case bicycle usage is secondary. Class III facilities are established by placing Bike Route signs along roadways. Minimum widths for Class III bikeways are not presented, as the acceptable width is dependent on many factors, including the volume and character of vehicular traffic on the road, typical speeds, vertical and horizontal alignment, sight distance, and parking conditions. Since bicyclists are permitted on all highways (except prohibited freeways), the decision to designate the route as a bikeway should be based on the advisability of encouraging bicycle travel on the route and other factors listed below. (1) On-street Bike Route Criteria. To be of benefit to bicyclists, bike routes should offer a higher degree of service than alternative streets. Routes should be signed only if some of the following apply: (a) They provide for through and direct travel in bicycle-demand corridors. (b) Connect discontinuous segments of bike lanes. (c) An effort has been made to adjust traffic control devices (stop signs, signals) to give greater priority to bicyclists, as compared with alternative streets. This could include placement of bicycle-sensitive detectors on the right-hand portion of the road, where bicyclists are expected to ride.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

PLAN

1000-19 September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.2B Typical Bicycle/Auto Movements at Intersections of Multilane Streets

September 2010

B-19

APPENDIX B

1000-20

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.2C Bike Lanes Approaching Motorist Right-turn-only Lane

B-20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

PLAN

1000-21 September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.2D Bike Lanes Through Interchanges

September 2010

B-21

APPENDIX B

1000-22

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

(d) Street parking has been removed or restricted in areas of critical width to provide improved safety. (e) Surface imperfections or irregularities have been corrected (e.g., utility covers adjusted to grade, potholes filled, etc.). (f) Maintenance of the route will be at a higher standard than that of other comparable streets (e.g., more frequent street sweeping). (2) Sidewalk Bikeway Criteria. In general, the designated use of sidewalks (as a Class III bikeway) for bicycle travel is unsatisfactory. It is important to recognize that the development of extremely wide sidewalks does not necessarily add to the safety of sidewalk bicycle travel, as wide sidewalks will encourage higher speed bicycle use and can increase potential for conflicts with motor vehicles at intersections, as well as with pedestrians and fixed objects. Sidewalk bikeways should be considered only under special circumstances, such as: (a) To provide bikeway continuity along high speed or heavily traveled roadways having inadequate space for bicyclists, and uninterrupted by driveways and intersections for long distances. (b) On long, narrow bridges. In such cases, ramps should be installed at the sidewalk approaches. If approach bikeways are twoway, sidewalk facilities should also be two-way. Whenever sidewalk bikeways are established, a special effort should be made to remove unnecessary obstacles. Whenever bicyclists are directed from bike lanes to sidewalks, curb cuts should be flush with the street to assure that bicyclists are not subjected to problems associated with crossing a vertical lip at a flat angle. Also curb cuts at each intersection are necessary. Curb cuts should be wide enough to accommodate adult tricycles and two-wheel bicycle trailers. In residential areas, sidewalk riding by young children too inexperienced to ride in the street

B-22

is common. With lower bicycle speeds and lower auto speeds, potential conflicts are somewhat lessened, but still exist. Nevertheless, this type of sidewalk bicycle use is accepted. But it is inappropriate to sign these facilities as bikeways. Bicyclists should not be encouraged (through signing) to ride facilities that are not designed to accommodate bicycle travel. (3) Destination Signing of Bike Routes. For Bike Route signs to be more functional, supplemental plates may be placed beneath them when located along routes leading to high demand destinations (e.g., "To Downtown"; "To State College"; etc. For typical signing, see the MUTCD and California Supplement, Figures 9B-5 and 9B-6. There are instances where it is necessary to sign a route to direct bicyclists to a logical destination, but where the route does not offer any of the above listed bike route features. In such cases, the route should not be signed as a bike route; however, destination signing may be advisable. A typical application of destination signing would be where bicyclists are directed off a highway to bypass a section of freeway. Special signs would be placed to guide bicyclists to the next logical destination. The intent is to direct bicyclists in the same way as motorists would be directed if a highway detour was necessitated. (4) Interchange Design As with bikeway design through at-grade intersections, bikeway design through interchanges should be accomplished in a manner that will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists. Designers should work closely with the local agency in designing bicycle facilities through interchanges. Local Agencies should carefully select interchange locations which are most suitable for bikeway designations and where the crossing meets applicable design standards. The local agency may have special needs and desires for continuity through interchanges which should be considered in the design process. Within the Interchange area the bike route shall require either an outside lane width of 16-foot or a 12-foot lane and a 4-foot shoulder. If the above width is not available,

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

PLAN

1000-23 September 1, 2006

the designated bike route shall end at the previous local road intersection.

1003.4 Bicycles on Freeways In some instances, bicyclists are permitted on freeways. Seldom would a freeway be designated as a bikeway, but it can be opened for use if it meets certain criteria. Essentially, the criteria involve assessing the safety and convenience of the freeway as compared with available alternate routes. However, a freeway should not be opened to bicycle use if it is determined to be incompatible. The Headquarters Traffic Liaisons and the Design Coordinator must approve any proposals to open freeways to bicyclists. If a suitable alternate route exists, it would normally be unnecessary to open the freeway. However, if the alternate route is unsuitable for bicycle travel the freeway may be a better alternative for bicyclists. In determining the suitability of an alternate route, safety should be the paramount consideration. The following factors should be considered: • • • • • • •

Number of intersections Shoulder widths Traffic volumes Vehicle speeds Bus, truck and recreational volumes Grades Travel time

vehicle

When a suitable alternate route does not exist, a freeway shoulder may be considered for bicycle travel. Normally, freeways in urban areas will have characteristics that make it unfeasible to permit bicycle use. In determining if the freeway shoulder is suitable for bicycle travel, the following factors should be considered;

•

Shoulder widths Bicycle hazards on shoulders (drainage grates, expansion joints, etc.) Number and location of entrance/exit ramps Traffic volumes on entrance/exit ramps

•

Bridge Railing height

• • •

September 2010

When bicyclists are permitted on segments of freeway, it will be necessary to modify and supplement freeway regulatory signs, particularly those at freeway ramp entrances and exits, see the MUTCD and California Supplement, Section 9B.101. Where no reasonable alternate route exists within a freeway corridor, the Department should coordinate with local agencies to develop or improve existing routes or provide parallel bikeways within or adjacent to the freeway right of way. The long term goal is to provide a safe and convenient non-freeway route for bicycle travel.

1003.5 Multipurpose Trails In some instances, it may be appropriate for agencies to develop multipurpose trails - for hikers, joggers, equestrians, bicyclists, etc. Many of these trails will not be paved and will not meet the standards for Class I bikeways. As such, these facilities should not be signed as bikeways. Rather, they should be designated as multipurpose trails (or similar designation), along with regulatory signing to restrict motor vehicles, as appropriate. If multipurpose trails are primarily to serve bicycle travel, they should be developed in accordance with standards for Class I bikeways. In general, multipurpose trails are not recommended as high speed transportation facilities for bicyclists because of conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians. Wherever possible, separate bicycle and pedestrian paths should be provided. If this is not feasible, additional width, signing and pavement markings should be used to minimize conflicts. It is undesirable to mix mopeds and bicycles on the same facility. In general, mopeds should not be allowed on multipurpose trails because of conflicts with slower moving bicyclists and pedestrians. In some cases where an alternate route for mopeds does not exist, additional width, signing, and pavement markings should be used to minimize conflicts. Increased patrolling by law enforcement personnel is also recommended to enforce speed limits and other rules of the road. It is usually not desirable to mix horses and bicycle traffic on the same multipurpose trail. Bicyclists are often not aware of the need for slower speeds and additional operating space near horses. Horses

B-23

APPENDIX B

1000-24

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

can be startled easily and may be unpredictable if they perceive approaching bicyclists as a danger. In addition, pavement requirements for safe bicycle travel are not suitable for horses. For these reasons, a bridle trail separate from the multipurpose trail is recommended wherever possible.

minimize the likelihood of bicyclists falling over the railings. Standard bridge railings which are lower than 46 inches can be retrofitted with lightweight upper railings or chain link fence suitable to restrain bicyclists. See Index 208.10(6) for guidance regarding bicycle railing on bridges.

1003.6 Miscellaneous Bikeway Criteria

Separate highway overcrossing structures for bikeway traffic shall conform to Department standard pedestrian overcrossing design loading. The minimum clear width shall be the paved width of the approach bikeway but not less than 8 feet. If pedestrians are to use the structure, additional width is recommended.

The following are miscellaneous bikeway criteria which should be followed to the extent pertinent to Class I, II and III bikeways. Some, by their very nature, will not apply to all classes of bikeway. Many of the criteria are important to consider on any highway where bicycle travel is expected, without regard to whether or not bikeways are established. (1) Bridges. Bikeways on highway bridges must be carefully coordinated with approach bikeways to make sure that all elements are compatible. For example, bicycle traffic bound in opposite directions is best accommodated by bike lanes on each side of a highway. In such cases, a two-way bike path on one side of a bridge would normally be inappropriate, as one direction of bicycle traffic would be required to cross the highway at grade twice to get to and from the bridge bike path. Because of the inconvenience, many bicyclists will be encouraged to ride on the wrong side of the highway beyond the bridge termini. The following criteria apply to a two-way bike path on one side of a highway bridge: (a) The bikeway approach to the bridge should be by way of a separate two-way facility for the reason explained above. (b) A physical separation, such as a chain link fence or railing, shall be provided to offset the adverse effects of having bicycles traveling against motor vehicle traffic. The physical separation should be designed to minimize fixed end hazards to motor vehicles and if the bridge is an interchange structure, to minimize sight distance restrictions at ramp intersections.

(2) Surface Quality. The surface to be used by bicyclists should be smooth, free of potholes, and the pavement edge uniform. For rideability on new construction, the finished surface of bikeways should not vary more than 6 mm from the lower edge of a 2.4 m long straight edge when laid on the surface in any direction. Table 1003.6 indicates the recommended bikeway surface tolerances for Class II and III bikeways developed on existing streets to minimize the potential for causing bicyclists to lose control of their bicycle (Note: Stricter tolerances should be achieved on new bikeway construction.) Shoulder rumble strips are not suitable as a riding surface for bicycles. See the MUTCD and California Supplement, Chapter 3B for additional information regarding rumble strip design considerations for bicycles. (3) Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, and Driveways. Drainage inlet grates, manhole covers, etc., on bikeways should be designed and installed in a manner that provides an adequate surface for bicyclists. They should be maintained flush with the surface when resurfacing.

It is recommended that bikeway bridge railings or fences placed between traffic lanes and bikeways be at least 46 inches high to

B-24

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

PLAN

1000-25 September 1, 2006

Table 1003.6 Bikeway Surface Tolerances Direction of Travel

Grooves (1)

Steps (2)

Parallel to travel

No more than ½" wide

No more than ⅜" high No more than ¾" high

Perpendicular to travel

---

Notes: (1) Groove--A narrow slot in the surface that could catch a bicycle wheel, such as a gap between two concrete slabs. (2) Step--A ridge in the pavement, such as that which might exist between the pavement and a concrete gutter or manhole cover; or that might exist between two pavement blankets when the top level does not extend to the edge of the roadway.

Drainage inlet grates on bikeways shall have openings narrow enough and short enough to assure bicycle tires will not drop into the grates (e.g., reticuline type), regardless of the direction of bicycle travel. Where it is not immediately feasible to replace existing grates with standard grates designed for bicycles, 1" x ¼" steel cross straps should be welded to the grates at a spacing of 6 inches to 8 inches on centers to reduce the size of the openings adequately. Corrective actions described above are recommended on all highways where bicycle travel is permitted, whether or not bikeways are designated.

bicyclists is protected. The bikeway crossing should be at least as wide as the approaches of the bikeway. Wherever possible, the crossing should be straight and at right angles to the rails. For on-street bikeways where a skew is unavoidable, the shoulder (or bike lane) should be widened, if possible, to permit bicyclists to cross at right angles (see Figure 1003.6A). If this is not possible, special construction and materials should be considered to keep the flangeway depth and width to a minimum. Pavement should be maintained so ridge buildup does not occur next to the rails. In some cases, timber plank crossings can be justified and can provide for a smoother crossing. Where hazards to bicyclist cannot be avoided, appropriate signs should be installed to warn bicyclists of the danger. All railroad crossings are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). All new bike path railroad crossings must be approved by the CPUC. Necessary railroad protection will be determined based on a joint field review involving the applicant, the railroad company, and the CPUC. The presence of cattle guards along any roadway where bicyclists are expected should be clearly marked with adequate advance warning. (5) Obstruction Markings. Vertical barriers and obstructions, such as abutments, piers, and other features causing bikeway constriction, should be clearly marked to gain the attention of approaching bicyclists. This treatment should be used only where unavoidable, and is by no means a substitute for good bikeway design. See the MUTCD, Section 9C.06.

Future driveway construction should avoid construction of a vertical lip from the driveway to the gutter, as the lip may create a problem for bicyclists when entering from the edge of the roadway at a flat angle. If a lip is deemed necessary, the height should be limited to ½ inch. (4) At-grade Railroad Crossings and Cattle Guards. Whenever it is necessary to cross railroad tracks with a bikeway, special care must be taken to assure that the safety of

September 2010

B-25

APPENDIX B

1000-26

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

September 1, 2006

Figure 1003.6A Railroad Crossings

B-26

September 2010

Appendix C HDM CH 105 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

considerations, frequently are terminated at the railroad right of way. Any new railroad grade crossings and grade separations, and any relocations or alterations of existing crossings must be cleared with the railroad and approved by the PUC. (5) Frontage Roads Financed by Others. Frontage roads which are not a State responsibility under this policy may be built by the State upon request of a local political subdivision, a private agency, or an individual. Such a project must be covered by an agreement under which the State is reimbursed for all construction, right of way, and engineering costs involved.

104.4 Protection of Access Rights For proper control of acquired access rights, fencing or other approved barriers shall be installed on all controlled access highways except as provided in Index 701.2(3)(e).

104.5 Relation of Access Opening to a Median Opening Access openings should not be placed within 300 feet of a median opening unless the access opening is directly opposite the median opening. Details on access openings are given under Index 205.1.

104.6 Cross References (a) Access Control at Intersections at Grade (see Index 405.6). (b) Access Control at Interchanges Index 504.8).

(see

Topic 105 - Pedestrian Facilities 105.1 Sidewalks The design of sidewalks and walkways varies depending on the setting and the standards and requirements of local agencies. Most local agencies in California have adopted varying design standards for urban and rural areas, as well as more specific requirements that are applicable to residential settings, downtowns, special districts,

and other areas. Design of sidewalks should be coordinated with the local agencies. The minimum width of a sidewalk should be 5 feet. See Index 105.3 for accessibility requirements. See Index 205.3(6) and the Standard Plans for sidewalk requirements at driveways. See Index 208.6 for information on pedestrian overcrossings and undercrossings and Index 208.4 for sidewalks on bridges. “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets”, issued by AASHTO, and the “Highway Capacity Manual” contain pedestrian level of service criteria. This is a means of measuring the capacity of existing pedestrian facilities to determine the need for improvements or expansions. If adequate capacity is not provided, pedestrian mobility may be seriously impeded. Traffic volume-pedestrian warrants for sidewalks or walkways along highways have not been established. In general, whenever the roadside and land development conditions are such that pedestrians regularly move along a highway, those pedestrians should be furnished with a sidewalk or walkway, as is suitable to the conditions. The State may assume financial responsibility for the construction of sidewalks under the conditions described below. (See the Project Development Procedures Manual for further discussion of the State's responsibility in providing pedestrian facilities.) (1) Replacement in Kind. Where existing sidewalks are to be disturbed by highway construction, the replacement applies only to the frontages involved and no other sidewalk construction is authorized except: (a) As part of a right of way agreement. (b) Where the safety or capacity of the highway will be improved. (2) Conventional Highways. The roadway cross section usually provides areas for pedestrians. If the safety or capacity of the highway will be improved, the State may contribute towards the cost of building a pedestrian facility. The city, county, or property owner whose adjacent development generated the pedestrian traffic may build sidewalks on State right of way under a permit.

APPENDIX C

(3) Freeway and other Controlled Access Facilities. Sidewalks should be built across the freeway right of way on overcrossings and through undercrossings where necessary to connect with existing or planned sidewalks. Construction of planned sidewalks should be imminent. Within the foregoing criteria, sidewalks can be part of the original project or added later when the surrounding area develops. (4) Overcrossing and Undercrossing Approaches. Where sidewalks are planned on overcrossing structures, an area should be provided to accommodate future sidewalks where they are not now warranted. (5) School Pedestrian Walkways. School pedestrian walkways may be identified along a route used by school pedestrians that is not limited to crossing locations, but includes where physical conditions require students to walk in or along rural or suburban roadways. (6) Frontage Roads. Sidewalks may be built along frontage roads connecting local streets that would otherwise dead end at the freeway provided the intersecting streets have sidewalks. Such sidewalks are considered to be replacements of existing facilities. Normally, sidewalks should not be placed on the freeway side of frontage roads except where connections must be made to pedestrian separations. (7) Separated Cross Streets. Sidewalks may be built on separated cross streets where reconstruction of the cross street is made necessary by the freeway project and where the criteria of paragraph (3) above apply. (8) Bus Stops. Sidewalks may be built to connect bus stops to local streets. (9) Vehicular Tunnels. Sidewalks and pedestrian facilities may be built as part of vehicular tunnels which do not require ventilation as part of the tunnel structure. Contact the Division of Engineering Services - Structure Design (DES-SD), regarding allowable conditions. (10) Maintenance. The State is responsible for maintaining and replacing damaged sidewalks within the right of way except:

C-2

(a) Where the sidewalk was placed by a private party under encroachment permit that requires the permittee to maintain the sidewalk, but only if the original permittee still owns the abutting property. (b) Where the city or county has placed nonstandard sidewalks with colored or textured surfaces, or meandering alignment. See Maintenance Manual for additional discussion on State's maintenance responsibilities regarding sidewalks.

105.2 Pedestrian Grade Separations (1) Warrants. The need for a pedestrian grade separation is based on a study of the present and future needs of a particular area or community. Each situation should be investigated and considered on its own merits. The study should cover pedestrian generating sources in the area, pedestrian crossing volumes, type of highway to be crossed, location of adjacent crossing facilities, circuity, zoning, land use, sociological and cultural factors, and the predominant type and age of persons expected to utilize the facility. Pedestrian patterns should be maintained across freeway routes where these patterns have been previously established. Where vehicular crossings are inadequate for pedestrians, separate structures should be provided. In general, if a circuitous route is involved, a pedestrian separation may be justified even though the number of pedestrians is small. State participation in the financing of pedestrian separations at ramp terminals is not normally justified because of the accident history at these locations. Exceptions to this general policy should be considered only in special circumstances where no less expensive alternative is feasible. Where a pedestrian grade separation is justified, an overcrossing is preferred. Undercrossings should be avoided because of the potential for criminal incidents and vandalism. Consideration may be given to an undercrossing when specifically requested in writing by a local agency, but unobstructed

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

visibility should be provided through the structure and approaches. See Index 105.3 for discussion of provisions for physically disabled persons. (2) Financing. (a) Freeways--Where the pedestrian grade separation is justified prior to award of the freeway contract, the State should pay the full cost of the pedestrian facility. In some cases, construction of the separation may be deferred; however, where the need has been established to the satisfaction of the Department prior to award of the freeway contract, the State should pay the entire cost of the separation. Local jurisdictions have some control (by zoning and planning) of development that influences pedestrian traffic patterns. Therefore, where a pedestrian grade separation is justified after the award of a freeway contract, the State's share of the total construction cost of the separation should not exceed 50 percent. The State must enter into a cooperative agreement with the local jurisdiction on this basis. (b) Conventional Highways--Grade separations are not normally provided for either cars or pedestrians on conventional highways. However, in those rare cases where pedestrian use is extensive, and where the local agency has requested in writing that a pedestrian separation be constructed, an overcrossing may be considered. The State's share of the total construction cost of the pedestrian facility should not exceed 50 percent. The State must enter into a cooperative agreement with the local jurisdiction on this basis.

was enacted by the Federal Government and took effect on January 26, 1992, and Section 4450 of the California Government Code. (a) Americans Highlights.

Disabilities

Act

Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by state and local governments (public entities). This means that a public entity may not deny the benefits of its programs, activities and services to individuals with disabilities because its facilities are inaccessible. A public entity’s services, programs, or activities, when viewed in their entirety, must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This standard, known as “program accessibility,” applies to all existing facilities of a public entity.

•

Public entities are not necessarily required to make each of their existing facilities accessible. Public entities may achieve program accessibility by a number of methods (e.g., providing buses as opposed to structurally accessible pedestrian facilities). However, in many situations, providing access to facilities through structural methods, such as alteration of existing facilities and acquisition or construction of additional facilities, may be the most efficient method of providing program accessibility.

•

Where structural modifications are required to achieve program accessibility, a public entity with 50 or more employees is required to develop a transition plan setting forth the steps necessary to complete such modifications.

•

In compliance with the ADA, Title 28 of the Code of Federal regulations (CFR) Part 35 identifies all public entities to be subject to the requirements for ADA regardless of funding source. It further states that

(1) Background.

September 2010

with

•

105.3 Accessibility Requirements The requirement to provide equivalent access to facilities for all individuals, regardless of disability, is stated in several laws adopted at both the State and Federal level. Two of the most notable references are The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) which

PLAN

C-3

APPENDIX C

the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) are acceptable design guidelines that may be used. However, FHWA has directed Caltrans to use the ADAAG as the Federal design guidelines for pedestrian accessibility. (b) California Government Code 4450 et seq. Highlights. •

•

Sections 4450 (through 4460) of the California Government Code require that buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs, and related facilities that are constructed using any State funds, or the funds of cities, counties, or other political subdivisions be accessible to and usable by the physically disabled. Section 4450 says that facilities are to be constructed in conformance with the California Building Code. The California Building Code is part of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The Department of General Services (DGS), through the Division of the State Architect, and Caltrans have the authority to review and approve plans for facilities covered under Section 4450. California Building Code has been revised to generally conform to the ADAAG. In most cases, the accessibility standards in Title 24 are more stringent than those in ADAAG, but in some cases they are less so.

(2) Policy. It is Caltrans policy to: •

C-4

Comply with the ADA and the Government Code 4450 et seq. by making all State highway facilities accessible to people with disabilities to the maximum extent feasible. In general, if a project on State right of way is providing a pedestrian facility, then accessibility must be addressed.

•

Follow the requirements of both the ADAAG and Title 24 for new construction and alterations of existing facilities. Both requirements should be reviewed to determine if differences exist. Where there are differences between Title 24 and the ADAAG, the guidelines that provide the higher accessibility may be used as long as at least the ADAAG is satisfied. The ADAAG allows the use of other design standards, i.e., a local agency’s adopted accessibility standard, where the standard used will provide substantially equivalent or greater access to and usability of the facility. The decision to identify and use an equivalent or higher accessibility standard than the ADAAG or Title 24 should be documented for projects on the State highway system.

(3) Procedures. (a) The engineer will consider pedestrian accessibility needs in the Project Initiation Documents (PSRs, PSSRs, etc.) for all projects where applicable. (b) All State highway projects administered by Caltrans or others with facilities subject to the ADA and Title 24 must be designed in accordance with the requirements in Design Information Bulletin 82, “Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects.” (c) The details of the pedestrian facilities and their relationship to the project as a whole should be clearly depicted and submitted as described in DIB-82. ADA compliance must be noted in PS&E Transmittal, Attachment A, on Stateadministered projects. Appropriate project records should document the fact that necessary review and approvals have been obtained as required above.

105.4 Guidelines for the Location and Design of Curb Ramps (1) Policy. On all State highway projects adequate and reasonable access for the safe

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL

100-9

and convenient movement of physically disabled persons are to be provided across curbs that are constructed or replaced at pedestrian crosswalks. (This includes all marked and unmarked crosswalks, as defined in Section 275 of the Vehicle Code.) Access should also be provided at bridge sidewalk approaches and at curbs in the vicinity of pedestrian separation structures. Where a need is identified at an existing curb on a conventional highway, a curb ramp may be constructed either by others under encroachment permit or by the State. (2) Location Guidelines. When locating curb ramps, designers must consider the position of utilities such as power poles, fire hydrants, street lights, traffic signals, and drainage facilities. On new construction, two ramps should be installed at each corner as shown on the Standard Plans. For retrofit construction, one ramp at the center of the curb return is acceptable, but not desirable. The usage of the one-ramp design should be restricted to those locations where the volume of pedestrians and vehicles making right turns is low. This will reduce the potential frequency of conflicts between turning vehicles and disabled persons entering the common crosswalk area to cross either street. Ramps and/or curb openings should be provided at midblock crosswalks and where pedestrians cross curbed channelization or median islands at intersections. Often, on traffic signalization, channelization, and similar projects, curbs are proposed to be modified only on portions of an existing intersection. In those cases, consideration should be given to installing retrofit curb ramps on all legs of the intersection. (3) Ramp Design. Curb ramp designs should conform to current Standard Plans. See Index 105.3(3) for review procedures.

September 1, 2006

Topic 106 - Stage Construction and Utilization of Local Roads 106.1 Stage Construction (1) Cost Control Measures. When funds are limited and costs increase, estimated project costs often exceed the amounts available in spite of the best efforts of the engineering staff. At such times the advantages of reducing initial project costs by some form of staged construction should be considered as an alternative to deferring the entire project. Stage construction may include one or more of the following: (a) Shorten the proposed improvement, or divide it into segments for construction in successive years; (b) Reduce number of lanes for initial construction. For example, a 4-lane freeway in a rural area with low current traffic volumes might be staged for two lanes initially with capacity adequate for at least 10 years after construction. Similarly, a freeway might be constructed initially four or six lanes wide with provision for future widening in the median to meet future traffic needs. (c) Stage pavement structure. For flexible pavement, this could be done by reducing the surface course thickness with provision for a future overlay to bring the pavement to full design depth. For rigid pavement, the base and subbase layers could initially be built (if the base is built with HMA) and then overlaid later with a Portland cement concrete slab. In each case, life-cycle cost should be considered before using a staging option. (d) Downscope geometric design features. This last expedient should be considered only as a last resort; geometric features such as alignment, grade, sight distance, weaving, or merging distance, are difficult and expensive to change once constructed. A choice among cost reducing alternatives should be made only after weighing the benefits and disadvantages of each,

September 2010

C-5

Appendix D CCMP 3.3.3 ON-STREET CONNECTION 3.3.3 On-Street Connections The creek trail route will need to follow streets where access along the creek is not feasible. This must include provisions for bicycles and for pedestrians, including wheelchair users. Bicycle Facilities. Three class definitions of bicycle facilities are consistently used by Caltrans and other transportation agencies: Class 1 bicycle facilities are off-street paved paths. These are similar to the “paved path” type described above, except that there are very specific design standards for Class 1 bike routes, including radius of curves, slopes, transitions, etc. that do not apply to generic paved paths. Two types or classes of bicycle facilities may occur on streets: Class 2 bicycle facilities consist of striped and signed lane for bikes along the street, typically 4’ wide minimum. Class 3 bicycle facilities consist of a bike route along the street, marked by signs. For the purposes of the Master Plan, where paved trails are proposed, they will meet the design standards of Class 1 bicycle facilities. Some of the on-street routes will follow existing designated and improved bikeways that may provide all or part of such connections. The City maintains an adopted Bikeways Map showing designated routes and facilities by type/class. These are reflected in the Master Plan. In some cases new on-street connections are proposed to complete the system. On-Street Pedestrian Facilities. Where pedestrians must follow an on-street route there should be sidewalks to accommodate them, including curb ramps to accommodate wheelchairs. The broad scope of the Master Plan and the limited extent of available data about the on-street routes does not allow for a determination of whether on-street connections currently feature sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians, whether the sidewalk has curb ramps and slopes to accommodate wheelchairs, or whether the desirable/feasible bicycle facility is Class 2 bike lanes or a Class 3 signed route. These details will be resolved by subsequent site-specific studies and plans, the City’s current ADA studies, or by future street improvement projects. These potential improvements are not included in the detailed trail system tables or cost estimates

Appendix E SAMPLE STREET SURFACE STANDARDS

Bicycle Technical Guidelines

R R

Note

Y WA

FREE

A Guide for Local Agencies

R R

urve ed tal c zon bike/p i r o h o in SantadiuClara s of ionCounty s, (n icles) h -Ra ndit otor veh o R c . 1 m p site per icts with t ram l us a s to be timum i d conf a r urb rsection for op c =C te um 2. R minal in t maxim dation. ter fee ommo 5 rial 20 -2 ike acc Arte n o b limit ped . eed d sp aximum e t s o 3. P mph m 35

APPENDIX E

MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION ZONES

4.1 ROADWAY RESURFACING IN THIS CHAPTER:

4.1.1 Gutter Seams

4.1 Roadway Resurfacing

During resurfacing, ensure smooth longitudinal gutter seams by grinding and/or wedge cutting prior to applying the overlay. This will maintain a smooth transition between the asphalt surface of the roadway and gutter pan thereby providing a safe riding surface for bicyclists. (Note: This is standard practice in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Los Altos.) See Figure 4-1.

4.2 Roadway Patching and Utility

4.1.2 Check Lane Widths

4.5 Landscape Maintenance

Lane width allocation should be reevaluated during every resurfacing project to determine if bike lanes or wide curb lanes can be provided when the roadway markings are reapplied. See guidelines set forth in Chapter 7.1 Bike Lanes, Chapter 7.2 Wide Curb Lanes or Chapter 7.4 Shoulders.

Trenching 4.3 Ponding 4.4 Sweeping

4.6 Construction Zones and Detours

4.1.3 Pavement Surface

The project should include the following construction practices: The maximum tolerances for variations in the vertical surface for grooves (indentations) and steps (ridges) are set forth in the HDM Table 1003.6 (see also Chapter 3.4.1). These tolerances should be maintained

C L

6' Existing gutter pan

varies

Wedge cut

6' Wedge cut

Existing gutter pan

Finished surface

Asphalt concrete overlay

Wedge cut (typ) 1-1/2" (typ)

varies

Existing surface

Notes: Depth of wedge cut should equal depth of AC overlay, typically 2" on arterial streets, 1-1/2" on local streets. Finished surface should match level of gutter to within 1/4". Figure 4-1: Wedge Cut for Roadway Resurfacing

Not to scale

VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines December 13, 2007 4-1

E-2 "Optimum": The best or most favorable condition from the perspective of responsible management.

September 2010

Reference Also: Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000 Bikeway Planning and Design and the Traffic Manual .

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

CHAPTER 4-MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION ZONES

LOCAL PRACTICE

on all roadways at locations such as driveway lips, where two pavements intersect, and other such seams in the areas where bicyclists can be expected to ride.

The City of Palo Alto also requires that contractors guarantee adherence to these

4.2 ROADWAY PATCHING AND UTILITY TRENCHING REPAIR

standards for one year after

The repair of potholes and trenches should adhere to compaction standards of Caltrans Standard Specification 39-6.03 to ensure that the pavement surface remains intact and smooth. (See Figure 4-2).

project completion.

On completion of AC paving a seal coat shall be applied

AC layer removed 6" beyond actual trench line to ensure a more stable section at edge of trench

Existing asphalt concrete 6"

95% compaction

Replace in kind

Subsequent backfill

Initial backfill (pipe zone) O

For compaction requirements, see Standard Specifications 39-6, O3

90% compaction

12"

4" min. or O.D/6 varies

AC & AGGREGATE BASE

Notes: Trenches>20 square feet have compaction testing. Testing to be performed by professional testing service. When trench backfill passes the compaction test, final surface course of asphalt concrete may be placed. Restored surface of trench must match existing surface within 1/4 inch.

• • • •

Figure 4-2: Trenching and Compacting Procedures

4-2

Not to scale

VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines December 13, 2007

September 2010

E-3

APPENDIX E

CHAPTER 4-MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION ZONES

4.3 PONDING

Ponding at the edge of the road and in bike lanes occurs when there are dips and bumps in the roadway surface and when drains become clogged. This is potentially a problem for bicyclists because riding through the pond may cause the bicyclist to fall or the pool of water may cover an obstacle, for example a drainage grate with parallel bars. A regular inspection of curb and gutter should be undertaken to identify areas that are raised, sunken or have some vertical differential that would cause ponding; these should be repaired. 4.4 SWEEPING

All roadways should be swept regularly to remove debris such as gravel, glass and leaves which may cause a bicyclist to slip and fall. Roadway sweeping schedules will vary depending on the season, the number and types of street trees and other characteristics of the roadway. Responsible agencies should also remove broken glass from the roadway, including the gutter and shoulder after all accidents. During construction or maintenance activities sweeping is generally required on a daily basis to remove excess gravel and debris. 4.5 LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE

Shrubs and other landscaping adjacent to the roadway or shoulders, including expressway shoulders, should be regularly inspected to ensure that they do not encroach upon the roadway or shoulder area where bicyclists ride. This includes low encroaching shrubs that occupy the physical space where the bicyclists ride as well as eye level shrubs or tree branches that could hit bicyclists in the face. Table 4-1 lists typical maintenance activities and their recommended frequencies.

Table 4-1 Optimal Maintenance Frequencies For Roads and Trails Maintenance Activity

Recommended Frequency

Respond to hazardous pavement failure reports

Respond to 100% of reports within 8 hours of report

Maintain clean walkways/roadside areas

80% of areas maintained to a “satisfactory” level as defined by a photographic standard

Sweep roadways or trails

100% of roadways every two weeks, with 90% maintained to a “satisfactory” level as defined by a photographic standard

Maintain arterial street traffic markings

100% of markings annually

Maintain non-arterial street and trail traffic markings

75% of markings every two years

Repair deteriorated non-traffic control signs

100% within 30 days of report/ complaint

Maintain landscaping encroachment onto roadway or trail that obscures sight distance

100% within 24 hours of report.

Sweep during construction

Daily

VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines December 13, 2007 4-3

E-4

September 2010

Appendix F PROPOSED CHANGES TO ZONING CODE Santa Rosa City Code – Title 20, Zoning Code

20.36.090 – Bicycle Parking Requirements and Design Standards Bicycle parking shall be provided for all multi-family and non-residential uses in compliance with this Section. Definitions: Class I (long-term) bicycle parking: Intended for bicyclists who need to park a bicycle and its components and accessories for more than two hours. Such parking is typically for employees, students, residents and commuters. Class I parking provides a high level of security, such as bicycle lockers and restricted access bicycle enclosures. Class II (short-term) bicycle parking: Intended for shoppers, customers, and visitors who require bicycle parking for up to two hours. Class II parking are primarily bicycle racks.

A. Number of bicycle spaces required. 1. Parking requirements by land use. Development projects shall provide at minimum, the number of bicycle parking spaces as shown in Table F.1, as applicable to the land use(s). Projects within city limits not subject to city permitting are recommended to provide the number of bicycle parking spaces as shown in Table F.2. 2. In all cases, a calculation of the required number of spaces that results in a fraction shall be rounded up to the next whole number. 3. Where Table F.1 and Table F.2 establishes a parking requirement based on the floor area of a use in a specified number of square feet (e.g. 1 space per 1,000 square feet), the floor area shall be construed to mean gross floor area. 4. Expansion of structure, change in use. When existing, conforming or non-conforming structures, other than single family dwellings, are enlarged or increased in capacity by more than 10 percent, or when a change or expansion in use requires more parking than is presently provided, parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Table F-1. 5. Uses not listed. A land use not specifically listed in Table F-1 shall provide parking as determined by the Director. The Director shall use the requirements of Table F-1 for similar uses as a guide in determining the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces to be provided. 6. Bench or bleacher seating. Where fixed seating is provided (e.g., benches or bleachers), a seat shall be construed to be 18 inches of bench space for the purpose of calculating the number of required bicycle parking spaces.

APPENDIX F

B. Bicycle Parking Devices.

PARKING. Note: UNIVERSAL minimum of 2 long-term and 2 short term parking spaces. Table F. 1 - Required Minimum Bicycle Parking Supply LAND USE

CLASS 1/LONG-TERM: 1 SPACE . . .

