Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
55D - BIKEWAYS STRATEGIC PLAN
R REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2009 TITLE RESOLUTION ADOPTING CITY OF SANTA ANA BIKEWAYS STRATEGIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT PROJECT APPLICATION CI Y MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1s' Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Adopt a resolution approving the City of Santa Ana Bikeways Strategic Plan. 2. Authorize the Executive Community Services Agency Works Agency to submit th e for funding consideration DISCUSSION Director of the Parks, Recreation and and /or the Executive Director of Public Flower Street bike trail extension project under the Bicycle Transportation Account. On September 25, 2009 Caltrans issued a call for Bicycle Transportation Accounts (BTA) applications for Fiscal Year 2009 -2010. As part of this call the City is requesting authorization to submit one project for the Flower Street bike trail extension from MacArthur Boulevard to Sunflower Street. The project involves bike trail realignment and reconstruction as well as fencing and landscaping (Exhibit 1). One of the evaluation criteria for the grant application requires the City have an adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) that is consistent with the Streets and Highways Code, California Bicycle Transportation Act, and Sections 890 -894.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code. The City's Bikeway Master Plan, as approved in the General Plan Circulation Element by the City Council in 1998, contains only some of the criteria required by the BTA. However, the City has the option of using the countywide Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Commuter Bikeway Strategic Plan (CBSP). The CBSP meets all of the legislated requirements, however some minor modifications will be needed to be consistent with the City's Bikeway Master Plan. These modifications include bikeways that were not incorporated in the CBSP, listed in detail in the attached Addendum. The City adopted the previous CBSP plan published in August 2001 under the 55D -1 VA Resolution for Bikeways Strategic Plan November 2, 2009 Page 2 same conditions. The CBSP was recently updated and adopted by OCTA's Board of Directors in May 2009. With the necessary modifications, staff is recommending adoption of the Orange County Transportation Authority Commuter Bikeway Strategic Plan as the City of Santa Ana Bikeways Strategic Plan and approval to submit BTA grant applications for funding. OCTA has reviewed our plan and concurs with our changes. Once Council adopts the resolution adopting OCTA's modified CBSP the City will submit an application for the Flower Street bike trail extension. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed adoption of the CBSP has been determined to be adequately evaluated in the previously prepared Environmental Impact Report 97 -02. Environmental review for the Flower Street bike trail extension will be conducted if funding is received and presented to the City Council when the construction contract is awarded. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact adopting OCTA's CBSP. For the Flower Street bike trail extension the City will need to provide 10 percent matching funds and the Bicycle Transportation Account will provide 90 percent of the funding for any project that is approved for funding. The Flower Street Bike Trail Extension total cost is $838,107 and the City's 10 percent match is $83,811. The City's 10% match for those projects receiving BTA grant funds will be budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program. APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: George Al arez Francisco Gutierrez Acting Executive Director Executive Director Public Works Agency �,, Finance & Management Services Agency/ (,GC_ Gerardo Mouet " Executive Directo Parks, Rec. and Com. Svcs. 55D -2 KEY: _ proposed Bike Trail Extension SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZATION P� WA AGENDA DATE: FOR FLOWER STREET BIKE TRAIL NOV. 2.2009 PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY I EXTENSION 55[DXo BIT 1 Iss10/19/09 RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADOPTING THE BIKEWAYS STRATEGIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A PROJECT FOR FUNDING UNDER THE BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. In order to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account funding, the City of Santa Ana is required to adopt a bicycle transportation plan that meets the requirements of the California Transportation Act (California Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2). B. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) adopted the OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) on May 22, 2009. C. The CBSP meets the requirements of the California Bicycle Transportation Act and, with minor modifications, is consistent with the Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan. D. Projects funded through the Bicycle Transportation Account, require that the applicant furnish funding for ten percent (10 %) of the total cost of constructing the proposed bikeways and related facilities. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby adopts the Orange County Transportation Authority Commuter Bikeway Strategic Plan as modified by the City of Santa Ana addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", as the City of Santa Ana Bikeways Strategic Plan. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana authorizes the Executive Director of the Parks, Recreations and Community Services Agency and /or the Executive Director of the Public Works Agency to submit the approved Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan, as well as an application for funding bikeways and related facilities which will implement the plan, to the State of California, Department of Transportation, for project funding under the Bicycle Transportation Account. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana authorizes the City Manager and /or the Executive Director of the Parks, Recreations and Community Services Agency and /or the Executive Director of the Public Works Agency to execute and submit all documents Resolution 2009 -xxx Page 1 of 2 55D -4 and take any actions necessary, for and on behalf of the City of Santa Ana, for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance from the State of California, Department of Transportation, under the Bicycle Transportation Account. Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this day of APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Laura S. Sheedy Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers 2009. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2009 -XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 55D -5 Resolution No. 2009 -xxx Page 2 of 2 LM: -oxl CITY OF SANTA ANA BIKEWAYS STRATEGIC PLAN NOVEMBER 2ND 2009 Swt Ana ciiy,ur .:.. DownLo n OnA rig a County EXHIBIT A CITY OF SANTA ANA BIKEWAYS STRATEGIC PLAN Table of Contents Bicycle Transportation Plan Check List .......................... ............................... 2 Addendum to OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan .... ............................... 3 Exhibit..................................................................... ..............................4 Exhibit A - City of Santa Ana Proposed and Existing Bicycle Routes Map Appendix................................................................. ............................... 6 OCTA Commuter Bikeway Strategic Plan, May 2009 1 V 4� 0 PO V Z. NI 0 I U N U N CIO cio '--a Q W 71 a 0 -t 7:� -0 -0 � CIO ct ^ U[� U �' U 4J •� ° ct •O O O U cz U ct U •� o O � U � � O N by U �, O En � -0 � � ct � _p •� 4-+ .� -- .-- U bh th O U Ct ^ U Ct th . U ° O O U U N OU p th ct Ct ct ci ct • `� o a� a� a — -" • ct O �, O� o o U o �, cn &.4 o ::� th ct Ct to th bA a4 bA a4 ct ci ct Q � U •O � U U ^ U �' U � U U � � 4� r-- ct u�, c ct p � f U O ' r-- ct ct ct ci ct U 7z ct .� NI ADDENDUM TO OCTA COMMUTER BIKEWAYS STRATEGIC PLAN Introduction In order to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account funding, the City of Santa Ana is required to have an adopted bicycle transportation plan that meets with the criteria of the California Bicycle Transportation Act (Sections 890 -894.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code). There is an option for the City to either prepare its own plan or to adopt a countywide plan. A countywide plan does exist in the OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) adopted by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of Directors on May of 2009. The 2009 CBSP, an update to the plan previously adopted by OCTA in 2001, represents the culmination of a regionally supported effort that took a little over a year to complete. The result is a comprehensive plan that was coordinated with city and county bike plans, general plans, land use maps and existing and proposed bicycle systems. Public input was also sought through surveys, public meetings, and by posting the draft document on the OCTA website. The information submitted by the City of Santa Ana to OCTA for inclusion in the countywide plan was intended to replicate the Bikeway Master Plan adopted by City Council in 1998. However, after several iterations, the final CBSP document was found to include some minor discrepancies. For the City to adopt the CBSP as its bicycle plan in accordance with the California Streets and Highways Code, this addendum is being prepared to identify the areas where it differs from the Council - approved plan. The CBSP, this addendum, its maps and exhibits will together embody the City of Santa Ana Bikeways Strategic Plan. Addendum The city of Santa Ana accepts the Endings and proposed plans identified in the 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan with the following exceptions: 1. Add Class I bikeway on Bear Street from Segerstrom to MacArthur Blvd. to Map 1. 1, Map 1.2 and Exhibit: Orange County Bikeway Map / Section 3 and Section 4 in Appendix 4. 2. Identify Raitt Street between McFadden Avenue and Edinger Avenue as a Proposed Class I Bikeway in Map 1.1 and Exhibit: Orange County Bikeway Map / Section 3 in Appendix 4. 3 3. Identify the Water Channel E/O Raitt Street between Occidental Street and Alton as a Proposed Class I bikeway in Map 1.1 and Exhibit: Orange County Bikeway Map / Section 3 in Appendix 4. 4. Add the Alton /Maple Union Pacific Class I bikeway to Map 1. 1, Map 1.2, Exhibit Orange County Bikeway Map / Section 3 and Section 4 in Appendix 4. 5. Add a Proposed Class II bikeway on Memory Ln between Bristol Street and Santa Ana River to Exhibit: Orange County Bikeway Map / Section 4. 6. Identify Bristol Street as a Proposed Class II bikeway in Map 1.1. 7. Identify Grand Avenue as a proposed Class II bikeway in Map 1.1. 8. Past Expenditures for bicycle facilities include: • Flower Street Bike Trail Extension. The project consisted of the installation of a 10' wide bike trail, landscaping and supporting irrigation along a 1/2 mile length of a flood channel which runs parallel along Flower Street. The project total cost was $1111200. • Santiago Creek Underpass. The project consisted of the installation of a bike trail underpass to the 22 -fwy and Main Street. The project total cost was $ • Carl Thornton Park Re- pavement. The project rehabilitated the bike trail going through Carl Thornton Park. • Alton Bike Trail. The project rehabilitated the pavement and enhanced the landscape of the bike trail. 9. The City has no funding mechanism for improving or implementation new bicycle facilities. The City relies on obtaining grant funding and providing matching fund to leverage the limited available City funds. Overall, the City has a need for new bike facilities in the corresponding financial need. 10. The following are "typographical" errors should be corrected on the specified pages • Appendix Pagel 70: "Bristol" St. / La Veta Ave. • Appendix Page 171: 17" St. Garden Grove City Limit "East" City Limit "(Buena St.)" (Deodar St.) Sunflower Ave. Costa Mesa City Limit Costa Mesa City Limit "(Bear St.)" "(E Park Center)" • Page 169: Metrolink/Amtrak Santa Ana Station Bicycle racks (18) /Lockers "(15)" Nmi hij1h,A)i `,dul. 1111JI111 HIM111 I I III wd I I 1 11 Jul Ill 1� gla, �5m , a 'i I i iiml'i Jig HIM I Imbfiffilloj"IfflOgm 111, Ml MI'MMIJ 11hil FSEda Zga' S2 fill I I I A] j I HIM 11HIP1111 ffluffiffiffis k In I Ild flM 111H 11111 #Fs ffim' 6i 6 M"jaij,11, �,iwhjl. 1111111ji3m Jill I I if I 111 j Ill A 111131 Ififliffl! W Afifill I I 01 1; L_j Ll LU V RASA al V I UAW ;wf U amal.a��6e8h F I I F ii JIM! I Hill —7, 5 v- _J PON 4-4 K-7 L_j Ll LU V RASA al V I UAW ;wf U amal.a��6e8h F I I F ii JIM! I Hill APPENDIX OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan May 2009 Prepared for: Orange County Transportation Authority Prepared by: Alta Transportation Consulting 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan FINAL Forthe: Orange County Transportation Authority Prepared by: Alta Planning + Design KOA Corporation May 2009 -Ald .... J I 1 r:rmoi,in VIM l -S wrr a I 3 :1 , r w r7J yd9 °.',3 X41 P 9 } 1 l�qF 'k°'� �•'Pt u r' 1!1 OCTA TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................... ..............................1 1.1. Purpose & Need ................................................................................................................ ..............................1 1.2. Setting .................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 1.3. Bikeway Fundamentals ...................................................................................................... ..............................2 1.3.1. Classes of Bikeways ......................................................................................................... ............................... 2 1.3.2. Bicyclist Skill Levels ......................................................................................................... ............................... 2 1.4. Orange County Bikeways ................................................................................................. ..............................3 CHAPTER 2. REGIONAL STRATEGY .......................... ............................... 