CLASS 2/SHORT TERM: 1 SPACE . . .

per 15,000 sf

per 10,000 sf of net bldg area

NOTES

Agricultural Wine tasting room (without food service)

Industry, Manufacturing And Processing, Wholesaling Industrial, manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, storage

per 20,000 sf

per 40,000 sf

Research & Development

per 10,000 sf

per 20,000 sf

Recreation, Education, And Public Assembly Health clubs/swimming pools, commercial recreation, playing fields for organized sports, community centers

per 15,000 sf

per 5,000 sf

25% of the Class 2 spaces should be large enough for bikes with attached trailers

Libraries

per 10,000 sf

per 5,000 sf

25% of the Class 2 spaces should be large enough for bikes with attached trailers

Museums

per 15,000 sf

per 10,000 sf

Convention halls, meeting facilities (public or private)

per 15,000 sf

2% of maximum attendance capacity

10% of the Class 2 spaces should be large enough for bikes with attached trailers

Religious institutions/places of worship (churches, temples, etc)

per 12,000 sf

2% of maximum attendance capacity

5% of the Class 2 spaces should be large enough for bikes with attached trailers

Parks/playgrounds

N.A.

5% of expected users during peak periods

50% of the Class 2 spaces should be large enough for bikes with attached trailers

per 20 students

comb racks within secured cages/enclosures are acceptable for Class 1 parking in schools

per 10 students

comb racks within secured cages/enclosures are acceptable for Class 1 parking in schools

Nursery, Kindergarten, elementary schools

per 10 employees

Middle, junior and high schools

per 10 employees + per 15 students

College/university facilities/bldgs, Trade/vocational schools

per 10,000 sf, or per 10 employees + per 20 students, whichever is greater

per 20 students

Parking for college student housing and college recreational/sports facilities should be based on those respective categories.

Sports and entertainment assembly facility (e.g., theatres, stadiums)

per 50 seats

per 25 seats

10% of the Class 2 spaces should be large enough for bikes with attached trailers

F-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Table F. 1 - Required Minimum Bicycle Parking Supply (continued) CLASS 1/LONG-TERM: 1 SPACE . . .

CLASS 2/SHORT TERM: 1 SPACE . . .

Multi dwelling with private garage (or private storage space big enough for bike storage) per unit

n/a

per 15 units

Multi dwelling w/o private garage per unit, Mobile Home Parks

per 3 units

per 15 units

Group quarters (including boarding/rooming houses, dormitories, organizational houses), multi-family affordable housing, live/work and work/live units

per 1 unit

per 15 units

Senior housing

per 15 units

Parking users should not be require to do any heavy lifting or pushing (doors or bikes)

All retail/trade, except those listed per 12,000 sf below

per 10,000 sf

10% of the Class 2 spaces should be large enough for bikes with attached trailers

Auto-oriented sevices and retail

per 20,000 sf

Restaurants, table service

per 10,000 sf

per 5,000 sf

Counter-ordering restaurants, cafes, bars

per 10,000 sf

per 2,500 sf

Shopping centers

per 12,000 sf

per 5,000 sf

Office bldgs

per 10,000 sf

per 20,000 sf

Professional/Financial services.

per 10,000 sf

Day care for 15 or more children, adult day care

per 10 employees

minimum 2 spaces

Hotels/motels/B&Bs

per 15 rooms

See Table F.2 for recommendations

Personal services (i.e. barber, spa, nails)

per 10,000 sf

Hospitals, clinic/lab, urgent care, doctor office, health care facility, veterinary services

per 10,000 sf

per 20,000 sf

LAND USE

NOTES

Residential Uses

Retail Trade

10% of the Class 2 spaces should be large enough for bikes with attached trailers

Services - Professional

Services - General

September 2010

10% of the Class 2 spaces should be large enough for bikes with attached trailers

F-3

APPENDIX F

Table F.2- Recommended Bicycle Parking Supply LAND USE

CLASS 1/LONG TERM: 1 SPACE...

CLASS 2/SHORT TERM: 1 SPACE...

City-owned public buildings.

per 10,000 sf

per 20,000 sf

Park and Ride facilities (mostly serving commuters)

per 20 auto spaces

per 40 auto spaces

Off-street parking garages and lots

per 20 auto spaces

per 10 auto spaces

College parking lots/garages may be exempt, if bike parking is provided closer to buildings (lecture halls, labs, etc)

Transit centers (bus/rail)

5% of projected A.M.peak period daily ridership.

1.5% of projected A.M.peak period daily ridership.

Bus stops for local service with less than 100 daily boardings may be exempt

Hotels/motels/B&Bs

See Table F.1 for requirements

per 25 rooms

Post Offices

per 10,000 sf

per 5,000 sf

Public Agencies/Services (County, Special Districts, State, Federal, etc)

per 10,000 sf

per 20,000 sf

Wineries (w/o tasting room), farms, other agricultural production

per 20,000 sf

per 40,000 sf

NOTES

The City has no jurisdiction over County, State, Federal or Special entities, so these would be recommendations for those institutions.

1. Class I (long-term): Class I bicycle parking comes in two forms. Both forms protect the entire bicycle and its components from theft, vandalism, and inclement weather. a) Bicycle lockers: A bicycle locker is a fully enclosed space for one bicycle, accessible only to the owner of the bicycle. A bicycle locker must be equipped with an internally mounted keyactuated or electronic locking mechanism, and not lockable with a user-provided lock. Groups of internal-lock bicycle lockers may share a common electronic access mechanism provided that each locker is accessible only to its assigned user. Bicycle lockers shall be constructed of molded plastic/fiberglass, solid metal or perforated metal. b) Restricted-access bicycle enclosure: A restricted-access bicycle enclosure is a covered or indoor locked area containing within it one bicycle rack space for each bicycle to be accommodated, and accessible only to the owners of the bicycles parked within it. The doors of such enclosures must be fitted with key or electronic locking mechanisms that admit only users and managers of the facility. The enclosure doors must close and lock automatically if released.

F-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

2. Class II (short-term)-Bicycle racks:

Bicycle racks must meet the following criteria a. Supports the bicycle upright by its frame in two places b. Prevents the wheel of the bicycle from tipping over c. Enables the bicycle frame and at least one wheel to be secured to the rack with a U-lock. (See Figure 1) d. Rack is constructed of materials that resist cutting by manual tools such as bolt cutters, hand saws, abrasive cutting cables and pipe cutters. e. Rack is securely anchored to the ground. f. Rack tubing shall be made of steel or stainless steel. Square tubing shall be 2-inch square with minimum wall thickness of 0.188". Round tubing shall be 2-inch schedule 40 pipe with minimum wall thickness of 0.154".

Bicycle Parking Layout

1. General Guidelines a) The footprint dimensions of a typical bicycle (that are the basis for these bicycle parking standards) are 72" length, 24" width, and 48" height. The footprint dimensions of a typical bicycle with a trailer are 120" length, 36" width, and 48" height. (See Figure 3) b) Bicycle parking facilities shall be separated from vehicle parking and vehicle circulation areas by a physical barrier or by a minimum clearance of 60" to protect parked bicycles from damage by vehicles, including front and rear overhangs of parked or moving vehicles. The clearance area shall be marked to prohibit automobile parking.

Appendix X RESOLUTION NO. 27835 RESOLUTION NO. 27835 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ADOPTING THE 2010 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and regional regulations, the City of Santa Rosa is required to update its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan every five years as a condition to receive State Article III, Transportation Development Act funds and other regional and federal funding; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Rosa’s 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update is consistent with the requirements of the Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in consideration of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan project, and its associated general plan and downtown specific plan amendments, at which time all persons were invited to speak or submit written comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that the Council adopt the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, subject to specific recommendations that have been presented in the staff report to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council on February 1, 2011 held a public hearing in consideration of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on the possible environmental consequences of the proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan project, and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Plan and based on the foregoing the Council has determined that the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will not have a significant effect upon the environment and is in compliance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011 the Council conducted a public hearing in consideration of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update and associated 2035 General Plan and specific plan amendments; and WHEREAS, adoption of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update by the Council will further General Plan transportation goals and objectives that support pedestrian and bicycle transportation and foster pedestrian and bicycle friendly environments; and WHEREAS, changes to the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update (“2010 BPMP update”) are necessary to ensure consistency between the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, as follows: (1) Re-route the proposed Class III—Bike Route on Seventh Street at Beaver to connect with E Street via Cherry Street (Route 39, "i") Reso. No. 27835 Page 1 of 5

Figure 1 September 2010

F-5

APPENDIX F

See Figure 2 for Examples of racks for Class II –short term parking.

c) Where bicycle parking areas are not clearly visible to approaching bicyclists, directional signs (in compliance with Section 20-38,040 subsection E) shall be posted at the building entrance to direct cyclists to the bicycle parking facilities. d) Lighting of bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in compliance with Section 20-30.080

(Outdoor Lighting)1

2. Bicycle Lockers (Class I/long term parking) a) Bicycle lockers shall be located on the shortest route of travel to the building entrance, and shall be at least as convenient and close to building entrances as the nearest non-disabled automobile parking space.

F-6

However the text of Section 20-30.080 say “Outdoor lighting on private property” It should applicable to public property as well.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

b) An aisle into which the door of a bicycle locker opens shall be at least 72” wide. Bicycle locker doors shall open to at least 90 degrees from the front of the locker. The minimum aisle width between bicycle locker walls and other walls, fences, or curbs is 60”, unless the bicycle locker is directly next to the wall, fence, or curb. (See Figure 4) c) Bicycle lockers shall be identified by a sign at least 12”x12” in size that lists the name or title, and the phone number or electronic contact information, of the person in charge of the facility. 3. Bicycle racks (Class II /short-term) a. Bicycle racks shall be located within 50 feet of a main visitor entrance(s). Where there is more than one building on a site or where a building has more than one main entrance, the short-term bicycle parking must be distributed to serve all buildings’ main entrances. b. The minimum footprint of two bicycles properly parked on either side of an inverted U bicycle rack (front-rear and rear-front) is 72” length by 36” width. Where bikes with trailers are expected to be parked, the footprint shall be enlarged to to 120” length by 54” width. (See Figure 5) c. A minimum 60” wide aisle shall be provided to allow bicycles to maneuver in and out of the bike parking areas and between rows of bicycle parking facilities. Aisle width shall be measured between the footprints that bicycles will occupy when parked properly on bicycle racks. (See Figure 6) d. A minimum of 60” clearance shall be provided between walls, fences or other obstructions and the centeraxis of the bicycle rack closest to the wall. (See also Figure 6)

September 2010

F-7

APPENDIX F

e. Bicycle racks intended to accommodate bicycles with trailers should have a minimum aisle clearance of 156â&#x20AC;? (See Figure 6).

f. Bicycle racks may be positioned diagonally to save space. The minimum widths for aisles and other clearances may be adjusted based on the skew angle A. The distance in inches between the centers of two parallel skewed racks is 36 sin A. The distance in inches between the centers of two rows of skewed racks is 132 cosine A. The distance in inches between the centers of two rows of skewed racks used by bicycles with trailers is 228 cos A. (See Figure 7 and Table F-3)

D. Required shower facilities. All new buildings and additions to existing buildings that result in a total floor area as shown in the following table shall be required to provide employee showers and dressing rooms for each gender as shown in Table F-4 Table F-4 Type of Land Use Office Uses (business, professional) Retail Trade, Service Uses Manufacturing and Industrial

F-8

Number of Showers for Employees required for Specified Building Floor Area 1 Shower for Each Gender

1 Additional Shower for Each Gender

50,000 to 149,999 sf

Each 100,000 sf over 150,000

50,000 to 299,9999 sf

Each 200,000 sf over 300,000

50,000 to 299,999 sf

Each 200,000 sf over 300,000

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

September 2010

PLAN

F-9

APPENDIX F

Table F-3 Measurements for Figure 7: skewed bike racks (inches, minimum distance) Aisle between two rows of racks

Aisle between two rows of racks, for bikes with trailers

Between wall and nearest rack

Two side by side racks

Degrees (A)

132 Cos A

228 Cos A

48 sin A

36 sin A

Parallel to wall - 0

132

228

130

225

125

215

115

198

102

175

147

115

Perpendicular to wall - 90

F-10

September 2010

Appendix G MTC RESOLUTION # 875 Date: W.I.: Referred By: Revised:

November 26, 1980 51410 GR&AC 11/24/82-C 11/26/86-C 09/23/87-C 03/24/88-C 12/18/91-C 11/25/92-C 01/28/98-C 09/27/00-C 05/23/01-C 11/20/02-C 04/28/04-C 03/23/05-C

ABSTRACT Resolution No. 875, Revised This resolution adopts the "Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects" delineating procedures for submission of claims for Article 3 funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and stating criteria by which the claims will be evaluated as required by the Transportation Development Act in Public Utilities Code Section 99401.(a). This resolution was revised November 24, 1982, to incorporate changes to the procedures and criteria recommended in the Regional Bicycle Plan, adopted September 22, 1982 and other changes. This resolution was revised November 26, 1986 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by SB 949 (Chapter 988, Statutes of 1986). This resolution was revised September 23, 1987 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by SB100 (Chapter 313, Statutes of 1987). This resolution was revised March 24, 1988 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by SB100 (Chapter 313, Statutes of 1987). This resolution was revised on December 18, 1991 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by State Transportation Control Measure 9 (adopted by MTC on November 28, 1990. This resolution was revised on November 25, 1992 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by AB 3090 (Chapter 1243, Statues of 1992). This resolution was revised on January 28, 1998 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by SB 506, the Senate Transportation Committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual Omnibus Bill Of

APPENDIX G

ABSTRACT MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised Page 2 Non-controversial And Technical Provisions (Chapter 619, Statues of 1997), as well as to make modifications to the procedures that reduce the amount of paperwork and processing for MTC and claimants, yet still meet state requirements and MTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s overall coordination, planning and funding objectives. This resolution was revised on September 27, 2000 to incorporate changes in procedures required by changes in MTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual fund estimate procedures and schedule. This resolution was revised on May 23, 2001 to eliminate the requirement for an attorney certification of projects and instead to specify certain findings to be included in the agency resolutions. This resolution was revised on November 20, 2002 to clarify the eligibility of joint powers agencies to apply for funds, to clarify the location of reference documents for safety design criteria and for TDA program information, and specify the timing and sequence of steps for approving applications and for requesting reimbursement of costs incurred. This resolution was revised on April 28, 2004 to reflect delegated authority to the Executive Director by Resolution No. 3620 for approval of allocations and rescissions of TDA funds under certain conditions, and at the same time to clarify the acceptable age limit for CEQA documentation, and specify that more than one allocation can be issued for a single bicycle or pedestrian plan. This resolution was revised on March 23, 2005 to specify which projects require environmental documents, clarify role of countywide bicycle advisory committee review of bike projects, require self-certification of safety standards compliance and implementation schedules, and to modify procedures for rescission and subsequent reallocation of TDA funds under certain conditions. Further discussion of these procedures and criteria are contained in the MTC "Staff Evaluations" dated November 20, 1986, March 10, 1988, December 6, 1991, October 30, 1992, January 14, 1998, September 13, 2000, May 9, 2001, November 13, 2002, April 14, 2004, and March 2, 2005. G-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

Date: W.I.: W.A.: Referred By:

PLAN

November 26, 1980 1002.30.01 1293R GR&AC

RE: Transportation Development Act. Article 3. Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects.

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 875

WHEREAS, the Transportation Development ACT, Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., requires the Transportation Planning Agency to adopt rules and regulations delineating procedures for the submission of claims for funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities (Article 3, PUC Section 99233.3); state criteria by which the claims will be analyzed and evaluated (PUC Section 99401(a); and to prepare a priority list for funding the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities (PUC Section 99234(b)); and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the Transportation Planning Agency for the San Francisco Bay Region, adopted MTC Resolution No. 875 entitled "Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects", that delineates procedures and criteria for submission of claims for Article 3 funding for pedestrian bicycle facilities; and WHEREAS, MTC desires to update said procedures to allow the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to receive a one-time payment of Article 3 funds from each county to prepare a plan for a bicycle and hiking trail around San Francisco Bay and mandated by Senate Bill 100 (Chapter 313, Statutes of 1987).

September 2010

G-3

APPENDIX G

MTC Resolution No. 875 Page 2 RESOLVED, that the attached Attachment A shall supersede the procedure previously adopted by MTC; and be it further RESOLVED, that MTC Resolution No. 762 is rescinded and is superseded by this resolution. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

William R. "Bill" Lucius, Chairman The above resolution was entered into by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission at a regular meeting of the Commission held in Oakland, CA, on November 26, 1980

G-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

Date: W.I.: Referred By: Revised:

PLAN

November 26, 1980 51410 GR&AC 11/24/82-C 11/26/86-C 09/23/87-C 03/24/88-C 12/18/91-C 11/25/92-C 01/28/98-C 09/27/00-C 05/23/01-C 11/20/02-C 04/28/04-C 03/23/05-C

Attachment A Resolution No. 875, Revised Page 1 of 7 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT, ARTICLE 3, PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PROJECTS Procedures and Project Evaluation Criteria PROCEDURES Eligible Claimants The Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code Sections 99233.3 and 99234, makes funds available in the nine-county Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Region for pedestrian/bicycle purposes. MTC makes annual allocations of TDA Article 3 funds to eligible claimants after review of applications submitted by counties or congestion management agencies. All cities and counties in each of the nine MTC region counties are eligible to claim funds under TDA Article 3. Joint powers agencies are also eligible. Application 1.

Counties or congestion management agencies will be responsible for putting together an annual program of projects, which they initiate by contacting the county and all cities and joint powers agencies within their jurisdiction and encouraging submission of project applications.

Claimants will send one or more copies to the county or congestion management agency (see "Priority Setting" below).

A project is eligible for funding if: a.

The project sponsor submits a resolution of its governing board that addresses the following six points: 1. There are no legal impediments regarding the project. 2. Jurisdictional or agency staffing resources are adequate to complete the project.

September 2010

G-5

APPENDIX G

Attachment A Resolution No. 875, Revised Page 2 of 7

3. There is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or the ability of the project sponsor to carry out the project. 4. Environmental and right-of-way issues have been reviewed and found to be in such a state that fund obligation deadlines will not be jeopardized. 5. Adequate local funding is available to complete the project. 6. The project has been conceptually reviewed to the point that all contingent issues have been considered. b.

the project is construction and/or engineering of a capital project; is to maintain a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic; is for a bicycle safety education program; is to develop comprehensive bicycle or pedestrian facilities plans (allocations to a claimant for this purpose may not be made more than once every five years); or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes.

the claimant is eligible to claim TDA Article 3 funds under Section 99233.3 of the Public Utilities Code;

if it is a Class I, II or III bikeway project it meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual (Available via Caltrans headquartersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; World Wide Web page); or if it is a pedestrian facility, it meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 100 of the California Highway Design Manual (Available via Caltrans headquartersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; World Wide Web page);

the project is ready to implement within the next fiscal year;

if the project includes construction, that it meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and project sponsor submits an environmental document that has been stamped by the County Clerk within the past three years.

a jurisdiction agrees to maintain the facility.

the bicycle project is included in one or more of the following: a detailed bicycle circulation element or plan included in a general plan or an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.).

Priority Setting 1.

G-6

The county or congestion management agency shall establish a process for establishing project priorities in order to prepare an annual list of projects being recommended for funding. Each county and city is required to have a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) to review and prioritize TDA Article 3 bicycle projects and to participate in the development and review of comprehensive bicycle plans. (BACs are mandated by State Transportation

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Attachment A Resolution No. 875, Revised Page 3 of 7

Control Measure [STCM #9], adopted by MTC on November 28, 1990, MTC Resolution No. 2178, Revised). A city BAC shall be composed of at least 3 members who live or work in the city. More members may be added as desired. They will be appointed by the City Council. The City or Town Manager will designate staff to provide administrative and technical support to the Committee. Cities under 10,000 population who have difficulty in locating a sufficient number of qualified members, may apply to MTC for exemption from these requirements. Cities over 10,000 population may also apply to MTC for exemption from the city BAC requirement if they can demonstrate that the countywide BAC provides for expanded city representation. A county BAC shall be composed of at least 5 members who live or work in the county. More members may be added as desired. The County Board of Supervisors and/or Congestion Management Agency (CMA) will appoint BAC members. The county or congestion management agency executive/administrator will designate staff to provide administration and technical support to the Committee. (Note: The intent is that BACs be composed of bicyclists/pedestrians.) 2.

The project lists developed by the City BACs shall be recommended to its City or Town Council. The Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee will forward all city project lists to the County Public Works Department or congestion management agency for evaluation/prioritization. County Committees will, at a minimum, be responsible for evaluating bicycle projects within the unincorporated portions of the county and setting a countywide prioritization list (based on city and county project lists) for annual TDA Article 3 allocations. Either the Board of Supervisors or the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) will adopt the annual countywide list and forward it to MTC for approval.

The county or congestion management agency will forward to MTC a copy of the following: a)

Applications for the recommended projects, including a governing body resolution, stamped environmental document, and map for each, as well as a cover letter stating the total amount of money being claimed; and confirmation that each project meets Caltransâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; minimum safety design criteria and is ready to implement within the next fiscal year.

the complete priority list of projects with an electronic version to facilitate grant processing.

an indication of how and when the projects were reviewed by city and county committees and representatives and what methods were used to contact interested members of the public; and

September 2010

G-7

APPENDIX G

Attachment A Resolution No. 875, Revised Page 4 of 7

a Board of Supervisors' or CMA resolution approving the priority list and authorizing the claim.

MTC Staff Evaluation If a recommended project is eligible for funding, and falls within the overall TDA Article 3 fund estimate level for that county, staff will recommend that the project be approved. Allocation The Commission will approve the priority list and allocation of funds for the recommended projects. The County Auditor will be notified by allocation instructions to reserve funds for the approved projects. Claimants will be sent copies of the allocation instructions and instructions for claiming disbursement. Disbursement 1.

When costs are incurred, the claimant shall submit to MTC the following, a minimum of one month before the grant expiration date: a) A copy of the allocation instructions along with a dated cover letter referring to the project by name, dollar amount and allocation instruction number and requesting disbursement of funds; b) Documents showing that costs have been incurred during the period of time covered by the grant and, if applicable, that the project has been formally accepted as complete by the jurisdiction.

MTC will approve the disbursement and if the disbursement request was received in a timely fashion and the allocation instruction has not expired, been totally drawn down nor been rescinded, issue an authorization to the County Auditor to disburse funds to the claimant.

Rescissions Funds will be allocated to claimants for specific projects, so transfers of funds to other projects sponsored by the same claimant may not be made. If a claimant has to abandon a project or cannot complete it within the time allowed, it should ask the county or congestion management agency to request that MTC rescind the allocation. Rescission requests may be submitted to and acted upon by MTC at any time during the year. If the funds that are rescinded are from a previous fiscal year, then those funds will be rolled over into the next fiscal year at the time that MTC adopts or revises the Fund Estimate.

G-8

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Attachment A Resolution No. 875, Revised Page 5 of 7

Fiscal Audit All claimants that have received an allocation of TDA funds are required to submit an annual certified fiscal and compliance audit to MTC and to the Secretary of Business and Transportation Agency within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year, in accordance with PUC Section 99245. Article 3 applicants need not file a fiscal audit if TDA funds were not expended (that is, costs incurred) during a given fiscal year. However, the applicant should file a statement for MTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s records certifying that no TDA funds were expended during the fiscal year. Failure to submit the required audit for any TDA article will preclude MTC from making a new Article 3 allocation. For example, a delinquent Article 4.5 fiscal audit will delay any other TDA allocation to the city/county with an outstanding audit. Until the audit requirement is met, no new Article 3 allocations or disbursements will be made. For Further Information Claimants are encouraged to develop their claims with the MTC staff at an early date so that the formal claim process can be expedited. If you have any questions regarding the application forms or related matters, please contact the MTC staff liaison who is responsible for Article 3. Copies of the Transportation Development Act and the related regulations in the California Administrative Code are available from the funding section of MTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s web page. SUGGESTED CRITERIA The counties or congestion management agencies should consider the following criteria along with any explicit criteria the county or congestion management agency deems necessary when evaluating projects for the countywide priority list. The basic objectives of the MTC suggested criteria are to give priority to projects that increase the safety, security, and efficiency of bicycle and pedestrian travel, and to the extent practicable provide for a coordinated system. Consideration should be given to projects that can demonstrate one or more of the following objectives: (Not listed in priority order.) 1.

Elimination or improvement of an identified problem area (specific safety hazards such as high-traffic narrow roadways or barriers to travel) on routes that would otherwise provide relatively safe and direct bicycle or pedestrian travel use, given the character of the users. For example, roadway widening, shoulder paving, restriping or parking removal to provide space for bicycles; a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across a stream or railroad tracks on an otherwise useful route; a segment of Class I bicycle path to divert young bicyclists from a high traffic arterial; a pedestrian path to provide safe access to a school or other activity center; replacement of substandard grates or culverts; adjustment of traffic-actuated signals to make them bicycle sensitive. Projects to improve safety should be based on current traffic safety engineering knowledge.

September 2010

G-9

APPENDIX G

Attachment A Resolution No. 875, Revised Page 6 of 7

Roadway improvements or construction of a continuous interconnected route to provide reasonably direct access to activity centers (employment, educational, cultural, recreational) where access did not previously exist or was hazardous. For example, development of Class I paths on continuous rights-of-way with few intersections (such as abandoned railroad rights-of-way) which lead to activity centers; an appropriate combination of Class I, Class II, and Class III bikeways on routes identified as high demand access routes; bicycle route signs or bike lanes on selected routes which receive priority maintenance and cleaning.

Secure bicycle parking facilities, especially in high use activity areas, at transit terminals, and at park-and-ride lots. Desirable facilities include lockers, sheltered and guarded checkin areas; self-locking sheltered racks that eliminate the need to carry a chain, and racks that accept U-shaped locks.

Other provisions that facilitate bicycle/transit trips. For example, bike racks on buses, paratransit/trailer combinations, and bicycle loan or check-in facilities at transit terminals.

Maintenance of Class I bikeways that are closed to motorized traffic or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes (provided that the total amount for Class II bicycle lane restriping does not exceed twenty percent of the countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total TDA Article 3 allocation) where county policy supports the use of Article 3 funds for this purpose.

Projects identified in a recent (within five years) comprehensive local bicycle or pedestrian plan. We encourage counties to establish a five-year plan for bicycle projects.

Projects that enhance or encourage bicycle or pedestrian commutes.

Projects in jurisdictions that have bicycle safety education and law enforcement, distribution of bicycle route information, a bicycle parking plan, and priority maintenance of bikeways.

Projects which have documented local support in terms of requests for improvement from bicyclists, employers, employees, or residents in the area; or local effort in terms of funding or preliminary studies.

10.

Projects that provide connection to and continuity with longer routes provided by other means or by other jurisdictions to improve regional continuity.

11.

Bicycle Safety Education Programs. Up to five percent of a county's Article 3 fund may be expended to supplement monies from other sources to fund a bicycle safety education program and staffing. For a given bicycle safety education project, no more than 50 percent shall be funded with Article 3 funds.

12.

Comprehensive Bicycles and Pedestrian Facilities Plan. Funds may be allocated for these plans (emphasis should be for accommodation of bicycle commuters rather than

G-10

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Attachment A Resolution No. 875, Revised Page 7 of 7

recreational bicycle uses). A city or county would be eligible to receive allocations for these plans not more than once every five years.

September 2010

G-11

APPENDIX G

TO: Grant Review and Allocations Committee

DATE: January 14, 1998

FR: Executive Director RE: Pedestrian and Bicycle Project (TDA Article 3) Funding Procedures (MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised) SB 506, which is the Senate Transportation Committee’s annual omnibus bill of noncontroversial and technical provisions, has recently become law. Among many other things, this law expands the authorized use of local transportation funds that have been set aside for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles (TDA Article 3). Under this bill, up to 20 percent of the monies are now available for allocation to cities and counties for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes. Previously, restriping of bicycle lanes was considered an operating or maintenance expense and therefore ineligible for TDA Article 3, which is primarily for construction. Now, it is an eligible expense, provided that the total amount for Class II bicycle lane restriping does not exceed twenty percent of the county’s total TDA Article 3 allocation. Staff proposes revisions to MTC’s Procedures and Project Evaluation Criteria (MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised) for TDA Article 3 funded pedestrian and bicycle projects in order to reflect the new eligibility requirements under SB 506. We have also proposed some modifications to the procedures that reduce the amount of paperwork and processing for MTC and claimants, yet still meet state requirements and our overall coordination, planning and funding objectives. In the resolution text, additions are shown in italics and deletions are shown in strike-out type styles. Staff recommends that GR&AC refer MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised to the Commission for approval.

LDD:MR RES-0875.doc

G-12

Lawrence D. Dahms

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

TO: Programming and Allocations Committee

PLAN

DATE: September 13, 2000

FR: Deputy Executive Director RE: Pedestrian and Bicycle Project (TDA Article 3) Funding Procedures (MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised) Last year, MTC changed the way that it produced fund estimates for Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds that are distributed to local applicants throughout the nine counties. In addition to the procedures by which these estimates are generated, the schedule was changed also. Staff proposes revisions to MTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Procedures and Project Evaluation Criteria (MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised) for TDA Article 3 funded pedestrian and bicycle projects in order to reflect the new schedule for TDA fund estimates. We have also proposed some minor grammatical modifications to the procedures. In the resolution text, additions are shown in italics and deletions are shown in strike-out type styles. Staff recommends that the Committee refer MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised to the Commission for approval.

LDD:MR

Steve Heminger

RES-0875.doc

September 2010

G-13

APPENDIX G

TO: Programming and Allocations Committee

DATE: September 13, 2000

LDD:MR

Steve Heminger

RES-0875.doc

G-14

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee May 9, 2001

Resolution No. 875, Revised

Item Number 2l

Subject:

Pedestrian and Bicycle Project (TDA Article 3) Funding Procedures (MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised)

Background:

In order to reduce the expense and amount of paperwork submitted by project applicants, forwarded by the congestion management agencies, and then processed by MTC, San Mateo County’s congestion management agency (C/CAG) has suggested that by incorporating an attorney certification into the governing body resolution approving the project, it can save paperwork but still meet the intent of addressing any legal certification by the project sponsor. C/CAG also had some suggestions about language to include in the governing body resolution to better ensure that project sponsors can deliver the projects as specified and within established fund deadlines. The other congestion management agencies and MTC’s programming staff agree that this change will simplify procedures while still generating a paper trail of accountability by project sponsors. The changes have been reviewed with MTC’s legal staff. In the resolution’s Attachment A, additions are shown in italics and deletions are shown in strike-out type styles. All of the changes are on the first and second pages of Attachment A to the resolution.

Issues:

None.

Recommendation:

Refer MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised, to the Commission for approval as requested.

Attachments:

MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised

September 2010

G-15

APPENDIX G

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee November 13, 2002

Resolution No. 875, Revised

Item Number 4b

Subject:

Pedestrian and Bicycle Project (TDA Article 3) Funding Procedures (MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised)

Background:

MTC has traditionally made TDA Article 3 funds available to cities and counties for pedestrian and bicycle projects. We have also provided funding to ABAG for the Bay Trail Plan as part of this program. The Solano Transportation Authority has expressed an interest in applying for funds. Although not a county agency, they are a joint powers agency composed of the cities and the county. As such, it, as well as other joint powers agencies that are composed of cities and/or counties, are eligible to apply for TDA Article 3 funds. We therefore propose to amend MTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s procedures to reflect this finding. At the same time, we are also taking the opportunity to make changes to the wording of the procedures to reflect current practices and the availability of reference manuals on the internet. In the resolutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Attachment A, additions are shown in italics and deletions are shown in strike-out type styles.

Issues:

None.

Recommendation:

Refer MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised, to the Commission for approval as requested.

Attachments:

MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee

G-16

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

April 14, 2004

Resolution No. 875, Revised

PLAN

Item Number 3d

Subject:

Pedestrian and Bicycle Project (TDA Article 3) Funding Procedures (MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised)

Background:

MTC makes TDA Article 3 funds available to cities, counties and joint powers agencies for pedestrian and bicycle projects. MTC Resolution No. 3620 delegates authority to the MTC Executive Director to approve the allocation and rescission of funds over which MTC has allocation authority, including TDA Article 3. We, therefore, propose to amend MTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s procedures for allocating Article 3 funds to reflect this change. In addition, two other changes to the procedures are proposed. One specifies that the environmental documents must be no older than three years. The purpose of this change is to discourage the practice whereby an applicant receives a TDA Article 3 grant, does no work on the project for the full three years of the grant, and then requests a rescission and reallocation for the same project to extend it an additional three years, resubmitting the same environmental document. Changes in the need for and scope of the project as well as resultant impacts should be assessed and documented. The other change is to allow for the possibility of an applicant to receive allocations for a pedestrian or bicycle plan over two successive fund cycles, and apply both grants for the same plan preparation activity. This issue recently came up with the City of Berkeley. They received an allocation last year, but before starting preparation of their pedestrian safety plan, decided to augment the scope and budget. They now plan to contract out for a more comprehensive plan, using the funding from two different TDA grants. In the resolutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Attachment A, additions are shown in italics and deletions are shown in strike-out type styles.

Issues:

None.

Recommendation:

Refer MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised, to the Commission for approval as requested.

Attachments:

MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

September 2010

G-17

APPENDIX G

Programming and Allocations Committee March 2, 2005

Resolution No. 875, Revised

Item Number 4a

Subject:

Pedestrian and Bicycle Project (TDA Article 3) Funding Procedures (MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised)

Background:

The most recent Triennial Performance Audit of MTC recommends that MTC revise its procedures to ensure that allocations do not exceed apportionments. The audit cited TDA article 4 and 8 allocations that exceeded their respective fund estimates. Although there were no instances of noncompliance for article 3, MTC staff proposes a change to the article 3 procedures to ensure continued compliance with the TDA regulations. This relates to how funds from rescinded projects are accounted for. Counties and congestion management agencies occasionally request MTC to rescind an allocation if a project will not be implemented for one reason or another. Sometimes a partial rescission is requested if a completed project expends less than the amount of the grant. In the past, funds freed up from rescinded projects were added to the amount of the fund estimate so they could be accessed immediately. Staff recommends this procedure be changed, and funds from rescissions of previous years’ projects roll into the next year’s fund estimate, or a revision to the current fund estimate. Therefore, the funding would only be available for allocation following the inclusion of the rescinded amount in an adopted fund estimate. Three other changes to the procedures are proposed. One specifies that environmental documents will only be required for projects that entail construction. In the past, we have required that environmental documents be prepared and posted for some TDA article 3 funded activities that are not defined as projects by the California Environmental Quality Act. Another change specifies that countywide bicycle advisory committees need to evaluate only bicycle (not pedestrian) projects for their unincorporated areas. This will make their role consistent with that of the city bicycle advisory committees. The final change outlines a selfcertification procedure for safety standards and implementation schedule. In the resolution’s Attachment A, additions are shown in italics and deletions are shown in strike-out type styles.

G-18

Issues:

None.

Recommendation:

Refer MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised, to the Commission for approval.

Attachments:

MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised

September 2010

Appendix H BPAB RESOLUTION & STAFF REPORT

APPENDIX H

H-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Agenda Item #________ For Council Meeting of: April 4, 2006 CITY OF SANTA ROSA CITY COUNCIL TO: SUBJECT: STAFF PRESENTER: AGENDA ACTION:

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO A CITY COUNCIL BOARD FABIAN FAVILA, TRANSIT PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSIT & PARKING RESOLUTION

ISSUE(S) Shall the City of Santa Rosa restructure the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) into a seven member City Board? BACKGROUND The City of Santa Rosa’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) was originally appointed by City Council in 1993 in response to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) requirements (Resolution No. 875) to establish a committee to recommend bicycle projects involving the use of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article III funds. Resolution No. 875 requires that at a minimum a city BPAC be composed of at least three members who live or work in the city, be appointed by the City Council, and that the City Manager designate staff to provide administrative and technical support to the Committee. The Sonoma County Transportation Authority, as the congestion management agency for the county, establishes the process for establishing project priorities within the county. The BPAC was established with eight members consisting of representatives from each of the following: Santa Rosa Cycling Club, Redwood Empire Cycling Club, League of Women Voters, Santa Rosa Junior College (student), Santa Rosa School District (high school student), Chamber of Commerce, CityVision, and a Public-At-Large position. All representatives were chosen by their respective organization except the Public-At-Large position which was selected by Council. In December 2001, the BPAC expanded to ten members by Council Resolution No. 20573 adding two more Public-At-Large positions. The BPAC provides guidance in the preparation of the City's Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (Plan) and implementation of projects in the Plan. Since the BPAC was established, it has been very difficult to obtain and sustain a member representing the Chamber of Commerce and Santa Rosa City School District. About a year ago, the Santa Rosa City School District and the Chamber of Commerce were contacted about their continued representation on the BPAC. Both organizations

September 2010

H-3

APPENDIX H

declined to continue their involvement with the Committee. A smaller group would eliminate vacancies created from the lack of participation by some of the designated organizations. It would also be better suited to concentrate on the most significant pedestrian and bicycle matters. BPAC concurs and is supportive of this change. Staff also desires to bring more organization and structure to the committee to allow the BPAC and staff to operate more efficiently. Staff believes this proposed restructure would keep council members better informed about bicycle and pedestrian issues before the City. Staff would also recommend that at least two positions on the new Board reflect the interest of seniors and the disabled as it relates to bicycle and pedestrian issues. Consideration of seniors and the disabled is consistent with MTC’s 2001 regional transportation plan that “. . . pedestrians and wheelchair users must be full partners in the planning process. . .” ANALYSIS 1. Restructuring BPAC to a seven member Board would be consistent with MTC Resolution 875, which requires a minimum of three members. 2. As a seven member board, each member on the board would be appointed by an individual council member. The terms of the members on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board would coincide with the term of the appointing council member pursuant to Section 11 of the City Charter. 3. The Chairperson of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board would be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the majority of the Council pursuant to Section 15 of the City Charter. 4. Appointments on the new Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board by individual council members would give council members a more direct link to pedestrian and bicycle issues and make each Board member accountable to the individual council member. 5. Designating at least two positions to represent the senior and disabled would be consistent with regional transportation policies. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Transit & Parking recommends with the concurrence of the City Attorney’s Office that Council, by resolution, authorize the restructure of the BPAC into a seven member advisory board to the City Council as prescribed in Section 11 of the 2002 City Charter with members appointed by individual council members. Author: Fabian Favila Attachment: MTC Resolution 875 BPAC Membership

06-4-04 BPAC Restructure-sr.doc

H-4

September 2010

Appendix I BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN QUESTIONNAIRE A questionnaire is a public participation tool that allows members of the community to participate in the planning process; a questionnaire is not a statistically significant survey. Results from the questionnaire are used to reinforce findings from public involvement activities and planning analyses.

QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS The Santa Rosa Bicycle & Pedestrian Questionnaire was available online through the City’s website and was completed by 293 residents. For most questions respondents were asked to choose only one answer for each question unless otherwise instructed.

1. Do you ride a bicycle?

Yes No Total Count •

Total 251 31 282

Percent 89.01% 10.99%

The majority of Santa Rosa respondents (89%) ride a bicycle.

2. What are your reasons for bicycling? (Choose two.)

Exercise Transportation For Pleasure Nature Total Count All of the above • •

Total 169 161 115 18 293 4

Percent 57.68% 54.95% 39.25% 6.14%

Exercise and transportation were the top reasons residents bicycle in Santa Rosa. Bicycling for pleasure was also a main reason for Santa Rosa residents.

APPENDIX I

3A. On WEEKDAYS: What time of day do you make BICYCLING trips? (Only if you answered ‘Yes’ to question 1) (Choose all that apply)

• •

Total

Percent

3pm-7pm

183

62.46%

9am-Noon

123

41.98%

6am - 9am

120

40.96%

Noon-3pm

108

36.86%

7pm-Midnight

18.09%

Midnight-6am

2.05%

Total Count

293

On weekdays, the most popular time of day to make bicycling trips is 3pm - 7pm, or the evening commute. On weekdays, 9am – noon and 6am – 9am, or the morning commute, are also popular times to bicycle.

3B. On WEEKENDS: What time of day do you make BICYCLING trips? (Only if you answered ‘Yes’ to question 1)

•

I-2

Total

Percent

9am-noon

202

68.94%

Noon-3pm

167

57.00%

3pm-7pm

131

44.71%

6am-9am

27.99%

7pm-Midnight

13.65%

Midnight-6am

3.07%

Total Count

293

On weekends, 9am-noon and noon-3pm are the most popular times to bicycle.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

4. How far do you travel on an average BICYCLING trip?

•

Total

Percent

10 miles or more (1 hour or longer)

110

46.03%

2-5 miles (12-30 minutes)

21.34%

5-10 miles (30 minutes - 1 hour)

19.67%

1 mile- 2 miles (6-12 minutes)

9.21%

1/2 mile - 1 mile (3-6minutes)

3.35%

1/2 mile or less (3 minutes or less)

0.42%

Total Count

293

Most respondents (46%) travel 10 miles or more on an average bicycle trip.

5. What are your reasons for NOT bicycling? Please rank only your top THREE choices. Responses Personal Safety & Security during peak commuter times Time/Distance to get to destination Personal Safety & Security anytime Hazardous conditions (darkness, debris in paths, path surface conditions) Lack of paths/connections Lack of end-of-trip facilities (lockers/showers/bike parking) No interest User conflicts (pedestrians, wildlife, automobile drivers) Difficult intersections & traffic patterns Do not know locations of paths or facilities Unattractive surroundings Total Count

September 2010

Ranked #1

Ranked #2

Ranked #3

# of Times in Top Three

117

54 35

11 32

23 18

88 85

100

0 0 0

0 0 3

0 1 3

0 1 6

215

180

181

576

I-3

APPENDIX I

• • • •

The most commonly cited reason for not bicycling was “personal safety and security during peak commuter times”. “Time/distance to get to destination” was also a top reason for not bicycling. “Personal safety and security anytime,” “hazardous conditions” and “lack of paths/connections” were also cited as reasons for not bicycling. Of the 45 “other” responses, nine people said their reasons for not bicycling were because they needed to carry belongings or children, six cited health/age reasons, five cited traffic/issues with drivers, four cited lack the lack secure bike parking, two preferred to walk, and two cited weather conditions.

6. What type of bicycling route would you most like to use?

Class 1 Bike Route Class 2 Bike Route Class 3 Bike Route Unpaved Trails Total Count • • •

I-4

Total 117 68 11 14 210

Percent 55.71% 32.38% 5.24% 6.67%

Class 1 Bike Route was the route most respondents (55%) felt most likely to use. Class 2 Bike Route was chosen by over a quarter of respondents. Class 3 Bike Route and unpaved trails were the routes respondents felt least likely to use.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

7. For each of the following types of trips, please indicate how often you use BICYCLING as your primary mode of transportation.

Never 18 7.86% 20 Entertainment 9.09% 75 Work 34.40% 52 Daily 23.96% 43 Social Visits 19.91% 76 School 69.09% 8 Other 50.00% Exercise

• • •

Rarely (less Daily Sometimes Frequently (3-4 than twice a (5-7 times (once a week) times per week) month) per week) 21 9.17% 31 14.09% 31 14.22% 51 23.50% 56 25.93% 4 3.64% 2 12.50%

51 22.27% 75 34.09% 35 16.06% 57 26.27% 71 32.87% 14 12.73% 2 12.50%

87 37.99% 63 28.64% 53 24.31% 43 19.82% 35 16.20% 9 8.18% 1 6.25%

52 22.71% 31 14.09% 24 11.01% 14 6.45% 11 5.09% 7 6.36% 3 18.75%

Total 229 100% 220 100% 218 100% 217 100% 216 100% 110 100% 16 100%

Over a third of respondents (37.99%) reported that they bicycle for exercise frequently, while 34% said they bicycle for entertainment frequently. Almost a quarter of respondents (24.31%) reported bicycling to work frequently. About a third of respondents (32.87%) bicycle for social visits about once a week.

September 2010

I-5

APPENDIX I

8A. On WEEKDAYS: What time of day do you make WALKING trips? (Choose all that apply)

• •

Time

Total

Percent

3pm-7pm

148

50.51%

9am-Noon

100

34.31%

Noon-3pm 6am-9am 7pm-Midnight

86 81 67

29.35% 27.65% 22.87%

Midnight-6am

1.7%

On weekdays, the most popular time for walking trips according to respondents was between 3 and 7pm. Half of respondents walk during this time of the day. Approximately a third of respondents walk between 9am and noon (34.13%), and between noon and 3 pm (29.35%).

8B. On WEEKENDS: What time of day do you make WALKING trips? (Choose all that apply)

• • •

I-6

Time

Total

Percent

9am-Noon

149

50.85%

3pm-7pm Noon-3pm 6am-9am 7pm-Midnight Midnight-6am

148 128 85 67 7

50.51% 43.69% 29.01% 22.87% 2.39%

On weekends, the most popular times to walk are in the morning between 9am and noon and in the early evening between 3pm and 7pm. Approximately half of respondents report walking during these times. Almost half of respondents walk on the weekends between noon and 3pm. Approximately onr quarter of respondents walk on the weekends between 6am and 9am, and between 7pm and midnight.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

9. How far do you travel on an average WALKING trip? Distance/Time

Total

Percent

27.75%

25.99%

23.35%

1/2 mile or less (10 minutes or less)

12.33%

A few blocks (5 minutes or less)

6.17%

5 miles or more (1.5 hours or more)

4.41%

Total Count

227

1 mile - 2 miles (approximately 20-40 minutes) 1/2 mile - 1 mile (approximately 10-20 minutes) 2 - 5 miles (approximately 40 minutes - 1.5 hours)

•

The most popular distances respondents reported travelling on an average walking trip were 1-2 miles (27.75%), ½ mile – 1 mile (25.99%), and 2-5 miles (23.35%).

10. What are your reasons for WALKING? (Choose two)

• •

Total

Percent

Exercise/Fitness

135

46.08%

Transportation

32.76%

For Pleasure

27.30%

To enjoy nature

23.21%

To meditate/relax

7.51%

Exercise/fitness (46%) was the most popular reason to walk. Transportation (32%), for pleasure (27%), and to enjoy nature (23%) received similar levels of response.

September 2010

I-7

APPENDIX I

11. What are your reasons for NOT WALKING? (Rank only your top THREE answers) Ranked #1

Ranked #2

Ranked #3

# of Times in Top Three

Time/Distance to get to destination

119

140

Hazardous conditions (darkness, debris in paths, path surface conditions)

Other

Lack of paths/connections

No interest

User conflicts (motor vehicles, cyclists & skaters, wildlife)

Physical Exertion

Do not know locations of paths or facilities

Difficult intersections & crosswalks

Unattractive surroundings

193

112

102

407

Responses

Total •

The most popular “other” reasons for not walking were health reasons.

12. What type of WALKING path would you prefer to use?

•

I-8

Unpaved paths

Total 80

Percent 34.78%

Paved multi-use paths

34.35%

Sidewalks & crosswalks Other Total Count

67 4 230

29.13% 1.74%

Respondents were nearly evenly divided over their preferred type of walking path. Unpaved and paved paths both received 34% of responses, and sidewalks received almost as many (29%).

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

13. For each of the following types of trips please indicate how often you use WALKING as your primary mode of transportation.

Never Exercise Entertainment/ Pleasure Other Daily Needs (grocery, pharmacy, health care, etc.) Social Visits Work School

• •

27 12.39% 17 7.98%

Rarely (less Sometimes than twice (once a a month) week) 23 59 10.55% 27.06% 40 79 18.78% 37.09%

Frequently (3-4 times per week) 66 30.28% 55 25.82%

Daily (5-7 times per week) 43 19.72% 22 10.33%

218 100% 213 100%

Total

7 30.43% 45

2 8.70% 47

2 8.70% 73

3 13.04% 45

9 39.13% 7

23 100% 217

20.74%

21.66%

33.64%

20.74%

3.23%

100%

39 18.75% 145 72.14% 104 85.25%

50 24.04% 24 11.94% 7 5.74%

84 40.38% 13 6.47% 3 2.46%

29 13.94% 14 6.97% 8 6.56%

6 2.88% 5 2.49% 0 0.00%

208 100% 201 100% 122 100%

Exercise and entertainment/pleasure were the most popular reasons to walk daily or frequently. Of the “other” reasons respondents walk, dog walking was the most popular.

September 2010

I-9

APPENDIX I

14. Overall, how frequently do you use the following modes of transportation?

Personal Passenger Vehicle Bicycle Walking Other Personal Mobility Device Bus

• • • • •

I-10

Never

Rarely (less than twice a month)

Sometimes (once a week)

Frequently (3-4 times per week)

Daily (5-7 times per week)

Total

111

225

2.22%

2.67%

14.67%

31.11%

49.33%

100%

20 9.09%

17 7.73%

35 15.91%

80 36.36%

68 30.91%

220 100%

213

7.04%

13.15%

19.72%

37.56%

22.54%

100%

62.07%

3.45%

10.34%

13.79%

100%

161

164

98.17%

0.61%

0.00%

0.61%

100%

146

206

70.87%

21.36%

5.34%

1.94%

0.49%

100%

Half of respondents drive their own vehicles on a daily basis, making it the most popular form of transportation. Roughly a third of respondents ride a bicycle frequently or daily. Over a third walk frequently (37%). Respondents who reported using “other” modes of transportation used scooters (4) and motorcycles (2). Most respondents rarely or never ride the bus.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

15. What transportation modes do you combine most often on a single trip? Total

• •

Percent

Walking & Automobile

31.74%

Automobile & Bicycling Walking & Bicycling No other combination of transportation modes Walking & Public Transit Bicycling & Public Transit Automobile & Public Transit Other: Drive and walk, save parking fees and gas

74 55

25.26% 18.77%

8.87%

21 13 5

7.17% 4.44% 1.71%

Combing walking and automobiles (31%) was the most popular transportation mode, followed by combining bicycling and automobiles (25%). All combinations involving public transit had low responses.

16. Do you have a disability that may impact your ability to walk or bicycle?

•

Total

Percent

194

91.51%

Yes

8.49%

Total Count

212

91% of respondents did not report having a disability that impacts their ability to walk or bicycle.

September 2010

I-11

APPENDIX I

17A. Do you use bicycle racks on public buses?

•

Total

Percent

152

83.06%

Yes

16.94%

Total Count

183

83% of respondents do not use bicycle racks on public buses.

17B. Is the rack usually available when you would like to board? (Only if you answered ‘Yes” to 17A)

•

18.

Total

Percent

Yes

83.33%

16.67%

Total Count

Of those who reported using bicycle racks on buses, 83% reported that the rack is usually available when they would like to board.

Are there specific intersections or locations that need bicycle or pedestrian facilities, connections or improvements? *Please see Question 18 Text Responses for comments to this question.

I-12

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS 19.

What is your age?

16-65 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76-85 Total Count • •

Total

Percent

12 31 48 78 46 17 2 234

5.13% 13.25% 20.51% 33.33% 19.66% 7.26% 0.85%

A third of respondents were between the ages of 46 and 55. Most respondents were middle aged.

20. What is your gender?

Female Male Total Count •

Total 117 118 235

Percent 49.79% 50.21%

The questionnaire’s respondents were evenly divided between females and males.

September 2010

I-13

APPENDIX I

21.

What is your gross annual household income?

Less than $25,000 $25,001-$45,000 $45,001-$65,000 $65,001-$85,000 $85,001-$150,000 Greater than $150,000 Prefer not to answer Total Count •

Total

Percent

10 17 27 47 71 38 24 234

4.27% 7.26% 11.54% 20.09% 30.34% 16.24% 10.26%

Of those who provided a range of their annual income, the largest category was $85,001-$150,000.

22A. In what areas of Santa Rosa do you live, work, or go to school?

Live Work Go to School K-12 Go to College or Trade School • • •

I-14

Total

51 25.89% 45 24.19% 6 31.58% 10 29.41%

97 49.24% 109 58.60% 7 36.84% 22 64.71%

15 7.61% 18 9.68% 3 15.79% 1 2.94%

34 17.26% 14 7.53% 3 15.79% 1 2.94%

197 100% 186 100% 19 100% 34 100%

About half of respondents live in the NE area of Santa Rosa, and a quarter live in the NW. Over half (58%) of respondents work in the NE area, and a quarter work in the NW. Few respondents go to grade school or college, but of those who did, the greatest percentage live in NE, followed by NW.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

OTHER ANSWERS

5A.

If you chose “other” in the previous question please enter your other reason for NOT BICYCLING here.

Health/age issues • • • • • •

Blind Health issues I’m a bit old at age 72 to start. Live on steep hill. Old age Physical disability Medical issues

Traffic/inattentive drivers • • • • •

Traffic speed Aggressive, rude and dangerous drivers Car driver’s harassment Rude drivers Inattentive drivers

Need to carry stuff/kids • • • • • • • • • •

Prefer walking, have little kids Bikes can’t carry my kids, my wkly groceries, etc. Carry large items/potting soil/cat food, etc Children Need to carry stuff If I need to carry more than a bicycle can carry Too much to carry, like at market Inability to carry purchases Shopping with no way to carry load Have two children that increase my concerns listed

Lack of secure bike parking • • • •

Lack of bike racks, and public restrooms No secure bike parking available Place to lock up EXPENSIVE bike. Worried a good bike will be stolen/don’t buy it

Weather conditions • •

Rain Weather conditions

Miscellaneous • • • •

I bike to work every day. Only mode of transportation. I just forget that we have such great creek paths. I like to walk surrounded by nature on the trails. Cycling for exercise/pleasure with SR Cycling Club

September 2010

I-15

APPENDIX I

• • • • • • • • •

Friends who don’t bike but do carpool IT was last option It was the last item Major hills in the way, e.g., Fountaingrove Pkwy My dog prefers the car to her bike trailer Time constraints Training schedule - recovery day Need a better quality bicycle Needing to travel to multiple destinations a day

Total Count

10f. Reasons for Walking [Other] • • • • • • • •

Dog Walking (13) Assess intersections, sidewalks I ride my bike I run for exercise Save parking fees and gas To avoid using my polluting car To walk to work All of the above

Total Count

11B. What are your reasons for NOT WALKING? Other Health issues • • • • • • • •

Bad knees -- need softer ground when possible Feet Foot injury keeps me from walking more. Foot problems (not exertion - I love to walk) I am blind and motorized vehicles do NOT honor that I cycle rather than walk due to foot problems Health limitations Illness

Weather conditions • • • •

Weather - cold or rain Weather conditions Bad weather Bad weather, especially rain

Safety concerns • • •

I-16

Personal safety issues Pit bulls- my dog & I have been attacked Safety

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

• • •

PLAN

Unleashed dogs Pets off leash Late at night, it doesn’t feel safe to walk alone.

Need to carry stuff • • •

Need to wear business clothes or carry too much. Needing to carry “stuff ” Walking is impractical (e.g.daycare, grocery)

Prefer to bike • • • • •

I ride my bike I usually walk to the local store but if far bike Prefer bike or motorcycle over walking Too slow! Give me a bike any day Why walk when I can RIDE

Miscellaneous • • • • • • • • • • •

Dog died Had to fill in all the spots Hiking tends to be my off-season activity. I don’t like walking. Inconvenient, laziness Lack of public restrooms No good condition No problems with walking No time work other obligations Nothing stops me from walking Some amenities, such as groceries, are too far away

Total Count

13B. If you use WALKING as your primary mode of transportation for another type of trip, please enter that trip type here. • • • • • • •

Dog walking (5) Corner market Enjoy nature/outdoors & relax Get to downtown and farmers market with family I walk everywhere: the store; the post office; the bank and for pleasure I walk for political causes. Walking the trails at the park

Total Count

September 2010

I-17

APPENDIX I

14A. If you chose “other” in the last question (transportation modes), please name your alternate mode in the blank below. • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Airplane Amtrak trains I am trying to bike more often to save gas My bike has elect. assist Paratransit Motorcycle Personal Passenger Vehicle = motorcycle in clear weather Scooter Scooter (Could be considered a personal passenger vehicle?) Scooter/moped Skateboard Vespa motor scooter Unicycle

Total Count

17C. If the rack is not usually available when you would like to board with your bicycle, please indicate the bus route, stop location and time if day here. •

Downtown Santa Rosa, multiple times

•

Mendocino Avenue, in front of Santa Rosa Junior college, multiple times

•

SCTA 44/48 are what I use the most and the racks are usually full

•

South bound to Santa Rosa

•

SR transit center, GGT 80, most anytime of day there is a good chance that there won’t be an empty rack.

18.

I-18

Are there specific intersections or locations that need bicycle or pedestrian facilities, connections or improvements? (various comments received from respondents)

•

Hearn overcrossing -it’s horrible - I could ride my bike, but it is too scary.

•

South between West and Dutton - missing sidewalks, and that tree is always hanging in the middle of the sidewalk so you can’t even walk through.

•

There should be a route from Funston through Bayer Farm and then a crosswalk to Sheppard - so many kids could walk to school that way - or bike too.

•

There should be a gate at the back of Elsie Allen so kids can walk home and also to the shopping center without going on Bellevue.

•

Bike Lanes should be marked on Dutton and Sebastopol Road and West and Hearn.

•

The Joe Rodota Trail is really scary - I could go to the big shopping center on my bike, but there are all these people doing crazy things back there, so I would have to ride down Sebastopol Road, so I just drive.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

(1) College and Mendocino (2) 4th and Mendocino (3) All of Mendocino needs a bike lane! (4) Fulton and Guerneville needs bike lane at light (5) Marlow and Guerneville needs bike lane at light (6) 4th St. from Farmerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Lane to downtown needs a bike lane (7) All of College Ave., including W. College, needs a bike lane

****MENDOCINO Ave.**** Sotoyome St., 3rd/Montgomery, Brookwood, College Ave. 1) Bicycle lane on Piner Rd. to get to Mendocino Ave. to SR Junior College 2) Bicycle lane on College Ave. 3) Bicycle lane on Sonoma Ave. from down town Santa Rosa to Farmer Ln. 1. Intersection of Montecito and Chanate, and along Chanate from Hidden Valley School to top needs bicycle/ped lane. 2. Fountain Grove Blvd. from Fir Ridge to Stage Coach needs bike lane. 3. Fountain Grove sidewalk on north side between Round Barn and Thomas Lake Harris is 50% overgrown with shrubs, needs clearing. 4. Montgomery Dr. westbound between Summerfield and Yulupa before bike lane is dangerous as the merge of lane 2 into lane 1 takes drivers attention off cyclist (driver more concerned with traffic merge to left). Unsafe design considering merge, curve to right reducing line of sight, lack of bike lane, and drivers who speed up to pass on right before merge. 5. I would like a bike lane for the Hwy 101 Fountain Grove overcrossing, but have no idea how you could accomodate it. 1. All downtown Santa Rosa intersections need crosswalks that are more clearly marked and there needs to be more focus on ticketing red light runners. 2. All downtown non-signalized crosswalks need the sign that states stopping for pedestrians in a crosswalk is the law to remind drivers of what they must stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. I like the bright signs that the City of Cotati has installed in its crosswalks. 3. I would like a marked crosswalk where the creek path crosses under Fulton between College and Guerneville Rd. It is very difficult to get across this street safely. 4. Dutton Avenue needs bike lanes between College and Guerneville Rd. Cars drive very fast on this road and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scary to ride it, especially at night. 1. Fourth St. between Brookwood and Bryden has no stop lights-can be dangerous to cross at cross walks because cars have to see you to stop

September 2010

I-19

APPENDIX I

2. Bicycle/walking trail parallel to Highway 12 is great but sometimes some iffy characters hang out in the area between N. Dutton and Stony Point. 1. Mendocino /Bicentennial 2. All those that require a bicyclist to wait at a controlled left while through traffic continues. This is perhaps the most precarious condition for the bicyclist and exists in most big intersections 1. On Mendocino across from the JC the weekday 60 Sonoma County Transit only arrives at 8:45 & 10:30 pm. That is a long span to wait at night, myself and others do it often. Too dark to ride or even wait at the bus stop. 2. Heading North where Mendocino and Old Redwood Hwy connect there is a ramp that leads down to an island and it’s a fairly violent angle to turn on a bike. My bike has personally suffered damage on the way home from the SRJC. 1. Paved road shoulders commonly have gravel and other debris that make it hazardous to bicycle Highway 12 between Farmers lane and Brush Creek is an example. 2. Brush Creek paved bike trail has many cracks that are hazardous for bicycling. 3. Joe Rodata Trail crossing Stony Point Road is very poor for bicycle crossing. 4. Many roads contain chuck holes and rough pavement that are hazardous for bicycling. 1. Talbot and 4th and/or alderbrook and 4th. 2. Hearn ave and santa rosa ave. 3. Old redwood highway and fountaingrove 4. Lomitas cul de sac trail into Mendocino ave. 101 and river road Grass and brush too high for cars to see pedestrians and bikers 116 at Sparkes Road in Sebastopol, crosswalk and crossing signal for peds and cyclists Hwy 116 from Cotati to Sebastopol wider shoulder and bike lane markers Designated bike lanes on 116 in Sebastopol proper

18. Specific facilities needed?

I-20

•

4th & D needs more bike racks

•

A bike bridge over 101 at the JC

•

Better access to SR Creek trail from Santa Rosa Ave (including bike lane on Santa Rosa Ave.)

•

4th St. downtown could use more pedestrian crossing areas between E an B Streets, Bike lanes on Montgomery need re-striping, bike lanes need sweeping on a regular basis as debris in lanes are a

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

huge hindrance to use. I’d like to see more lanes in front of schools - Santa Rosa School for the Arts on Humboldt St. has lots of parent driver use in the mornings and afternoons that could be alleviated if kids had better routes to get there on bikes but as it is no kid is going ride on Humboldt St. •

4th Street and Talbot; It is very hard to cross 4th St. during rush hour. I suggest a car/bike activated light; this would also help pedestrians, who currently have to trust that cars will stop for the flashing pedestrian light (this is very scary for pedestrians during rush hour).

•

Farmers Lane and Sonoma Ave. and Brookwood and Sonoma Ave. Bicyclists currently have to hang out on the right when waiting for a red light, and there is a danger from the cars frequently turning right on red. I suggest a dedicated right hand turn for cars with a bike lane between it and a single lane of traffic going straight.

•

Brookwood Ave. and 2nd Street - The northbound left turn lane is not bike activated, so I have to usually turn illegally against the red left turn light.”

•

a bike route along Highway 101 (SMART train and a bike path would be perfect!!!) Also, a bike route along Hwy 12 out to Sonoma.

•

A flashing pedestrian crosswalk Santa Rosa Avenue and E. Bellevue Ave.

•

A flashing pedestrian crosswalk at Bellevue Ave at the Colgan Creek Path entrance

•

Class 1 or 2 Bicycle lanes on all high-traffic streets near schools in South Santa Rosa (West Ave, Dutton, Sebastopol Road, Hearn

•

A marked bike lane on Steele Lane, esp. under 101 and crossing the on/off ramps.

•

Also marked bike lane on Mendocino.

•

Also when there is a left turn lane that is “left or straight”, it’s difficult for a bike.

•

Airport Blvd. at Aviation Blvd., Cleveland at Steele

•

All along Hwy 12, 4th Street, mendocino Ave need SAFE bike lanes.

•

All along Mendocino

•

All intersections that go over or under Hwy 101. All intersections that do NOT have a bicycle lane. We need bicycle lanes in this city. I would like to commute to SSU but the roads out of downtown SR do not have bike lanes and are unsafe.

•

All new construction MUST be designed with bikes and pedestrians in mind. It is a shame when a road like Fountaingrove Pkwy. gets built, and the decision is to put both directions of cyclists on one side of the road on an asphalt path. This is okay for slow uphill bike traffic, but downhill bikes should travel in the car lane for safety. Also, at the intersection with Thomas Lake Harris, the curb needs to have a ramp so cyclists from TLH can get onto the asphalt bike path to travel uphill after crossing FG.

•

Along 101 by Windsor bowling alley; this road has no bike lanes

•

anything involving Mendocino ave, and infact every intersection with a traffic light

•

Anything that would make getting from east SR to west SR besides Prince Greenway and Joe Rodota safe. From College on north, there’s no safe way to go. I would use my bike for alot more errands if I could get from my JC neighborhood home to places on the other side of freeway.

•

Anywhere on 4th St from Farmers Lane to College.

September 2010

I-21

APPENDIX I

I-22

•

4th St and Farmers Lane is horrible. There is not an easy way to get across town from the North to the East towards Spring Lake/Howarth Park. Without going on a major artery.

•

Armory Dr.

•

Santa Rosa Ave end of bike trail

•

Make Sonoma Ave. from Santa Rosa Ave. to Farmers Lane like Hoen Ave.

•

At most rail crossings.

•

Bennett Valley road needs a bike lane

•

better biking access to nor cal bike shop, where many bikers meet for all kinds of reasons.

•

Better connection needed between upper and lower 4th Street. That is both sides of downtown.

•

Between College and Sonoma on Brookwood. Path on Chanate Rd. often has debris in it. Mendocino is scary for bicycling.

•

Bicentennial and Mendocino

•

Fountaingrove-Mendocino

•

All of fountaingrove needs a bike path

•

Bike lane on Hwy 12 from Calistoga to Farmer’s Lane. Bike path connecting Sonoma Ave. to Prince Memorial Park bike path.

•

Bike lanes on Sonoma Avenue

•

Better N-S biking through Santa Rosa (Humboldt St. Bike Blvd?, SMART bikeway)

•

Bike paths along creeks

•

Bike paths on all major arterials

•

Pedestrian flashers connecting trail segments

•

Pedestrian and bike bridges

•

Bodega highway and Jewel in Sebastopol. Traffic light doesn’t work for bikes.

•

Brand new Steele Lane Freeway undercrossing

•

College Avenue Freeway undercrossing

•

College and Mendocino

•

Broken glass on parts of Rodota trail from Under Hwy 12 to Stoney point road are scary. Can a city steet sweeper sweep it weekly? Also crossing Stoney point road on the trail is a bit scary when cars going North on Stoney point merge onto Hwy 12- The Merge has no light. Otherwise I love that trail!

•

West 3rd bike lane west of railroad square has pavement hazards (jagged pavement bumps) for bikes

•

Thank you - I LOVE riding my bike - I just started a few months ago. I want to feel safe at intersections, safe pavement/No glass etc

•

Brookwood, west side, between College & Fifth

•

Mendocino at Ridgway, south side of intersection

•

Montecito Blvd, end of Brush Creek bike path

•

Calistoga and Hwy12

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

•

Mendocino: from Kaiser to downtown

•

Chanate & Mendo, Brush Creek & Montecito

•

Chanate between Mendocino and Franklin

•

Mendocino from 4th st. north

•

3rd st. from freeway to Montomery

•

Chanate Rd./Franklin Ave., and continuous bike paths to/from major shopping and work locales. Existing bike lanes are not continually connected to major destinations.

•

Chanate road from Sutter to Middle rincon road. Other than that I do good by most routes I use.

•

Cleveland and College intersection and Cleveland Rd. North after crossing at College. I would not ride to the JC because it is too dangerous.

•

Fulton Rd. connection

•

College Ave all the way

•

Mendocino Ave.

•

Steele Lane all the way

•

Third Street all the way

•

Fourth Street to downtown

•

College Ave at 101 and west of there until almost Fulton too narrow. Guerneville Rd under 101 too narrow and east of there. Chanate Rd.

•

College ave between Mendocino and 4th

•

College Ave. and Mendocino Ave. There is no real safe and efficient way to continue south on Mendocino Ave. And the lack of bike lanes on both streets creates conflicts with automobiles.

•

Hwy 101 undercrossings of College Ave. and Steele Ln., two major west-east thoroughfares, are extremely unnerving to use as a cyclist or pedstrian.

•

Yulupa Ave. and Hoen Ave. because of the five lanes of (fast) automobile traffic on Yulupa. As you head south on Yulupa, crossing the intersection with automobiles is jarring. The entry to the shoulder on SB Yulupa after the intersection is extremely narrow and unmarked for bicycles.”

•

College Avenue at Cleveland

•

College Avenue

•

Cleveland Avenue

•

Mendocino Avenue

•

Piner Avenue

•

College Avenue, especially at Hwy 101. Third Ave at Hwy 101. Hwy 128 between Knights Valley and Chalk Hill Road. Westside Rd needs to be repaved, especially near the Madrona Manor and 3 miles south (there are gaps in the pavement that can easily suck up a bike tire).

•

College/morgan/wilson

•

Steel lane/Administration/Cleveland

•

Connections from the downtown end of the Prince Greenway (creek trail) to:

September 2010

I-23

APPENDIX I

I-24

•

Sonoma Ave (e.g. Doctors’ Park)

•

Petaluma Hill Rd.

•

(South) Santa Rosa Ave Marketplace (eg Costco, Best Buy, REI, Friedmans)

•

Spring Lake, Annadel, Oakmont

•

Corby Ave.

•

Santa Rosa Ave.

•

Hearn (overpass at 101 especially)

•

Sonoma & D- needs signal or at least traffic calming

•

Corner of Marlow and Guerneville

•

Creek path entrances on Piner Creek need bollards or other devices to keep motorized traffic out.

•

Crossing Mendocino Ave. (anyplace)

•

Crossing College Ave. (most places)

•

Crossing under Hwy 12 at Brush Creek - east side

•

Downtown intersections without bicycle lanes

•

Downtown Santa Rosa

•

Downtown Santa Rosa. Lights need to be sensored and better timed for bicycles.

•

4th St is hazardous

•

Downtown Santa Rosa. There is no room on the street to ride safely.

•

Dutton Ave. from Guerneville Rd. to Sebastopol Road needs a continuous sidewalk on both east & west sides of road. Dutton is hazordous to bikes.

•

Dutton Ave. both north and south

•

Mendocino Ave.

•

Stony Point Rd.

•

Sonoma Ave.

•

East of Hwy.101, West of Petaluma Hill Rd, South of Hwy.12, i.e. all around Santa Rosa Avenue.

•

End of the creek trail at downtown

•

Sebastopol Road and Dutton Ave.

•

Every traffic signal needs to have better detection for bicycles. The currently used in-ground and video detection is inconsistent and prone to time of day problems in detecting bicycles.

•

Farmers and 4th Street

•

Steele Lane and Guerneville Rd. (Coddingtown area)

•

Farmers Ln., Hwy. 12

•

Franklin Avenue, between Franklin Park and Lewis has a street light that constantly goes out and because I work early in the morning (it\’s still dark out) I sometimes feel nervous there. Also there is a section of the sidewalk that floods when it rains forcing pedestrians into the street.

•

Fulton and Hwy. 12

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

•

Fulton Rd. right after Guernville Raley’s area heading south.

•

Fulton/Hwy. 12

•

Northpoint Parkway/Stony Point

•

Stony Point/Hearn

•

Functional bike sensors: Clover & W. College; Ridley & Guerneville; Hwy 12 & Pythian Rd left turn from 12; ... Longer green light: Sonoma Ave & Brookwood; Rodota trail & Dutton; Bike lanes: N Dutton; Sonoma Ave.; Stony Pt. from SR Creek to Sebastopol Rd.; W. Third from Stony Pt. to existing bike lanes; Mendocino--entire length; Yulupa entire length; Montgomery from Mission west to existing lanes; Piner, Range, ....

•

Having one bike/walk path from Farmer\’s Lane to Summerfield, thru the current CalTrans path would be great.

•

Highway 101 overcrossing from JC to Coddingtown

•

Mendocino Ave., entire length needs class II bike lanes

•

Wilson Street needs class II bike lanes from College to 3rd Street

•

College Avenue, entire length needs class II bike lanes

•

Bike path along railroad corridor

•

Bike access to all creeks

•

Fourth Street from Farmers to E Street

•

Cleveland ave from College past Bicentennial

•

Class I bike path in the old Hwy.12 right of way parallel to Hoen from Montgomery Village to Spring Lake park

•

Thats all I can think of off of the top of my head.