7 2.1. Regional Needs .................................................................................................................. ..............................7 Aliso Viejo ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 2.1.1. Citizens Advisory Committee — Bicycle Ad Hoc Committee .................................... ............................... 7 2.1.2. CBSP Advisory Groups .................................................................................................. ............................... 7 2.1.3. General Public .................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 2.1.4. OCTA Committees ......................................................................................................... ............................... 8 2.1.5. Outreach Results .............................................................................................................. ............................... 8 2.2. Modeling Analysis and Regional Improvement Opportunity Prioritization ............. ..............................9 Fountain Valley .............................................................................................................. ............................... 67 2.3. Performance Criteria ..................................................................................................... ............................... 14 2.4. OCTA Action Plan ........................................................................................................ ............................... 15 2.5. Funding Opportunities ................................................................................................. ............................... 16 2.5.1. Federal Funding Sources .............................................................................................. ............................... 16 2.5.2. Statewide Funding Sources ............................................................................................. .............................18 La Palma ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 2.5.3. Local and Regional Funding Sources ............................................................................ .............................19 Laguna Beach ............................................................................................................... ............................... 2.5.4. Non - Traditional Funding Sources ................................................................................. .............................19 Laguna Hills .................................................................................................................. ............................... 2.6. Design Guidelines .......................................................................................................... ............................... 20 2.6.1. Caltrans Guidelines ........................................................................................................ ............................... 20 2.6.2. CAMUTCD Guidelines ................................................................................................ ............................... 22 2.6.3. Guidelines for Innovative Treatments ........................................................................ ............................... 23 CHAPTER 3. BIKEWAY INFORMATION BY JURISDICTION .............................. 35 3.1. Aliso Viejo ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 36 3.2. Anaheim .......................................................................................................................... ............................... 39 3.3. Brea .................................................................................................................................... .............................45 3.4. Buena Park ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 50 3.5. Costa Mesa ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 53 3.6. Cypress ............................................................................................................................ ............................... 58 3.7. Dana Point ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 62 3.8. Fountain Valley .............................................................................................................. ............................... 67 3.9. Fullerton ............................................................................................................................ .............................71 3.10. Garden Grove ................................................................................................................ ............................... 79 3.11. Huntington Beach ......................................................................................................... ............................... 84 3.12. Irvine ............................................................................................................................... ............................... 88 3.13. La Habra ......................................................................................................................... ............................... 95 3.14. La Palma ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 100 3.15. Laguna Beach ............................................................................................................... ............................... 104 3.16. Laguna Hills .................................................................................................................. ............................... 108 3.17. Laguna Niguel .............................................................................................................. ............................... 113 3.18. Laguna Woods ............................................................................................................. ............................... 117 3.19. Lake Forest ................................................................................................................... ............................... 121 3.20. Los Alamitos ................................................................................................................ ............................... 126 3.21. Mission Viejo ................................................................................................................ ............................... 130 3.22. Newport Beach ............................................................................................................ ............................... 135 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.23. Orange ........................................................................................................................... ............................... 142 3.24. Placentia ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 149 3.25. Rancho Santa Margarita .............................................................................................. ............................... 153 3.26. San Clemente ................................................................................................................ ............................... 157 3.27. San Juan Capistrano .................................................................................................... ............................... 162 3.28. Santa Ana ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 167 3.29. Seal Beach ..................................................................................................................... ............................... 172 3.30. Stanton .......................................................................................................................... ............................... 176 3.31. Tustin ............................................................................................................................ ............................... 180 3.32. Villa Park ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 185 3.33. Westminster ...................................................................................... ............................... ............................189 Figure2.17: Bike Corral ................................................................................................................... ............................... 3.34. Yorba Linda .................................................................................................................. ............................... 193 3.35. Unincorporated Count 198 3.36. Caltrans ......................................................................................................................... ............................... 203 APPENDICES....... 00 00 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 eoe ee ee ee ee e9eee ee ee ee eoee eee ee ee eoeoee oe o9e eoee 2 0 4 A -1: Survey ............................................................................................................................... ............................... 205 A -2: Survey Results .................................................................................................................. ............................... 208 A -3: User Estimation Method ................................................................................................ ............................... 213 A -4: Orange County Existing & Proposed Bikeway Maps d Pr ........................................ ............................... 215 A -5: Destination Demand Maps ............................................................................................ ............................... 224 A -6: Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 ........................................................................................ ............................... 234 A -7: USDOT - Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel ...................................... ............................... 240 A -8: OCTA Congestion Management Program .................................................................. ............................... 243 A -9: Local Fair Share Program for Street Maintenance and Improvements ................... ............................... 245 List of Figures Figure2.1: Bicycle Facility Types .................................................................................................... ............................... 21 Figure 2.2: Examples of Regulatory and Warning Signs ............................................................. ............................... 22 Figure 2.3: Bike Crossing of Freeway Ramps ............................................................................... ............................... 23 Figure 2.4: Signage and pavement markings encouraging bicyclists to cross ramp ................. ............................... 24 Figure 2.5: Dashed bike lane through conflict zone (optional painted lane) ............................ ............................... 24 Figure 2.6: Lemon St. at Truslow Ave, Fullerton .......................................................................... ............................... 25 Figure 2.7: Push - button for Bicyclists ............................................................................................ ............................... 25 Figure 2.8: In- pavement Loop Detector ........................................................................................ ............................... 25 Figure 2.9: Bicycle Boulevard Signage in Berkeley, CA ............................................................... ............................... 26 Figure 2.10: Bicycle Boulevard Lane Configuration .................................................................... ............................... 27 Figure 2.11: Shared Lane Marking Placement and Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking ............ ............................... 28 Figure2.12: Multi -Use Path Signs .................................................................................................. ............................... 29 Figure 2.13: Denver's parallel path warning signage .................................................................... ............................... 29 Figure 2.14: Recommended bicycle parking spacing dimensions .............................................. ............................... 30 Figure 2.15: Recommended Short -Term Bicycle Parking Facilities ........................................... ............................... 31 Figure 2.16: Bicycle Lockers at a Transit Station .......................................................................... ............................... 32 Figure2.17: Bike Corral ................................................................................................................... ............................... 33 Figure2.18: Bike Oasis ..................................................................................................................... ............................... 33 Figure2.19: Bike Station .................................................................................................................. ............................... 33 Figure2.20: Bike Sharing Programs ............................................................................................... ............................... 34 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan List of Tables Table2 -1: Priority Regional Projects .............................................................................................. ............................... 12 TableA -2: Survey Question 1 ........................................................................................................ ............................... 209 TableA -3: Survey Question 2 ........................................................................................................ ............................... 209 TableA -4: Survey Question 4 ........................................................................................................ ............................... 