•

Highway 12 and Fulton Road

•

Homeless gatherings on trail behind FoodMax and near overpass by Sebastopol Rd; potholes on Santa Rosa Ave; concerned with bike being stolen when locked dontown(library, etc)

•

Humboldt and college

•

Third and D and all other third st.intersections

•

Mendocino and 4th.

•

Hwy 101 and College, Hwy 101 and Steele, Hwy 101 (challenges getting from SE Santa Rosa to NW Santa Rosa).

•

Bicentennial, Mendocino and/or Humboldt (for north/south commute)

•

Bicentennial sidewalk conditions are terrible and dangerous east of Albertsons/Home Depot (bolts sticking out of sidewalk, uneven sidewalk, tall grass and bushes overgrowing sidewalk)”

•

Hwy 101 Overcrossing from Jennings to Junior College. Piner creek trail will need undercrossing at Marlow and Guernville roads. Improve Joe Rodota crossing at Stony Pt. and Wright roads. Bridge over Santa Rosa creek from path to Place to Play fields. Burbank Ave needs to be developed as a street wider then a transitional to design for future growth. Do not wait for SMART ballot measure to be approved, develop the trail along the tracks NOW!

September 2010

I-25

APPENDIX I

I-26

•

Hwy 116 between Sebastopol and forestville

•

Guernville Road

•

Third Street W of RR Square

•

College Ave near Mendocino

•

Chanate Rd.

•

I am a very experienced cyclist and commute to work as often as possible. My commute is from Willowside road to Agilent Technologies on Fountaingrove Parkway. Most of the commute is fine however I find it very challenging and dangerous when crossing under or over Highway 101 at Fountaingrove parkway, Bicentennial, Guerneville Hwy. or College Ave.

•

I do not feel safe riding my bicycle in Santa Rosa.

•

I feel that most intersections in Southwest santa rosa are unsafe and dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists.

•

I have a very hard time on 4th St in SR near the Safeway. If traveling downtown there is NO shoulder, cars whiz by me and there is glass strewn all over the edge on the road. So I am forced to ride 30 mph+ (near impossible) or constantly get honked at and harassed or get a flat tire from the glass.

•

On the other side of the road there are parked cars every few hundred feet forcing me to have to merge with traffic going faster than I. I have been “buzzed” quite a few times, and was a victim of a hit and run in that location. “

•

I live outside of SR, but work there. I would like to have a bike route on Bohemian Hwy to take my child to school and then on either Graton to Occidental Road to ride to Santa Rosa.

•

I recommend to construct a dedicated bikepath along a north-south corridor, which could be along the trainline. An east-west bikepath should be constructed along Santa Rosa Creek east of Hiw 101 or on the Caltrans land that is reserved for extension of Highway 12. It is already in place on the Westside. Then fill in the quadrants with bikepaths along the regular roads.

•

I think all paths should be at least half paved for bicycles. Then walkers could walk on the unpaved section

•

I would like to see a contiguous bike lane on Old Redwood Highway. I live in SR and work in Healdsburg - Old Redwood Highway is a nightmare for bikes. The bike lane runs for a bit, then disappears. I would be more likely to ride to work if a bike lane ran the whole way.

•

I would like to see a safe way to go to Bryden Lane and Dutton Ave. and rossing over Hwy 12 near Farmers Ln. It would also be wonderful if we could turn the open area behind Montgomery HS into a multi use park/bike path like Prince Greenway. Find a way to connect Prince Greenway and then run it all the way to Spring Lake.

•

I would like to see an extension of the paved SR Creek to go beyond the Fulton Rd. intersection. It is gravel now.

•

I would use the Rodota trail more but horror stories of people being attacked keep me from riding it more. I am also concerned about other bike trails also.

•

It’s is not the facilities that need improvement. The bicyclists (primarily) and drivers need to be improved in their tolerance and abilities.

•

Large streets like Mendocino and College are unsafe and unpleasant to cross because of car traffic

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

and lack of shade. They need to become boulevards with central medians and trees. We need NS and EW routes that dedicate entire car lanes to bicycles so that bicycles, cars and pedestrians don’t compete for the same space. I’ve seen successful sharing between bikes and buses in other cities. •

Mark West Springs is too scarey (from cars) to bike on . .

•

Bennett Valley Rd. - ditto

•

Montgomery Dr. by Spring Lake - ditto . .. and, the way through the park is closed before and after daylight

•

Marlow/Valdez, Santa Rosa and Paulin creek paths. Creek is full of vegetation to the point of possible problems in rainy season.... Also,

•

I would be for paving these paths...

•

Mendocino Avenue in the vicinity of SR JC and SR High School need special help. There are way too many pedestrians and motorized traffic simply must slow down and laws strictly enforced

•

Mendocino and Fountaingrove Parkway

•

This intersection prevents me from commuting to work daily.

•

Mendocino. I use Humboldt. I have difficulty getting beyond Chanate.

•

Humbolt to Chanate left turn is hazardous then you have to ride on Mendocino to get beyond Kaiser or coming from north on Old Redwood Hwy.

•

Anxiety producting and difficult to get around.

•

Mendocino/Fountaingrove

•

Mendocino Ave. south of Bicentennial.

•

Chanate, east of Mendocino

•

Hoen Ave, south of Sonoma Ave.

•

Piner Rd.

•

Mendocino Ave.

•

Mendocino Ave. & Santa Rosa Ave. need bike lanes

•

Mendocino Ave. between College and Fountaingrove.

•

3rd Street

•

Steele Lane

•

Franklin north of Lewis

•

Mendocino Ave. between Mendo/Redwood Hwy and Steel Lane - no side street alternatives.

•

Mendocino Ave. needs a bike lane really badly, so does Sonoma Avenue and College Avenue

•

Mendocino Ave. (College Ave. to Fountaingrove Pkwy.) Not many ways to get across that side of town safely on bike.

•

Mendocino Ave, Old Redwood Hwy and DOWNTOWN! Need bicycle and motorcycle parking downtown. Need a place to lock at the malls.

•

Mendocino Ave-bike

•

Lower Chanate-bike

September 2010

I-27

APPENDIX I

I-28

•

Mendocino Avenue between Fountaingrove and city center. It is the only N/S route east of 101 and it’s horrible and dangerous.

•

Mendocino Avenue between Fountaingrove and city center. It’s the only N/S route East of 101. It’s horrible and very dangerous.

•

Mendocino Avenue - especially from Kaiser to Foutaingrove. More Bike lanes.

•

Use the street sweeper more often at intersections and in the bike lanes.

•

Mendocino Avenue is listed as a \”Bike Route\”, according to signs--but it NEEDS a separate bike lane to be a safe commuter corridor. Likewise, Armory Drive is a fast street with no shoulder for bikes; it’s a quick & direct route to College Ave. and should have a painted bike lane for safety.

•

Mendocino Avenue, Montgomery Ave. beyond Summerfield

•

Mendocino Bike LANE. Light on Brookwood at Sonoma Ave. going North does not change for bikes, along with several others in the city.

•

Montgomery Drive near Spring Lake Park

•

Mission at Montgomery intersection

•

Entire downtown area for biking

•

Coddingtown

•

More bike parking downtown. Bike lanes downtown.

•

More/better bike racks downtown, SRJC needs a safe bike parking area to promote students commuting by bike,

•

Most of the old east/west 101 crossovers (Steele Lane, College, 3rd St, Hearn, Todd, RP Expressway). Some of those are so dangerous it makes even a short commute across town unsafe and undesirable. I usually go out of my way to take the little bike overpass just south of 3rd.

•

Coming off of the wonderful (THANKS!!!) Joe Rodota trail into SR and north into downtown requires some inappropriate sidewalk maneuvering.

•

Bennett Valley Rd. is gorgeous and quite narrow and dangerous. I got yelled at once when I was as far over as I could get (riding alone and not distracted).

•

Continue the bike trails that end in Rohnert Park on Commerce south of the shopping district. It would be great to extend that trail to Golf Course drive.

•

Most of the roads need paving, wider shoulders, considerate riders and drivers, and cleaning of debris from shoulders so cyclists don’t have to ride in the road.

•

Must improve Joe Rodota trail crossing over at 101 entrance. All lights need to be triggered by cyclists weight, not just cars.

•

Need bike rack near 1605 4th St.

•

Need an easier way to get under the freeway.

•

Need countdown signals at all intersections crossing thrid street.

•

Need countdown signals at 4th and Mendocino.

•

Need bike lanes all along Sonoma Ave.

•

Need bike lanes on Farmers Lane extension being planned to link Farmers Lane and Kawana

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Springs. •

Need to have all signals cicle through at night rather than only change if vehicle detected because many times bikes don’t trip the lights.

•

Could use electronic bike lockers at transit mall.

•

Stress need for street pavement fixes to be and patches to be graded smoothly so that bike riders can keep control of their bicycles.”

•

New section of class II bike lane on Fulton Road is too narrow! Traded a Caltrans width shoulder for 34” of asphalt in a 45mph zone. That just flat sucks. Fulton is basically the only through northsouth route on the west side of town and as such is a major bike route. We were screwed!

•

No particular problems

•

North south corridors thru santa rosa

•

North St. to 4th St.

•

Brookwood and 3rd

•

Pacific Ave. and Slater Street needs a crosswalk.

•

Pave a bike path along the R/R tracks.

•

Paving and/or opening the myriad creek/flood control paths in NW Santa Rosa would make sense, it would only take removing the fencing. Also, making a direct route from Sonoma Avenue to Howarth Park that’s bicycle friendly would be huge.

•

Petaluma hill Rd. and South East Quadrant.

•

Petaluma Hill Rd. from Santa Rosa to SSU

•

Old Redwood Highway

•

Piner road all over.

•

Repeal ban on bicycle riding in shopping center parking lots.

•

ALL intersections with crosswalks should have them across ALL streets.

•

Correct bike lane position on Piner westbound (Peterson etc.); Brookwood southbound at Sonoma Ave.

•

Any street with pass-through should be signed “No outlet” with added “Except bicycles”

•

Joe Rodota Trail at Stony Point crosswalk needs on-ramp protection; bicycle crossing with detectors should use 84 Lumber & opposite driveways for crossing.

•

Riding from Sebastopol to Santa Rosa is very good. Riding from Railroad Square to Fountain Grove Parkway is terrible. Consequently, I drive to work.

•

Rodota Bike Trail crossing @ Stony Point; horrible pavement @ northeast corner of intersection of Cleveland and Steele Lane

•

Rodota Trail needs bridges or underpasses like the SR Creek trail has at major roads. Bike lanes on Mendocino, especially around the JC area. Need a bike/ped bridge over 101 near the JC. More racks to lock bikes near downtown businesses and at the JC and at the Luther Burbank house. Bike/ped route into the Wells Fargo Center. Bike lanes on Sonoma Ave.

•

Safe access across 101 (in addition to Prince greenway).

September 2010

I-29

APPENDIX I

•

North/south corridor on east side on 101 ( improve the North St. bike lane).

•

East/West (dedicate lanes on Sonoma Ave).

•

San Miguel between Fulton and Francisco

•

Mendocino Ave!!!!

•

Piner between Marlow and Clevland

•

Santa Rosa Ave. @ Hearn, Kawana, Baker

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Mendocino Ave. Hwy 12 past Farmers 4th At, east of downtown Santa Rosa Avenue and Hearn, All of Stony Point All of Todd All of Millbrae Santa Rosa Avenue south of Old Redwood Hwy (very bumpy and needs bike lane) Pacific Avenue Fourth Street Any street wide enough for a bike lane should have one! Sebastopol Rd. & Stony Point Rd. Sebastopol Rd. at Boyd St. Also at Olive St. Sonoma & D street crosswalk needs a flashing light ALL public / commercial buildings should be required to have bike parking available to their customers The creek path helps me go west, but not north, south or east - we need one dedicated bike PATH going CROSSTOWN north to south and one dedicated bike PATH going CROSSTOWN east west with bike corridor connectors to streets with bike lanes If there isn’t a bike lane available, then skates/skateboards need to be allowed on the sidewalk (for example, downtown) There is just too much auto traffic to skate in the street in a safe manner Sonoma Ave @ D St-traffic circle and curb cut/red zone @ path into Brown St. Sonoma Ave, the whole way. Mendocino Ave. College Ave. Southwest community Specifically, every intersection in America. Steele Lane Steele Lane/Cleveland Ave. Crossing at Mendocino/Silva still feels unsafe Steele Lane at Cleveland and 101 big problems for cyclists Steele under 101, College under 101, Mendocino overpass, Brookwood btwn College & Sonoma, Farmers Ln. @ 4th, bike lane East-West on main thouroughfares from college North to allow for safe trips across town, a good way to get from McDonald areas to Montgomery areas without having to cross major, unsafe intersections Stony Point Rd.

• • • • • • • • • • •

•

I-30

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

•

Stony Point Rd. and Barndance Lane, Steele Lane at 101, College Ave. at 101

•

Summerfield Rd. and Yulupa Ave. need connected bicycle lanes in both directions.

•

Summerfield, Montgomery, and Mission

•

Summerfield between Brookfield and Hoen (The bike lanes just sort of end)

•

Montecito by Olivers

•

Talbot by Memorial Hospital.

•

By Santa Rosa cemetery.

•

Fountaingrove

•

The crosswalk in front of Pederson\’s on 5th street is now a red curb, and should be make into a proper crossing for people who use wheelchairs or push strollers.

•

The intersection on College av. where it connects to the freeway is very dangerous for pedestrian and bicycle use.

•

The Longs shopping center at Mendocino and Steele lane is amongst a very walkable community (JC) yet is horrible for a pedestrain to navigate. There is a nice curb seperated bike/walking path along Franklin from Lewis south to Franklin Park, this is great as my kids and I feel safe walking/ riding on this to the park. It could be better maintained instead of feeling a bit like a leftover. This type of bike route would be me favorite but you do not have it in your photos back a few pages. In other cities (Madison, WI) they use this kind of seperator and it is great for both cars and bikes. Without the curb, cars see a wide road, go fast and do not always remember the bike lane, with the curb a drive reads the proper width of the road. I love the pocket park/bike route at King and Carr, please keep this as a bike/walking route.

•

Totally separate bike routes are nice, but can feel very unsafe when not designed with eyes and ears on the path. Sections of the Joe Rodota trail are examples of what not to do, or what needs to be re-designed with more access to prevent these paths from becoming negative hang outs-- and a example against bike and walking paths. Also, I would like to see the bike and walking routes be designed to link together places people want to go: neighborhoods, parks, schools, shopping.

•

The main reason that I don\’t cycle to work is that there is no safe way to get into the County campus on a bike. I come from Sebastopol and can get safely to the frontage road, Armory Drive, along 101 but this road is too narrow for cars and bicycles to share the road safely because of how they’ve configured the lanes. Going home, County Center drive is a meat grinder when you get close to Steele Lane and cross over. The other entries and exits to the County center are equally unsafe. Another example, heading east on Administration Drive the lanes are configured to leave no room for a bike as

•

You approach Mendocino Avenue. I think the \’Bike to Work Day\’ response would be much greater if there were safe ways to bike.

•

The new bike path on Fulton Rd. N of Piner is to narrow. I can be scary for me and I’m an experienced cyclist. I’m sure this lane is not up to spec.

•

Traffic lights need to be more sensitive to bicycles.

•

East/West connections across the freeway need to improve.

•

I could go on...

September 2010

I-31

APPENDIX I

I-32

•

There is a large piece of property off Yulupa between Hoen and Mayette. It would make a great Class 1 bike trail by itself. I know that there a some in the City government who would think about putting a road in this property. There was even an article in the Press Democrat where the Mayor said they wanted to put a boulevard or parkway there. I think that putting a road there even if they put a bike trail in addition to the road would be a mistake and would just add to the noise and pollution of this area. We need to be encouraging people to walk and bike in this area, not just add more roads. The people who live on Hoen would be surrounded by two roads. What kind of quality of life would they have with all that noise and pollution on both sides of their living space. It would simply transfer the congestion from Hoen to Summerfield. Increasing the traffic around Howarth Park. I would like to see the Bike and Pedestrain Master Plan reflect a greening of the City of Santa Rosa. I went to one of your recent gatherings and you are doing a fabulous job. Keep up the work and keep asking for feedback.

•

There needs to be an easier way to get from downtown Santa Rosa (JC area) to the west side of the freeway!

•

Also, bike lanes on Mendocino Ave, Santa Rosa Ave, College Ave, and Piner.

•

There needs to be a sidewalk on Brookwood adjacent to SR Middle School. Alot of pedestrians cross there at College to reach 4th St and have to walk in the street -- scary at night!

•

Third and Fourth streets downtown to Railroad Square.

•

Guerneville Rd and Range Ave.

•

Traveling from West County - Graton to downtown Santa Rosa. West Third Street area is unsafe.

•

We need safe areas for our children too - I cannot bike as often - if I cannot have my pre-teens bike safely along with me.”

•

Underpass needed at Piner creek - Guerneville Rd. intersection.

•

Washington & Pet. Blvd. Petaluma

•

We need a comprehensive grid of bicycle boulevards throughout the city. Once we start implementing bicycle boulevards, drivers will become more alert and conscious of cyclists, and pedestrians, and cyclists and pedestrians will feel safer.

•

We need bike lanes in Railroad Square, Wilson St and 6th street. We need more crossings of 101 for bicycles and pedestrians... should have access to cross 101 every .5 mile

•

Need more bike parking at all buildings at the County center. Need parking in front of the Chamber of Commerce. Need bike lanes on Pacific. need a bicycle only left turn from 4th street on to Clyde as well as to Alderbrook. Need bike lanes on 4th street from Farmers to Brookwood. E Street needs traffic calming from Sonoma Ave to College; should be reduced from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with a center turn lane with bike lanes on both sides. Need bike lanes on College from 4th St to Fulton. Need bike lanes on Mendocino Ave/Santa Rosa Ave. from College to Bennett Valley. Need bike paths on all creek trails. We need the bike bridge over 101 from SRJC to Coddingtown. Need bike lanes on Cleveland Ave. from College to Hopper.

•

Need to recalibrate the lights at Healdsburg and College and King and College to respond to pedestrians and bicycles MUCH quicker. It’s not ALL about moving cars quickly. Need safer pedestrian crossings on E Street especially at 4th street; there should be a pedestrian only phase. Drivers are CRAZY through here.

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

•

West County/Forestville to Santa Rosa along Guerneville Rd.

•

And... Graton to Santa Rosa along Occidental Rd.

•

Westbound Guerneville across coddingtown between 101 and Range - the northbound lane splits to go to West Steele (I think) or continue on Guerneville - a line at that \”Y\” would allow cyclists to more safely go toward Guereneville - I can describe what I mean (call 521-6503)

•

Westbound on Fountaingrove parkway going downhill, it is very dangerous on a bicycle.

•

Where bike lanes are up against the sidewalk (no parking strip) on a residential street, there needs to be a different arrangement for garbage cans. This morning (Monday) I continually had to ride in the car lanes to go around the garbage cans.

•

Wilson and Sebastopol Road

•

Hwy 12 and Fulton/Wilson - scares the b’jebes out of me to cross the Hwy on a bike and the light is set to let very few cars through anyway.

•

Yes, all along Montgomery, 4th street, and Sonoma avenue there are crosswalks that are VERY dangerous. Cars do NOT stop for you. I have had several incidents where one car stopped and the others just continued to drive, nearly running me over (a 4 lane road). We need the overhead manually activated crosswalks, like the ones on Summerfield. They typically work. Reducing these large boulevards to 2 lanes would help significantly.

September 2010

I-33

Appendix J GREENHOUSE GAS RESOLUTION # 26341

APPENDIX J

J-2

September 2010

Appendix K NATIONAL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DOCUMENTATION PROJECT

INSTRUCTIONS National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

The National Documentation Project (NBPD) is an annual bicycle and pedestrian count and survey effort sponsored by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Pedestrian and Bicycle Council. The goals of the NBPD are to: (1) Establish a consistent national bicycle and pedestrian count and survey methodology;(2) Establish a national database of bicycle and pedestrian count information generated by these consistent methods and practices; and (3) Use the count and survey information to begin analysis on the correlations between local demographic, climate and land‐use factors and bicycle and pedestrian activity. Alta Planning + Design, a national bicycle and pedestrian planning firm, initiated this effort through the ITE Pedestrian & Bicycle Council in 2003, when it was identified as a priority for the Council and will continue to lead this effort along with the ITE Pedestrian and Bicycle Council. Alta has been responsible for the development of the draft methodology and materials. This document is a draft effort and any recommendations, corrections or suggestions can be addressed to the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Project at: info@bikepeddocumentation.org

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................ 1 1.

Proposed Count and Survey Dates and Times ................................. 1 Dates ................................................................................... 1 Rationale for Dates .................................................................. 1 Times ................................................................................... 2 Rationale for Time Periods ........................................................ 2 Weather................................................................................ 2

2. Counts .................................................................................... 4 2.1 Count Methodology................................................................ 5 Count Variables ...................................................................... 5 Count Locations ...................................................................... 5 Types of Counts ...................................................................... 6 2.2 Pre-Count Preparation ........................................................... 6 Rationale for Locations ............................................................. 8 2.3 The Day of the Count ............................................................. 9 2.4 Submitting Count Data ......................................................... 10 3. SURVEYS ............................................................................... 11 3.1 Survey Methodology ............................................................ 11 Types of Surveys ................................................................... 11 3.2 Pre-Survey Preparation ........................................................ 11 Rationale for Locations ........................................................... 13 3.3 Day of the Survey................................................................ 14 3.4 Post-Survey Data Tabulation and Submission.............................. 15

K-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

Introduction This document provides detailed instructions on conducting bicycle and pedestrian counts and surveys as part of the National Documentation Project. The document first reviews the proposed dates and times, provides instructions for counts and then provides instructions for surveys.

1. Proposed Count and Survey Dates and Times Dates The second week in September is proposed as the official annual national bicycle and pedestrian count and survey week. Participants in the National Documentation Project shall pick at least one weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) and a Saturday following or preceding the official count dates. Optional counts can be conducted in January, May and July to understand seasonal changes in walking and cycling. Proposed National Count Dates Official Optional Optional Optional Sept. 14‐19, 2010 January 12‐14, 2010 May 11‐13, 2010 July 6‐8, 2010 Sept. 13‐18, 2011 January 11‐13, 2011 May 10‐12, 2011 July 5‐7, 2011

To reduce the chance that data is skewed by weather, sports events, or other outside factors, local participants may choose to conduct counts and surveys on more than one weekday during the count week and on the Saturdays preceding and following the count week. Note 1: The collection of year‐long data has allowed us to be able to adjust counts done at any time of the year in most locations. However, we recommend using the National count dates whenever possible. Note 2: If your agency or group has been conducting counts at other times of the year, continue to do those counts at the same time period rather than change to these dates.

Rationale for Dates The National Count Date in mid‐September was selected because it represents a peak period for walking and bicycling, both work‐ and school‐related. Weather conditions across the country are generally conducive, schools have been underway for several weeks, and people have returned from vacations and are back at work. At least one weekday and one weekend day should be selected to obtain a sampling of weekday and weekend activity levels. There should be little statistical difference

September 2010

K-3

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

between counts conducted on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday of the same week, and this provides agencies and organizations some scheduling flexibility. The other dates were selected to provide a representative sampling of activity during a typical spring (May) and winter (January) period. The 4th of July period was selected because it will afford both a typical summer weekday and what is typically the busiest holiday period and activity period for recreational facilities and activities. Having an official count week is also important for generating enthusiasm around the date. Much like nationwide Bike to Work Weeks, we hope that the National Documentation Project Week in September will become a much‐anticipated annual event in localities around the nation.

Times Based on our research, we are recommending new time periods for 2009 onwards (see below). However, if you have been doing counts using the old time periods, please keep using these same time periods for all future counts in order to be consistent. RECOMMENDED TIMES: Weekday, 5‐7 PM Saturday, 12 noon – 2PM SECONDARY TIMES: Weekday, 7 AM to 7 PM Saturday, 7 AM to 7 PM

Rationale for Time Periods

Time periods are more important for counts than for surveys. Weekday PM peak periods were chosen since the afternoon peak typically has the largest volume of travelers, with commuters, school children and people running errands. Counts conducted during these periods will provide an excellent snapshot of walking and bicycling during the peak periods of the year. Mid‐day weekend periods are another peak period. Actual local peak periods may vary with considerably. It is recommended that the national count time periods be collected along with supplementary time periods if it is determined that this period captures the true peak period of activity.

Automatic Machines While the NBPD is based on manual counts, we strongly encourage agencies and groups conducting counts to consider conducting automatic machine counts in their community. These machines will give invaluable information for estimating annual usage, benefits and other information.

Weather Weather may be a determinant in selecting one of the three proposed weekdays to conduct counts and surveys, but a participant should not be worried if the weather is poor or unusual during the count period. Weather conditions will be recorded for each 2

K-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

count in the Background Data Sheet and be considered as a factor in future analysis. Over time, counts and surveys will average out and overall trends in activity will become apparent.

Number of Counts per Location We suggest that between 1 and 3 counts be conducted at every location on sequential days and weeks, based on the approximate levels of activity. Areas with high volumes (over 100 people per hour during mid‐day periods) can usually be counted once on a weekday and weekend day, unless there is some unusual activity that day or land use nearby. Areas with lower activity levels and/or with unusual nearby land uses (with any irregular activity, such as a ball park) or activity (such as a special event) should be counted on sequential days or weeks at least one more and possibly two more times.

September 2010

K-5

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

This page intentionally left blank

K-6

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

2. Counts 2.1 Count Methodology Count Variables The proposed counts are intended to identify the numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians passing a specific point or intersection. A person who passes by a point more than once is counted each time they pass by the point. Localities may wish to record additional variables in addition to the number of people passing by, such as bicyclists versus pedestrians, the number of people using wheelchairs or the estimated number of children, teens and adults.

Number of Count Locations In the interest of maximizing participation, a minimum number of count locations has not been set for the NBPD. Participants may submit data for a single location. However, to understand walking and cycling in a local area, we recommend that participants count at more than one location.

Should an agency wish to conduct more counts, which is recommended, we estimated that, at a minimum, one count should be conducted per 15,000 of population. This was considered a reasonable balance between obtaining representative counts throughout a community, and budget limitations.

Count Location Criteria

Criteria for count and survey locations include: 

Pedestrian and bicycle activity areas or corridors (downtowns, near schools, parks, etc.)



Representative locations in urban, suburban, and rural locations



Key corridors that can be used to gauge the impacts of future improvements



Locations where counts have been conducted historically



Locations where there are on‐going counts being conducted by other agencies through a variety of means, including video taping



Gaps and pinch points for bicyclists and pedestrians (potential improvement areas)



Locations where bicycle and pedestrian collision numbers are high



Select locations that meet as many of the criteria as possible.

It is important to note that a random selection of locations is statistically the best way to estimate area‐wide activity levels. However, there is no methodology available today to 5

September 2010

K-7

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

extrapolate from counts to area‐wide estimates—which is currently done using a combination of aggregate‐type models. More importantly, a random selection of count locations is likely to result in locations with very little if any activity to count!

Screen Line and Intersection Crossing Counts The National Count periods are proposed to be manual screen line and intersection crossing counts, conducted by trained counters. Intersection crossing counts should be conducted at high collision locations and where safety studies are desired. Depending on the volumes of bicyclists and pedestrians, intersection counts may be more complicated and require additional counters because they record two streets as well as turning movements. Screen line counts are primarily used to identify general trends in volumes, and to see how demographics, land use, and other factors influence walking and bicycling. The sponsoring agency should determine which method, intersection crossing counts or screenline counts, is better suited to their needs such as safety studies or determining factors that influence walking and bicycling.

2.2 Pre-Count Preparation

To ensure that data received from different participants is comparable and consistent, participants should agree to follow the instructions and guidelines identified below: STEP 1: IDENTIFY COUNT MANAGER

An agency or organization interested in participating in this process will designate a Count Manager who will serve as the primary contact and manager of the count effort. Because this effort will require time and other resources, prior approval should be obtained prior to embarking on this effort. It is estimated that the lead person will need approximately 8 initial hours of management time and 1 hour of management time for every 8 hours of count time being conducted. STEP 2: OBTAIN MATERIALS

Count forms and the Background Data Sheet are available from the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project website at: www.bikepeddocumentation.org. The Count Manager should check the website to ensure that s/he has the latest versions of the Count Instructions and Forms. Materials can be reproduced freely. The documents provided are: 

Count Instructions (This document)

Included in “National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms”: 

Screenline Count Forms

K-8

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions



Intersection Count Forms



Background Data Sheet



Background Data Sheet Code and Instructions

STEP 3: SELECT GENERAL COUNT LOCATIONS

Participants may count at only one location, or they may conduct counts at many locations. The following considerations and suggested criteria are provided to help in the selection of general count locations: 

Pedestrian and bicycle activity areas or corridors (downtowns, near schools, parks, etc.)



Representative locations in urban, suburban, and rural locations



Key corridors that can be used to gauge the impacts of future improvements



Locations where counts have been conducted historically



Locations where there are on‐going counts being conducted by other agencies through a variety of means, including video taping



Gaps and pinch points for bicyclists and pedestrians (potential improvement areas)



Locations where bicycle and pedestrian collision numbers are high



Select locations that meet as many of the criteria as possible.

STEP 4: SELECT SPECIFIC COUNT LOCATIONS

Once general locations have been selected, the Count Manager will need to inspect the sites to determine exactly where counters can be positioned. Guidelines for this inspection trip include: 

For multi‐use paths and parks, locations near the major access points are best.



For on‐street bikeways, locations where there are few if any alternative parallel routes are best.



For traditional downtown areas, a location near a transit stop or in the center of downtown is best.



For shopping malls, a location near the main entrance and transit stop is best. Count at one access point.



For employment areas, either on the main access roadway or near off‐street multiuse paths is best. Count at one access point, typically a sidewalk and street.



For residential areas, locations near higher density developments or near parks and schools are the best. Count at one access point, typically a sidewalk and street.

September 2010

K-9

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

For all locations: 

Counts should include travel in both directions.



Counters will need to be in a safe, visible location and should be on public property in a location that does not block pedestrians or bicyclists.



You must receive written permission from property owners if you will be on private property.



If at all possible locate the counters in an area that will be comfortable for them: shade in the summer, protection from the wind in winter.

Rationale for Locations The recommended locations are based on finding places where bicyclists and pedestrians can be expected to be counted, either now or after improvements have been made. The purpose of the counts is to understand peak bicycle and pedestrian activity on a typical day; while it may be useful to conduct a few counts where pedestrians and cyclists are not expected, it is preferable to understand existing use. STEP 5: COMPLETE THE BACKGROUND SHEET

This sheet will provide valuable information on the setting and conditions in which the counts take place. Researchers will be able to cross‐tabulate things such as usage with land use, density, weather, income, and the survey results. If conducting annual surveys, background data from prior counts should be updated if necessary. Use the ‘Background Data Sheet’, available in “National Documentation Project: Forms” to record characteristics of the count locations. A detailed description of each of the background items is provided in the document “National Documentation Project: Forms.” STEP 6: OBTAIN COUNTERS

Each location should require one counter, unless you have selected an extremely busy downtown intersection. You will want to identify and secure a counter for each location plus one backup counter for every 5 locations. Counters can be agency employees, temporary employees, students, volunteers, or a professional data collection firm. You may need to secure insurance coverage for counters, or have them sign a waiver indemnifying your organization. STEP 7: TRAIN COUNTERS

Counters will need to be trained how to complete forms and interpret field conditions. Trainings can be conducted prior to count times, with a follow‐up briefing in the field prior to the actual count times. Counters need to be instructed how to respond to questions from the public on their activities. They should also be instructed on how to fill out the count form, how to count people (specifically, every time a person passes by) and what not to count. 8

K-10

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

2.3 The Day of the Count STEP 8: COUNTER EQUIPMENT

All counters should be provided high visibility jerseys, along with name tags identifying the agency/organization they are working for. They should be provided business cards of the lead contact. They should also be provided clip boards and pens, and have a functioning watch. Emergency contact information should be provided for counters. Counts in hot, cold or inclement weather, counters should be provided folding chairs, water, umbrellas (as needed). In very busy areas, a manual clicker may help counters take more accurate counts. STEP 9: COUNT FORMS

Distribute count forms to counters. Count forms can be reproduced from the document “National Documentation Project: Forms” available on the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation project website: www.bikepeddocumentation.org. STEP 10: TRANSPORTING AND MANAGING COUNTERS

Counters will need to arrive at the count locations at least 15 minutes ahead of schedule. The count manager should visit each count location to ensure that counters are on schedule. If the count locations are numerous or dispersed, designated supervisors may be needed to visit locations. Counters working in excess of 2 hours will need to be relieved for restroom breaks at least every 2 hours, and 30 minutes for lunch periods. STEP 11: QUALITY CONTROL

The Count Manager and any location supervisors should conduct a random review of counters during the count period to ensure they are on‐duty and tabulating information correctly. Count results that either varies significantly from one time period to the next or that are unusually consistent may need to be explained sufficiently to the Count Manager’s satisfaction, or discarded. STEP 12: COLLECTING FORMS

All forms should be collected by the Count Manager at the conclusion of the count period. The Count Manager should double‐check to ensure that the count forms have been completed accurately.

September 2010

K-11

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

2.4 Submitting Count Data STEP 13: SUBMITTING DATA

Completed count forms should be reviewed for accuracy and legibility. Any illegible forms should be copied neatly to a fresh count form. After forms are completed they can be submitted along with each location’s Background Data Sheet, to data@bikepeddocumentation.org. Participants should keep copies of their forms. Completed counts can also be entered on the Data Sheet available at www.bikepeddocumentation.org and then submitted to data@bikepeddocumentation.org. Intersection crossing counts should be entered as two locations. See the count forms for tally instructions.

K-12

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

3. SURVEYS 3.1 Survey Methodology Types of Surveys

There are numerous ways to conduct surveys or questionnaires, including phone interviews, insertion questionnaires into utility bills and paychecks, newsletters, web sites, and in field interviews. The proposed system for this survey is random interviews in the field. This approach will yield the best cross section of a community and higher quality information than any other approach. Phone interviews and other approaches will have a significant bias in the sampling group, since entire groups may be under represented. Additionally, in person interviews will provide details on the person being interviewed that other approaches will not allow. Surveys are more difficult to administer and more likely to have biased results than counts. In part this is due to the fact that surveyors interact with the person being surveyed and can subconsciously influence the outcome. With counts, observers do not generally interact with the people being counted, and thus have less of a chance to subconsciously influence the outcome. With surveys, the surveyor’s choice of who to ask, the surveyor’s wording of the questions, and language barriers between the surveyor and the survey taker can bias results. The instructions below serve as a basic guideline for conducting bicycle and pedestrian surveys. Surveys or questionnaires should be administered during the same general time period (within 3 weeks) as the counts. Step‐by‐step instructions for performing the surveys are presented below.

3.2 Pre-Survey Preparation STEP 1: IDENTIFY SURVEY MANAGER

An agency or organization interested in participating in this process will designate a lead person who will serve as the primary contact and manager of the survey effort. Because this effort will require time and other resources, prior approval should be obtained prior to embarking on this effort. It is estimated that the Survey Manager will need approximately 8 initial hours of management and an additional 1 hour of management time for every 2 hours of survey time being conducted. STEP 2: DOWNLOAD MATERIALS

Survey forms and the Background Data Sheet are available from the National Bicycle and Pedestrian website at: www.bikepeddocumentation.org. The Survey Manager should check the website to ensure that s/he has the latest versions of the Survey Instructions and Forms. Materials can be reproduced freely. The documents provided are: 11

September 2010

K-13

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions



Survey Instructions (This document) Included in “National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms”:  Standardized Survey Forms  Survey Tabulation Forms  Background Data Sheet  Background Data Sheet Code and Instructions STEP 3: SELECT GENERAL SURVEY LOCATIONS

There are two types of surveys: Pedestrian and Bicycle. There are no minimum or maximum number of survey locations that participants need to conduct, but if possible conduct the surveys in the same location as the counts. The following considerations and suggested criteria are provided to help in the selection of general survey locations:  Pedestrian and bicycle activity areas or corridors  Representative locations in urban, suburban, and rural locations  Key corridors that can be used to gauge the impacts of future improvements  Locations where surveys have been conducted historically  Locations where bicycle and pedestrian collision numbers are high  Locations where there are on‐going surveys being conducted  Gaps and pinch points for bicyclists and pedestrians STEP 4: SELECT SPECIFIC SURVEY LOCATIONS

Once general locations have been selected, the Survey Manager will need to inspect the sites to determine exactly where surveyors can be positioned. Guidelines for this inspection trip include: Path Survey

1. For multi‐use paths, locations near the major access points are best. On-Street Bikeway Survey

1. For on‐street bikeways, locations at signalized intersections or bicycle parking areas are best. 2. Alternatively, bicyclists could be interviewed at their end points, such as work, shopping, or other areas. Sidewalk Surveys

1. For traditional downtown areas, a location near the center of the downtown is best. 2. For shopping malls, a location near the main entrance and transit stop is best. 3. For employment areas, either on the main access roadway or near an off‐street multiuse path is best. 4. For residential areas, locations near higher density developments or near parks and schools are the best. 12

K-14

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

For all locations:

Surveyors will need to be in a safe, visible location and on public property. You may be able to get permission to conduct surveys on private property such as a mall or major employer. Locations should provide shade and seating for surveyors.

Rationale for Locations The recommended locations are based on finding places where bicyclists and pedestrians can be expected to congregate, either now or after improvements have been made. There is little point in conducting surveys in locations where pedestrians and bicyclists are almost non‐existent. STEP 5: COMPLETE THE BACKGROUND SHEET

This sheet will provide valuable information on the setting and conditions in which the surveys take place. Researchers will be able to cross‐tabulate things such as usage with land use, density, weather, income, setting, trip purpose, and the survey results. If you have already done this for the counts, simply add the information under Surveys. If conducting annual surveys, background data from prior counts should be updated if necessary. Use the ‘Background Data Sheet’, available in “National Documentation Project: Forms” to record characteristics of the survey locations. A detailed description of each of the background items is provided in the document “National Documentation Project: Forms.” STEP 6: OBTAIN SURVEYORS

Each location should require two surveyors, unless you have selected an extremely busy location in which case, more surveyors will be needed. You will want to identify and secure two surveyors for each location plus one backup counter for every 5 locations. Surveyors can be agency employees, temporary help, students, volunteers, or a professional data collection firm. You may need to secure insurance coverage for surveyors, or have them sign a waiver indemnifying your organization. STEP 7: TRAIN SURVEY TAKERS

Surveyors will need to be trained carefully, since the general public is reluctant to be stopped and questioned. The surveys are designed to be completed in less than five minutes. The surveyor should be warned not to be aggressive and respect people’s wishes not to be bothered. The ideal surveyor is a person who can speak clearly, is somewhat outgoing, and presents him or herself well. It is best if surveyors live or work in the neighborhood in which the surveys are being conducted. Surveyors need to be able to ask questions and write responses at the same time. Bilingual speakers may be needed in some locations. Surveyors should ask the following question as people approach:

September 2010

K-15

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

“Hello, do you have time to answer a few questions about walking and biking?” If yes: “My name is __________ and I’m conducting this survey for _________________. The information will be used to better understand why people walk and bike where they do. The survey will take about 5 minutes. “You don’t have to answer all the questions, and you can stop taking the survey at any time. I won’t ask for any personal information. Would you like to take the survey?

In an area where residents primarily speak another language besides English, survey takers should ask the above question in the appropriate language, and survey forms should be translated into the appropriate language. To reduce bias inherent in surveying, the Survey Manager should create a methodology for randomly sampling passing pedestrians and cyclists. This could be to ask every single pedestrian and cyclist, or in areas with a lot of traffic, this could be to ask every third or fifth passing pedestrian or cyclist. The important part is to keep it consistent. If a person asks to take the survey, you should let them, but their data should not be counted as it can potentially bias the results. In all cases, surveyors should keep track of the number of people they asked to take the survey so that a refusal rate can be calculated. To ensure accuracy of the data, surveyors should fill out the form for the survey taker. Surveyors should be given answers to a list of anticipated questions and trained to refer all other questions to the Survey Manager. Surveyors should have copies of the Survey Manager’s business cards on hand.

3.3 Day of the Survey STEP 8: SURVEY TAKER EQUIPMENT

Survey takers will need to have a clear identification badge and color jersey. A simple sign measuring 2 feet by 2 feet may be placed at the survey location that reads: SURVEY ON PUBLIC USE IN PROGRESS: [AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION NAME]. Survey takers will need to have a method of recording the number of people they asked to calculate the refusal rate. This could be a clipboard and tick marks or a hand held clicker. STEP 9: SURVEY FORMS

Distribute survey forms to counters. Reproduce survey forms from the appendix materials.

K-16

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions

STEP 10: TRANSPORTING AND MANAGING SURVEY TAKERS

Survey takers will need to be driven to the survey locations and arrive at least 15 minutes ahead of schedule. Survey takers working in excess of 2 hours will need to be relieved for restroom breaks at least every 2 hours, and 30 minutes for lunch periods. STEP 11: QUALITY CONTROL

The Survey Manager should conduct a random review of survey takers during the survey period to ensure they are on‐duty and tabulating information correctly. Survey results that either varies significantly from one time period to the next, or that are unusually consistent, may need to be explained sufficiently to the Survey Manager’s satisfaction, or discarded.

3.4 Post-Survey Data Tabulation and Submission STEP 12: COLLECTING FORMS

All forms should be collected by the Survey Manager at the conclusion of the survey period. The Survey Manager should double‐check to ensure that the survey forms have been completed accurately. STEP 13: TABULATING DATA

Once the survey forms are collected, they need to be tabulated. A Survey Tabulation Form and detailed instructions are available at www.bikepeddocumentation.org STEP 14: SUBMITTING DATA

Please submit the completed Survey Tabulation Forms and Background Data Sheet for each location to data@bikepeddocumentation.org.

September 2010

K-17

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project FORMS

K-18

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

Table of Contents

COUNT AND SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS.................................................................................. 1 STANDARD SCREENLINE COUNT FORM .............................................................................. 3 STANDARD BICYCLE INTERSECTION COUNT FORM ............................................................ 5 STANDARD BICYCLE INTERSECTION COUNT TALLY SHEET ................................................. 7 STANDARD PEDESTRIAN SURVEY........................................................................................ 8 STANDARD BICYCLE SURVEY ............................................................................................... 9 ENCUESTA PEATONAL ....................................................................................................... 10 ENCUESTA DE CICLISTA ..................................................................................................... 11 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET .............................................................................................. 12 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SURVEY TABULATION ....................................................................... 16 EXAMPLE PEDESTRIAN SURVEY TABULATION FORM ....................................................... 17 EXAMPLE EBICYCLE SURVEY TABULATION FORM ............................................................ 18

September 2010

K-19

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

COUNT AND SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS Please review these instructions before going to the count or survey site. Items you should bring to the site include: 1. These instructions 2. Safety vest 3. Location map 4. Count/Survey forms 5. Clipboard 6. Pen or pencil and a spare 7. Watch or time to record 15 minute intervals 8. Count/survey manager business cards 9. Optional: hat, sunscreen, jacket, snacks, water Once you’ve reached the site please ensure your safety. Be aware of your surroundings. It is best to arrive at the site 15 minutes before the count period. Once you’ve arrived: 1. Find a safe location to conduct the survey or counts. 2. Record the background information at the top of the count/survey form. If conducting a survey, be sure to approach the bicyclists or pedestrians in a friendly engaging manner. A suggested script is: “Hello, do you have time to answer a few questions about walking and biking?” If yes: “My name is __________ and I’m conducting this survey for _________________. The information will be used to better understand why people walk and bike where they do. The survey will take about 5 minutes. “You don’t have to answer all the questions, and you can stop taking the survey at any time. I won’t ask for any personal information. Would you like to take the survey? After completing your count or survey period, return your forms to the count/survey manager as soon as possible.

K-20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

STANDARD SCREENLINE COUNT FORM Name: _________________________________________ Location: _____________________________________ Date: _______________________ Start Time: ______________________ End Time: ________________________ Weather: ______________________

Please fill in your name, count location, date, time period, and weather conditions (fair, rainy, very cold). Count all bicyclists and pedestrians crossing your screen line under the appropriate categories.  Count for two hours in 15 minute increments.  Count bicyclists who ride on the sidewalk.  Count the number of people on the bicycle, not the number of bicycles.  Pedestrians include people in wheelchairs or others using assistive devices, children in strollers, etc.  People using equipment such as skateboards or rollerblades should be included in the “Other” category. Bicycles Pedestrians Others Female Male Female Male 00‐:15 15‐:30

30‐:45 45‐1:00 1:00‐1:15

1:15‐1:30 1:30‐1:45 1:45‐2:00 Total

September 2010

K-21

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

STANDARD BICYCLE INTERSECTION COUNT FORM Name: _________________________________________ Location: _________________________________________ Date: ________________________ Start Time: ______________________ End Time: _________________________ Weather: ______________________ Please fill in your name, count location, date, time period, and weather conditions (fair, rainy, very cold). Count all bicyclists crossing through the intersection under the appropriate categories.  Count for two hours in 15‐minute increments.  Count bicyclists who ride on the sidewalk.  Count the number of people on the bicycle, not the number of bicycles.  Use one intersection graphic per 15‐minute interval.

00-:15

15-:30

30-:45

45-1:00

K-22

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

1:00-1:15

1:15-1:30

1:30-1:45

1:45-2:00

Notes:

September 2010

K-23

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

STANDARD BICYCLE INTERSECTION COUNT TALLY SHEET Time Period 00‐:15

Leaving Leg A A1 A2 A3

Bicycle Counts Leaving Leg B Leaving Leg C B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3

Leaving Leg D D1 D2 D3

15‐:30

30‐:45 45‐1:00 1:00‐ 1:15 1:15‐ 1:30 1:30‐ 1:45 1:45‐ 2:00 Total Total Leg:

Street Name A to C: Street Name B to D:

Location 1 (Total Leg A + Total Leg C) = Location 2 (Total Leg B + Total Leg D) =

K-24

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

STANDARD PEDESTRIAN SURVEY Location: ________________________ Date: _____________ Time: ________ Surveyor: ________________________ Weather: ______________________________

(sunny, cloudy, rainy, windy, hot, and/or cold)

“Excuse me, but may I ask you a few questions? I’m with [name of agency] and we want to learn more about why people walk where they do. This will take less than two minutes and the information will be kept confidential.” 1.

What is your home zip code? Home zip code: _______________

What best describes the purpose of this trip?

 Exercising (a)

 Work commute (b)

 Recreation (d)

 Shopping/doing errands (e)

 School (c)  Personal business (medical, visiting friends, etc.) (f)

In the past month, about how often have you walked here?

 First time (a)  0 – 5 times (b) Please check the seasons in which you walk.

 All Year (a)

 Fall (c)

What is the total length of this trip (start to finish)? (complete one or more of the following)

 6 – 10 times (c)

 Summer (b)

 11 – 20 times (d)

 Daily (e)

 Winter (d)

 Spring (e)

1. Distance: _______ miles

and / or

2. Time: _______ minutes

and

Destination (zip code) __________

3. Origin (zip code) __________ and / or

Or location description other than zip code:*

________________________________

* Address, intersection, landmark, etc.

Will any part of this current trip be taken on public transit?  Yes (a)

 No (b)

If you were not walking for this trip, how would you be traveling?  Car (a)

* Address, intersection, landmark, etc.

 Carpool (b)

 Transit (c)

 Bicycle (d)

 I would not make this trip (e)

Why are you using this route as opposed to walking somewhere else? (please check all that apply)  Accessible/close (a)

 Direct (b)

 Lower traffic volumes (c)

 Heard about it through friends, media, etc.(d)

 Scenic qualities (e)

 Level (f)

 Personal safety (g)

 Connection to transit (h)

What would you like to see improved along this route (mark with an ‘X’) and community in general (mark with an ‘O’)? (please check all that apply)  Wider sidewalks (a)

 Better surface (b)

 More shade trees (e)

 Benches (f)

 Better street crossings (c)

 Access to shops, etc. (g)

 More sidewalks (h) 10. What ethnic group do you belong to? (please check all that apply) (optional)  Hispanic/Latino (a)  African American (b)  Anglo/Caucasian (c)

 Asian (d)

September 2010

K-25

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

STANDARD BICYCLE SURVEY Location: ________________________ Date: _____________ Time: ________ Surveyor: ________________________ Weather: ______________________________

(sunny, cloudy, rainy, windy, hot, and/or cold)

“Excuse me, but may I ask you a few questions? I’m with [name of NTPP agency] and we want to learn more about why people bike where they do. This will take less than two minutes and the information will be kept confidential.” 1.

What is your home zip code? Home zip code: _______________

What best describes the purpose of this trip?

 Exercising (a)

 Work commute (b)

 Recreation (d)

 Shopping/doing errands (e)

 School (c)  Personal business (medical, visiting friends, etc.) (f)

In the past month, about how often have you ridden a bicycle here?

Please check the seasons in which you bicycle.

 First time (a)

 All Year (a) 5.

 0 – 5 times (b)

 Summer (b)

 6 – 10 times (c)

 11 – 20 times (d)

 Daily (e)

 Winter (d)

 Spring (e)

 Fall (c)

What is the total length of this trip (start to finish)? (complete one or more of the following)

1. Distance: _______ miles (a)

and / or

2. Time: _______ minutes (b)

and

Destination (zip code) __________ (d)

3. Origin (zip code) __________ (c) and / or

Or location description other than zip code:*

________________________________

* Address, intersection, landmark, etc.

Will any part of this current trip be taken on public transit?  Yes (a)

 No (b)

If you were not biking for this trip, how would you be traveling?

Why are you using this route as opposed to riding somewhere else? (please check all that apply)

 Car (a)

 Carpool (b)

 Transit (c)

 Walking (d)

 Accessible/close (a)

 Direct (b)

 Lower traffic volumes (c)

 Level (e)

 Bike lanes (f)

 Wider lanes (g)

 Connection to transit (i)

 Heard about it through friends, media, etc. (j)

 I would not make this trip (e)  Scenic qualities (d)

 Separation from traffic (h)

What would you like to see improved along this route (mark with an ‘X’) and community in general (mark with an ‘O’)? (please check all that apply)

 Less traffic (d)

 Bike lanes (a)

 Better surface (b)

 Shoulders (c)

 Signs/stencils (e)

 Better maintenance (f)

 Signal detection (g)  Better crossings (h)

10. What ethnic group do you belong to? (please check all that apply) (optional)  Hispanic/Latino (a)

 African American (b)

 Anglo/Caucasian (c)

 Asian (d)

K-26

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

ENCUESTA PEATONAL Location: ________________________ Date: _____________ Time: ________ Surveyor: ________________________ Weather: ______________________________

(sunny, cloudy, rainy, windy, hot, and/or cold)

"¿Perdone, pero le puedo preguntar algunas preguntas? Trabajo para [name of agency] y queremos aprender más acerca de por qué personas caminan donde ellos hacen. Esta tomará menos de dos minutos y la información será mantenida confidencial". 1.

¿Cual es el código postal de su domicilio?

Código postal _______________ 2.

¿Qué describe mejor el propósito de este viaje?  Para ir/regresar a la Escuela (c)

 Para propósito ejercicio (a)

 Para ir/regresar del trabajo (b)

 Para propósito recreativo (d)

 Para ir de compras o mandatos (e)  Negocios personales (médicos, visitando amigos, etc.)(f)

¿En el último mes, cuantas veces ha caminado aquí?  0 – 5 veces (b)

 Primera vez (a) 4.

Por favor indique todas las estaciones en que usted camina.

 Todo el año (a)

 Verano (b)

 6 – 10 veces (c)

 11 – 20 veces (d)

 Otoño (c)

 Invierno (d)

 Diario (e)

 Primavera (e)

¿Cuál es la distancia aproximada de este viaje (de principio a fin)? (complete uno o más de los siguientes)

y / o

1. Distancia : _______ millas

2. Tiempo: _______ minutos

Y / o

3. Origen (código postal) __________

Destinación (código postal) __________

O descripción de ubicación de otra manera que código postal:*

________________________________

* Dirección, intersección, punto de referencia, etc.

¿Será tomada cualquier parte de este viaje sobre el tránsito público?

 Sí (a)

 No (b)

¿Si no caminara para este viaje, cómo se viajaría?

 Automóvil (a)

 Carpool (b)

 Tránsito Público (c)

 Bicicleta (d)

 No me llevaría por este viaje (e)

¿Por qué utiliza esta ruta en lugar de caminar en algún otro lugar? (indique todas los que aplican)

 Accesibilidad/proximidad (a)

 Directo (b)

 Menos volumen de tráfico (c)

 Lo oí por un amigo, los medios, etc., los medios, etc. (d)

 Calidad escénica (e)

 Plano (f)

 Conexión al tránsito público (h)

 La seguridad (g)

¿ Qué le gustaría ver mejorado a lo largo de esta ruta (indique con un ‘X’) y de la comunidad en general (indique con un ‘O’)? (indique todas las que aplican)

 Banquetas más amplias (a)

 Mas árboles de sombreados (d)

 Mejor superficie (b)  Bancos (e)

 Mejores cruces peatonal (c)

 Acceso a tiendas, etc. (f)

 Más banquetas (g) 10.

¿A qué grupo étnico pertenece usted? (indique todas las que aplican) (opcional)

 Hispano/Latino (a)

 Afro‐Americano (b)

 Anglo/Caucásico (Blanco/No‐Hispano) (c)  Asiático (d)

September 2010

K-27

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

ENCUESTA DE CICLISTA Location: ________________________ Date: _____________ Time: ________ Surveyor: ________________________ Weather: ______________________________

(sunny, cloudy, rainy, windy, hot, and/or cold)

"¿Perdone, pero le puedo preguntar algunas preguntas? Trabajo para [name of agency] y queremos aprender más acerca de por qué personas pasean en bicicleta donde ellos hacen. Esta tomará menos de dos minutos y la información será mantenida confidencial". 1.

¿Cual es el código postal de su domicilio? Código postal _______________

¿Qué describe mejor el propósito de este viaje?  Para propósito ejercicio (a)

 Para ir/regresar del trabajo (b)

 Para ir/regresar a la Escuela (c)

 Para propósito recreativo (d)

 Para ir de compras o mandatos (e)

 Negocios personales (médicos, visitando amigos, etc.) (f)

¿En el último mes, cuantas veces ha paseado la bicicleta aquí?  Primera vez (a)  0 – 5 veces (b)  6 – 10 veces (c) Por favor indique todas las estaciones en que usted usa la bicicleta.

 11 – 20 veces (d)

 Diario (e)

 Todo el año (a)

 Invierno (d)

 Primavera (e)

 Verano (b)

 Otoño (c)

¿Cuál es la distancia aproximada de este viaje (de principio a fin)? (complete uno o más de los siguientes)

y / o

1. Distancia : _______ millas

2. Tiempo: _______ minutos

Y / o

3. Origen (código postal) __________

Destinación (código postal) __________

O descripción de ubicación de otra manera que código postal:*

________________________________

* Dirección, intersección, punto de referencia, etc.

¿Será tomada cualquier parte de este viaje sobre el tránsito público?  Sí (a)

¿Si no usara la bicicleta para este viaje, cómo se viajaría?  Automóvil (a)

 No (b)

 Carpool (b)

¿Por qué utiliza esta ruta en lugar de pasear por algún otro lugar? (indique todas los que aplican)  Directo (b)

 Menos volumen de tráfico (c)

 Calidad escénica (d)

 Plano (e)

 Ciclovías (f)

 Vías más amplias (g)

 Separación del tráfico (h)

 Accesibilidad/proximidad (a)

 Conexión al tránsito público (i) 9.

 Tránsito Público (c)  Caminar (d)  No me llevaría por este viaje (e)

 Lo oí por un amigo, los medios, etc. (j)

¿ Qué le gustaría ver mejorado a lo largo de esta ruta (indique con un ‘X’) y de la comunidad en general (indique con un ‘O’)? (indique todas las que aplican)  Ciclovías (a)

 Mejor superficie (b)

 Acotamiento (c)

 Menos trafico (d)

 Símbolos/plantillas (e)

 Mejor mantenimiento (f)

 Detectores en los semáforos para ciclistas (g)

 Mejores áreas de cruce ciclista (h)

10. ¿A qué grupo étnico pertenece usted? (indique todas las que aplican) (opcional)  Hispano/Latino (a)  Afro‐Americano (b)

 Anglo/Caucásico (Blanco/No‐Hispano) (c)  Asiático (d)

K-28

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

BACKGROUND DATA SHEET The Background Data Sheet is included in the Data Tabulation Form Excel Spreadsheet. The Spreadsheet is downloadable from the NBPD website (www.bikepeddocumentation.org). Each count and survey location will be identified by a Location Number that in turn is associated with a Background Data Sheet. If possible, include a numbered digital photo with each count and survey location. The Background Data Sheet is intended to allow researchers to test the impact of various background materials against count and survey results. Please fill out the data to the best of your ability. Most of this data is available through published sources such as the U.S. Census (demographics, journey to work), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (National Household Travel Survey), or by regional agencies. The Bicycle Friendly Community website (www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org) website also provides direct links to most of the relevant U.S. Census and other data sources. You may leave these blank if you do not know the answers, or if the information is not available. The following key will help you fill in the required fields in the excel spreadsheet: General Area Background: General area is described as the jurisdictions where the counts or surveys are being conducted, which could range from a community to a region  Name of Jurisdiction: region, city, town, county, or community  If County or Region, number of local agencies included in count or survey area  Source of demographic data  Year of data  Population of survey or count area  Density (people per square mile)  Bicycle mode share: Journey to Work  Pedestrian mode share: Journey to Work  Average age  Average income  Number of annual visitors to area (if not published, enter best guess in round numbers) Count and Survey Location Description: To be completed for each count and survey location. Type of facility: 1 = paved multi use path at least 8 feet wide 2 = unpaved trail 3 = bike lane with standard signing and striping 4 = signed bike route 5 = street or road with marked shoulders (min. 2 feet wide) 6 = street or road with no shoulders or less than 2 feet wide 7 = sidewalk (at least 4 feet wide) 8 = unimproved (dirt, gravel) shoulder

September 2010

K-29

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

Type of setting: 1 = urban 2 = suburban 3 = rural Scenic Quality: 1 = high scenic qualities (views, shaded, quiet, historical) 2 = neutral or better scenic qualities 3 = poor scenic qualities Surrounding land uses (within 1 to 2 miles): 1 = residential 2 = rural/agricultural/open space 3 = retail 4 = office 5 = manufacturing/warehouse 6= mixed use Schools, parks, visitor destinations adjacent or close to the facility: 1 = none 2 = 1‐2 3 = 3‐5 4 = 6 and over Quality of connecting facilities (paths, bike lanes, routes): 1 = no connections, poor access 2 = limited connections (one end only) 3 = good system connections (both ends) 4 = excellent system connections (both ends and intermediate) Length of Facility: 1 = less than 1 mile 2 = 1‐2 miles 3 = 2‐5 miles 4 = 5‐10 miles 5 = over 10 miles 6 = part of sidewalk network Access: 1 = poor direct access from adjacent neighborhoods 2 = adequate access 3 = excellent access, including trailheads 4 = part of sidewalk system

K-30

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

Quality of overall network: 1 = poor community system of bikeways or walkways 2 = adequate community system (intermittent) 3 = good community system (continuous, good condition) Traffic volumes (ADT) of adjacent road: 1 = under 2,500 ADT 2 = 2,500 – 7,500 ADT 3 = 7,500 – 15,000 ADT 4 = over 15,000 ADT Traffic speeds (posted) of adjacent roads: 1 = 25mph 2 = 26‐35 mph 3 = 36‐45 mph 4 = 46‐55mph 5 = 56mph or over Crossings and Intersections (average number per linear feet): 1 = every 400 feet or less 2 = every 400‐1,000 feet 3 = every 1,000‐5,000 feet 4 = 5,000‐10,000 feet 5 = none Crossing and Intersection Traffic: 1 = all minor streets (less than 2,500 ADTs) 2 = minor to moderate traffic (2,501 – 7,500 ADTs) 3 = minor to high traffic (7,501 – 15,000 ADTs) 4 = minor to very high traffic (over 15,001 ADTs) Crossing and Intersection Protection: 1 = inadequate (no crosswalks, stop signs, or signals) 2 = minimal: crosswalks only 3 = adequate: crosswalks, stop signs, and signals as needed Condition: 1 = poor condition (rough surface, vandalism, debris, etc.) 2 = good condition (smooth surface, good maintenance) Topography: 1 = level 2 = moderate grades 3 = steep topography

September 2010

K-31

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

Count or Survey Data To be completed for each count or survey Date: date of count or survey Time period: 1 = weekday, 7‐9am 2 = weekend, 12‐2pm 3 = weekday, 5‐7pm 4 = weekday, 7am – 7pm 5 = weekend, 7am – 7pm Weather: 1 = extreme (heavy rain, snow, freezing, very humid, over 95 degrees) 2 = poor (32‐50 degrees, 90‐95 degrees, light rain, wind) 3 = acceptable (50‐90 degrees, no rain) Bicycles: number of bicycles counted or interviewed during period Pedestrians: number of pedestrians counted or interviewed during period Other: number of equestrians, skaters, bladders, skateboards, and others counted or interviewed

K-32

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SURVEY TABULATION Use the survey tabulation form to compile the answers to surveys on one sheet. There is a tabulation form for each type of survey. For each survey, mark an “x” in the box that corresponds with the answer to each question. For questions with more than one answer, mark an “x” next to each answer given. For example, for the pedestrian survey question one: “What best describes why you are out here today?” survey respondent one answered “a: Exercising” and survey respondent two answered “b: Going to Work.” For sidewalk survey question two: “In the past month, about how often have you walked or rode here?” respondent one answered “a. First time” and respondent two answered “d. 10‐ 20 times.” To tabulate these results, you would record the respondent one’s answers in column 1 and respondent two’s answers in column 2. Answers would be recorded next to the appropriate question number. An example of this hypothetical situation is below:

Answer Number

Example Survey Tabulation Form (please enter data on NBPD data spreadsheet) 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e

1 X X

2 X X

Survey Numbers 7 8 9

September 2010

K-33

APPENDIX K

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

EXAMPLE PEDESTRIAN SURVEY TABULATION FORM (please enter data on NBPD data spreadsheet)

Answer Number

Name: _________________________ Location: ______________________# ______ Date: ____________ Time Period: ____________ Sheet # _____________ Survey Numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 4a 4b 4c 4d 5a 5b 5c 5d 6a 6b 6c 6d 6e 6f

K-34

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

EXAMPLE BICYCLE SURVEY TABULATION FORM (please enter data on NBPD data spreadsheet)

Answer Number

September 2010

K-35

Appendix L SIDEWALK ORDIANCE

APPENDIX L

L-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

September 2010

PLAN

L-3

Appendix M STANDARD 200L - RURAL-HILLSIDE STREET

Appendix N DESIGN GUIDANCE, ACCOMMODATING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL Bicycle and Pedestrian Program - Environment - Memorandum: Revised Process for Suspension and De... Page 1 of 1

Environment

FHWA > HEP > Environment > Human > Bicycle & Pedestrian

FHWA Policy Memorandums - Administration Service Business Unit U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Subject: ACTION: Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidance Language From: Kenneth R. Wykle Federal Highway Administrator

Memorandum Date: February 28, 2000 In reply, refer to: HEPH-30

To: Division Administrators Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers This memorandum transmits the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Design Guidance Language as called for by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and requests a progress report on action items listed in my memorandum of February 24, 1999. Section 1202 (b) of TEA-21 calls upon the Secretary, "in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and other interested organizations to develop guidance on the various approaches to accommodating bicycles and pedestrian travel." This process was carried out and the resulting guidance document is attached for your use. As stated in my February 24, 1999, memorandum, TEA-21 calls for the mainstreaming of bicycling and pedestrian projects into the planning, design, and operation of our Nation's transportation system. That memorandum also transmitted the Program Guidance which explained how bicycle and pedestrian improvements can be routinely included in federally-funded transportation projects and programs. The attached Design Guidance Language furthers that process. This new Design Guidance Language, entitled "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel; A Recommended Approach - A US DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure," states that bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless "exceptional circumstances" exist. These "exceptional circumstances" are clearly spelled out in the document. Each division office should pass along the Design Guidance Language to the State DOTs for their use, and work with them in its implementation. I would like to commend you for efforts you have made to date and will make in the future to ensure that bicyclists and pedestrians (including those with disabilities) receive fair consideration in decisions which affect our Nation's transportation system. That system must be balanced, accessible, and safe for all Americans. The FHWA must take a leadership role in working with States, localities, and our other partners to make it happen. Attachment To provide Feedback, Suggestions, or Comments for this page contact Gabe Rousseau at gabe.rousseau@dot.gov.

FHWA Home | HEP Home | Feedback United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bpdgl.htm

11/27/2009

APPENDIX N

Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidance

Environment

Page 1 of 9

FHWA > HEP > Environment > Human > Bicycle & Pedestrian

Design Guidance Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach A US DOT Policy Statement Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure On this page: Purpose Introduction The Challenge: Balancing Competing Interests Policy Statement Policy Approach Applying Engineering Judgement to Roadway Design Actions Conclusion Further Information and Resources { General Design Resources { Pedestrian Facility Design Resources { Bicycle Facility Design Resources { Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Resources { Traffic Calming Design Resources { ADA Related Design Resources { Trail Design Resources

Purpose Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach is a policy statement adopted by the United States Department of Transportation. USDOT hopes that public agencies, professional associations, advocacy groups, and others adopt this approach as a way of committing themselves to integrating bicycling and walking into the transportation mainstream. The Design Guidance incorporates three key principles: a. a policy statement that bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist; b. an approach to achieving this policy that has already worked in State and local agencies; and c. a series of action items that a public agency, professional association, or advocacy group can take to achieve the overriding goal of improving conditions for bicycling and walking. The Policy Statement was drafted by the U.S. Department of Transportation in response to Section 1202 (b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) with the input and assistance of public agencies, professional associations and advocacy groups.

Introduction Bicycling and walking issues have grown in significance throughout the 1990s. As the new millennium dawns public agencies and public interest groups alike are striving to define the most appropriate way in which to accommodate the two modes within the overall

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

N-2

11/27/2009

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidance

PLAN

Page 2 of 9

transportation system so that those who walk or ride bicycles can safely, conveniently, and comfortably access every destination within a community. Public support and advocacy for improved conditions for bicycling and walking has created a widespread acceptance that more should be done to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of the nonmotorized traveler. Public opinion surveys throughout the 1990s have demonstrated strong support for increased planning, funding and implementation of shared use paths, sidewalks and on-street facilities. At the same time, public agencies have become considerably better equipped to respond to this demand. Research and practical experience in designing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians has generated numerous national, State and local design manuals and resources. An increasing number of professional planners and engineers are familiar with this material and are applying this knowledge in towns and cities across the country. The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, building on an earlier law requiring curb ramps in new, altered, and existing sidewalks, added impetus to improving conditions for sidewalk users. People with disabilities rely on the pedestrian and transit infrastructure, and the links between them, for access and mobility. Congress and many State legislatures have made it considerably easier in recent years to fund nonmotorized projects and programs (for example, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century), and a number of laws and regulations now mandate certain planning activities and design standards to guarantee the inclusion of bicyclists and pedestrians. Despite these many advances, injury and fatality numbers for bicyclists and pedestrians remain stubbornly high, levels of bicycling and walking remain frustratingly low, and most communities continue to grow in ways that make travel by means other than the private automobile quite challenging. Failure to provide an accessible pedestrian network for people with disabilities often requires the provision of costly paratransit service. Ongoing investment in the Nation's transportation infrastructure is still more likely to overlook rather than integrate bicyclists and pedestrians. In response to demands from user groups that every transportation project include a bicycle and pedestrian element, Congress asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to study various approaches to accommodating the two modes. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) instructs the Secretary to work with professional groups such as AASHTO, ITE, and other interested parties to recommend policies and standards that might achieve the overall goal of fully integrating bicyclists and pedestrians into the transportation system. TEA-21 also says that, "Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation projects, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted." (Section 1202) In August 1998, FHWA convened a Task Force comprising representatives from FHWA, AASHTO, ITE, bicycle and pedestrian user groups, State and local agencies, the U.S. Access Board and representatives of disability organizations to seek advice on how to proceed with developing this guidance. The Task Force reviewed existing and proposed information on the planning and technical design of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians and concluded that these made creation of another design manual unnecessary. For example, AASHTO published a bicycle design manual in 1999 and is working on a pedestrian facility manual. The area where information and guidance was most lacking was in determining when to include designated or special facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians in transportation projects. There can also be uncertainty about the type of facility to provide, and the design elements that are required to ensure accessibility. For example, when a new suburban arterial road is planned and designed, what facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians should be provided? The task force felt that once the decision to provide a particular facility was made, the specific information on designing that facility is generally available. However, the decision on whether to provide sidewalks on neither, one or both sides of the road, or a shoulder, striped bike lane, wide outside lane or separate trail for bicyclists is usually made with little guidance or help. After a second meeting with the Task Force in January 1999, FHWA

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

September 2010

SEC. 1202. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS. (b) Design Guidance.(1) In general.-In implementing section 217(g) of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary, in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and other interested organizations, shall develop guidance on the various approaches to accommodating bicycles and pedestrian travel. (2) Issues to be addressed. -The guidance shall address issues such as the level and nature of the demand, volume, and speed of motor vehicle traffic, safety, terrain, cost, and sight distance. (3) Recommendations. -The guidance shall include recommendations on amending and updating the policies of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials relating to highway and street design standards to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.

11/27/2009

N-3

APPENDIX N

Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidance

Page 3 of 9

agreed to develop a Policy Statement on Accommodating (4) Time period for development. -The guidance shall be Bicyclists and Pedestrians in Transportation Projects to guide developed within 18 months after the date of enactment of State and local agencies in answering these questions. Task Force this Act. members recommended against trying to create specific warrants for different facilities (warrants leave little room for engineering judgement and have often been used to avoid providing facilities for bicycling and walking). Instead, the purpose of the Policy Statement is to provide a recommended approach to the accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians that can be adopted by State and local agencies (as well as professional societies and associations, advocacy groups, and Federal agencies) as a commitment to developing a transportation infrastructure that is safe, convenient, accessible, and attractive to motorized AND nonmotorized users alike. The Policy Statement has four elements: a. an acknowledgment of the issues associated with balancing the competing interests of motorized and nonmotorized users; b. a recommended policy approach to accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians (including people with disabilities) that can be adopted by an agency or organizations as a statement of policy to be implemented or a target to be reached in the future; c. a list of recommended actions that can be taken to implement the solutions and approaches described above; and d. further information and resources on the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians.