210 TableA -5: Survey Question 6 ........................................................................................................ ............................... 210 TableA -6: Survey Question 8 ........................................................................................................ ............................... 211 TableA -7: Survey Question 9 ........................................................................................................ ............................... 212 List of Maps Map 1.1 Existing Bikeways and Proposed Bikeways ...................................................................... ............................... 4 Map1.2 Existing Bikeways ................................................................................................................. ............................... 5 Map 2.1 Regional Commuter Bikeway Priority Zones ................................................................. ............................... 11 Map3.1 Aliso Viejo Land Use ........................................................................................................ ............................... 37 Map3.2 Anaheim Land Use ............................................................................................................. ............................... 40 Map3.3 Brea Land Use ..................................................................................................................... ............................... 46 Map3.4 Buena Park Land Use ......................................................................................................... ............................... 51 Map3.5 Costa Mesa Land Use ......................................................................................................... ............................... 54 Map3.6 Cypress Land Use ............................................................................................................... ............................... 59 Map3.7 Dana Point Land Use ......................................................................................................... ............................... 63 Map3.8 Fountain Valley Land Use ................................................................................................. ............................... 68 Map3.9 Fullerton Land Use ............................................................................................................. ............................... 72 Map3.10 Garden Grove Land Use ................................................................................................. ............................... 80 Map3.11 Huntington Beach Land Use .......................................................................................... ............................... 85 Map3.12 Irvine Land Use ................................................................................................................ ............................... 89 Map3.13 La Habra Land Use .......................................................................................................... ............................... 96 Map3.14 La Palma Land Use ............................................................................ ............................... ............................101 Map3.15 Laguna Beach Land Use .................................................................... ............................... ............................105 Map3.16 Laguna Hills Land Use ....................................................................... ............................... ............................109 Map3.17 Laguna Niguel Land Use ................................................................... ............................... ............................114 Map3.18 Laguna Woods Land Use .................................................................. ............................... ............................118 Map3.19 Lake Forest Land Use ........................................................................ ............................... ............................122 Map3.20 Los Alamitos Land Use ..................................................................... ............................... ............................127 Map 3.21 City of Mission Viejo Land Use Policy Map ................................... ............................... ............................131 Map3.22 Newport Beach Land Use ................................................................. ............................... ............................136 Map3.23 Orange Land Use ................................................................................ ............................... ............................143 Map3.24 Placentia Land Use ............................................................................. ............................... ............................150 Map 3.25 Rancho Santa Margarita Land Use ................................................... ............................... ............................154 Map3.26 San Clemente Land Use ..................................................................... ............................... ............................158 Map3.27 San Juan Capistrano Land Use ......................................................... ............................... ............................163 Map3.28 Santa Ana Land Use ........................................................................... ............................... ............................168 Map3.29 Seal Beach Land Use .......................................................................... ............................... ............................173 Map3.30 Stanton Land Use ............................................................................... ............................... ............................177 Map3.31 Tustin Land Use ................................................................................. ............................... ............................181 Map3.32 Villa Park Land Use ............................................................................ ............................... ............................186 Map3.33 Westminster Land Use ....................................................................... ............................... ............................190 Map3.34 Yorba Linda Land Use ....................................................................... ............................... ............................194 Map 3.35 Unincorporated County Land Use ............................................................................... ............................... 202 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan iii This�age intentionalj left blank iv OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan CHAPTER 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose Et Need This Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) has been developed by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to encourage the enhancement of Orange County's regional bikeways network, in order to make bicycle commuting a more viable and attractive travel option. There are a number of challenges that must be overcome for Orange County to excel as a bicycling region, including improving safety, access to key destinations, coordination of plans, and support facilities. Furthermore, there are also opportunities, such as increasing congestion, climate change, and oil dependency that bicycling can play a large role in mitigating. The goal of the CBSP is to help address these many challenges by providing: A strategy for improving the regional bikeway network; Eligibility for state Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funds; Identification of roles and responsibilities for OCTA regarding bikeways; and Documentation of existing and planned Orange County bikeways. The projects described in this plan are a compilation of projects planned by Orange County Cities and the County of Orange. The CBSP is a long range, financially unconstrained planning document. Funding for these projects will not be limited to the OCTA Call for Projects. It will be the responsibility of each implementing agency to identify funding sources for the projects within their purview. 1 Setting According to the 2005 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau), less than 1 percent of Orange County's population commutes by bicycle. The vast majority of commuters (77.3 %) commute to work by driving alone. This shows how automobile dependent Orange County currently is, and why many of the streets and freeways are at, or close to, maximum capacity. The Orange County Projections, produced by the Center for Demographic Research (out of California State University, Fullerton), estimates Orange County's 2005 population of 3,059,950 to grow by nearly 600,000, more than 19 percent, by 2035, which will only put more demand on transportation infrastructure. Much of the early suburban development took place in Northern Orange County, and infrastructure facilities were geared towards commutes into Los Angeles. The Pacific Electric rail cars served much of this area, until their service was stopped in the early 1960s. It was at that time that Orange County residents began to be more dependent on automobiles for their commutes. North Orange County was designed with grid- pattern road networks, much like Los Angeles. The grid - pattern, along with the relatively level topography, is beneficial to bicycle commuters, as it allows them to maneuver through short blocks, for more direct routes. Unfortunately, many of these streets were not designed to support the demand that we see today. They are often narrow, and not designed to safely accommodate automobiles together with bicycles. However, these roadways, along with some of the watersheds and abandoned rail rights -of -way, retain opportunities to make bicycling more viable. Much of South Orange County was developed as planned communities over the last 30 years. The roadway networks are generally wider and more circuitous than in North County. The advantage to these roads is that many of them were designed with bike lanes along the shoulders. However, South OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan County has more elevation changes, and the planned communities tend to be relatively low density with housing separated from work and shopping centers. This layout often results in longer trips, and the lower densities consequently result in fewer job opportunities near the residential communities. Nonetheless, many opportunities still exist, such as providing improved access and facilities at transit stations. Applying the strategies discussed in this plan, and implementing the local jurisdictions' projects, will help to create a regional bikeway network that will benefit Orange County communities, from the bicycle dependent, to casual cyclists, and people of all income levels. Furthermore, the build -out of the bikeway network, along with the favorable climate in the region, could make Orange County an even more enjoyable place to live and work. 1.3. Bikeway Fundamentals Bicycles share equal rights and responsibilities with other vehicles on the road, according to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). However, while bicyclists share all the same rights and responsibilities of motorists, bicycle- specific facilities are often provided in an effort to enhance safety for both bicyclists and motorists. Bicyclists also need to be conscious of their skill and comfort levels when choosing their travel routes. The following sections provide a brief overview of the various classes of bikeways, and some general characteristics of the different skill levels of bicyclists. 1.3.1. Classes of Bikeways There are three classes of commuter bikeways: Class I — off - street paved bike paths Class II — on -road striped and signed bicycle lanes Class III — on -road shared -lane signed bicycle routes Off - street paths are facilities on a separate right -of -way from roadways, and are usually shared by bicyclists and pedestrians. Shared paths should not be used as high -speed bikeways, as the safety of the other non - motorized users must be considered. Bicycle lanes are on- street facilities that use painted stripes and stencils to delineate the right of way assigned to bicyclists and motorists, and to provide for more predictable movements by each. Bicycle routes are signed on- street facilities that accommodate vehicles and bicycles in the same travel lane. Bicycles are permitted on most roadways; however, for safety purposes, signed bicycle routes are often found on streets with lower speeds and traffic volumes. 193929 Bicyclist Skill Levels The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or AASHTO, published the Guide for the Develo�ent of Bicycle Facilities in 1999. This guide provides descriptions for the three general skill levels of bicyclists, as summarized by the A,B, and C typologies below: Advanced or experienced riders are generally using their bicycles as they would a motor vehicle. They are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with a minimum of detour or delay, and they are typically comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic. Basic or more casual adult riders may also be using their bicycles for transportation purposes, but prefer to avoid roads with fast and busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample roadway width to allow easy overtaking by faster motor vehicles. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Children, who still require access to key destinations in their community, such as schools, convenience stores and recreational facilities. They prefer residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds, linked with shared -use paths and busier streets with well- defined pavement markings between bicycles and motor vehicles, so they can avoid riding in the travel lane of major arterials. The "commuter" bicyclists that this plan refers to are generally the type A riders, but the implementation of the plan will benefit all types. 