The Challenge: Balancing Competing Interests For most of the second half of the 20th Century, the transportation, traffic engineering and highway professions in the United States were synonymous. They shared a singular purpose: building a transportation system that promoted the safety, convenience and comfort of motor vehicles. The post-war boom in car and home ownership, the growth of suburban America, the challenge of completing the Interstate System, and the continued availability of cheap gasoline all fueled the development of a transportation infrastructure focused almost exclusively on the private motor car and commercial truck. Initially, there were few constraints on the traffic engineer and highway designer. Starting at the centerline, highways were developed according to the number of motor vehicle travel lanes that were needed well into the future, as well as providing space for breakdowns. Beyond that, facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, environmental mitigation, accessibility, community preservation, and aesthetics were at best an afterthought, often simply overlooked, and, at worst, rejected as unnecessary, costly, and regressive. Many States passed laws preventing the use of State gas tax funds on anything other than motor vehicle lanes and facilities. The resulting highway environment discourages bicycling and walking and has made the two modes more dangerous. Further, the ability of pedestrians with disabilities to travel independently and safely has been compromised, especially for those with vision impairments. Over time, the task of designing and building highways has become more complex and challenging. Traffic engineers now have to integrate accessibility, utilities, landscaping, community preservation, wetland mitigation, historic preservation, and a host of other concerns into their plans and designs - and yet they often have less space and resources within which to operate and traffic volumes continue to grow. The additional "burden" of having to find space for pedestrians and bicyclists was rejected as impossible in many communities because of space and funding constraints and a perceived lack of demand. There was also anxiety about encouraging an activity that many felt to be dangerous and fraught with liability issues. Designers continued to design from the centerline out and often simply ran out of space before bike lanes, paved shoulders, sidewalks and other "amenities" could be included. By contrast, bicycle and pedestrian user groups argue the roadway designer should design highways from the right-of-way limits in, rather than the centerline out. They advocate beginning the design of a highway with the sidewalk and/or trail, including a buffer before the paved shoulder or bike lane, and then allocating the remaining space for motor vehicles. Through this approach, walking and bicycling are positively encouraged, made safer, and included as a critical element in every transportation project rather than as an afterthought in a handful of unconnected and arbitrary locations within a community. Retrofitting the built environment often provides even more challenges than building new roads and communities: space is at a premium and there is a perception that providing better conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians will necessarily take away space or convenience from motor vehicles. During the 1990s, Congress spearheaded a movement towards a transportation system that favors people and goods over motor vehicles with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (1991) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998). The call for more walkable, liveable, and accessible communities, has seen bicycling and walking emerge as an

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

N-4

11/27/2009

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidance

PLAN

Page 4 of 9

"indicator species" for the health and well-being of a community. People want to live and work in places where they can safely and conveniently walk and/or bicycle and not always have to deal with worsening traffic congestion, road rage and the fight for a parking space. Vice President Gore launched a Livability Initiative in 1999 with the ironic statement that "a gallon of gas can be used up just driving to get a gallon of milk." The challenge for transportation planners, highway engineers and bicycle and pedestrian user groups, therefore, is to balance their competing interest in a limited amount of right-of-way, and to develop a transportation infrastructure that provides access for all, a real choice of modes, and safety in equal measure for each mode of travel. This task is made more challenging by the widely divergent character of our nation's highways and byways. Traffic speeds and volumes, topography, land use, the mix of road users, and many other factors mean that a four-lane highway in rural North Carolina cannot be designed in the same way as a four-lane highway in New York City, a dirt road in Utah or an Interstate highway in Southern California. In addition, many different agencies are responsible for the development, management, and operation of the transportation system. In a recent memorandum transmitting Program Guidance on bicycle and pedestrian issues to FHWA Division Offices, the Federal Highway Administrator wrote that "We expect every transportation agency to make accommodation for bicycling and walking a routine part of their planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance activities." The Program Guidance itself makes a number of clear statements of intent: Congress clearly intends for bicyclists and pedestrians to have safe, convenient access to the transportation system and sees every transportation improvement as an opportunity to enhance the safety and convenience of the two modes. "Due consideration" of bicycle and pedestrian needs should include, at a minimum, a presumption that bicyclists and pedestrians will be accommodated in the design of new and improved transportation facilities. To varying extents, bicyclists and pedestrians will be present on all highways and transportation facilities where they are permitted and it is clearly the intent of TEA-21 that all new and improved transportation facilities be planned, designed and constructed with this fact in mind. The decision not to accommodate [bicyclists and pedestrians] should be the exception rather than the rule. There must be exceptional circumstances for denying bicycle and pedestrian access either by prohibition or by designing highways that are incompatible with safe, convenient walking and bicycling. The Program Guidance defers a suggested definition of what constitutes "exceptional circumstances" until this Policy Statement is completed. However, it does offer interim guidance that includes controlled access highways and projects where the cost of accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians is high in relation to the overall project costs and likely level of use by nonmotorized travelers. Providing access for people with disabilities is a civil rights mandate that is not subject to limitation by project costs, levels of use, or "exceptional circumstances". While the Americans with Disabillities Act doesn't require pedestrian facilities in the absence of a pedestrian route, it does require that pedestrian facilities, when newly constructed or altered, be accessible.

Policy Statement 1. Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in new construction and reconstruction projects in all urbanized areas unless one or more of three conditions are met: bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the roadway. In this instance, a greater effort may be necessary to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians elsewhere within the right of way or within the same transportation corridor. the cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. Excessively disproportionate is defined as exceeding twenty percent of the cost of the larger transportation project. where sparsity of population or other factors indicate an absence of need. For example, the Portland Pedestrian Guide requires "all construction of new public streets" to include sidewalk improvements on both sides, unless the street is a cul-desac with four or fewer dwellings or the street has severe topographic or natural resource constraints. 2. In rural areas, paved shoulders should be included in all new construction and reconstruction projects on roadways used by more than 1,000 vehicles per day, as in States such as Wisconsin. Paved shoulders have safety and operational advantages for all road

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

September 2010

11/27/2009

N-5

APPENDIX N

Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidance

Page 5 of 9

users in addition to providing a place for bicyclists and pedestrians to operate. Rumble strips are not recommended where shoulders are used by bicyclists unless there is a minimum clear path of four feet in which a bicycle may safely operate. 3. Sidewalks, shared use paths, street crossings (including over- and undercrossings), pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, transit stops and facilities, and all connecting pathways shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so that all pedestrians, including people with disabilities, can travel safely and independently. 4. The design and development of the transportation infrastructure shall improve conditions for bicycling and walking through the following additional steps: planning projects for the long-term. Transportation facilities are long-term investments that remain in place for many years. The design and construction of new facilities that meet the criteria in item 1) above should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling and walking facilities and not preclude the provision of future improvements. For example, a bridge that is likely to remain in place for 50 years, might be built with sufficient width for safe bicycle and pedestrian use in anticipation that facilities will be available at either end of the bridge even if that is not currently the case addressing the need for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross corridors as well as travel along them. Even where bicyclists and pedestrians may not commonly use a particular travel corridor that is being improved or constructed, they will likely need to be able to cross that corridor safely and conveniently. Therefore, the design of intersections and interchanges shall accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. getting exceptions approved at a senior level. Exceptions for the non-inclusion of bikeways and walkways shall be approved by a senior manager and be documented with supporting data that indicates the basis for the decision. designing facilities to the best currently available standards and guidelines. The design of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians should follow design guidelines and standards that are commonly used, such as the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, and the ITE Recommended Practice "Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities".

Policy Approach "Rewrite the Manuals" Approach Manuals that are commonly used by highway designers covering roadway geometrics, roadside safety, and bridges should incorporate design information that integrates safe and convenient facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians -- including people with disabilities - into all new highway construction and reconstruction projects. In addition to incorporating detailed design information - such as the installation of safe and accessible crossing facilities for pedestrians, or intersections that are safe and convenient for bicyclists - these manuals should also be amended to provide flexibility to the highway designer to develop facilities that are in keeping with transportation needs, accessibility, community values, and aesthetics. For example, the Portland Pedestrian Design Guide (June 1998) applies to every project that is designed and built in the city, but the Guide also notes that: "Site conditions and circumstances often make applying a specific solution difficult. The Pedestrian Design Guide should reduce the need for ad hoc decision by providing a published set of guidelines that are applicable to most situations. Throughout the guidelines, however, care has been taken to provide flexibility to the designer so she or he can tailor the standards to unique circumstances. Even when the specific guideline cannot be met, the designer should attempt to find the solution that best meets the pedestrian design principles described [on the previous page]" In the interim, these manuals may be supplemented by stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian facility manuals that provide detailed design information addressing on-street bicycle facilities, fully accessible sidewalks, crosswalks, and shared use paths, and other improvements. Examples: Florida DOT has integrated bicycle and pedestrian facility design information into its standard highway design manuals and New Jersey DOT is in the process of doing so. Many States and localities have developed their own bicycle and pedestrian facility design manuals, some of which are listed in the final section of this document.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

N-6

11/27/2009

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidance

PLAN

Page 6 of 9

Applying Engineering Judgement to Roadway Design In rewriting manuals and developing standards for the accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians, there is a temptation to adopt "typical sections" that are applied to roadways without regard to travel speeds, lane widths, vehicle mix, adjacent land uses, traffic volumes and other critical factors. This approach can lead to inadequate provision on major roads (e.g. a four foot bike lane or four foot sidewalk on a six lane high-speed urban arterial) and the over-design of local and neighborhood streets (e.g. striping bike lanes on low volume residential roads) , and leaves little room for engineering judgement. After adopting the policy that bicyclists and pedestrians (including people with disabilities) will be fully integrated into the transportation system, State and local governments should encourage engineering judgement in the application of the range of available treatments. For example: Collector and arterial streets shall typically have a minimum of a four foot wide striped bicycle lane, however wider lanes are often necessary in locations with parking, curb and gutter, heavier and/or faster traffic. Collector and arterial streets shall typically have a minimum of a five foot sidewalk on both sides of the street, however wider sidewalks and landscaped buffers are necessary in locations with higher pedestrian or traffic volumes, and/or higher vehicle speeds. At intersections, sidewalks may need to be wider to accommodate accessible curb ramps. Rural arterials shall typically have a minimum of a four foot paved shoulder, however wider shoulders (or marked bike lanes) and accessible sidewalks and crosswalks are necessary within rural communities and where traffic volumes and speeds increase. This approach also allows the highway engineer to achieve the performance goal of providing safe, convenient, and comfortable travel for bicyclists and pedestrians by other means. For example, if it would be inappropriate to add width to an existing roadway to stripe a bike lane or widen a sidewalk, traffic calming measures can be employed to reduce motor vehicle speeds to levels more compatible with bicycling and walking.

Actions The United States Department of Transportation encourages States, local governments, professional associations, other government agencies and community organizations to adopt this Policy Statement as an indication of their commitment to accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians as an integral element of the transportation system. By so doing, the organization or agency should explicitly adopt one, all, or a combination of the various approaches described above AND should be committed to taking some or all of the actions listed below as appropriate for their situation. a. Define the exceptional circumstances in which facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians will NOT be required in all transportation projects. b. Adopt new manuals, or amend existing manuals, covering the geometric design of streets, the development of roadside safety facilities, and design of bridges and their approaches so that they comprehensively address the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as an integral element of the design of all new and reconstructed roadways. c. Adopt stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian facility design manuals as an interim step towards the adoption of new typical sections or manuals covering the design of streets and highways. d. Initiate an intensive re-tooling and re-education of transportation planners and engineers to make them conversant with the new information required to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Training should be made available for, if not required of, agency traffic engineers and consultants who perform work in this field.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

September 2010

11/27/2009

N-7

APPENDIX N

Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidance

Page 7 of 9

Conclusion There is no question that conditions for bicycling and walking need to be improved in every community in the United States; it is no longer acceptable that 6,000 bicyclists and pedestrians are killed in traffic every year, that people with disabilities cannot travel without encountering barriers, and that two desirable and efficient modes of travel have been made difficult and uncomfortable. Every transportation agency has the responsibility and the opportunity to make a difference to the bicycle-friendliness and walkability of our communities. The design information to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians is available, as is the funding. The United States Department of Transportation is committed to doing all it can to improve conditions for bicycling and walking and to make them safer ways to travel.

Further Information and Resources General Design Resources A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994 (The Green Book). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC, 20090-6716, Phone: (888) 227-4860. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1994. Transportation Research Board, Box 289, Washington, DC 20055, Phone: (202) 334-3214. Next Edition: FHWA Research Program project has identified changes to HCM related to bicycle and pedestrian design. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Superintendent of Documents. P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Next Edition: 2000, will incorporate changes to Part IX that will soon be subject of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Flexibility in Highway Design, 1997. FHWA. HEP 30, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590.

Pedestrian Facility Design Resources Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities, A Recommended Practice, 1998. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 525 School Street, S.W, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20024-2729, Phone: (202) 554-8050. Pedestrian Compatible Roadways-Planning and Design Guidelines, 1995. Bicycle / Pedestrian Transportation Master Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advocate, New Jersey Department of Transportation, 1035 Parkway Avenue, Trenton, NJ 08625, Phone: (609) 5304578. Improving Pedestrian Access to Transit: An Advocacy Handbook, 1998. Federal Transit Administration / WalkBoston. NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Planning and Implementing Pedestrian Facilities in Suburban and Developing Rural Areas, Report No. 294A, Transportation Research Board, Box 289, Washington, DC 20055, Phone: (202) 334-3214. Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook, 1997. Washington State Department of Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, P.O. Box 47393, Olympia, WA 98504. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide, 1998. Portland Pedestrian Program, 1120 SW Fifth Ave, Room 802; Portland, OR 97210. (503) 823-7004. * Implementing Pedestrian Improvements at the Local Level, 1999. FHWA, HSR 20, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA . * AASHTO Guide to the Development of Pedestrian Facilities, 2000. AASHTO. (currently under discussion)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

N-8

11/27/2009

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidance

PLAN

Page 8 of 9

Bicycle Facility Design Resources Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999., American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC, 20090-6716, Phone: (888) 227-4860. Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, (1998), FHWA, HSR 20, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA . Bicycle Facility Design Standards, 1998. City of Philadelphia Streets Department, 1401 JFK Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicyclists, 1993. FHWA, R&T Report Center, 9701 Philadelphia Ct, Unit Q; Lanham, MD 20706. (301) 577-1421 (fax only) North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, 1994. North Carolina DOT, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611. (919) 733-2804. Bicycle Facility Planning, 1995. Pinsof & Musser. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report # 459. American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave, Suite 1600; Chicago, IL 60603. Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual, 1994. Florida DOT, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Office, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399. Evaluation of Shared-use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles, 1996. Florida DOT, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Office, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Resources Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 1995. Oregon Department of Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, Room 210, Transportation Building, Salem, OR 97310, Phone: (503) 986-3555 Improving Conditions for Bicyclists and Pedestrians, A Best Practices Report, 1998. FHWA, HEP 10, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590.

Traffic Calming Design Resources Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. 1999. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 525 School Street, SW, Suite 410; Washington, DC 20024. Florida Department of Transportation's Roundabout Guide. Florida Department of Transportation, 605 Suwannee St., MS-82, Tallahassee, FL 23299-0450. National Bicycling and Walking Study. Case Study # 19, Traffic Calming and Auto-Restricted Zones and other Traffic Management Techniques-Their Effects on Bicycling and Pedestrians, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Traffic Calming (1995), American Planning Association, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603 Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design Guidelines, 1997. Proposed Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 525 School Street, SW, Suite 410; Washington, DC 20024. Making Streets that Work, City of Seattle, 600 Fourth Ave., 12th Floor, Seattle, WA 98104-1873, Phone: (206) 684-4000, Fax: (206) 684-5360. Traffic Control Manual for In-Street Work, 1994. Seattle Engineering Department, City of Seattle, 600 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-6967, Phone: (206) 684-5108.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

September 2010

11/27/2009

N-9

APPENDIX N

Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidance

Page 9 of 9

ADA-related Design Resources Accessible Pedestrian Signals, 1998. U.S. Access Board 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000; Washington, DC 20004. (800) 872-2253. Accessible Rights of Way: A Design Manual,1999. U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000; Washington, DC 20004. (800) 872-2253. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part One. 1999. FHWA, HEPH-30, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590. ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities, 1998 (ADAAG). U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000; Washington, DC 20004. (800) 872-2253. Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, 1984 (UFAS), available from the U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000; Washington, DC 20004. (800) 872-2253 Universal Access to Outdoor Recreation: A Design Guide, 1993. PLAE, Inc, MIG Communications, 1802 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710. (510) 845-0953. Recommended Street Design Guidelines for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired. American Council of the Blind, 1155 15th Street NW, Suite 720; Washington, DC 20005. (202) 467-5081.

Trail Design Resources Trails for the 21st Century, 1993. Rails to Trails Conservancy, 1100 17th Street NW, 10th Floor, Washington DC 20036. (202) 3319696. Greenways: A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development, 1993. The Conservation Fund. Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 300; Washington, DC 20009. Trail Intersection Design Guidelines, 1996. Florida Department of Transportation, 605 Suwannee St., MS-82, Tallahassee, FL 23299-0450. * Indicates publication not yet available

To provide Feedback, Suggestions, or Comments for this page contact Gabe Rousseau at gabe.rousseau@dot.gov. This page last modified on March 26, 2008

FHWA Home | HEP Home | Feedback United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

N-10

11/27/2009

September 2010

Appendix O CALTRANS DD-64-R1

APPENDIX O

O-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

September 2010

PLAN

O-3

APPENDIX O

O-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

September 2010

PLAN

O-5

Appendix P ACR 211

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 211 RESOLUTION CHAPTER 120 Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 211—Relative to integrating walking and biking into transportation infrastructure. [Filed with Secretary of State August 20, 2002.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

ACR 211, Nation. Integrating walking and biking into transportation infrastructure. This measure would encourage all cities and counties to implement the policies of the California Department of Transportation Deputy Directive 64 and the United States Department of Transportation’s design guidance document on integrating bicycling and walking when building their transportation infrastructure. WHEREAS, Bicycling and walking contribute to cleaner air; and WHEREAS, Bicycling and walking provide affordable and healthy transportation options for many of the 10 million Californians who do not possess a driver’s license; and WHEREAS, The State Department of Health Services has declared that more than 40,000 Californians annually die from causes related to physical inactivity; and WHEREAS, The United States Centers for Disease Control has determined that changes in the community environment to promote physical activity may offer the most practical approach to prevent obesity or reduce its comorbidities. Automobile trips that can be safely replaced by walking or bicycling offer the first target for increased physical activity in communities; and WHEREAS, Bicycling and walking contribute to safeguarding our coast from offshore oil drilling and enhance California’s energy independence and national security by reducing our reliance upon imported oil; and WHEREAS, Designing roads for safe and efficient travel by bicyclists and pedestrians saves lives; and WHEREAS, Bicyclists and pedestrians pay sales taxes which provide for the majority of local transportation spending; and WHEREAS, Local demand for funding from the Bicycle Transportation Account, the Safe Routes to School, and the Transportation Enhancement Activity Programs far exceeds available moneys; and 97

APPENDIX P

Res. Ch. 120

—2—

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

O 97

P-2

September 2010

Appendix Q CALIFORNIA COMPLETE STREETS ACT

Assembly Bill No. 1358 CHAPTER 657 An act to amend Sections 65040.2 and 65302 of the Government Code, relating to planning. [Approved by Governor September 30, 2008. Filed with Secretary of State September 30, 2008.]

legislative counsel’s digest

AB 1358, Leno. Planning: circulation element: transportation. (1) Existing law requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city with specified elements, including a circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. This bill would require, commencing January 1, 2011, that the legislative body of a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of the general plan, modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. By requiring new duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law establishes in the Office of the Governor the Office of Planning and Research with duties that include developing and adopting guidelines for the preparation of and content of mandatory elements required in city and county general plans. This bill would require the office, commencing January 1, 2009, and no later than January 1, 2014, upon the next revision of these guidelines, to prepare or amend guidelines for a legislative body to accommodate the safe and convenient travel of users of streets, roads, and highways in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan, and in doing so to consider how appropriate accommodation varies depending on its transportation and land use context. It would authorize the office, in developing these guidelines, to consult with leading transportation experts, including, but not limited to, bicycle transportation planners, pedestrian planners, public transportation planners, local air quality management districts, and disability and senior mobility planners.

APPENDIX Q

Ch. 657

—2—

(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the California Complete Streets Act of 2008. SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, enacted as Chapter 488 of the Statutes of 2006, sets targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California to slow the onset of human-induced climate change. (b) The State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission has determined that transportation represents 41 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in California. (c) According to the United States Department of Transportation’s 2001 National Household Travel Survey, 41 percent of trips in urban areas nationwide are two miles or less in length, and 66 percent of urban trips that are one mile or less are made by automobile. (d) Shifting the transportation mode share from single passenger cars to public transit, bicycling, and walking must be a significant part of shortand long-term planning goals if the state is to achieve the reduction in the number of vehicle miles traveled and in greenhouse gas emissions required by current law. (e) Walking and bicycling provide the additional benefits of improving public health and reducing treatment costs for conditions associated with reduced physical activity including obesity, heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes. Medical costs associated with physical inactivity were estimated by the State Department of Health Care Services to be $28 billion in 2005. (f) The California Blueprint for Bicycling and Walking, prepared pursuant to the Supplemental Report of the Budget Act of 2001, sets the goal of a 50 percent increase in bicycling and walking trips in California by 2010, and states that to achieve this goal, bicycling and walking must be considered in land use and community planning, and in all phases of transportation planning and project design. (g) In order to fulfill the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, make the most efficient use of urban land and transportation infrastructure, and improve public health by encouraging physical activity, transportation planners must find innovative ways to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to shift from short trips in the automobile to biking, walking, and use of public transit. (h) It is the intent of the Legislature to require in the development of the circulation element of a local government’s general plan that the circulation

Q-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

—3—

PLAN

Ch. 657

of users of streets, roads, and highways be accommodated in a manner suitable for the respective setting in rural, suburban, and urban contexts, and that users of streets, roads, and highways include bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, public transportation, and seniors. SEC. 3. Section 65040.2 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65040.2. (a) In connection with its responsibilities under subdivision (l) of Section 65040, the office shall develop and adopt guidelines for the preparation of and the content of the mandatory elements required in city and county general plans by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3. For purposes of this section, the guidelines prepared pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code shall be the guidelines for the housing element required by Section 65302. In the event that additional elements are hereafter required in city and county general plans by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3, the office shall adopt guidelines for those elements within six months of the effective date of the legislation requiring those additional elements. (b) The office may request from each state department and agency, as it deems appropriate, and the department or agency shall provide, technical assistance in readopting, amending, or repealing the guidelines. (c) The guidelines shall be advisory to each city and county in order to provide assistance in preparing and maintaining their respective general plans. (d) The guidelines shall contain the guidelines for addressing environmental justice matters developed pursuant to Section 65040.12. (e) The guidelines shall contain advice including recommendations for best practices to allow for collaborative land use planning of adjacent civilian and military lands and facilities. The guidelines shall encourage enhanced land use compatibility between civilian lands and any adjacent or nearby military facilities through the examination of potential impacts upon one another. (f) The guidelines shall contain advice for addressing the effects of civilian development on military readiness activities carried out on all of the following: (1) Military installations. (2) Military operating areas. (3) Military training areas. (4) Military training routes. (5) Military airspace. (6) Other territory adjacent to those installations and areas. (g) By March 1, 2005, the guidelines shall contain advice, developed in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, for consulting with California Native American tribes for all of the following: (1) The preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts to, places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code.

September 2010

Q-3

APPENDIX Q

Ch. 657

—4—

(2) Procedures for identifying through the Native American Heritage Commission the appropriate California Native American tribes. (3) Procedures for continuing to protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects. (4) Procedures to facilitate voluntary landowner participation to preserve and protect the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects. (h) Commencing January 1, 2009, but no later than January 1, 2014, upon the next revision of the guidelines pursuant to subdivision (i), the office shall prepare or amend guidelines for a legislative body to accommodate the safe and convenient travel of users of streets, roads, and highways in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65302. (1) In developing guidelines, the office shall consider how appropriate accommodation varies depending on its transportation and land use context, including urban, suburban, or rural environments. (2) The office may consult with leading transportation experts including, but not limited to, bicycle transportation planners, pedestrian planners, public transportation planners, local air quality management districts, and disability and senior mobility planners. (i) The office shall provide for regular review and revision of the guidelines established pursuant to this section. SEC. 4. Section 65302 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65302. The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements: (a) A land use element that designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The location and designation of the extent of the uses of the land for public and private uses shall consider the identification of land and natural resources pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d). The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The land use element shall identify and annually review those areas covered by the plan that are subject to flooding identified by flood plain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources. The land use element shall also do both of the following: (1) Designate in a land use category that provides for timber production those parcels of real property zoned for timberland production pursuant to the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982 (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 51100) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5). 91

Q-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

—5—

PLAN

Ch. 657

(2) Consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the general plan for land, or other territory adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes and airspace. (A) In determining the impact of new growth on military readiness activities, information provided by military facilities shall be considered. Cities and counties shall address military impacts based on information from the military and other sources. (B) The following definitions govern this paragraph: (i) “Military readiness activities” mean all of the following: (I) Training, support, and operations that prepare the men and women of the military for combat. (II) Operation, maintenance, and security of any military installation. (III) Testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation or suitability for combat use. (ii) “Military installation” means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (e) of Section 2687 of Title 10 of the United States Code. (b) (1) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. (2) (A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. (B) For purposes of this paragraph, “users of streets, roads, and highways” means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors. (c) A housing element as provided in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580). (d) (1) A conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. The conservation element shall consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations. That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any countywide water agency and with all district and city agencies, including flood management, water conservation, or groundwater agencies that have developed, served, controlled, managed, or conserved water of any type for any purpose in the county or city for which the plan is prepared. Coordination shall include 91

September 2010

Q-5

APPENDIX Q

Ch. 657

—6—

the discussion and evaluation of any water supply and demand information described in Section 65352.5, if that information has been submitted by the water agency to the city or county. (2) The conservation element may also cover all of the following: (A) The reclamation of land and waters. (B) Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters. (C) Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan. (D) Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores. (E) Protection of watersheds. (F) The location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel resources. (3) Upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, the conservation element shall identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management. (e) An open-space element as provided in Article 10.5 (commencing with Section 65560). (f) (1) A noise element that shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The noise element shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control and shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources: (A) Highways and freeways. (B) Primary arterials and major local streets. (C) Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems. (D) Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation. (E) Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards. (F) Other ground stationary noise sources, including, but not limited to, military installations, identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. (2) Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prepared on the basis of noise monitoring or following generally accepted noise modeling techniques for the various sources identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive. (3) The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. (4) The noise element shall include implementation measures and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any. The

Q-6

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

—7—

PLAN

Ch. 657

adopted noise element shall serve as a guideline for compliance with the state’s noise insulation standards. (g) (1) A safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction, and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 2690) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wildland and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards. (2) The safety element, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, shall also do the following: (A) Identify information regarding flood hazards, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) Flood hazard zones. As used in this subdivision, “flood hazard zone” means an area subject to flooding that is delineated as either a special hazard area or an area of moderate or minimal hazard on an official flood insurance rate map issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The identification of a flood hazard zone does not imply that areas outside the flood hazard zones or uses permitted within flood hazard zones will be free from flooding or flood damage. (ii) National Flood Insurance Program maps published by FEMA. (iii) Information about flood hazards that is available from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. (iv) Designated floodway maps that are available from the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. (v) Dam failure inundation maps prepared pursuant to Section 8589.5 that are available from the Office of Emergency Services. (vi) Awareness Floodplain Mapping Program maps and 200-year flood plain maps that are or may be available from, or accepted by, the Department of Water Resources. (vii) Maps of levee protection zones. (viii) Areas subject to inundation in the event of the failure of project or nonproject levees or floodwalls. (ix) Historical data on flooding, including locally prepared maps of areas that are subject to flooding, areas that are vulnerable to flooding after wildfires, and sites that have been repeatedly damaged by flooding. (x) Existing and planned development in flood hazard zones, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities. (xi) Local, state, and federal agencies with responsibility for flood protection, including special districts and local offices of emergency services. (B) Establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objectives based on the information identified pursuant to subparagraph (A), for the protection 91

September 2010

Q-7

APPENDIX Q

Ch. 657

—8—

of the community from the unreasonable risks of flooding, including, but not limited to: (i) Avoiding or minimizing the risks of flooding to new development. (ii) Evaluating whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones, and identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if new development is located in flood hazard zones. (iii) Maintaining the structural and operational integrity of essential public facilities during flooding. (iv) Locating, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood hazard zones, including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in flood hazard zones. (v) Establishing cooperative working relationships among public agencies with responsibility for flood protection. (C) Establish a set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives established pursuant to subparagraph (B). (3) After the initial revision of the safety element pursuant to paragraph (2), upon each revision of the housing element, the planning agency shall review and, if necessary, revise the safety element to identify new information that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element. (4) Cities and counties that have flood plain management ordinances that have been approved by FEMA that substantially comply with this section, or have substantially equivalent provisions to this subdivision in their general plans, may use that information in the safety element to comply with this subdivision, and shall summarize and incorporate by reference into the safety element the other general plan provisions or the flood plain ordinance, specifically showing how each requirement of this subdivision has been met. (5) Prior to the periodic review of its general plan and prior to preparing or revising its safety element, each city and county shall consult the California Geological Survey of the Department of Conservation, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, if the city or county is located within the boundaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, as set forth in Section 8501 of the Water Code, and the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of including information known by and available to the department, the office, and the board required by this subdivision. (6) To the extent that a county’s safety element is sufficiently detailed and contains appropriate policies and programs for adoption by a city, a city may adopt that portion of the county’s safety element that pertains to the city’s planning area in satisfaction of the requirement imposed by this subdivision. SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or 91

Q-8

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;9â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

PLAN

Ch. 657

school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

O 91

September 2010

Q-9

Appendix R MTC RESOLUTION No. 3765

APPENDIX R

R-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

September 2010

PLAN

R-3

APPENDIX R

R-4

September 2010

Appendix S APPENDIX D FROM THE 2001 BPMP

designated and improved bikeways that may provide all or part of such connections. The City maintains an adopted Bikeways Map showing designated routes and facilities by type/class. These are reflected in the Master Plan. In some cases new on-street connections are proposed to complete the system. On-Street Pedestrian Facilities. Where pedestrians must follow an on-street route there should be sidewalks to accommodate them, including curb ramps to accommodate wheelchairs. The broad scope of the Master Plan and the limited extent of available data about the on-street routes does not allow for a determination of whether on-street connections currently feature sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians, whether the sidewalk has curb ramps and slopes to accommodate wheelchairs, or whether the desirable/feasible bicycle facility is Class 2 bike lanes or a Class 3 signed route. These details will be resolved by subsequent site-specific studies and plans, the City’s current ADA studies, or by future street improvement projects. These potential improvements are not included in the detailed trail system tables or cost estimates.

Appendix T CCMP 3.3.4 TRAIL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION DESIGN STANDARD 3.3.4 Trail Traffic and Transportation Design

Multi-use trails have certain design standards, which vary depending on the agency that is constructing or managing them. Paved trails on the creek trail system should be designed to meet the standards for a Caltrans Class 1 Bikeway, which are defined in the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual Section 1003.1. Generally, converting existing Water Agency service roads to paved multi-use trails will result in trails that comply with these standards. The configuration of points where the creek and associated trail system cross a street or a rail line are important to resolve for safety and traffic flow purposes. Crossing types include surface crossings, undercrossings, and in certain instances, overcrossings. This section identifies general transportation design principles and standards for these crossings, and further specifies how they should configured for the creek trail system. Chapter 3. Plan Concepts Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Page 67 of 252 Trail Intersection Operations. Based on research conducted by the University of North Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, the following principles were developed for the operation of trail intersections.

Four-way stops are ineffective and can constitute a hazard. Motorists tend to stop, and bicyclists rarely do. This creates a false sense of security that can lead to a collision.

High Speed Roadways – Assignment of right-of-way is critical. For crossings on roadways with speeds of 40 mph and greater, right-of-way is always assigned to the motorist.

Medium Speed Roadways – Right-of-way can be assigned to trail users when their volumes exceed vehicular volumes and motorist speeds are at about 30 mph. Traffic calming devices should supplement the right-of-way assignment and be used to further slow the speed of motorists.

Low Speed Roadways – Right-of-way can be assigned to trail users when their volumes exceed vehicular volumes and motorist speeds are 20 mph or less. In this case supplemental traffic calming devices are not necessary.

However, it should be noted that the volume of trail users in the City of Santa Rosa is rarely higher than the conflicting vehicular volume. Therefore, right-of-way is generally assigned to the motorist rather than the trail users. The following are suggested techniques for enhancing crossing safety at trail/roadway intersections.

Provide adequate stopping sight distances for motorists and trail users.

Reduce conflict speeds by controlling the approach speed for either or both the trail user and the motorist.

Reduce conflicts at intersections by routing trail crossings through existing crosswalks, or placing crossings outside of the influence of intersections.

Even on 2-lane roads, medians can help by acting as a traffic calming feature and separating conflicts in time and space.

Trail crossings should be perpendicular. But, when needed, it is possible to skew the crossing to 75 degrees and still only lengthen the crossing distance by about 4 percent.

Properly placed overpasses on trails will be well used, especially if at-grade crossings

The following are suggested techniques for enhancing crossing safety at trail/roadway intersections.

A P P E N DProvide I X T adequate stopping sight distances for motorists and trail users.

Reduce conflict speeds by controlling the approach speed for either or both the trail user and the motorist.

Reduce conflicts at intersections by routing trail crossings through existing crosswalks, or placing crossings outside of the influence of intersections.

Even on 2-lane roads, medians can help by acting as a traffic calming feature and separating conflicts in time and space.

Trail crossings should be perpendicular. But, when needed, it is possible to skew the crossing to 75 degrees and still only lengthen the crossing distance by about 4 percent.

Properly placed overpasses on trails will be well used, especially if at-grade crossings are complex, require excessive waits, or pose high speed conflicts. Long approaches to overpasses may be needed to meet ADA requirements.

Signal cycles must be responsive to bicyclists, and should not require an excessive wait.

MUTCD 2003. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003, the national standard for designing, applying, and planning traffic control devices, includes guidelines for typical signs and markings for shared use paths as well as appropriate right-of-way and traffic control. Federal law requires all public agencies to conform to the MUTCD. MUTCD 2003 provides standards for use of a stop or yield sign and guidelines for assigning right-of-way. Surface Street Crossings. This is a case where trail users must cross a street to enter or continue on the trail system. Surface crossings also function as potential creek trail entry points, Page 68 of 252

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

typically with potential entries at the four corners of the street/creek crossing (upstream and downstream on the right bank and the left bank). There are approximately 200 roadway crossings in the citywide creek path system. Traffic volumes on the intersecting roadways range from low to moderate to high-volumes. Seven prototype crossing treatments have been developed to enhance crossing safety over the range of roadway types that intersect the pathway network. The crossing prototypes are listed in Table 3 and shown in Figures 10-16. Features for all proposed roadway crossings include warning and/or control signs both for vehicles and pathway users. The type, location, and other criteria are identified in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and are illustrated on Figures 10-16. At each crossing location, consideration must be given for adequate warning distance based on vehicle speeds and sight distance. On higher volume roadways, catching the attention of motorists desensitized to roadway signs may require additional high visibility devices such as flashing light systems, pavement legends, roadway striping, or changes in pavement texture. Signing for path users includes a standard “STOP” sign and pavement marking combined with bollards, and in some cases where adequate space is available, a curve in the path to slow bicyclists on their approach to the street crossing. Care must be taken not to place too many signs at crossings or they will result in sign clutter and will negate their impact. Directional signing may be useful for path users and motorists alike. For motorists, a sign reading “Santa Rosa Creek Pathway Xing” along with a path emblem or logo helps to both warn and promote use of the path itself. For path users, directional signs and street names at crossings help direct people to their destinations. Many of the existing and proposed pathway segments emerge near a controlled roadway intersection. In these cases, a determination was made regarding the need to route pathway users to the existing intersection, or to develop a new mid-block crossing. A distance of approximately 200 to 300 feet was used in this evaluation, as the maximum distance pedestrians would travel out of their way to use an existing crossing. This distance was T-2 September 2010 selected because it is generally outside of the influence of existing intersections and is a distance which may deter pedestrians from walking out of their directed path.

path users includes a standard “STOP” sign and pavement marking combined with bollards, and in some cases where adequate space is available, a curve in the path to slow bicyclists on their approach to the street crossing. Care must be taken not to place too many signs at crossings or S Aand N T AwillRnegate O S A Btheir I C Yimpact. CLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN they will result in sign clutter Directional signing may be useful for path users and motorists alike. For motorists, a sign reading “Santa Rosa Creek Pathway Xing” along with a path emblem or logo helps to both warn and promote use of the path itself. For path users, directional signs and street names at crossings help direct people to their destinations. Many of the existing and proposed pathway segments emerge near a controlled roadway intersection. In these cases, a determination was made regarding the need to route pathway users to the existing intersection, or to develop a new mid-block crossing. A distance of approximately 200 to 300 feet was used in this evaluation, as the maximum distance pedestrians would travel out of their way to use an existing crossing. This distance was selected because it is generally outside of the influence of existing intersections and is a distance which may deter pedestrians from walking out of their directed path. Where pathway users are expected to route to an existing intersection, a barrier and directional signing will be required to keep them from crossing at the unmarked location. At the existing intersection crosswalk, all path users will technically become pedestrians.

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

September 2010

Page 69 of 252

T-3

APPENDIX T

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

Table 3. Prototype Roadway Crossing Treatments Roadway Type

ADT

Treatment Features (Roadway)

Local 2-Lane, Slow Speeds

Treatment Type

≤ 5,000

Pedestrian Warning Signs

≤ 7,500

Advanced Warning Signs, Pedestrian Warning Signs, Pavement Stencils

III

Advanced Warning Signs, Pedestrian Warning Signs, Pavement Stencils, Crosswalk Striping

Advanced Warning Signs, Pedestrian Warning Signs, Pavement Stencils, Crosswalk Striping, Pedestrian Refuge, Optional Advanced Warning Devices

Advanced Warning Signs, Pedestrian Warning Signs, Pavement Stencils, Crosswalk Striping, Pedestrian Refuge

VII

Advanced Warning Signs, Pedestrian Warning Signs, Pavement Stencils, Crosswalk Striping, Pedestrian Refuge, Advanced Warning Devices

Collector 2-Lane, Slow Speeds Collector 2-Lane, Moderate Speeds

Arterial 2-Lane, Higher Speeds

Arterial 3-Lane, Higher Speeds

≤ 7,500

≥ 7,500

Arterial 4 or More Lane, Moderate Speeds

≥ 10,000

Arterial 4 or More Lanes, Higher Speeds

≥ 10,000

Note: Each roadway crossing presents a unique set of features. Existing conditions at each location were reviewed and an appropriate treatment was identified. In some cases, prototypes were adapted to meet the unique circumstances of a crossing location.

Page 70 of 252

T-4

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

Figure 10. Type I: Local Crossing Treatment 2-lane; â&#x2030;¤ 5,000 ADT; slow speeds

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

September 2010

T-5

APPENDIX T

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

Figure 11. Type II: Collector Crossing Treatment 2-lane; â&#x2030;¤ 7,500 ADT; slow speeds

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

T-6

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

Figure 12. Type III: Collector Crossing Treatment 2-lane; â&#x2030;¤ 7,500 ADT; moderate speeds

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

September 2010

T-7

APPENDIX T

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

Figure 13. Type IV: Collector/Arterial Crossing Treatment 2-lane; â&#x2030;¥ 7,500 ADT; higher speeds

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

T-8

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

Figure 14. Type V: Collector/Arterial Crossing Treatment 3-lane; â&#x2030;¥ 7,500 ADT; higher speeds

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

September 2010

T-9

APPENDIX T

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

Figure 15. Type VI: Regional Crossing Treatment 4 or more lanes; â&#x2030;¥ 10,000 ADT; moderate speeds

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

T-10

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

Figure 16. Type VII: Regional Crossing Treatment 4 or more lanes; â&#x2030;¥ 10,000 ADT; higher speeds

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

September 2010

T-11

APPENDIX T

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

Signs warning motorists of the presence of bicycles may be needed, as well as right turn on red prohibitions “when pedestrians and bicyclists present.” High-speed curve geometry and free right turns should be replaced with tighter radii to help slow vehicles, or enhanced with pavement texture or slightly raised speed tables. One of the key problems with using existing intersections is that it requires bicyclists to transition from a separated two-way facility to pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and crosswalks, normally reserved for pedestrians. Widening and striping the sidewalk (if possible) between the path and intersection may help to alleviate some of these concerns. Ultimately, users will cross at the trailhead unless there is a significant reason for them to divert to the closest crossing. Surface Rail Crossings. Creek trail crossings at a rail line should, if possible, be redirected to the nearest existing public street. Establishment of a new public crossing requires approval by the Public Utilities Commission. Under-Crossings. Ideally, in order to reduce potential conflicts between trail users and vehicles at points where the creek trail crosses existing streets, and if there is physical space, trails will pass under bridges. There are a variety of existing under-crossing types on the existing creek trail and service roads. Some of these are “dry season under-crossings”, where trail users can cross under the street below a bridge only when water levels are low. Under-crossings should be designed or modified to meet ADA standards, with slope gradients a maximum of 5%, or up to 8.33% if resting platforms are provided at the intervals specified in detailed access standards. All ramps should be paved, even if they are connecting unpaved trail segments. Railings should be provided where there are steep drop-offs (e.g. over 2 feet and over 1:1 side slope). Ideally under-crossings should feature good visibility of the trail from the adjacent road and nearby trail for security purposes, which is primarily a function of design of the vehicular bridge that creates the under-crossing. Trail Entries. Most of the trail system entry points occur where a public street crosses the creek and creek trail. If trails occur on both banks of the creek, entries could occur at the four corners of the street/creek crossing (upstream and downstream on the right bank and the left bank). Figure 17 illustrates various types of existing entry structures. The standard configuration of these entries from a traffic circulation standpoint is discussed earlier in this chapter. Other entry points occur where public streets dead end at or abut the creek. Still others are in public parks or school grounds. The specific current entry point conditions and changes proposed to accommodate public access are detailed in Appendix E. Most entries are in locations where there is currently a paved or unpaved gravel service road. Generally, providing new public access entails removing chain link gates or creating openings in chain link fences and placing removable locking bollards (posts) in the opening to prevent entry by unauthorized vehicles. In the case of mid-block entries, many creek reaches will require installation of a culvert to allow the entry to cross the drainage ditch that typically occupies the outside of the Modified or Modified Natural Creek corridor. Where there is a significant grade drop between the adjacent land or public road a ramp would be needed to accommodate trail users at an ADA compliant grade. The ramp might also need to accommodate emergency vehicles, or at least small maintenance and patrol vehicles. Alternatively, an adjacent or nearby entry point or ramp that has a steeper grade than the public access ramp could be provided.

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

T-12

Page 79 of 252

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

Figure 17. Entry Structures

Bollards

Chain link gate with pedestrian walkaround â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Austin Creek

Chain link gate, no access

Curb barrier

Open channel access

Sidewalk along creek

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

September 2010

T-13

APPENDIX T

Chapter 3. Plan Concepts

Figure 17. Entry Structures (contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d)

Stepover gate

Walkaround structure

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Adopted by City of Santa Rosa March 27, 2007

T-14

September 2010

Appendix U BPMP UNIT COST ASSUMPTIONS Construction costs for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are presented in Tables T.1 and T.2 below. Costs were developed by researching the latest unit costs experienced by the City of Santa Rosa and other local jurisdictions in Sonoma County and the North Bay, and were cross referenced by reviewing the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities1. In recent years, actual costs have risen significantly as the cost of construction materials has climbed. It is important to note that the costs below are intended to be planning level estimates. They are unit costs for construction and do not include design, contingency, construction management costs (which typically add 50% to the total cost); right-of-way acquisition or inflation factors. Furthermore, unit costs may vary considerably depending on the size of the job and the location. For example, the unit cost of striping only 1,000 linear feet can easily be two to three times that of a 15,000 foot project. The same ‘economy of scale’ can be applied to sign installation and signal modification projects. Pavement widening costs also vary considerably depending on the terrain and other variables, such as presence of utility poles, monuments, and drainage issues. The unit cost estimates provided in this table reflect 2008 dollars and have been applied to the priority projects identified in Chapter 5 of this Plan.

Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities, 2006

APPENDIX U

Table U.1 Construction Cost Assumptions for Bikeway Improvements Capital Project

Unit

Cost

Construct Multi-Use Pathway

Mile

$550,000

Rehabilitation

Mile

$125,000

Trail Entry Improvements (may include bollards, signs, minor paving, & concrete driveway apron)

Each

$2,000 - $6,000

At Grade Roadway Crossing (Type 1 – VII as defined in the Citywide Creek Master Plan)

Each

$10,000 - $90,000

Grade Separated Crossing (under/over crossing)

Each

Trail Bridge (Prefabricated steel bridge 10 – 12 feet wide by 100 feet long)

Each

$200,000

Install Signs, Striping, & Stencils

Mile

$30,000

Reconfigure Roadway Striping, add Bike Lanes

Mile

$75,000 - $90,000

Install Loop Detectors

Each Intersection

$2,500 - $5,000

Intersection Striping (bike lane pockets, combined turn lanes, advanced stop bar/ pocket)

Each Intersection

$2,000 - $6,000

Install Signing (Up to 10 signs per mile)

Mile

$2,500

Bicycle Boulevard (Signing and Stencils Only)

Mile

$4,500

Bicycle Boulevard (Traffic Calming Treatments)

Each

$2,000 - $60,000

Shoulder/Roadway Widening (One side, 6-foot width)

Mile

$325,000

Shared Roadway Lane Markings / Pavement Legends

Each

$175 - $300

Inverted “U” Rack (I rack parks 2 bikes)

Each

$250

Post and Ring Rack (1 rack parks 2 bikes)

Each

$200

Bicycle Locker (1 to 2 bikes per unit depending upon locker type)

Each

$1,500

Class I: Multi Use Trail

Class II: Bike Lanes

Class III: Bike Route

Bicycle Parking

Note: The above unit costs are for construction. These planning level estimates do not include contingencies, design, administrative, right-of-way acquisition costs, or inflation factors. ** Costs are highly variable depending upon conditions.

U-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Table U.2 Construction Cost Assumptions for Pedestrian Improvements Capital Project

Unit

Cost

Concrete Sidewalk

Square Foot

$10

Curb and Gutter

Linear Foot

$37

Pedestrian Ramp

Each

$4,000 - $7,000

Linear Foot

$4.50

In Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs

Each

$375

LED Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads

Each

$250 – retrofit $650 – new

Linear Foot

$50

Street Lights

Each

$2,000

Traffic Signal

Each

$250,000

Pedestrian Flasher (overhead)

Each

$50,000

In-Pavement Flashers (light system, activation bollards, signage, installation, and ADA upgrades to adjacent curb ramps—assumes two travel lanes only)

Each

$44,000 - $50,000

Radar Speed Feedback Sign

Each

$16,000

Traffic Calming Devices

Each

$2,000 - $60,000

Pedestrian Infrastructure

12” White Thermoplastic Striping

5-foot A/C Pedestrian Pathway

Note: The above unit costs are for construction. These planning level estimates do not include contingencies, design, administrative, right-of-way acquisition costs, or inflation factors.

September 2010

U-3

APPENDIX U

PROGRAM COSTS Programmatic improvements are an important complement to the infrastructure improvements proposed in this Plan.

Table U.3: Cost Assumptions for Programmatic Improvements Program

Unit

Cost

4 times per year

$20,000

System Maps

25,000

$15,000 - $20,000

Assumes design and printing costs for up to 25,000 user maps

Website Development / Maintenance

Per year

$2,500

Will be accommodated within existing staff positions

Bicycle Loaner Program for City Staff

10 bikes

$4,500

Assumes 10 bikes at $450 a piece. Bikes to be distributed among various City departments.

Special Enforcement Activities

Bike to Work Month Events

1 week in May

Varies***

Notes Assumes 4 officers running a 2-day operation four times per year

Develop local promotional events conducted over a week including elected officials ride, bicycle safety demonstration, etc.

*** Costs are highly variable depending upon scale and length of event.

U-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

MAINTENANCE Bicycle and pedestrian system maintenance needs include cleaning, asphalt resurfacing, striping maintenance, sign replacement, pavement repairs, drainage work, refuse removal, graffiti removal, and landscape maintenance. While some maintenance needs such as re-striping or re-surfacing can be placed on a schedule of every one to five years, other needs such as fixing potholes, addressing signal detection sensitivity, and trimming overgrown vegetation require immediate attention. Table T.4 below provides a recommended timetable for regular maintenance activities associated with the Santa Rosa bicycle and pedestrian networks. Table T.5 provides estimated maintenance cost per mile by bicycle facility type. However, because costs are highly variable depending upon frequency and degree of maintenance needed and location, they should be adjusted every two to three years as needed. In addition, maintenance is an operating cost, usually covered only by the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s overall general funds, which are subject to fluctuation.

September 2010

U-5

APPENDIX U

Table U.4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Systems Maintenance – RECOMMENDED FREQUENCY Maintenance Item Pavement / pathway sweeping Signal detection sensitivity

Schedule / Frequency Monthly – annually as needed Bi-annually – or as needed on a request basis

Trash disposal

Weekly – as needed

Graffiti removal

Weekly - monthly as needed

Potholes

As needed – on a request basis

Sign replacement/repair

1 to 3 years – as needed

Pavement marking replacement

1 to 3 years – as needed

Pavement sealing

Every 5 years – as needed

Lighting (replacement/repair)

Annually – or as needed on a request basis

Clean drainage system

Annually – or as needed on a request basis

Maintain furniture, bus stops, railings

Annually – or as needed on a request basis

Fountain/restroom cleaning/repair Bridge/ Underpass inspection Maintain emergency telephones, CCTV Replenish shoulder material

Weekly - monthly as needed Annually 1 year Annually

Landscape Maintenance Tree, Shrub, & grass trimming/fertilization

5 months- 1 year

Maintain irrigation lines/replace sprinklers

1 year

Irrigate/water plants Shoulder and grass mowing Vegetation maintenance Weed control

U-6

Weekly - monthly as needed Seasonally as needed Annually – or as needed on a request basis Monthly - as needed

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

MAINTENANCE COSTS

Table U.5: Maintenance Cost Assumptions Facility Classification

Estimated Annual Cost Per Mile

Notes

Class I

$10,000

Assumes maintenance associated with Class I trails, trail amenities, and landscaping

Class II

$2,000

Assumes regular/periodic lane sweeping, sign and stripe/stencil maintenance, signal detection, and minor surface repairs

Class III

$1,000

Assumes sign, sweeping and minor surface repairs

Sidewalks

$2,500

Assumes landscape/vegetation maintenance and surface repairs

September 2010

U-7

Appendix V WILSON STREET CORRIDOR EXISTING CONDITIONS

WILSON STREET Existing Street Sections

8’ Parking

13’6” Travel Lane

8’ Metered Parking

8’ Sidewalk

33’ 6” (Curb-to-Curb)

Section Key Map

50’ (ROW)

Third Street - Looking North

o wo

d Re

tre nS

t ee

Str

lso

vis

9th

12’ Travel Lane

igh

8th

7th

6th 5th

Section Location 4th

Historic Building Area d

January 23, 2009

APPENDIX V

EXISTING CONDITIONS

WILSON STREET Existing Street Sections

Depot Park

8’ Sidewalk

13’ Travel Lane

8’ Metered Parking

8’ Sidewalk

33’ (Curb-to-Curb)

Section Key Map

50’ (ROW)

Fourth Street - Looking North

tre

Str

lso

vis

9th

12’ Travel Lane

igh

8th

7th

6th 5th

Section Location 4th

January 23, 2009

Historic Building Area d

V-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS

WILSON STREET Existing Street Sections

8’ Sidewalk

13’ Travel Lane

8’ 2-hour Limit Parking

8’ Sidewalk

33’ (Curb-to-Curb)

Section Key Map

50’ (ROW)

Fifth Street - Looking North

tre

Str

lso

vis

9th

12’ Travel Lane

igh

8th

7th

6th 5th

Section Location 4th

January 23, 2009

Historic Building Area d

September 2010

V-3

APPENDIX V

EXISTING CONDITIONS

WILSON STREET Existing Street Sections

8’ Sidewalk

13’ Travel Lane

8’ 2-hour Limit Parking

8’ Sidewalk

33’6” (Curb-to-Curb)

Section Key Map

50’ (ROW)

Sixth Street - Looking North

tre

Str

lso

vis

9th

12’6” Travel Lane

igh

8th

7th

6th 5th

Section Location 4th

January 23, 2009

Historic Building Area d

V-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS

WILSON STREET Existing Street Sections

8’ Sidewalk

13’ Travel Lane

8’ 2-hour Limit Parking

8’ Sidewalk

33’ 6” (Curb-to-Curb)

Section Key Map

50’ (ROW)

Seventh Street - Looking North

tre

Str

lso

vis

9th

12’ 6” Travel Lane

igh

8th

7th

6th 5th

Section Location 4th

January 23, 2009

Historic Building Area d

September 2010

V-5

APPENDIX V

EXISTING CONDITIONS

WILSON STREET Existing Street Sections

8’ Sidewalk

8’6” 8’ Free Parking Travel Lane

8’ Free Parking

8’ Sidewalk

33’6” (Curb-to-Curb)

Section Key Map

50’ (ROW)

tre

Str

lso

vis

9th

9’ Travel Lane

igh

8th

7th

6th 5th

Section Location 4th

January 23, 2009

Historic Building Area d

V-6

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

PROPOSED STREET TREATMENT

WILSON STREET Proposed Street Sections

8’ Sidewalk

14’ Travel Lane

8’ Metered Parking

8’ Sidewalk

34’ Variable (Curb-to-Curb)

Section Key Map

50’ (ROW)

Third Street - Looking North

tre

Str

lso

vis

9th

12’ Travel Lane

igh

8th

7th

6th 5th

Section Location 4th

January 23, 2009

Historic Building Area d

September 2010

V-7

APPENDIX V

PROPOSED STREET TREATMENT

WILSON STREET Proposed Street Sections

8’ Sidewalk/ Parking Bay

14’ Travel Lane

8’ 2-hour Limit Parking

8’ Sidewalk

34’ (Curb-to-Curb)

Section Key Map

50’ (ROW)

Fifth Street - Looking North

tre

Str

lso

vis

9th

12’ Travel Lane

igh

8th

7th

6th 5th

Section Location 4th

January 23, 2009

Historic Building Area d

V-8

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

PROPOSED STREET TREATMENT

WILSON STREET Proposed Street Sections

8-10’ Sidewalk

14 -12’ Travel Lane

8’ 2-hour Limit Parking

8’ Sidewalk

34’ (Curb-to-Curb)

Section Key Map

50’ (ROW)

Sixth Street - Looking North

tre

Str

lso

vis

9th

12’ Travel Lane

igh

8th

7th

6th 5th

*Note: Curb-to-Curb always remains at 34’ Scenario A) SB Sidewalk 8’, SB Travel Lane 14’ Scenario B) SB Sidewalk 10’, SB Travel Lane 12’ Section Location

4th

January 23, 2009

Historic Building Area d

September 2010

V-9

APPENDIX V

PROPOSED STREET TREATMENT

WILSON STREET Proposed Street Sections

8’ Sidewalk

8’ Parking Bay

Section Key Map

12’ Travel Lane

8’ Parking

8’ Sidewalk

32' -40’ (Curb-to-Curb)

vis

Eighth Street - Looking North

tre

Str

lso

50’-58’ (ROW)

9th

12’ Travel Lane

igh

8th

7th

6th 5th

*Note: Sidewalk widens to approximately 12’ along Wilson Street at the intersection of 8th and Wilson. Section Location

4th

January 23, 2009

Historic Building Area d

V-10

September 2010

Insert Folded Overview Design Aerial Map Here 11x17

Appendix W WILSON STREET FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION

Wilson Street corridor review

Since the six blocks of Wilson Street is recommended as a Class III by the Consultant and the BPAB, staff has taken the extra step to design a Class III facility that looks, feels and operates like a Class III so that bicyclists feel comfortable sharing the lane and motor vehicle awareness is increased. This effort involved exploring ways for creating a multi-modal corridor that is a bike, pedestrian and transit friendly environment that serves all users (i.e., visitors, RR Sq. merchants, West End Neighborhoods and the Bicycle Community).

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

• • • • • •

History Existing Conditions and Challenges Ultimate Design Focus Group meetings Questions & Answers Support

Outline of presentation.

W-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

What is a Class I bicycle facility?

Before we get started, some definitions of terms

September 2010

W-3

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

What is a Class II bicycle facility?

Before we get started, some definitions of terms

W-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

What is a Class III bicycle facility?

Before we get started, some definitions of terms

September 2010

W-5

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

What is a Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking?

Directs bicyclists to position themselves to avoid the “door zone,” and alerts motorist where, in the travel lane, they can expect to find bicyclist.

W-6

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

• Northern Downtown Pedestrian Linkage Study (2004) • Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (2006)

NDPLS studies the 6th and 7th Street corridor through downtown to develop conceptual plans that would strengthen linkages between the northern and central areas of downtown. A major goal of the Downtown Specific Area Plan (DSASP) is to improve alternative means of circulation in the downtown study area, meaning transit, bicycles and walking. •The DSASP recognized that implementation of planned bicycle facilities may require consideration of alternative approaches due to right-of-way constraints. •The City Council accepted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan without accepting staff’s recommendation to change the Class II designation on Wilson Street referring the issue for review as part of the BPMP update.

September 2010

W-7

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

Challenges • Limited ROW curb to curb • Historic Buildings (16) • Store fronts abutting back of Sidewalk • Two Historic Districts > Railroad Square District > (potential) North of Railroad Square District • Buildings which have had significant investment in terms of renovations • New development has to be consistent with character of the respective districts • 25 parcels on the east side; Only 6 parcels on the west side (mostly no parking) • Blocks vary in length (200’ to 710’)

The various challenges and issues with Wilson Street when considering Class II-bike lanes

W-8

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

Inconsistent street widths 280â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

September 2010

W-9

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

Inconsistent street widths 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

W-10

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

Inconsistent street widths 240â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

September 2010

W-11

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

Inconsistent street widths 265â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

W-12

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

Inconsistent street widths 265’ Average 250’ Telephone pole—utilities appear

September 2010

W-13

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

Inconsistent street widths 710â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Telephone pole--utilities

W-14

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

Proposed Cross sections

September 2010

W-15

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

•More consistent street widths •Adds a Sidewalk on the west side—adds to the pedestrian experience •You now see bi-directional bus service

W-16

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

•More consistent street widths •Note potential parking bay •Bicyclists begin to appear in the lane; it’s calmer

September 2010

W-17

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

•ROW is still 50’ •This slide depicts flexibility for 10’ Sidewalk by narrowing the SB 14’ lane to 12’, further enhancing the pedestrian experience •Bicyclist here too; it’s calmer

W-18

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

•This addresses this constrained block by utilizing parking bays—note car behind bulb out •Bicyclist in the lane •Bi-directional bus service

September 2010

W-19

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

Aerial view of the Wilson Street corridor

W-20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

SMART site 75-100+ Units; Cannery site 93 Units (The dotted lines on the east –west do not represent the actual boundaries. The boundaries extend further east-west and simply represents the boundary of what we are looking at.) •Bike Route sign •Shared Roadway Bicycle (pavement) Markings •Proposed bus stops at 4th St •Added crosswalks at 6th St Historic buildings (16) denoted in orange

September 2010

W-21

APPENDIX W

SMART site 75-100+ Units; Cannery site 93 Units Deturk Winery 100 Units West Village 43 Units (The dotted lines on the east –west do not represent the actual boundaries. The boundaries extend further east-west and simply represents the boundary of what we are looking at.) •Bike Route sign •Shared Roadway Bicycle (pavement) Markings 8th - 9th •Stop signs at Class I path 7th and 8th streets for bicycle priority (motor vehicles stop for bikes) •proposed bus stops at 9th St •Added crosswalk at 7th •4-Way STOP at 8th St and added crosswalks

W-22

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

• • •

• •

•

BICYCLIST Route signs Shared Roadway Bicycle Markings (“Sharrows”) Two additional stops signs—traffic calming, reduced speeds, (Class III Characteristic) One additional Traffic signal Two stop control locations for vehicles approaching SMART Class I Pathway Increased transit presence (traffic calmer, connectivity i.e. bus bike racks)

Benefits • • • •

• • • •

PEDESTRIAN Missing sidewalk restored Five added cross walks Three additional Bulb outs intersections (shorter crossing distance, Line of Sight, Traffic calming) Stamped colored asphalt crosswalks Two additional stop signs One additional Traffic signal Increase transit presence (traffic calmer, connectivity)

• • • •

TRANSIT Improved operational efficiency—fewer turning movements Improved safety—better line of sight Bi-directional service Increased ridership Improved connections to SMART Station

Benefits to all three modes in staff vision

September 2010

W-23

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

PotentialÂ StakeholderÂ comments

Comments received in the past related to Wilson Street from members in the community.

W-24

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

• Concern about losing non‐conforming parking • Building heights or facades • Buses bring pollution • Vehicles (some) speed through Wilson Street • Existing BPMP shows proposed Class II lanes

Non-conforming parking west side between 3rd and 4th streets (slide 26) Heights or facades not subject of corridor (transportation) review; Bus pollution? City’s buses meet clean air requirements, Hybrid buses, seats 41 passengers-that’s 41 less automobiles; Speeding on Wilson Street? Bulb outs, additional stop signs, and bi-directional buses provide traffic calming and reduces speeding; Wilson Street is proposed Class II? 2001 BPMP is inconsistent (slides 27 & 28)

September 2010

W-25

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

• Concern about losing non‐conforming parking

•Non-conforming parking, west side, between 3rd and 4th streets. •This missing Sidewalk (S/W) has been an occasional topic at public workshops related to the BPMP and discussed at the BPAB meetings. •Corridor review is consistent with the DSASP which reduces the parking requirement for this area, in favor of development intensities that support the other modes of transportation: pedestrian, bicycle and transit. This is an example of enhancing the pedestrian experience. •It is also consistent with the predominant existing conditions in the remaining blocks to north—S/W and no parking on the west side of Wilson Street. •It would also address an equity issue. Those who park on the east of the street have to pay for parking. Those who park on the west side do not. •A loss of parking here in favor of a S/W would be off-set by additional 15 new parking spaces that will become available under Hwy 101, about a block away, from 148 spaces to 163. •Safety: people who park here have to walk in the street to reach their destinations on the west side of the street. W-26

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

2001 BPMP map shows a proposed Class II

September 2010

W-27

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

2001 BPMP text shows a Class III

W-28

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

Limited Right‐of‐Way

This was a topic at the City Council Study Session.

September 2010

W-29

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

34’ Curb to Curb

34’ 8’

10’

Parking

Travel Lane

Two standard Bike Lanes, 5’ wide =

Short

= 28’

6’ - 10’

- 4’

The Class II facilities has a physical issue: the existing condition of parking on the east side only, narrowing the travel lanes to 10 feet, with no parking on the west side will still not accommodate Class II bike lanes.

W-30

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

• • • • • • •

Concern about losing non‐conforming parking Building heights or facades Buses bring pollution Vehicles (some) speed through Wilson Street Existing BPMP shows proposed Class II lanes Developers should set back for bike lanes Additional Stop signs will slow my bicycle commute

(Continuation of Slide 25): •Non-conforming parking west side between 3rd and 4th streets (slide 26) •Heights or facades not subject of corridor (transportation) review; •Bus pollution? City’s buses meets clean air requirements, Hybrid buses, seats 41 passengers-that’s 41 less automobiles; •Speeding on Wilson Street? Bulb outs, additional stop signs, and bi-directional buses provide traffic calming and reduces speeding; •Wilson Street is proposed Class II? 2001 BPMP is inconsistent (slides 27 & 28) =============================================================== •Developer set back? Staff vision would require developers who come in on the west side to set back if they desire parking (NOTE: there are 6 parcels on the West side and 25 parcels on the east side); •Additional stop signs slow bicyclist? Additional stop signs slow motor vehicle traffic enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian experience; Class I path gives bicyclist priority because of stop signs for motor vehicles approaching Class I pathway. Bicyclists who desire travel with fewer stops would use the Class I pathway. •Staff continues to coordinate with SMART and property owners on the remaining block 6th to 7th. September 2010

W-31

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

Wilson Street Focus Team • • • • • •

Wayne Goldberg, Director, Advance Planning and Public Policy Clare Hartman, Senior Planner, Community Development Dept. Heather Hines, City Planner, Community Development Dept. Bill Rose, City Planner, Community Development Dept. Fred Browne, Civil Engineer, Community Development Dept. Lisa Grant, Parks Superintendent Municipal Arborist, Recreation and Parks Dept. • Jason Nutt, Deputy Director, Traffic Engineering‐Public Works Dept. • Fabian Favila, Transit Planner/Bike & Ped Coord.‐Transit & Parking Dept.

This review and vision was developed by a cross section of professional City staff from 5 different departments.

W-32

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Wilson Street corridor review

Stakeholder Meetings • West End Neighborhood— Th. 2/5/09 7 pm • Sonoma Bicycle Coalition—Sa. 2/7/09 10 am • Railroad Square Merchants Association—Tu. 2/10/09 8:30 am • Development Community (attended 2/5/09 7 pm meeting) • Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board—Th. 3/19/09 4 pm

The purpose is to reach consensus and support for a multi-modal corridor that is pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly. All five stake holders, six including the City, need to work together as partners for a solution. The vision may not be reflect 100% of any one stakeholder’s desire, but at least it reflects a little of each stakeholder's desire such that we move forward with a vision and plan.

September 2010

W-33

APPENDIX W

Wilson Street corridor review

Questions or Comments? Polk Street, San Francisco, a vision of what Wilson Street can look like. Polk Street is an example of all of the elements proposed in the Wilson Street Corridor vision recommended by staff: ¾You have more pedestrians on the street; ¾ALL-WAY stop signs; ¾Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking; ¾Transit—bi-directional, ¾you even have a jogger, and ¾parking. Staff recommendation and vision is consistent with what the DSASP described: Development intensities along the street that support the pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes of transportation; leading to more activity on the street.

W-34

September 2010

APPENDIX X

(2) Add and

Imwalle Street between Santa Rosa Creek pathway and West 3rd Street;

WHEREAS, in order to ensure planning and operational efficiency, it is appropriate and desirable to include suggested revisions received from the Technical Advisory Committee, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Planning Commission and the public during the public hearings process, as follows: Text 1.

Remove references to Chapter 6 Design Guidelines and Best Practices (throughout) 2. Remove “NOTE if the Design Guidelines is in conflict with the BPMP, the BPMP supersedes the Design Guidelines,” portion of Action Step 1.2.1, p.111 3. Remove proposed Policy 1.6, p.1-12 (duplicative) 4. Remove portion of Action Step 2.7.3 “… to accommodate walking speeds of 2.8 feet per second. (Section 4E-8 - California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices)”—duplicative 5. Remove text on page 3-12, Bicycle Lanes, fourth paragraph, sixth line: “The philosophy of the Master Plan is that no bike lane is better than a bad bike lane.” 6. Add footnote to GOALS AND POLICIES section, p.1-11, that “Action Steps listed below each Policy section are intended to help spell out how a goal and policy might be accomplished. The specific Action Steps listed are not mandates, but ideas on how Goals and Policies might best be achieved. The Action Steps are not intended to be all inclusive. There may be other steps not listed on how to accomplish the Goals and Polices that can be considered or proposed.” 7. Revise 5.5.2 Action Step, p.1-19: “Promote a voluntary bicycle licensing system such as the National Bike Registry (NBR) or similar program.” 8. Add Action Step 6.3.2 to read: “Complete the League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community application.” 9. Add reference to the Downtown Bicycle Parking Map as Figure 2-11 on p.2-48 of the 2010 BPMP update after the first paragraph ending “…this effort focuses on bicycle racks in the downtown core.” Followed by: “The revised map of bicycle parking appears as Figure 2-11.” 10. Insert Figure 2-11, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” between pages 2-48 and 2-49 of 2010 BPMP update. 11. Revise West-East Route 40 segments “a,” “b” and “c” (Sixth Street/West Sixth Street from Davis Street to Pierson Street) in Table 3-1 as well as in Table 5-6, Project #4 (Route 40), to indicate proposed Bicycle Boulevard, pursuant to Council action. Reso. No. 27835 Page 2 of 5

X-2

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

12.

Add reference to Street Palette on p.2-48 of the 2010 BPMP update after “Bicycle Parking requirements and the Zoning Code” to read: “Santa Rosa Street Furnishings Palette In 2010, the City’s Economic Development and Housing, Downtown Program, embarked on a Downtown Pedestrian Access Improvement Project focused on developing a street furniture palette for the Courthouse Square and Railroad Square areas. The Santa Rosa Street Furnishings Palette of 2010 calls out specific product specifications related to pedestrian facilities and also references the type of bicycle parking facilities in these respective areas to be U-racks and Parking Meter Circles. The Street Furnishings Palette is being proposed by the City’s Economic Development and Housing for incorporation into the City Design Guidelines Section 2.6. It is important to reference this section of the Design Guideline for the desired product specifications related to pedestrian facilities and bicycle parking in these two areas.” 13. Remove strikeout from p. 3-10 and use the Bicycle Boulevard text from the 2001 BPMP; 14. Add back sections from the 2001 BPMP “EXISTING DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA through the Loop Detectors section (pp. 3-9 to p.3-12 of 2001 BPMP), which is not in the 2010 BPMP update. (The portion covering “Maintenance of Surface” and “Bollards/ Gates as Bike Path Entry Restrictions” in the 2001 BPMP are addressed in the 2010 BPMP update appendices “E” and “T,” respectively.) 15. Replace Appendix F of the 2010 BPMP update with the preferred alternative prepared by the Community Development Department, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 16. Remove Red Box designation on Route 7 segments “f,” “g,” “h,” and Route 41-segment “i,” as necessary, in Table 3-1 and Table 5-6 Project #10 (Route 7) pursuant to Council action. 17. Revise designation on Route 7 segment “g” as existing Class III and proposed “- -“ in Table 3-1 and Table 5-6 Project #10 (Route 7), pursuant to existing conditions and Council action. The following routes are added: 1. Imwalle Street, proposed Class III (Route 336) to conform with the 2007 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Figure 6-4. 2. Extend Route 310, vacant Highway 12 Right of Way from Summerfield to Spring Lake (proposed). 3. West-East Route 40 segments “a,” “b” and “c” (Pierson Street-Sixth Street to Davis Street) indicate proposed Bicycle Boulevard on respective maps (Figure 2-2, 2-3A-D, 2-4, Table 5-6 figure Route 40 as necessary) pursuant to Council action. 4. West-East Route 71(Austin Creek) extend to El Canto Way consistent with the Citywide Creek Master Plan tile map BRUSH “I” and “H” (proposed). Reso. No. 27835 Page 3 of 5

September 2010

X-3

APPENDIX X

6. 7. 8. 9.

Class III from Pathway at Austin Creek and El Canto Way to San Ramon Way via DeSoto Drive and Owl’s Nest Drive (proposed). This serves as an eastward extension of Route 71, connects to the network at San Ramon Way (Route 33), and is consistent with Citywide Creek Master Plan. Alderbrook Drive, proposed Class III (extension of Route 44 north of Sonoma Avenue), from 4th Street between Clyde Avenue and Alderbrook Drive to Sonoma and Hoen Avenues. Talbot Avenue, proposed Class III (New North-South Route 337), from 4th Street to Vallejo Street via Doyle Park. Barham—Lazzini Avenues (SW connector via South, Delport, Hughes, Lazzini Avenues) to Cook Middle School, proposed Class III (New West-East Route 342), from Olive Street to Marble Street. Proposed Jennings Avenue Bicycle Boulevard consistent with 2001 BPMP.

The following High Priority Pedestrian Project is added: 1. Project 17—4th Street from B Street to Morgan Street. The following route is removed: 1. Segments “i” to “l” of Route 9 to end at Spencer Avenue and Saint Helena. The following routes are changed from Existing to Proposed: 1. Class II North-South Route 11 segment “i” Brookwood Avenue from Maple Avenue to Aston Avenue. 2. Class II North-South Route 1 segment “c,” North Wright Road from Highway 12 to Sebastopol Road. The following routes are changed from Class III to Class II: 1. 1st Street from A Street to B Street (proposed); 2. South A Street from 1st Street to Santa Rosa Avenue (proposed/existingone side). The following routes are re-routed: 1. North-South Route 9 segment “h,” Saint Helena to Spring Street / Elizabeth Way via Spencer Avenue for north bound movement only (Class III proposed). 2. West-East Route 39, segment "I," Seventh Street at Beaver to connect with E Street via Cherry Street to conform to 2007 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan p.6-11 (Class III proposed). 3. West-East Route 37, segment “a,” Putney Drive from College Avenue to Jennings Avenue via Exeter Drive (Bicycle Boulevard proposed). 4. West-East Route 236, segment “a” and “b” change from BOYD ST to OLIVE ST.