1.4. Orange County Bikeways There are currently more than 1000 miles of bikeways in Orange County, with roughly another 700 miles that have been planned. It is the responsibility of the local jurisdictions to plan, implement, and maintain the bikeways in Orange County. These local jurisdictions include all of the 34 Orange County cities, the County of Orange, and Caltrans. All existing and planned bikeway data presented in this plan was submitted by these local jurisdictions. The commuting habits within Orange County region can be generally characterized with the following data: Population: Approximately 3 million residents Jurisdictions: 34 cities, the County of Orange, and Caltrans Commuting Characteristics: • Mode share (2000 U.S. Census): 0 77% drive alone 0 13% carpool 0 3% public transportation 0 2% walk 0 1 % ride a bicycle • Average Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (SCAG 2008 RTP) • In 2003, the average daily VHD was 686,000 hours • By 2035, VHD is projected to increase by 407,000 hours to 1,093,000 • Average Vehicle Miles Traveled (SCAG 2008 RTP) • In 2003, the average daily VMT was 70,458,000 • By 2035, VMT is projected to increase by 14,829,000 to 85,287,000 Bikeways: • 1037.7 miles built 0 26% Class III bike routes 0 65% Class II bike lanes 0 9% Class I off - street paths Overview of the bikeway planning roles for OCTA: Suggest regional priorities for optimal use by local jurisdictions; Assist in coordinating plans between jurisdictions; Provide planning and design guidelines; and Participate in outreach efforts to encourage bicycle commuting. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan April 23, 2009 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. LOS ANGELES Bikeways Class Off Road Paved Class II On Road Striped Class III On Road Not Striped - Class I Existing Class II Existing - Class III Existing Source: OCTA 0 2 4 11 A' 1 i SAN B E R N A R D I N 0 LA,HABRA BREAD ° YORBA LINDA ' LLERTON � PLACENTIA I RIVERSIDE 1 NIGUElf ti 1 \DANA,POIN1 v April 23, 2009 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA GLEMENTE� / - -_� / eta i X Thispczge intentionalj left blank. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan CHAPTER 2. Regional Strategy In the development of this Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP), the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) collected input from committees, stakeholders, and the public, in order to identify improvements that will provide the greatest benefit to commuters utilizing the regional bikeways network. This includes identifying bikeway needs, performance criteria, and general funding and design guidelines. Additionally, the CBSP examined OCTA's role regarding bikeways, and provides an action plan that outlines the responsibilities OCTA will assume in implementing this plan. 2.1. Regional Needs To identify the critical needs of the regional bikeway network, OCTA undertook a number of outreach efforts. The input received was valuable, as it provided insights into the concerns of the public, local jurisdictions, and the committees within OCTA. Below is a description of the various outreach efforts, followed by more detailed discussions of critical issues that were identified. 2.1.1. Citizens Advisory Committee - Bicycle Ad Hoc Committee The first committee approached by OCTA staff regarding the development of this plan was the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). This committee took a large role in guiding the development of the plan by creating a Bicycle Ad Hoc Committee. The ad hoc committee met about a dozen times, and provided input and oversight that focused the goals of the plan. 2.1.2. CBSP Advisory Groups Two advisory groups were formed to provide input on specific items that were produced during the development of the CBSP. One group was referred to as the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), made up of planning and public works staff from local jurisdictions. The other group was referred to as the Public Stakeholders Group (PSG), which included members of the CAC, local bicycle advocates, and representatives from local riding groups. OCTA staff met with these groups three to four times each to discuss and receive input on data and strategies used in this plan. 291939 General Public Survey A website was developed to help with the public outreach effort, which included the previous CBSP, as well as an online survey, which received nearly 1,100 responses. The survey collected information regarding the public's bicycling habits and needs. The following summarizes some of the survey results (the full results are located in the appendix): The most popular reason people bicycle is for exercise and health reasons (92 %). Other popular reasons include bicycling for pleasure (84 %) and commuting to work (54 %) . The majority of survey respondents (53 %) bicycle four or more times per week. `�l The City of Irvine had the most survey respondents (12 %) out of Orange County's local jurisdictions. The next most responsive jurisdiction was the city of Orange (7 %), followed by Huntington Beach (6 %). OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan • The most common roundtrip distance traveled by respondents was 11 -24 miles (34 %). • The Santa Ana River Trail and Pacific Coast Highway are among the respondent's favorite places to bike. The absence of bike paths, lanes or bike routes was the most reported reason why the survey respondents are prevented from biking more often (58 %). Off - street paved bike paths were ranked as the most preferred bicycle facility (69 %); while unpaved trails or dirt paths were ranked as the least preferred facility. More paved off - street bike paths and more bike lanes are the improvements most likely to influence people to bike more often. The CBSP website also provided information on the public workshop that was held at the OCTA offices. The workshop time and location was posted; and all the information that was presented, as well as the input received at the event, was posted on the website after the workshop was held. The public was also notified of the workshop with an OCTA press release to major newspapers, flyers that were mailed to over 500 Orange County residents, and through the OCTA website. Members of the PSG also helped to notify the bicycling community; and thanks in large part to them, the workshop was successful, drawing over 50 participants. Public Workshop The workshop was held on July 12, 2008, with the purpose of informing the public of the development of the CBSP, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the various entities involved in bikeways, and gathering input from the attendees. The workshop had an open house format, with various stations where the participants could gather information and provide input. Hardcopies of the surveys were also available, as well as comment cards that allowed participants to address any remaining concerns or issues. 29194. OCTA Committees Additional input and oversight was provided by several OCTA committees. OCTA and Alta Planning staff presented data to the OCTA Board of Directors, Highways Committee, Transit Committee, Technical Steering Committee, and Citizens Advisory Committee, throughout the development of the CBSP. The guidance received from these committees was critical for addressing many of the policy and technical issues regarding OCTA and its role in regional bikeway planning. 2.1.5. Outreach Results The following subsections discuss some of the issues that were of the most concern throughout the outreach effort. There may be other issues of equal importance; however, based on the input received, the issues below were viewed as priorities for this plan. These issues, along with the other input received, were used in the identification of priority improvement areas and project priorities, which are discussed later in this chapter. Safety Et Education The safety and education of both bicyclists and drivers is the most commonly raised issue. It is important for everyone on the roadway to be familiar with the California Vehicle Code, as well as the California Department of Motor Vehicles' California Driver Handbook. Bicyclists have all the rights, and are subject to all the provisions, applicable to drivers of vehicles. It is important to respect the right -of -way of others, especially pedestrians and bicycle riders; and if an OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan automobile must pass a bicyclist, they should be patient when passing, only pass when it is safe, and pass at a reduced speed. However, it should be noted that a 1996 FHWA study of bicycle and pedestrian crashes found that about half of bicycle crashes with vehicles are the fault of the bicyclist, which demonstrates the need to educate both bicyclists and drivers about safety. Equally important is the quality and maintenance of the bicycle facilities. Bikeway facilities must be planned, implemented, and maintained at a level that does not put the users at risk. In order to grow the population of bicycle commuters, the facilities must be safe and inviting. Ease of Implementation Identification of projects that can be implemented relatively quickly and /or at a lower cost than most projects should be given some priority. The difficulty in identifying large amounts of funding, and obtaining necessary rights -of -way, often slows the development of the regional bikeways network. By picking the "low- hanging fruit" improvements will be implemented at a more rapid pace, which will contribute to a more complete and convenient bikeway system. Multimodal Connections In order for bicycle commuting to be an option for some Orange County residents, they would need to utilize transit services for portions of their commutes. According to a study reported in the 2007 Transportation Research Board Journal' - people are willing to bicycle about five miles each way of their commute. Based on this assumption, the use of transit can greatly expand the distance a bicycle commuter is willing to travel, making bicycle access to transit facilities a priority issue. Transit facilities are designed to accommodate the flow of automobiles, but they do not always meet the needs of bicyclists. Measures need to be taken to ensure that Orange County transit stations can be easily accessed and utilized by bicycle commuters. Parking Et Amenities Another issue for the regional bikeways network is the need for bicycle parking and amenities. This is particularly important at regional destinations to encouraging bicycle commuting. Access to showers and lockers at employment centers allows bicycle commuters to clean up and change for work. Not having access to these kinds of facilities creates a difficult challenge for commuters who would like to bicycle to work. Bicycle parking at transit stations is necessary due to the limited capacity for bicycles on transit vehicles. These parking facilities should be safe for long -term (all day) parking, and consist of bicycle lockers and /or monitored parking areas, both of which are described in more detail later in this chapter. Additionally, adequate bicycle parking is necessary at employment centers, and at colleges and universities. 2 Modeling Analysis and Regional Improvement Opportunity Prioritization OCTA coordinated a modeling effort to identify regional commuter bikeway priorities. The analysis identified the following key regional employment centers: Irvine Spectrum, The Irvine Business Complex, Newport Center, South Coast Metro Area, Downtown Santa Ana, Main Street Area (Santa Ana /Orange), The Anaheim Resort, Anaheim Canyon Business Center, and the Brea Mall. These regional employment centers were analyzed for their trip generation characteristics. The trip generation analysis was based on OCTA's 2035 growth forecast model, OCTAM 3.3. Maps were produced that show the areas with the highest concentration of demand for trips to each of the 1 Hagelin, Christopher. Integrating Bicycles and Transit Through Bike-to-Bus Strategy. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting Paper, 2007. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan employment centers (see Appendix B). In general, this data showed the highest concentrations of trip origins to be within a few miles of the employment centers. The intent of identifying the regional employment centers, as well as Orange County's transit stations, colleges and universities, which are also regional commuter destinations, is to improve bicycle facilities at these locations in order to make bicycle commuting a more viable option. Therefore, bicycle access and support facility projects within, or connecting to, the regional destinations identified in Map 2 -1 are viewed by OCTA as regional priorities. Map 2 -1 displays the regional commuter destinations. The radii around the employment centers were determined based on the trip origin analysis, discussed above, as well as by National Personal Transportation Survey data that shows the average bicycle trip is three miles or less. A study conducted in 2007 by the Transportation Research Board estimates that the average commuter is willing to bicycle about five miles to work, which is why projects that connect to the identified priority zone will be considered priorities as well. The transit stations, colleges and universities do not have radii since bicycle facilities should be at, or connect directly to, the specified location. Note that the above prioritization methods are intended as guidelines, and that jurisdictions can use them to help justify the regional significance of their projects. 10 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan April 23, 2009 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. The local jurisdictions of Orange County provided all of the information for proposed bikeways presented in this plan. Map 2.1 was used to identify the following bikeways as regional priority projects. Table 2.1: Regional Priority Projects City Anaheim Street/Path Olive / UPRR Broadway Santa Ana River Trail Class 1 -..