Reso. No. 27835 Page 4 of 5

X-4

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Santa Rosa has considered the staff presentation and testimony on the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update and has determined that the plan will provide the necessary and appropriate guidance for pedestrian and bicycle supportive development citywide, and based on the foregoing, the Council hereby adopts the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan with the above revisions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs staff to proceed with the implementation of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. IN COUNCIL DULY PASSED this 15th day of February, 2011. AYES:

(7) Mayor Olivares, Vice Mayor Ours, Council Members Bartley, Gorin, Sawyer, Vas Dupre, Wysocky

NOES:

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

ABSTAIN:

(0)

ATTEST: Stephanie Williams, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED: Ernesto Olivares, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM: Caroline Fowler, City Attorney Exhibit A - Figure 2-11, revised map of bicycle parking Exhibit B - preferred alternative prepared by the Community Development Department to replace Appendix F in the 2010 BPMP update

Reso. No. 27835 Page 5 of 5

September 2010

X-5

ela lev

e Av

lso Wi t nS

938

900

n Do 700

700

7th

u ah t eS

Prince St

648

700 500

500

600

am Ad t sS 400

lso Wi

ers Jeff on

dis

500

t. nS

t is S 01 Olive Park Historic Neighborhood

400

500

District

South A

100

182

Railroad St

Prince Memorial Greenway

Hyatt Vineyard Creek Hotel & Conference Center

101

Prince Gateway Park

Juilliard Park

Son

y nwa Gree

450

Ave oma

orial

1st SPrince Mem 430

S A St

Joe Rodota Trail

200

Courtyard Marriot

205

Dav

t hS

300 St rd

208 St rd

100

Historic District

300

126

RAILROAD SQUARE

100

1st S

Luther Burbank Home & Gardens

Prince Memorial Greenway Entrance

osa ta R all San ity H C

all yH Cit nnex A

700

y rar Lib

600

800

2nd

Historic Neighborhood

Sonoma Ave Park

e Av ma no So

800

3rd

BURBANK GARDENS

st Po ce Offi

4th

Depot Park

4th

300

400

vis Da

WiFi

200

Sears

B St

California Welcome Center

700

Comstock Pedestrian Mall 50

St se 6thhou lay

all tM nsi Tra

600

St rd

ta R San

l 100Hote se Ro La

504

ve oA

3rd

WiFi

Courthouse Square

614

700

726

Fremont Park

This map was made possible by a grant from the Community Advisory Board and was provided in partnership with New Horizons School. March 2010

PA R K I NG

Prince P Memorial Greenway Entrance

600 2

St rd

4th

DOWNTOWN

t hS

200

4 400

900

Cherry St

200

6th

an org

D St

100

Santa Rosa Plaza

400

Santa Rosa Plaza Parking

700

500

624

St th

900

College Ave

100

600 200

St 514 St

500

St 300

100

400

100

300

B St

864 St

700

7th

500

440 158

tt we

Ripley St

in oc

t hS

306

vis Da

W. 8 th St

t nS

D St

100

a org St

400

100

800

E St

A St

8 th

Me t hS

Aratce Sp404

200

400

Historic Neighborhood

520 300

WEST END

500

Macy’s

500

200

Boyce St

826 200

300

529

iley

400

100 DeTurk Round Barn

old t tS

500

R ay uW JeJ

110

Slater St

ch Or

t th S

7th St ard

Santa Rosa Plaza Parking

7th

616

699

800

400

428

615

Historic Neighborhood

E St

Decker St

112

Humboldt St

CHERRY ST

700

800

400

Co ma 400 Sonoseum Mu

8 th

Glaser Glaser Center Center

700

80 300

834 148

555

800

9th St

B St

900

t is S th St

534

W 9 th

Dav 826

St Scott

Historic Neighborhood

424

600

500

scale: 1” = 1/8 mile

934

ST ROSE

681

400

499

10th St

Cherry St

541

Ripley

Washington Ave 200

10 th St

600

100

10th St

300

420

Klute St

462

700

College Ave

Orchard St 500

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

400

Glenn St

Lincoln St

500

ve oA

VISITOR INFORMATION

900

PARKING LOT

100

300

1112 400

Junior College 700 600

1100

300

900

PARKING GARAGE

11th St

Lincoln St

200

College Ave

Santa Rosa

626

BIKE RACKS ARE AVAILABLE IN ALL GARAGES

100

101

Morgan St 1000

BIKE RACKS

KEY

Cleveland Ave

1000

Healdsburg Ave

600

538

582

cin do en 87

500

700

600

700 600

700

600

Beaver St Beaver St 500

X-6 599

Charles M. Schulz Museum

APPENDIX X

Bro ood okw

osa Ave

o Piers n St

800

748

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

Amend Zoning Code Section 20-70.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) as follows: B.

Definitions, “B.” Bicycle Parking. See “Class I (long-term) Bicycle Parking” and “Class II (short-term) Bicycle Parking.”

Definitions, “C.” Class I (long-term) Bicycle Parking. Intended for bicyclists who need to park a bicycle and its components and accessories for more than two hours. Such parking is typically for employees, students, residents and commuters. Class I parking provides a high level of security, such as bicycle lockers and restricted access bicycle enclosures. Class II (short-term) Bicycle Parking. Intended for shoppers, customers, and visitors who require bicycle parking for up to two hours. Class II parking are primarily bicycle racks.

Amend Zoning Code Chapter 20-36 (Parking and Loading Standards) as follows: 20-36.010 Purpose of Chapter. This Chapter establishes regulations to ensure that sufficient off-street parking facilities are provided for all uses and that automobile and bicycle parking facilities are properly designed, attractive, and located to be unobtrusive yet meet the needs of the specific use. 20-36.020 Applicability. Each land use and structure, including a change or expansion of a use or structure, shall provide parking and loading areas in compliance with this Chapter. A.

A use shall not be commenced and structures shall not be occupied until improvements required by this Chapter are satisfactorily completed.

The parking requirements of this Chapter do not apply within any City parking assessment district (See Figure 3-10), except for residential uses (see Table 3-4). The bicycle parking and loading requirements of this Chapter do apply within a parking assessment district.

See also Section 4.2 (Off-Street Parking) of the City’s Design Guidelines.

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

September 2010

Page 1 of 20

X-7

APPENDIX X

Figure 3-10—Parking Assessment District Locations (Ord. 3677 § 1 (part), 2004) 20-36.030 General parking regulations. A.

Parking spaces to be permanent. Parking spaces shall be permanently available, marked and maintained for parking purposes for the use they are intended to serve. The Director may approve the temporary reduction of parking spaces in conjunction with a seasonal or intermittent use.

Parking and loading to be unrestricted. Owners, lessees, tenants, or persons having control of the operation of a premises for which parking spaces are required shall not prevent or restrict authorized persons from using these spaces.

Restriction of parking facility use. Required off-street parking facilities shall be used exclusively for the temporary parking of vehicles and shall not be used for the sale, lease, display, repair, or storage of vehicles, trailers, boats, campers, mobile homes, merchandise, or equipment, or for any other use not authorized by the provisions of this Zoning Code, except where temporary outdoor display is allowed in compliance with Section 20-42.110 (Outdoor Display and Sales).

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

X-8

Page 2 of 20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

20.36.040 Number of parking spaces required. Each principally or conditionally permitted use shall provide at least the minimum number of offstreet automobile and bicycle parking spaces required by this Section, except where parking requirements are adjusted in compliance with Section 20-36.050 (Adjustments to Parking Requirements). Also see Section 20-36.090 (Bicycle Parking Requirements and Design Standards). A.

Parking requirements by land use. Each land use shall be provided the number of automobile and bicycle parking spaces required by Table 3-4, except where a greater or lesser number of spaces is required through conditions of approval.

Basis for calculations. 1.

Floor area. Where Table 3-4 establishes a parking requirement based on the floor area of a use in a specified number of square feet (e.g., one space per 1,000 square feet), the floor area shall be construed to mean gross floor area.

Fractions. Where application of the requirements in Table 3-4 results in a fractional requirement, a fraction of 0.5 or greater shall be increased to the next higher number and a fraction of less than 0.5 shall be reduced to the next lower number.

Expansion of structure, change in use. When existing conforming or non-conforming structures, other than single family dwellings, are enlarged or increased in capacity by more than 10 percent, or when a change or expansion in use requires more parking than is presently provided, parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Table 3-4.

Reduction of capacity. No existing parking or loading facility may be reduced in capacity unless sufficient replacement capacity is provided in compliance with this Chapter or a reduction is approved in compliance with Section 20-36.050 (Adjustments to Parking Requirements). Parking and loading facilities required by this Chapter shall remain available for the loading and parking of motor vehicles. Bicycle parking shall remain available for bicycles. Any contrary use of such facilities shall constitute a violation of this Code.

Multi-use sites. A site with multiple uses shall provide the aggregate number of parking spaces required for each separate use, except where:

The site was developed comprehensively as a shopping center, the parking ratio shall be that required for the shopping center as a whole regardless of individual uses listed in Table 3-4; or

The site qualifies for shared parking in compliance with Section 20-36.050 (Adjustments to Parking Requirements).

Uses not listed. A land use not specifically listed in Table 3-4 shall provide parking as determined by the Director. The Director shall use the requirements of Table 3-4 for similar uses as a guide in determining the minimum number of parking spaces to be provided and may require the applicant to fund a parking study to determine parking demand.

Exhibit G â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Amendments to the Zoning Code â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bicycle Parking

September 2010

Page 3 of 20

X-9

APPENDIX X

Bench or bleacher seating. Where fixed seating is provided (e.g., benches or bleachers), a seat shall be construed to be 18 inches of bench space for the purpose of calculating the number of required parking spaces.

Exhibit G â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Amendments to the Zoning Code â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bicycle Parking

X-10

Page 4 of 20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

TABLE 3-4—AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE TYPE Land Use Type: Agricultural and Open Space Uses (1) Agricultural activities, including crop production, horticulture, orchard, vineyard, and animal keeping Plant nursery Wildlife or botanical preserve or sanctuary

Land Use Type: Industry, Manufacturing and Processing, Wholesaling (1) Industrial and manufacturing, except the uses listed below Less than 50,000 sf. Greater than 50,000 sf. Laboratory Recycling facility Research and development Self storage (personal storage and mini warehouse facilities) Warehouse, wholesaling, distribution, and storage (not including mini-storage for personal use)

Land Use Type: Recreation, Education, and Public Assembly (1) Adult Entertainment Commercial recreation facility—indoor Commercial recreation facility—outdoor Conference, convention facility Golf courses/country club, public or quasi public Equestrian facility Health club/fitness facility Library, museum Meeting facility, public or private Park/playground, public or quasi-public School, public or private Elementary/Middle School High School College Trade and business schools

Number of Parking Spaces Required None. 1.25 spaces per employee. Determined by Conditional Use Permit.

Number of Parking Spaces Required 1 space for each 350 sf. or as determined by conditional use permit. The gross floor area may include accessory office space comprising less than 5% of the total gross floor area. 1 space for each 700 sf. or as determined by conditional use permit. The gross floor area may include accessory office space comprising less than 5% of the total gross floor area. 1 space for each 300 sf., plus 1 space for each company vehicle. 1 space for each 1,000 sf. or as determined by conditional use permit. The gross floor area may include incidental office space comprising less than 5% of the total gross floor area. 1 space for each 300 sf., plus 1 space for each company vehicle. 2 spaces for manager or caretaker unit, one of which must be covered, and a minimum of 5 customer parking spaces located adjacent or in close proximity to the manager’s unit. 1 space for each 1,000 sf. or as determined by conditional use permit. The gross floor area may include accessory office space comprising less than 5% of the total gross floor area.

Number of Parking Spaces Required As determined by CUP. 1 space for each 250 sf. As determined by MUP. 1 space for each 4 fixed seats or 1 space for every 50 sf of assembly area or meeting rooms, whichever is greater. 8 spaces for each hole. As determined by CUP. 1 space for each 250 sf, not including that area devoted to athletic courts located within the building, plus 2 spaces per athletic court. 1 space for each 300 sf, plus 1 space for each official vehicle. 1 space for each 4 fixed seats or 1 space for every 50 sf of assembly area or meeting rooms, whichever is greater. As determined by review authority. 1.5 spaces for each classroom, plus 1 space for every 200 sf of assembly area in an auditorium. 0.33 spaces for each student, plus 1 space for each employee. 0.5 spaces for each student, plus 1 space for each employee. 1 space for each student.

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

September 2010

Page 5 of 20

X-11

APPENDIX X

TABLE 3-4—AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE TYPE Sports and entertainment assembly facility Studio: art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. Theater, auditorium

Land Use Type: Residential Uses (1) Downtown residential units (in CD zone) Duplex, multi-family dwelling, rowhouse, condominium and other attached multi-family and single-family dwellings, and including multi-family in a small-lot subdivision

Emergency shelter/transitional housing Group quarters (including boarding/rooming houses, dormitories, organizational houses) Live/work and work/live units Mixed-use projects Mobile home parks

Multi-family affordable housing project Second dwelling units

Senior housing project (a multi-family project with occupancy restricted to persons 55 or older) Senior affordable housing project (a multi-family project with occupancy restricted to persons 55 or older, and which complies with Section 20-31.020.A.3) Single-family dwellings—Detached (see duplexes, etc., above for attached units)

Single room occupancy facilities

1 space for each 4 fixed seats or 1 space for every 50 sf of assembly area, whichever is greater. 1 space for each 200 sf. 1 space for each 4 fixed seats or 1 space for every 50 sf of assembly area or meeting rooms, whichever is greater.

Number of Parking Spaces Required 1 space per unit. Studio and 1-bedroom units—1 covered space plus 0.5 visitor spaces per unit. Visitor spaces may be in tandem with spaces for the unit; or on-street abutting the site, except on a street identified by the General Plan as a regional street. 2 or more bedroom units—1 covered space plus 1.5 visitor spaces per unit. Visitor spaces may be in tandem with spaces for the unit; or on-street abutting the site, except on a street identified by the General Plan as a regional street. As determined by CUP. 1.5 spaces for each sleeping room or 1 space for each 100 sf of common sleeping area. 2 spaces for each unit. The review authority may modify this requirement for the re-use of an existing structure with limited parking. See 20-36.050.A (Shared parking for mixed uses). 1.75 spaces for each unit, which may be in tandem, one of which must be covered. At least one-third of the total spaces required shall be distributed throughout the mobile home park and available for guest parking. Studio/1 bedroom unit—1 space per unit. 2 or more bedrooms—2 spaces per unit. 1 space in addition to that required for a single-family unit; the space may be uncovered, compact, or tandem, and within the front yard setback when located in the driveway. If not located in driveway, parking shall be located outside any setback (See Section 2042.130). 1 space per unit with one-half of the spaces covered, plus 1 guest parking space for each 10 units. 1 space per unit. Standard lot—4 spaces per unit, one of which must be on-site, covered and outside setbacks. The remaining three spaces may be on-site (in the driveway and tandem) or on a public or private street when directly fronting the lot. Flag lot—2 spaces per unit, one of which must be covered, both of which must be located outside the required setback area plus 2 onsite, paved guest spaces located outside the required setbacks and which may be tandem. 0.50 spaces per unit

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

X-12

Page 6 of 20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

TABLE 3-4—AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE TYPE Land Use Type: Retail Trade (1) All retail trade uses, except those listed below Auto and vehicle sales and rental Bar/tavern Building and landscaping material sales—indoor Building and landscaping material sales—outdoor Construction and heavy equipment sales and retail Drive-through retail sales Farm supply and feed store Fuel dealer Furniture, furnishings, appliance/equipment store Gas stations

Mobile home, boat, or RV sales Night Club Restaurant, café, coffee shop—Counter ordering Restaurant, café, coffee shop—Outdoor dining Restaurants, café, coffee shop —Table service Shopping Center Warehouse Retail Land Use Type: Services—Business, Financial, Professional (1) All business, financial, and professional service uses, except those listed below ATM Medical service Clinic, lab, urgent care Doctor office Health care facility Hospital Veterinary clinic, arrival hospital Land Use Type: Services—General (1) All service uses, except those listed below Catering service Cemetery, mausoleum, columbarium Day care Adult day care Child day care—Center

Number of Parking Spaces Required 1 space for each 250 sf. 1 space for each 450 sf of covered display or building area. 1 space for each 50 sf of seating area and waiting/lounge area exclusive of dance floor, plus 1 space for each 30 sf of dance floor. 1 space for each 300 sf of indoor display area. 1 space for each 300 sf of indoor display area, plus 1 space for each 1,000 sf of outdoor display area. 1 space for each 450 sf of covered display or building area. As determined by MUP. See Section 20-42.064. 1 space for each 300 sf of indoor display area, plus 1 space for each 1,000 sf of outdoor display area. As determined by CUP. 1 space for each 300 sf of indoor display area. 1 space for each service bay plus 1 space per employee. Parking space for ancillary uses (e.g., convenience store, take-out restaurant, car wash, etc.) shall be provided in compliance with the requirements of this table for the specific use. 1 space for each 450 sf of covered display or building area. 1 space for each 50 sf of seating area and waiting/lounge area exclusive of dance floor, plus 1 space for each 30 sf of dance floor. 1 space for each 75 sf. As determined by MUP. 1 space for each 3 dining seats capacity. 1 space for each 250 sf of gross leasable area. 1 space for each 375 sf.

Number of Parking Spaces Required 1 space for each 250 sf. 2 spaces per machine. See also Section 20-42.044. 1 space for each 300 sf. 1 space for each 200 sf. As determined by MUP. As determined by CUP. As determined by MUP.

Number of Parking Spaces Required 1 space for each 250 sf. 1 space per employee, plus 1 space per company vehicle. 1 space for each 4 seats of chapel capacity, and 1 space per employee. 1 space per employee, plus 1 space per 10 clients, plus adequate loading space as required by review authority. 1 space per employee, plus 1 space per 10 children, plus adequate loading space as required by review authority.

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

September 2010

Page 7 of 20

X-13

APPENDIX X

TABLE 3-4—AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE TYPE Child day care—Large family day care home

Public safety facility Repair service—Equipment, large appliances, etc. Vehicle services—minor, and major repair/body work

3 spaces, no more than 1 of which may be provided in a garage or carport. Parking may be on-street if contiguous to the site. May include spaces already provided to meet residential parking requirements. As required by State license. 1 space for each 3 beds. 1 space for each 3 beds. As required by MUP or CUP. See Section 20-42.064. 1 space for each 350 sf of floor area; none required for outdoor rental yard. 1 space for each 500 sf, plus 1 space for each 1,000 sf of boarding area. 1 space for each guest room, plus required spaces for accessory uses such as restaurants and conference space. 1 space for each 4 seats of chapel capacity and 1 space per employee. 2 spaces per customer chair, or 1 space for 250 sf, whichever is greater. 2 spaces per customer chair, or 1 space for 250 sf, whichever is greater. As determined by MUP. 1 space for each 375 sf. 1 space for each service bay, plus 1 space per employee.

Land Use Type: Transportation, Communications & Infrastructure (1) All uses, except the following Broadcasting studio

Number of Parking Spaces Required As required by MUP or CUP. 1 space per 200 sf.

Child day care—Small day care home Community care facility—6 or fewer clients Community care facility—7 or more clients Drive-through service Equipment rental Kennel, animal boarding Lodging—bed & breakfast inn (B&B), hotels, and motels Mortuary, funeral home Personal services Personal services—Restricted

Land Use Type: Station Area Plan – Attached Multi-Family Residential Uses Courthouse Square and Railroad Sub-Areas Railroad Corridor Sub-Area

Parks and Gardens Sub-Area Residential, Historic Residential and Imwalle Gardens Sub-Areas

Land Use Type: Station Area Plan – Detached Single-Family Residential Uses Residential, Historic Residential and Imwalle Gardens Sub-Areas

Number of Parking Spaces Required 1 reserved space per unit 1.5 reserved spaces per unit – except that only 1 reserved space per unit is required for residential uses on properties along the Wilson Street corridor between 6th Street and 9th Street, as shown in Figure 3-11. 1.5 reserved spaces per unit 1 reserved, covered space plus 0.5 shared visitor spaces per unit. Visitor spaces may be in tandem with spaces for the unit; or onstreet abutting the site, except on a street identified by the General Plan as a regional street.

Number of Parking Spaces Required 2 spaces per unit, one of which must be reserved, on-site, covered and outside of setbacks. The remaining space may be shared, on-site (in the driveway and tandem) or on a public or private street when directly fronting the lot.

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

X-14

Page 8 of 20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

TABLE 3-4—AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE TYPE Land Use Type: Station Area Plan – Affordable Residential Uses All Sub-Areas

Number of Parking Spaces Required 1 reserved space per unit

Land Use Type: Station Area Plan – Senior Housing Project (occupancy restricted to persons 55 or older) All Sub-Areas

Number of Parking Spaces Required 0.5 reserved space per unit

Land Use Type: Station Area Plan – Non-Residential Uses Courthouse Square Sub-Area

Railroad Square Sub-Area

Railroad Corridor Sub-Area Parks and Gardens Sub-Area

Number of Parking Spaces Required None – except 600 shared parking spaces shall be provided for the City Hall-Performing Arts Center Any new on-street spaces created by a development shall count toward meeting the shared parking requirement. 1 shared space for each 500 sf of new floor area – no additional parking is required for new uses occupying existing buildings. Any new on-street spaces created by a development shall count toward meeting the shared parking requirement. Required parking in the Railroad Square Sub-Area may be provided on site or within a nearby parking facility. Use of shared spaces in another parking facility shall not create a parking shortage for the business associated with that facility. 1 shared space for each 300 sf Any new on-street spaces created by a development shall count toward meeting the shared parking requirement. 1 shared space for each 300 sf Any new on-street spaces created by a development shall count toward meeting the shared parking requirement.

Notes: (1) Properties located within the boundaries of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (the area bounded by College Avenue to the north, E Street to the east, Sebastopol Road and Highway 12 to the south, and Dutton Avenue and Imwalle Gardens to the west) shall use the land use type “Station Area Plan” to determine the number of parking spaces required.

Figure 3-11 – Wilson Street Corridor – 1 reserved space per unit is required for residential uses on properties in this corridor (shaded area along Wilson Street between 6th Street

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Ptharking

September 2010

Page 9 of 20

X-15

APPENDIX X

20-36.050 Adjustments to automobile and bicycle parking requirements. A.

Shared on-site parking for residential mixed uses. In a mixed use project, parking may be shared by the different uses. A mixed use project composed of residential and retail uses may reduce the required parking up to 50 percent of the required parking for either the residential or retail use, whichever is smaller. A mixed use project composed of residential and office or institutional uses may reduce the required parking up to 75 percent of the required parking for either the residential or office/institutional use, which ever is smaller. Example: If the separate parking requirements for the residential and retail uses in a mixed use project were 12 spaces and 14 spaces respectively ( for a total of 26), the 12 residential spaces (the smaller of the two requirements) could be reduced by 50 percent, to six for a revised project requirement of 20 spaces.

Shared on-site parking for nonresidential uses. Where two or more adjacent nonresidential uses have distinct and differing peak parking usage periods, (e.g,. a theater and a bank), a reduction in the required number of parking spaces may be allowed through Minor Conditional Use Permit approval. Approval shall also require a recorded covenant running with the land, recorded by the owner of the parking lot, guaranteeing that the required parking will be maintained exclusively for the use or activity served for the duration of the use or activity.

Increase or decrease in required parking. Parking requirements may be reduced by up to 25 percent through the Minor Adjustment process (Section 20-52.060), and as follows.

Where an applicant requests or where the Director determines that, due to special circumstances, any particular use requires a parking capacity which deviates from the requirements in Table 3-4, the Director shall refer the matter to the appropriate review authority for imposition of an appropriate parking requirement. The review authority may, as a condition of project approval or Minor Conditional Use Permit, approve an increase or decrease in parking spaces after first making the following findings:

Due to special circumstances associated with the operation of the use at its location, the proposed use will generate a parking demand different from the standards specified in Table 3-4;

The number of parking spaces approved will be sufficient for its safe, convenient, and efficient operation of the use.

Parking requirements for projects located within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan boundary (see Figure 3-12) may be reduced by the review authority, as a condition of project approval or Minor Conditional Use Permit, when supported by a parking study. The review authority may approve a decrease in parking spaces after first making the following finding: a.

The number of parking spaces approved will be sufficient for its safe, convenient and efficient operation of the use, and will be compatible with the neighboring properties.

Exhibit G â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Amendments to the Zoning Code â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bicycle Parking

X-16

Page 10 of 20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

The location of several types of uses or occupancies in the same building or on the same site may constitute a special circumstance warranting the reduction of parking requirements in compliance with this Section.

Alternative methods of providing required parking is encouraged within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan boundaries (see Figure 3-12). Examples of alternative parking methods include:

Tandem parking;

Garage/parking lifts;

Unbundled parking in residential developments;

Parking cash-out and transit incentive programs for businesses;

Projects that are unable to provide the total number of required on-site parking spaces may consider paying for the use of shared spaces within other parking facilities, in-lieu of applying for a parking reduction or variance. A parking study shall be submitted verifying that use of shared spaces in another parking facility shall not create a parking shortage for the business associated with that facility.

PLAN

Any change in the use or occupancy or any change in the special circumstances described in Subsection C.1.a shall constitute grounds for revocation of the Minor Conditional Use Permit issued in compliance with this Section.

Exhibit G â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Amendments to the Zoning Code â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bicycle Parking

September 2010

Page 11 of 20

X-17

APPENDIX X

20-36.090 Bicycle parking requirements and design standards. Bicycle parking shall be provided for all multi-family projects and non-residential uses in compliance with this Section. A.

Number of bicycle spaces required. Each land use shall be provided the number of bicycle parking spaces required by Table 3-4, and in accordance with Section 20.36.040 (Number of parking spaces required) except where a greater or lesser number of spaces is required through conditions of approval.

Bicycle Parking Devices. There are two Class types of bicycle parking.

Class I (long-term) Bicycle Parking. Class I bicycle parking comes in two forms. Both forms protect the entire bicycle and its components from theft, vandalism, and inclement weather. a.

Bicycle lockers: A bicycle locker is a fully enclosed space for one bicycle, accessible only to the owner of the bicycle. A bicycle locker must be equipped with an internally mounted key-actuated or electronic locking mechanism, and not lockable with a user-provided lock. Groups of internal-lock bicycle lockers may share a common electronic access mechanism provided that each locker is accessible only to its assigned user. Bicycle lockers shall be constructed of molded plastic/fiberglass, solid metal or perforated metal.

Restricted-access bicycle enclosure: A restricted-access bicycle enclosure is a covered or indoor locked area containing within it one bicycle rack space for each bicycle to be accommodated and accessible only to the owners of the bicycles parked within it. The doors of such enclosures must be fitted with key or

Exhibit G â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Amendments to the Zoning Code â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bicycle Parking

X-18

Page 12 of 20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

electronic locking mechanisms that admit only users and managers of the facility. The enclosure doors must close and lock automatically if released. 2.

Class II (short-term) Bicycle Parking. Class II bicycle parking is typically in the form of bicycle racks. Bicycle racks must meet the following criteria: a.

Supports the bicycle upright by its frame in two places.

Prevents the wheel of the bicycle from tipping over.

Enables the bicycle frame and at least one wheel to be secured to the rack with a U-lock. (See Figure 3-13)

Rack is constructed of materials that resist cutting by manual tools such as bolt cutters, hand saws, abrasive cutting cables and pipe cutters.

Rack is securely anchored to the ground.

See Figure 3-14 for Examples of Class II (short-term) bicycle parking.

Figure 3-13 – Class II rack with U-Lock

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

September 2010

Page 13 of 20

X-19

APPENDIX X

Figure 3-14 – Examples of Class II racks C.

Bicycle Parking Layout.

General Guidelines a)

The footprint dimensions of a typical bicycle (that are the basis for these bicycle parking standards) are 72” length, 24” width, and 48” height. The footprint dimensions of a typical bicycle with a trailer are 120” length, 36” width, and 48” height. (See Figure 3-15)

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

X-20

Page 14 of 20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

Bicycle parking facilities shall be separated from vehicle parking and vehicle circulation areas by a physical barrier or by a minimum clearance of 60” to protect parked bicycles from damage by vehicles, including front and rear overhangs of parked or moving vehicles. The clearance area shall be marked to prohibit automobile parking.

Where bicycle parking areas are not clearly visible to approaching bicyclists, directional signs (in compliance with Section 20-38,040 subsection E) shall be posted at the building entrance to direct cyclists to the bicycle parking facilities.

Lighting of bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in compliance with Section 20-30.080 (Outdoor Lighting)

PLAN

Figure 3-15 – Single Bike Footprint at Class II Bike Racks 2.

Bicycle Locker Layout (Class I). a.

Bicycle lockers shall be located on the shortest route of travel to the building entrance, and shall be at least as convenient and close to building entrances as the nearest non-disabled automobile parking space.

An aisle into which the door of a bicycle locker opens shall be at least 72” wide. Bicycle locker doors shall open to at least 90 degrees from the front of the locker. The minimum aisle width between bicycle locker walls and other walls, fences, or curbs is 60”, unless the bicycle locker is directly next to the wall, fence, or curb. (See Figure 3-16)

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

September 2010

Page 15 of 20

X-21

APPENDIX X

Bicycle lockers shall be identified by a sign at least 12"x12" in size that lists the name or title, and the phone number or electronic contact information, of the person in charge of the facility.

Figure 3-16 – Class I Bike Locker Layout (courtesy APBP) 3.

Bicycle Rack Layout (Class II). a.

Bicycle racks shall be located within 50 feet of a main visitor entrance(s). Where there is more than one building on a site or where a building has more than one main entrance, the short-term bicycle parking must be distributed to serve all buildings’ main entrances.

The minimum footprint of two bicycles properly parked on either side of an inverted U bicycle rack (front-rear and rear-front) is 72” length by 36” width. Where bikes with trailers are expected to be parked, the footprint shall be enlarged to to 120” length by 54” width. (See Figure 3-17)

A minimum 60” wide aisle shall be provided to allow bicycles to maneuver in and out of the bike parking areas and between rows of bicycle parking facilities. Aisle width shall be measured between the footprints that bicycles will occupy when parked properly on bicycle racks. (See Figure 3-18)

A minimum of 60” clearance shall be provided between walls, fences or other obstructions and the center-axis of the bicycle rack closest to the wall. (See Figure 3-18)

Bicycle racks intended to accommodate bicycles with trailers should have a minimum aisle clearance of 156”. (See Figure 3-18)

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

X-22

Page 16 of 20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

Bicycle racks maybe positioned diagonally to save space. The minimum widths for aisles and other clearances may be adjusted based on the skew angle A. The distance in inches between the centers of two parallel skewed racks is 36 sin A. The distance in inches between the centers of two rows of skewed racks is 132 cosine A. The distance in inches between the centers of two rows of skewed racks used by bicycles with trailers is 228 cos A. (See Figure 3-19 and Table 3-7)

Exhibit G â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Amendments to the Zoning Code â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bicycle Parking

September 2010

PLAN

Page 17 of 20

X-23

APPENDIX X

Figure 3-17 – Footprint for Fully Occupied Racks

Figure 3-18 – Bike Rack Parking Lot Layout

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

X-24

Page 18 of 20

September 2010

S A N TA R O S A B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N M A S T E R

PLAN

TABLE 3-7 – MEASUREMENTS FOR FIGURE 3-19 – SKEWED BIKE RACKS

Aisle between two rows of racks

Aisle between two rows of racks, for bikes with trailers

Degrees (A) 132 Cos A 228 Cos A Parallel to wall - 0 132 228 10 130 225 20 125 215 30 115 198 40 102 175 50 85 147 60 67 115 70 46 79 80 24 40 Perpendicular to wall 90 1 1

Between wall and nearest rack

Two side by side racks

48 sin A 0 9 17 24 31 37 42 46 48

36 sin A 0 7 13 18 24 28 32 34 36

Figure 3-19 – Bike Racks Installed at Skewed Angle A

Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

September 2010

Page 19 of 20

X-25

APPENDIX X

Required shower facilities. All new buildings and additions to existing buildings that result in a total floor area as shown in the following table shall be required to provide employee showers and dressing areas for each gender as shown in Table 3-7.

TABLE 3-8 —NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE SHOWERS REQUIRED Number of Employee Showers Required for Specified Building Floor Area 1 Additional Shower for Each Type of Land Use 1 Shower for Each Gender Gender Office Uses (business, 50,000 to 149,999 sf Each 100,000 sf over 150,000 professional) 50,000 to 299,999 sf Retail Trade, Service Uses Each 200,000 sf over 300,000 Manufacturing and Industrial 50,000 sf to 299,000 sf Each 200,000 sf over 300,000 sf Uses E.

Required dressing room locker facilities. Land uses required by this Section to provide bicycle parking spaces shall also provide one locker for each required bicycle parking space. Required dressing room lockers shall be located in relation to required showers and dressing areas to permit access to locker areas by either gender.

Figure 3-12 – Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Boundaries (College Avenue to the north, E Street to the east, Sebastopol Road and Highway 12 to the south, and Dutton Avenue and Imwalle Gardens to the west) Exhibit G – Amendments to the Zoning Code – Bicycle Parking

X-26

Page 20 of 20

September 2010

Appendix Y RESOLUTION NO. 27836 RESOLUTION NO. 27836 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN, AND DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW ADOPTION OF THE 2010 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (the “Draft Plan”) proposes changes to the city’s future bicycle network; and WHEREAS, Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Figure 5-2, Bicycle Facilities, illustrates the existing and proposed Class I, II, and III bicycle facilities in the Urban Growth Boundary area; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan Figure 6-4, Bicycle Routes, illustrates Class I, II, and III bicycle facilities in the station plan boundary area; and WHEREAS, the Draft Plan proposed amending Figure 5-2 from the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 to reflect the bicycle facilities as set forth in the final 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to be adopted by the Council; and WHEREAS, the Draft Plan proposed amendments to the Transportation Element narrative in Section 5-6, Bicycle Facilities of the 2035 General Plan to reflect the correct total mileage of bikeways, mileage by bikeway type and associated text as set forth in the final 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Draft Plan proposed amending the Downtown Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan Figure 6-4 to change the following street segments: (1) From Class II to Class III bicycle facilities: Wilson Street from 9th Street to 3rd Street; 9th Street from the Northwest Pacific Railroad to A Street; A Street from 9th Street to 7th Street; B Street from 7th Street to 3rd Street (one-way SB) (2) From Class I to Class III bicycle facilities: Santa Rosa Avenue from 4th Street to 3rd Street; (3) From a Bicycle Boulevard to a Class III: D Street from 5th Street to Sonoma Avenue; (4) From a Class II to a Bicycle Boulevard: West 6th / 6th Street from Pierson and Davis Streets; (5) No longer designated as bikeways: 5th Street from E Street, via King Street, to Brookwood Avenue; Tupper Street; Brown Street from Wheeler Street to Highway 12. (6) Add: Wheeler Street from Brown to South E Street as a Class III; and Reso. No. 27836 Page 1 of 2

APPENDIX Y

WHEREAS, adoption of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will further General Plan transportation goals and objectives that support improved modal connectivity and circulation and provide alternative transportation opportunities to motor vehicle travel; and WHERERAS, the amendments, as described above, to the 2035 General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan figures are necessary to ensure consistency between these documents and the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing in consideration of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update and associated 2035 General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan amendments, and recommended the Council approve the amendments concurrent with the adoption of a final 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 1, 2011 in consideration of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update and associated 2035 General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan amendments as herein described consistent with the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Santa Rosa, based on the foregoing findings, staff presentation and testimony at the public hearing hereby approves and adopts amendments to the 2035 General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan to those section as identified above to be consistent with the final 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan adopted by the Council. IN COUNCIL DULY PASSED this 15th day of February, 2011. AYES:

(7) Mayor Olivares, Vice Mayor Ours, Council Members Bartley, Gorin, Sawyer, Vas Dupre, Wysocky

NOES:

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

ABSTAIN:

(0)

ATTEST: Stephanie Williams, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED: Ernesto Olivares, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM: Caroline Fowler, City Attorney

Reso. No. 27836 Page 2 of 2

Y-2

September 2010