- 4.00 Anaheim La Palma Ave. La Reina St. Jefferson St. Class II 8.34 Brea Birch St. Mercury Ln. State College Blvd Class II 1.18 Brea UP RR Palm St. Valencia Ave. Class 1 4.50 Costa Mesa Santa Ana Ave. 23rd St. Mesa Dr. Class II 1.00 Cypress Katella Ave. Walker St. Stanton City Limit Class II 1.49 Dana Point Pacific Coast Hwy. Monarch Bay Dr. Street of the Blue Lantern Class II 1.97 Dana Point Pacific Coast Hwy. Street of the Copper Lantern Coast Hwy. Class II 0.53 Dana Point Stonehill Dr. San Juan Capistrano City Limit Niguel Rd. Class II 2.13 Fullerton BNSF RR Commonwealth Ave. Metrolink RR Class 1 2.32 Fullerton UP RR BNSF RR La Habra City Limit Class 1 4.83 Fullerton Rosecrans / Euclid Path Euclid St. Rosecrans Ave. Class II 2.31 Garden Grove Euclid St. Orangewood Ave. Westminster Ave. Class II 6.14 Garden Grove Westminster Ave. Bushard St. Brock Ln. Class II 3.22 Huntington Beach Pacific Coast Hwy Segment 1 County Limit 8th St. Class II 4.61 Huntington Beach Pacific Coast Hwy Segment 2 Huntington St. County Limit Class II 2.63 Irvine Jeffrey Rd. Path Trabuco Rd. North of Alton Pkwy. Class 1 2.23 Irvine OCTA Metrolink Path Sand Canyon Ave. Great Park Southeastern Path Class 1 1.96 La Habra UPRR Bikeway Western City Limit Palm St. Class 1 3.00 La Habra La Habra Blvd. Valley Home Ave. Vallejo St. Class II 2.77 Laguna Beach Pacific Coast Hwy. City Limit ( S El Moro Rdg.) Broadway Class II 4.83 Laguna Hills Cabot Rd La Paz Rd. Oso Pkwy. Class II 1.19 Laguna Niguel Forbes Path Mission Viejo City Limit San Juan Capistrano City Limit Class 1 2.03 Laguna Woods El Toro Rd. Moulton Pkwy. Laguna Hills City Limit Class II 0.74 Lake Forest OCTA Metrolink RR Irvine City Limit El Toro Rd. Class 1 1.93 Mission Viejo Camino Capistrano Oso Pkwy. Laguna Niguel City Limit Class 1 0.82 Orange Glassell St. Fletcher St. Katella Ave. Class II 1.39 Orange Glassell St. La Veta Ave. Santa Ana City Limit (SR -22 E Exit 16) Class II 0.40 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan City Street/Path From To Class Mileage Orange Glassell St. Woodvale Ave. Fletcher St. Class II 0.12 Orange Glassell St. City Limit N Riverdale Ave. Class II 0.08 Orange Walnut Ave. Hewes St. Rancho Santiago Blvd. Class III 0.25 Orange Walnut Ave. Walnut Ave. _Tustin St. Bikeway Earlham St. Class III 0.77 Placentia Orangethorpe Ave. Chapman Ave. Anaheim City Limits (W Lakeview Ave.) Class II 2.92 San Clemente Avenida Vista Hermosa Avenida La Pata Avenida Pico Class 1 1.01 San Juan Capistrano Las Ramblas / PCH San Clemente City Limit San Diego Fwy. Class II 2.00 Santa Ana Raitt St. Mc Fadden Ave. Sunflower Ave. Class I 2.72 Santa Ana Birstol St. / La Veta Ave. Orange City Limit (Santa Ana Fwy.) Sunflower Ave. Class II 5.88 Santa Ana Grand Ave. Orange City Limit (S 22E exit 16) Dyer Rd. Class II 4.64 Santa Ana Westminster Ave. Garden Grove City Limit (W Newhope St) Garden Grove City Limit (W Clinton St) Class II 1.36 Seal Beach Westminster Ave. Seal Beach Blvd. City Limit Westminster Class II 1.98 Stanton Magnolia Ave. Anaheim City Limit UP RR Class 1 0.62 Stanton Katella Ave. Cypress City Limit Magnolia St. Class II 1.94 Tustin Red Hill Ave. Barranca Pkwy. Warner Ave. Class II 0.51 Tustin Red Hill Ave. Warner Ave. Parkway Loop Class II 0.78 Tustin Red Hill Ave. Edinger Ave. Nisson Rd. Class II 1.00 Tustin Red Hill Ave. El Camino Real First St. Class II 0.57 Tustin Red Hill Ave First St. Melvin Way Class II 0.78 Tustin Red Hill Ave. Melvin Way North of Irvine Blvd. Class I I 0.18 Westminster Bolsa Chica Rd. / Valley View St. Garden Grove City Limit Westminster Ave. Class II 1.09 Westminster Mc Fadden Ave. Van Buren St. Dalewood Ln. Class II 1.83 Westminster Westminster Ave. Seal Beach City Limit Atlantis Wy. Class II 4.59 Yorba Linda Bastanchury Rd. Placentia City Limit Village Center Dr. Class II 4.02 TOTAL 116.13 Table 2.2: Regional Priority Project Cost Estimates Class Unit Cost (per mile) Total Miles Total Cost Class 1 $1,500,000 31.97 $47,955,000 Class II $280,000 84.16 $23,564,800 Total 116.13 $71,519,800 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 13 2.3. Performance Criteria The input received through the outreach process also served to identify project performance criteria that can be used by local jurisdictions to prioritize their projects listed in this plan, as well as future projects. The following criteria should be considered in the order of the Tiers in which they are listed: Tier 1: Safety — Projects that reduce conflicts between motorists and cyclists, and address other safety concerns. Ease of implementation — Projects with an anticipated low difficulty for implementation, based on available rights -of -way, existing traffic operations, and other similar factors. Continuity — Projects that improve continuity within the route, or between routes. Tier 2: Regional signcance — Projects that will benefit the overall region by addressing regional priorities identified within this plan. Accessibility — Projects that provide one or more points of access to regional destinations. Support facilities and programs — Projects that include any of the following support facilities or programs: bicycle parking (including lockers) signage /street markings signal detection (buttons and /or in- ground) lighting bicycle sharing programs =x restrooms /drinking fountains other similar facilities Tier 3: Directness — Projects that provide the most direct route between origins and destinations. Route aesthetics — Projects that provide for visual aesthetics, increased comfort, a sense of personal safety, and /or other similar factors along the facility. Public Support — Projects that appear to be supported by the public input received in the development of this plan, through letters of support, or other means of public input. 14 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 2 Plan Input received during the outreach process indicated that OCTA needed to clearly establish its roles and responsibilities regarding bikeway planning in Orange County. The following Action Plan identifies the tasks OCTA will undertake to ensure the implementation of the CBSP, as well as OCTA's support for bicycle commuting: Improve the regional bikeways network Provide funding, when feasible, for capital bikeway improvements through a competitive call- for - projects Support efforts by local jurisdictions to seek funding, such as state Bicycle Transportation Account funds Promote that local jurisdictions to emphasize their consideration of bicyclists within environmental and planning documents External coordination Designate an OCTA bicycle coordinator Maintain the countywide bicycle transportation plan, ensure it remains compliant with the Bicycle Transportation Account requirements, and make it available for adoption by local jurisdictions Facilitate bikeway planning coordination efforts between jurisdictions and other involved entities Encourage local jurisdictions to coordinate local planning efforts with the CBSP Encourage each local jurisdiction to designate a bicycle coordinator Update and work with bicycle coordinators, Employee Transportation Coordinators, and other stakeholders, on issues relating to bicycling, such as funding opportunities Provide technical support to local jurisdictions Internal coordination Ensure that the needs for bicyclists and bikeways are considered in the development of projects and programs within OCTA Plan and participate in events that promote bicycling, such as Bike -to -Work Week and Rideshare Week Provide bikeway outreach and support through internet resources, including a countywide commuter bikeways map Communicate with OCTA committees as necessary Address the regional priorities Lead the implementation efforts of projects within OCTA owned rights -of -way C� Review development plans and environmental documents and provide comments, 1) to ensure that developers and local jurisdictions are complying with the CBSP, and 2) to encourage these entities to add local supplemental routes that may not be on the regional bikeways plan, but would enhance the overall connectivity of the bikeway system. Advise local jurisdictions to submit projects that address the regional priorities when state or federal funds become available Provide incentives to local jurisdictions for submitting projects that address the regional priorities during calls- for - projects for funds controlled by OCTA OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 2 Funding Opportunities There are a variety of potential funding sources that can be used for bicycle projects, programs and plans from all levels of government. This section covers traditional federal, state, regional and local sources of funding, as well as some non - traditional funding sources that may be used for bicycle projects. In addition, local jurisdictions are encouraged to have bicycle projects prioritized and ready to move forward on short notice in the case that new funding sources become available. 2.5.1. Federal Funding Sources The primary federal source of surface transportation funding including bicycle and pedestrian facilities is the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU). This Federal bill is the third iteration of the transportation vision established by Congress in 1991 with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and renewed in 1998 and extended in 2003 through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003. Also known as the Federal Transportation Bill, the $286.5 billion bill was passed in 2005 and authorizes federal surface transportation programs for the five -year period between 2005 and 2009. Federal funding is administered through the state (Caltrans and the State Resources Agency) and regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these funding programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with an emphasis on reducing vehicle trips and providing inter - modal connections. Many Federal programs require a local match of between 10 -20 %. Federal funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education programs and projects must relate to the surface transportation system. Specific funding programs under the federal transportation bill for bicycle facilities that might be potential funding sources for the CBSP may include: Federal Lands Highway Funds Approximately $1 billion dollars are available nationally through 2009 for planning and construction of bicycle projects built in conjunction with roadways Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program $270 million nationally through 2009 for projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the impact on the environment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services and trade centers Recreational Trails Program $370 million nationally through 2009 for non - motorized trail projects. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program About $1.7 billion available nationwide per year. Estimated annual program level for California is $360 million. Highway Safety Im provement Program (HSIP� The annual program funding is approximately $54 million for Federal Fiscal Year 2008/2009 at which time the HSIP program will end, unless it is extended or reauthorized. The maximum funding amount for a project is $1 million, and the federal reimbursement rate is 90 %. Regional Surface Transportation Program Estimated annual program level is $330 million which is eligible for State Match and Exchange Program funding. Safe Routes to School This is a 100% federal reimbursement program. California will receive $68 million over the five year life of SAFETEA -LU. There is no local match required. Transportation Enhancements California will receive approximately $75 million per year for five years, starting in 2006. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Federal Lands Highway Funds Federal Lands Highway Funds may be used to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities in conjunction with roads and parkways at the discretion of the department charged with administration of the funds. The projects must be transportation- related and tied to a plan adopted by the State and Metropolitan Planning Organization. Federal Lands Highway Funds may be used for planning and construction and is managed by the United States Department of Transportation. Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program The Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program provides federal funding for transit oriented development, traffic calming and other projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the impact on the environment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services and trade centers. The program is intended to provide communities with the resources to explore the integration of their transportation system with community preservation and environmental activities. The Program funds require a 20% match and can be applied to planning, design and construction and is administered through the Federal Highway Administration. Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds annually for recreational trails and trails - related projects. The RTP is administered at the federal level by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). It is administered at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). The maximum amount of RTP funds allowed for each project is 88% of the total project cost. The applicant is responsible for obtaining a match amount that is at least 12% of the total project cost. The application deadline is in October. Funds may be used for: Maintenance and restoration of existing trails; Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment; Construction of new trails; including unpaved trails Acquisition of easements or property for trails; State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a State's funds); and Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a State's funds). Land and Water Conservation Fund The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a federally funded program that provides grants for planning and acquiring outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The Fund is administered by the National Parks Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation and has been reauthorized until 2015. Cities, counties and districts authorized to acquire, develop, operate and maintain park and recreation facilities are eligible to apply. The application deadline is in May, and applicants must fund the entire project, and will be reimbursed for 50% of costs. Property acquired or developed under the program must be retained in perpetuity for public recreational use. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) CMAQ Funds are directed to transportation projects and programs which contribute to the attainment or maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards in non attainment or air quality maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter under provisions in the Federal Clean Air Act. Eligible projects include bicycle facilities. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 17 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The Highway Safety Improvement Program is managed locally by Caltrans. For a project to be eligible for HSIP funds, the project must be on any public road and /or publicly owned bicycle, pedestrian pathway, or trail. Projects must identify a specific safety problem that can be corrected or be improved substantially. Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funding is distributed based on population, among the urbanized and non - urbanized areas of the State through Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs). Bicycle facilities are eligible for funding through this federally administered program. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Eligible projects fall under the category of infrastructure (capital improvements), or non - infrastructure (education, encouragement, enforcement). Infrastructure projects must be located within a two mile radius of a grade school or middle school. Local Caltrans representatives serve as the administrative authority on SRTS projects. Transportation Enhancements (TE) Federal Transportation Enhancement funds are to be used for transportation- related capital improvement projects that enhance quality -of -life, in or around transportation facilities. Facilities that qualify for TE funds include bicycle safety, education and facility projects. Transportation Enhancements projects are managed locally by Caltrans. 295929 Statewide Funding Sources The State of California uses both federal sources and its own budget to fund bicycle projects and programs. Bicycle Transportation Account The Bicycle Transportation Account provides state funding for local projects that improve the safety and convenience of bicycling for transportation. Because of its focus on transportation, Bicycle Transportation Account projects must provide a demonstrable level of utility for transportation purposes. For example, all in -town on- street and paved bikeways would be good candidates for funding. Funds are available for both planning and construction. Bicycle Transportation Account funding is administered by Caltrans and cities and counties must have an adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan in order to be eligible. The maximum amount available through the Bicycle Transportation Account is $1.2 million dollars, cities and counties are eligible to apply. All projects must be designed to the standards outlined in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual. The application deadline is in December. Community Based Transportation Planning Demonstration Grant Program This fund, administered by Caltrans, provides funding for projects that exemplify livable community concepts including bicycle improvement projects. Eligible applicants include local governments, metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies. A 20% local match is required and projects must demonstrate a transportation component or objective. There is $3 million available annually statewide. The application deadline is in October. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Safe Routes to School (SR2S) To be eligible for SR2S funds, the project must be located on any state highway or on any local road. Projects must correct an identified safety hazard or problem on a route that students use for trips to and from school. Up to 10 percent of the project's cost can fund a non infrastructure component that supports the infrastructure project. Only cities and counties are eligible to compete for funds. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) All STIP projects must be capital projects (including project development costs) needed to improve transportation. Eligible projects include bicycle facility improvements and improved access to transit and are administered by Caltrans. 2.5939 Local and Regional Funding Sources Developer Impact Fees Fees placed on new development local government could be used as local matching funds to attract other grant sources. 2.5949 Non - Traditional Funding Sources Community Development Block Grants The Community Development Block Grant program provides money for streetscape revitalization, which may be largely comprised of pedestrian improvements. Federal Community Development Block Grant grantees may "use [these] funds for activities that include (but are not limited to): acquiring real property; reconstructing or rehabilitating housing and other property; building public facilities and improvements, such as streets, sidewalks, community and senior citizen centers and recreational facilities, paying for planning and administrative expenses, such as costs related to developing a consolidated plan and managing Community Development Block Grant funds; provide public services for youths, seniors, or the disabled; and initiatives such as neighborhood watch programs." American Greenways Program Administered by The Conservation Fund, the American Greenways Program provides funding for the planning and design of greenways. Applications for funds can be made by local regional or statewide non - profit organizations and public agencies. The maximum award is $2,500, but most range from $500 to $1,500. American Greenways Program monies may be used to fund unpaved trail development. The application deadline is June 1. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 19 2.6. Design Guidelines This section provides bikeway planning and design guidelines for use in developing the OCTA bikeway system and support facilities. Guidelines are presented based on their regulatory agencies and documents. One set of guidelines involve design elements required by the State of California for compliance with Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000 "Bikeway Planning and Design" guidelines. Another set of guidelines follow the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Finally, the last set of guidelines cover experimental or nonstandard best practices with information about optional innovative bikeways and support facilities that have not been adopted by Caltrans or the CAMUTCD. Although this information meets Caltrans requirements it is not intended to state a minimum or maximum accommodation or to replace any existing adopted roadway design guidelines. All facility designs are subject to engineering design review. 29691. Caltrans Guidelines According to Caltrans, the term "bikeway" encompasses all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. Caltrans defines three major types of bikeways in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual: Class I, Class II, and Class III. For each type of facility the document provides design requirements and recommendations, including details for gradation, surfacing, intersection considerations, lane - widths and lighting. Figure 2 -1: Bicycle Facility Types provides an illustration of these three types of bicycle facilities. 20 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan CLASS I Shared Use Path Provides a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized_ SHARED USE PATH Na MOTOR VEHICLES OR MOTORIZED BICYCLES 8'MIll, REQUIRED PAVED WIDTH 2' GRAVEL SHOULDERS RECOMMENDED 12'M IN- TOTAL' I CSTH RECOMMENDED CLASS 11 Bike Lane Road Stencil Bike Lane 6"- 8" Solid hit' Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel: on a street or highway. Parking Bike Lane \Z. , BIKE ILANE 010 121 MIN. 4' MK WITH NO GUTTER 5' MIN- WITH GUTTER CLASS III Bike Route Signed Shared Roadway OAtonal Shared Roadway Marking Provides for shared use with pede Irian or motor veh icl e t raffi c, typically on lower volume roadways. Bike Routo,, Sign A I ago? 11 Shared Roadway can incorporate 14'WIDTH PREFERRED the shared lane marking, Figure 2.11: Bicycle Facility Types OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 296929 CAMUTCD Guidelines In conjunction with the Caltrans guidelines for facility design, part 9 of the CAMUTCD provides guidelines for signage, pavement markings, and highway traffic signals specifically related to bicycle operation on both roadways and shared -use paths. These guidelines include details regarding traffic control device placement, maintenance, and application. Figure 2 -2 shows some of the signs regulated by the CAMUTCD. � R81 (CA) ARE THE ROAD BICYCLES MUST EXIT #0 PUSHBUTTON FOR GREEN LIGHT L i R44C (CA) R62C (CA) B EGAN END R81 (CA) BIKE Ae I W1 6-7p Figure 2.2: Examples of Regulatory and Warning Signs <i W11 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan BICYCLES BIKE PATH MOTOR- DRIVEN NO Moron CYCLES VEHICLES MUST OR MOTORIZES EXIT BievcLES R44A {CA} R44B (CA) R81 (CA) ARE THE ROAD BICYCLES MUST EXIT #0 PUSHBUTTON FOR GREEN LIGHT L i R44C (CA) R62C (CA) B EGAN END R81 (CA) BIKE Ae I W1 6-7p Figure 2.2: Examples of Regulatory and Warning Signs <i W11 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 296.3. Guidelines for Innovative Treatments The following set of guidelines present treatments that go beyond the Caltrans and CAMUTCD standards. These primarily consist of facilities that help bicyclists negotiate particularly challenging roadways and improve the convenience of bicycle travel. Almost every city in Orange County features locations where these innovative treatments can make conditions easier, more convenient, and safer for bicycle commuters. These treatments may be key in determining a Level of Service (LOS) standard for the region's bikeways. If developed, this LOS can give bicyclists an at -a- glance idea of the level of convenience that will be provided when choosing a route. Freeway Ramps Freeway on- and off -ramp crossings present a potential conflict zone for bicyclists and motorists, as bicycle lanes are typically dropped and bicyclists must merge across travel lanes where vehicles are accelerating or decelerating from freeway speeds. The appropriate bicyclist behavior is to merge left away so as to be positioned in the through lane well before the mouth of the on -ramp, and to remain out away from the curb until past the off -ramp. Implementation of interchange improvements requires coordination with Caltrans District 12 regarding placement of signage and striping because these areas are in Caltrans' right -of -way. Two guidelines for these improvements are: The bicycle merge should begin 250 feet in advance of the freeway on -ramp. Appropriate signage and striping should be used to warn bicyclists and motorists of the merge. Bicycle improvements to freeway ramps are shown in . -a*- 100 to 200 ft Caltrans Minimum 5' Bike Lane. Preferred width 6' to S'. 41 1 ^8I �r I Bike Larie BEGIN 0 F� Ll RIGHT TURD LAME YIELD To YIELD TO BIKES BIDES R4- Figure 2.3: Bike Crossing of Freeway Ramps The City of Portland has addressed this issue with striping or physical elements that encourage bicyclists to cross ramps at or close to a right angle. The treatment shortens the vehicle /bicycle conflict zone while also improving sight distance for bicyclists. Some bicyclists may choose to ignore this treatment however, as this creates a less - direct route through the interchange area and forces them to relinquish right -of -way to exiting motorists. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 23 s travel Imes a--- Figure 2A Signage and pavement markings encouraging bicyclists to cross ramp Figure 2.5 shows a dashed bike lane through the conflict zone of a freeway interchange in Jacksonville, Florida, clearly demarcating the cyclist's route and lane positioning. Treating the pavement with color enhances the visibility of the conflict area. I r 0 1 c A3 Woo per 1141 11=1 AMM 1A �AW - Figure 2.5: Dashed bike lane through conflict zone (optional painted lane) Ideally, freeway ramps should approach surface streets at a right angle, and be signalized. This provides both bicyclists and drivers with the greatest visibility, and it avoids conflicts between bicyclists and merging automobiles. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan At -grade Undercrossings } Figure 2.6: Lemon St. at Truslow Ave, Fullerton Bicycle Signals Et Detectors at Intersections At -grade undercrossing facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists can be beneficial to a region's bikeway network. Because they require less excavation than roads, they provide time and financial savings. At -grade undercrossings do not require the same amount of elevation change as adjacent roadways because they do not have the same height clearance requirements. As Figure 2.6 demonstrates, the shorter the elevation change (and closer to perfectly flat) the more convenient the path will be. Many traffic signals are not programmed or sensitive enough to detect a bicyclist waiting at an intersection. When this happens, bicyclists can become frustrated and attempt to cross an intersection before the light changes. Two innovative methods for addressing this problem are bicyclist- oriented push buttons or loop detectors. Push buttons work in the same way a pedestrian actuated cross signal does, but it is placed conveniently next to the curb where bicyclists can activate it (without having to dismount their bike) and contains signage that promotes its use (Figure 2.7). Another facility designed to help bicyclists at intersections are conductor loops. As Figure 2.8 demonstrates, pavement markings can be used in conjunction with the detector loop to instruct bicyclists where to wait while at an intersection. These innovative treatments are effectively address the concerns of bicyclists waiting at traffic signals, while also promoting safe and courteous bicycle riding. Ir Figure 2.7: Push - button for Bicyclists Figure 2.8: In- pavement Loop Detector OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 25 Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle Boulevards have been implemented in numerous California locations including Berkeley, Davis, and Pasadena. A Bicycle Boulevard, also known as bicycle priority road, is a roadway that allows all types of vehicles, but which has been modified to enhance bicycle safety and security. Roadways are designed to be places where cars and bicycles can equally share right -of -way. Bicycle Boulevards tend to be residential streets with lower traffic volumes, typically between 3000 to 5000 average daily vehicles, but can include secondary commercial streets. Figure 2.9 shows the typical design features of bicycle boulevards, these include: Traffic calming devices such as traffic circles and curb bulb outs Bicycle destination signage Pavement stencils indicating status as a Bicycle Boulevard Crossing improvements at major arterials such as traffic signals with bicycle- detection, four -way stops and high- visibility crosswalks Bicycle- friendly signal preemption at high - volume signalized intersections. Stop signs on streets crossing the Bicycle Boulevard Figure 2.9: Bicycle Boulevard Signage in Berkeley, CA Bicycle Boulevards can be designed to accommodate the particular needs of the residents and businesses along the routes, and may be as simple as pavement markings with wayfinding signs or as complex as streets with traffic diverters and bicycle signals. Many good candidates for Bicycle Boulevards may benefit most from signage and public education. Substantial capital improvements may not be necessary. To further identify a street as a preferred bicycle route, lower volume roadways may be modified to function as a through street for bicycles, while maintaining only local access for automobiles. Traffic calming devices can lower traffic speeds and through trips, limiting conflicts between motorists and bicyclists and providing priority to through bicycle movement. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Unsignalized Intersection Raised median prevents motor Median opening allows vehicles from cutting through l bicyclists to cross arterial II I II i 0 Traffic Circles and/or Speed Bumps act as traffic calming devices Stop signs on cross streets favor l through bicycle movement 0 C) Cyclist activates signal One -may chocker prohibits by push -button I motor vehicle traffic from entering Bike Boulevard Traffic signal allows bikes to cross arterial Figure 2.10: Bicycle Boulevard Lane Configuration OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 27 Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking Recently, Shared Lane Marking stencils have been introduced for use in California as an additional treatment for Class III facilities. The stencil can serve a number of purposes, such as making motorists aware of bicycles potentially in their lane, showing bicyclists the direction of travel, and, with proper placement, reminding bicyclists to bike further from parked cars to prevent "dooring" collisions. Figure 2.11 illustrates recommended placement of the stencil in the roadway and the "Chevron" marking design recommended by Caltrans. Caltrans adopted the following pavement markings for official use in 2005 as part of the California MUTCD. All rou rid' a3meirs. 25 mrn (1 m) dadius 4 �i V 'n3 .•tip : r3 ! e "a3 @'J a III � C rrrrl n;.i ni . F6!�Y is i.: {+pr.�frti I iiiS lT!!4 }C _ 6Sl 5 491 ^m �7D re] NO SALE 152 mm x 152 mrn gild (.6 in X 6 in i 1�.1. Figure 2.11: Shared Lane Marking Placement and Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Inter - jurisdictional Wayfinding Signage Local jurisdictions should work together to create a sign system for the class I /multi -use path network. It is an expanding network that could link with many destinations countywide. Signs could show destinations as well as proper traffic control. These signs could be coordinated with other on- street bicycle route signage. This system should encourage use of trails for recreational as well as functional bicycling trip- purposes. Helping bicyclists of all ages reach destinations easily. 2'E6im NSA - - 3{ -0' Figure 2.12: Multi -Use Path Signs For many years Orange County has used brown and white "Trail Courtesy" sings along class I bikeways. These are typically located at entrances to a class I bikeway, particularly at intersections and other bikeway access points. The sign depicts the three main user groups as all users are allowed on regional class I bikeways in Orange County. Optional signage can be included beneath the triangle to provide wayfinding or the name of the path. For aesthetic purposes, signage along class I bikeways should be kept to a minimum and should include only those sings that are absolutely necessary to identify a route or provide safety direction. Parallel Path Warning Signage When paths are located parallel and adjacent to roadways, vehicles turning into and out of streets and driveways must cross the path. Conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians and turning motorists are common at these types of intersections. Turning motor vehicles do not expect to see bicyclists or pedestrians coming in the opposite direction of traffic. Starting in the early 1990's, the City of Denver, Colorado began using experimental warning signage at its parallel paths. The signage is modified from the standard MUTCD railroad warning signage. Experimental signage, similar to the Denver parallel path warning signs, could help alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists and pedestrians on parallel paths. Figure 2.13: Denver's parallel path warning signage OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 29 Bicycle Parking As more bikeways are constructed and bicycle usage grows, the need for bike parking will increase. Short -term parking at shopping centers and similar land uses can support bicycling as well as long- term bicycle parking at transit stations and work sites. The Association for Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals published Bicycle Parking Guidelines to help with bicycle parking facility, design, placement and installation. Short Term Bicycle Parking Short term bicycle parking facilities are best used to accommodate visitors, customers, messengers and others expected to depart within two hours. Bicycle racks provide support for the bicycle but do not have locking mechanisms. Racks are relatively low -cost devices that typically hold between two and eight bicycles, allow bicyclists to securely lock their frames and wheels, are secured to the ground, and are located in highly visible areas. They are usually located at schools, commercial locations, and activity centers such as parks, libraries, retail locations, and civic centers. Bicycle racks should be installed with the following guidelines in mind: The rack element (part of the rack that supports the bike) should keep the bike upright, supporting the frame in two places and allowing one or both wheels to be secured. Install racks so there is enough room between adjacent parked bicycles. If it becomes too difficult for a bicyclist to easily lock their bicycle, they may park elsewhere. A row of inverted "U" racks should be installed with 15 inches minimum between racks. * Empty racks should not pose a tripping hazard for visually impaired pedestrians. Position racks out of the walkway's clear zone. Install racks outside the 2 -foot clearance area of a class I bikeway Bicycle racks should be installed on concrete or asphalt to ensure security/ stability When possible, racks should be in a covered area protected from the elements. Long -term parking should always be protected. Generally, `U' type racks bolted into the sidewalk are preferred and should be located intermittently or in front of key destinations. Bicycle racks should be installed to meet ADA standards and not block pedestrian through traffic. provides recommendations for placement of inverted U type racks. Local jurisdictions may want to consider custom racks that can serve not only as Bicycle racks, but also public artwork, or as advertising for a specific business. Figure 2.15: Recommended Short - Term Bicycle Parking Facilities provides examples of various racks. The "post and ring" style rack is an attractive alternative to the standard inverted -U, which requires only a single mounting point and can be customized to have a city or region name or emblem stamped into the rings. These racks can also be easily retrofitted onto existing street posts, such as parking meter posts. While custom racks can add a decorative element and relate to a neighborhood theme, the rack function should not be overlooked: All racks should adhere to the basic functional requirement of supporting the bicycle by the frame (not only the wheel) and accepting a U -lock. building t I I 2 ft. " 5 ft. leave clearance building leave clearance Figure 2.14: Recommended bicycle parking spacing dimensions OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan THE RACK E L E M ENT Definition: the rack element is the part of the bike rack that supports one bicycle. The rack element should: ® Support the bicycle upright by its frame in two places rf ® Prevent the wheel of the bicycle from tipping over 0 Enable the f ra rne and one or both wheels to be secured N Support bicycles without a diamond-shaped frame with a horizontal top tube (e.g. a mixte frame) ■ Allow front-in parking: a U-lock should be able to lock the front wheel and the down tube of an upright bicycle N Allow back-in parking.- a U-1ock, should he able to lock the rear wheel and seat tube of the bicycle I Comb, toast, school- yard, and other wheel- bending racks that provide no support for the bicycle frame are NOT recommended. The rack element should resist being cut or detached using common hand tools, especially those that can be concealed in a backpack. Such tools include bolt cutters, pipe cutters, wrenches, and pry bars. Not recommended INVERTEDLLU99 One rack element supports two bikes. POST AND LOOP One rack element supports tiro bikes. "Att One rack element supports two bikes. COMB One rack element is a vertical segment of the rack. WAVE TOAST One rack element is a vertical segment of the rack. One rack element hold:s one ugh eel of a bike. Figure 2.15: Recommended Short-Term Bicycle Parking Facilities OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 31 Long Term Bicycle Parking For long -term parking, the local jurisdictions may want to consider bicycle lockers. Bicyclists are usually more comfortable storing bicycles in lockers for long periods because they offer increased security and protection from natural elements. Although they may be more expensive to install, they can make the difference for commuters deciding whether or not to bicycle. Lockers can be controlled with traditional key systems or through more elaborate subscription systems. Subscription locker programs, like e- lockers, or park -by -phone systems allow even more flexibility within locker use. Instead of restricting access for each patron to a single locker, subscribers can gain access to all lockers within a system, controlled by magnetic access cards, or caller ID. These programs typically have fewer administrative costs because they simplify or eliminate key management and locker assignment. Long -term bicycle parking facilities accommodate employees, students, residents, commuters, and others expected to park more than two hours. These parking facilities should be provided in a secure, weather - protected manner and location. Innovative High Volume Bicycle Parking In many locations, individual U -racks located on the sidewalk can be sufficient to meet bicycle parking demand. Where bicycle parking demand is higher, more formal structures and larger facilities need to be provided. Several options for high- volume bicycle parking are outlined below. cm � h n Cvmpon ants 2 - Sack 3 - DrOder 4 - Back 5 - Side B • Door 7 - Post B - Lock 9-Top Figure 2.16: Bicycle Lockers at a Transit Station OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan On- Street Bike Parking Corral A relatively inexpensive solution to providing high- volume bicycle parking is to convert one or two on- street motor vehicle parking spaces into on- street bicycle parking. Bike racks are installed in the street and protected from motor vehicles with removable curbs and bollards. These Bike Parking Corrals move bicycles off the sidewalks, and leave space for sidewalk cafe tables or pedestrians. Bicycle parking does not block sightlines like motor vehicles do, so it may be possible to locate bicycle parking in no- parking zones near intersections and crosswalks. Bike Oasis Photo: Bill Stiles Figure 2.17: Bike Corral In 2008, the City of Portland, Oregon began installation of several "Bike Oases" in commercial districts. These signature bicycle parking facilities are installed on curb extensions and consist of attractive covered bike parking and an information panel. Portland's Bike Oases provide parking space for ten bikes. Bike and walking maps are installed on the information panel. Bicycle Commuter Centers Bicycle Commuting Centers (BCC) are a type of mass storage facility for bicycles. They are sometimes known as BikeStations. BikeStation is a non profit organization that operates Bicycle Commuting Centers. Bicycle Commuting Centers vary in size and structure, but typically provide secure, monitored storage space for bicycles and commuting equipment. Some facilities integrate bicycle storage with repair and maintenance services operated by hired staff. Typically, BCCs provide free parking during business hours on weekdays. Other centers include enhanced services that come with membership. In exchange for a monthly fee, BCC members have unlimited access to the parking facilities and may receive discounts on other services provide at the facility. BCCs may also feature showers /locker room space, equipment for sale and refreshments. These facilities tend to be located in a highly visible space so as to attract patronage and also promote bicycle commuting in general. Bike Oasis installed in Portland Figure 2.18: Bike Oasis Figure 2.19: Bike Station OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 33 Bike Sharing Bike sharing is an innovative approach to urban mobility. Combining the convenience and flexibility of a private vehicle with the accessibility and reliability of public mass transit public bicycles are available on demand - fast and easy access for any trip, without the hassles presented by parking a private car or waiting on a transit timetable. When used in combination with other transportation systems, a shared bike program can reduce the travel time between transit stop and office and easily overcome the distance between residence and shopping center. Benefits of Bike Sharing Programs Fast, flexible and convenient personal transportation for the urban environment. A relatively safe and worry free introduction to cycling for people wishing to change their commute mode. Introduces a low cost, low commitment transportation Figure 2.20: Bike Sharing Programs alternative that enables and encourages multi -modal commutes when combined with mass transit. Quiet, clean use of urban space when substituted for car parking. 34 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan CHAPTER 3. Bikeway Information by Jurisdiction A summary of the existing bikeways, related facilities, and programs under the jurisdiction of Orange County cities, the County, and the State of California are provided below. Bikeways information provided by each city partially satisfies requirements for state Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding eligibility. As required in the Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2, this section provides the following existing conditions and plans for each jurisdiction: .P Land use and settlement patterns Population Estimated number of bicycle commuters Collisions involving bicyclists End -of -trip facilities End -of -trip facilities are available to bicyclists at the end of their commutes. Important end -of -trip facilities include storage such as bicycle parking and lockers, as well as showers and places to change clothes. Multi -modal facilities Multi -modal facilities allow bicyclists to connect to other modes of travel. Multi -modal facilities include park- and -ride locations and public transportation with facilities that allow for bicycles on board. � Descriptions of bicycle safety and education programs Descriptions of past expenditures for bicycle facilities Existence of Bicycle Transportation Plan Bikeways Most individual city population figures come from the 2006/2007 totals reported by the US Census Bureau. In some instances, more updated figures have been provided by individual city departments. The estimated numbers of bicycle commuters for each city is extrapolated from a number of studies and the U.S. Census 2000. Total estimated bicycle commuters include bike -to -work, transit, school, college and utilitarian bicycle commuters; it does not include recreational trips. See appendices for description of number extrapolation. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 35 3.1.Aliso Viejo Aliso Viejo is well-known as a strong and lively community designed to meet the growing needs of individuals, families, professionals and enterprising businesses. It is a balanced community with opportunities for housing, jobs, future - planned multi -modal transportation and recreation. An abundance of parks and trails, cultural and recreational activities and youth sports programs further enhance the quality of life for a community with a vision to ensure long -term viability. Population 40,16 6 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 273 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips 0.9% Total Daily Bicycle Trips 546 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 351 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 11100 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 171 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 444 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 888 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 648 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 21981 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 789,984 2 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 16 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 1 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 84,029 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan LAGUNA BEACH Map 3.1 Aliso Viejo Land Use 1 Z.: X14 ,W: X.:... OJIL Fjj t--M� Up 90 01�-. C LOWWAWA �-I. MIN' dipipd-. MW J z f flb4fi A L LI �d.—H 11rdip Wi L CUNA Off! DS LACUNA WICUIL REGIONAL. PAHK WURE Eh. CtJL;N.-.Y LPI-'DPkN'UE LAM 2M CG r —J Figure LU- I 3 Mill Land Use Policy Map .OJ OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 37 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 22 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 4.4 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.11 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.32 Notes: 0.38 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End of Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multimodal Connectivity Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Safety Ft Education Programs The City of Aliso Viejo does not currently provide bicycle- related safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan The city of Aliso Viejo does not have an adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. Bikeways Aliso Viejo Existing Bikeways Street -,.- Existing Bikeway Information Not Provided Aliso Viejo Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Westwing Canyon Wren Aliso Creek Rd Class II 0.38 Aliso Creek Rd. Aliso Viejo Pkwy. Pacific Park Dr. Class II 1.26 Canyon Wren Ln. Westwing El Toro Rd. Class II 0.56 TOTAL 2.2 miles Aliso Viejo Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.2. Anaheim With a population of 328,014 Anaheim is the second largest city in Orange County. It is also home to several tourist destinations, most notably the two Anaheim resort theme parks. The area surrounding the parks has been developed primarily with the tourist in mind. Anaheim is also home to the Anaheim Stadium and Honda Center sporting and entertainment venues. The western portion of the City is older and well established with a developed grid network of arterial streets. The eastern portion of the City, called Anaheim Hills, is relatively newer and is largely comprised of suburban subdivisions of single- and multi - family housing. Anaheim is also home to several industrial and commercial centers, including those located along Orangethorpe and La Palma Avenues. Population 328,014 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 41138 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 2.0% 81276 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 51551 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 20,203 834 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 41972 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 91944 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 71259 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 33,391 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 81848,636 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 24 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 179 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 12 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 9411212 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 39 Map 3.2 Anaheim Land Use r--f Ol W" rt OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Collision Rate 523 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 104.6 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year' 0.31 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.96 Notes: Metro [in k /Amtrak / Rideshare/ Bus 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Location .- 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Bicycle Lockers 201 Anaheim Blvd. Bicycle Lockers and Showers 235 E. Center St. Bicycle Lockers Multimodal Connectivity Safety and Education Programs The City of Anaheim has existing bicycle safety and education programs. Expenditures ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Metro [in k /Amtrak / Rideshare/ Bus Anaheim Station Bicycle racks(6) /lockers(9) Chippewa Ave 2150 E Katella Ave Bicycle racks on trains and buses Metrolink / Rideshare/ Bus Anaheim Canyon Station Bicycle racks(6) /lockers(15) Frontera St. 1039 N Pacific Center Dr Bicycle racks on trains and buses Rideshare Camelot Golf land Rio Vista St Striped Class II 3200 Carpenter Ave Lincoln Rideshare State College Church of Christ La Palma Orangethorpe 311 N State College Blvd Orangewood Ave Safety and Education Programs The City of Anaheim has existing bicycle safety and education programs. Expenditures OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 41 Loara St. Improvement Striped Class II From Crescent Ave • Wilshire Ave Cost $ 62,000 Crescent Ave. Striped Class II Chippewa Ave Loara St Wilshire Ave. Striped Class II Loara St Lincoln Frontera St. Striped Class II Park Vista St Glassell $ 44,164 Rio Vista St Striped Class II Mardi Gras Ave Lincoln Miller St Striped Class II La Palma Orangethorpe $ 27,013 Orangewood Ave Striped Class II Euclid St Janette Ln $ 21,346 9t" St Striped Class II Orangewood Ave Katella Ave $ 19,655 Miraloma Ave Striped Class II Tustin St Van Buren St $ 18,470 Broadway Striped Class II East St State College Blvd $ 8,470 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 41 Bicycle Transportation Plan The city of Anaheim has an adopted Bicycle Master Plan as part of its General Plan. Bikeways Anaheim Existing Bikeways Street/Path - •- Carbon Creek Gilbert St. Crescent Ave Class 1 0.50 Santa Ana River Orange city limit Yorba Linda city limit Class 1 10.50 Anaheim Hills Rd. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Nohl Ranch Rd. Class II 0.75 Brookhurst St. Lincoln Ave. Ball Rd. Class II 1.00 Broadway East St State College Blvd Class II 0.76 Cerritos Ave. Buena Park city limit Stanton city limit Class II 0.25 Crescent Ave. Chippewa Ave. Loara St. Class II 0.25 Euclid Ave. Lincoln Ave. Ball Rd. Class II 1.00 Frontera St. Park Vista St. Glassell St. Class II 0.70 Imperial Hwy Nohl Ranch Rd. Orange city limit Class II 0.75 Kellogg Dr. Yorba Linda city limit Orangethorpe Ave. Class II 0.75 Lakeview Ave. La Palma Ave. Santa Ana River Class II 0.25 Loara St. Crescent Ave. Wilshire Ave. Class II 0.25 Miller St. Orangethorpe Ave. La Palma Ave. Class II 1.00 Miraloma Ave Tustin St Van Buren St Class II 0.62 Ninth Street. Katella Ave Garden Grove city limit Class II 0.25 Oak Canyon Dr. Serrano Ave. Weir Canyon Rd. Class II 0.50 Orangewood Ave. Euclid St. Janette Ln. Class II 0.72 Orangewood Ave. Harbor Blvd. Mountain View Ave. Class II 0.75 Rio Vista St. Mardi Gras Ave. Wagner Ave. Class II 0.75 Riverdale Ave. Orange city limit Lakeview Ave. Class II 1.25 Santa Ana Canyon Rd Orange city limit Weir Canyon Rd. Class II 6.00 Sunkist St.. Wagner Ave. Cerritos Ave. Class II 1.00 Weir Canyon Rd. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Blue Sky Ln. Class II 1.75 Wilshire Ave. Loara St. Lincoln Ave. Class II 0.50 Orangethorpe Ave. State College Blvd. Placentia Ave. Class III 0.50 Orangethorpe Ave. Miller St. Placentia city limit Class III 0.25 Western Ave. Buena Park city limit Del Monte Dr. Class III 0.50 TOTAL 34.05 miles Proposed Regional Priority Bikeways Street/Path • To Class Mileage Olive / UPRR Spur Broadway Santa Ana River Trail Class 1 4.00 La Palma Ave. La Reina St. Jefferson St. Class II 8.34 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Anaheim Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Academy Av Path Dale Ave Beach Blvd. Class 1 - •- 0.59 Dupont Path Orange Wood Ave Rampart St. Class 1 0.44 Magnolia Pathway Lola Ave. Crescent Ave. Class 1 1.64 OCTA Metrolink RR Orange City Limit West of the 57 Class 1 0.3 Path 3 OCTA RR Western Ave. Class 1 0.82 Sycamore / La Palma Connector Sycamore La Palma Ave. Class 1 0.12 UP RR Spur Path UPRR Path Walnut St. Class 1 0.47 Vermont / Wagner Connector Vermont Ave. Wagner Ave. Class I 0.18 9th St. Broadway Katella Ave Class II 1.77 Anaheim Blvd. La Palma Ave. Sycamore Ave. Class II 0.53 Ball Rd section 1 Buena Park City Limit Gilbert St. Class II 2.74 Ball Rd section 2 County /City Border Walnut St. Class II 2.02 Broadway Magnolia Path Gilbert St. Class II 1.93 Brookhurst St Section 1 Riverside Fwy. Lincoln Ave. Class II 1.51 Brookhurst St Section 2 Ball Rd. Katella Ave Class II 1.01 Camino Grande Hickamore Ln. Nohl Ranch Road Class II 1.05 Canyon Creek Rd. Serrano Ave. Sunset Ridge Rd. Class II 0.57 Canyon Rim Road Fairmount Blvd. Nohl Ranch Road Class II 1.16 Cerritos Ave. Magnolia Path Sylvan st. Class II 0.15 Citron St. Santa Ana St. Vermont Ave. Class II 0.57 Crescent Ave. Brookhurst St. Loara St. Class II 1.34 Crone Ave. UPRR Walnut St. Class II 0.24 Douglass Rd. UPRR Katella Ave. Class II 0.42 East St. La Palma Ave. Ball Rd. Class II 2.08 Fairmount Blvd. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Canyon Rim Road Class II 1.07 Frontera St. La Palma Ave. Glassel St. Class II 1.21 Gilbert St. Tiger Woods Way Broadway Class II 0.57 Glassell St. Frontera St. Orange City Limit Class II 0.04 Greda Dr. Deana St. Pinney Dr. Class II 0.44 Grove St. Mira Loma Ave. La Palma Ave. Class II 0.67 Gypsum Canyon Riverside Fwy. Gypsum Spur Class II 0.38 Gypsum Spur Weir Canyon Rd. Gypsum Canyon Rd. Class II 1.05 Knott Ave. Lincoln Ave Ball Rd Class II 1.44 Lakeview Ave. Orchard Dr. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Class II 1.43 Lincoln Ave Section 1 Knott Ave. La Reina St. Class II 1.78 Lincoln Ave Section 2 Rio Vista St. Orange City Limit Class II 0.51 Lincoln Ave. Manchester Ave. Wilshire Ave. Class II 0.15 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 43 Street/Path Loara St. To Crescent Ave. From Wilshire Ave. Class Class II Mileage 0.29 Magnolia Ave. Kennely Ln. Cerritos Ave Class II 0.33 Manchester Ave. Lincoln Ave. Santa Ana St. Class II 0.43 Miller St. Orangethorpe Ave. La Plama Ave. Class II 0.99 Mira Loma Ave. La Palma Ave. Van Buren St. Class II 3.2 Nohl Ranch Rd. Anaheim Hills Rd. Serrano Ave. Class II 1.56 Oak Canyon Dr. Weir Canyon Rd. End of Oak Canyon Class II 0.41 Olive St. Santa Ana St. Vermont Ave. Class II 0.56 Orange Av. Buena Park City Limit Parkview St. Class II 0.98 Orangethorpe Ave. #1 Kraemer Blvd. Placentia City Limit Class II 0.78 Orangethorpe Ave. #2 Lakeview Ave. Imperial Hwy. Class II 1.66 Orangewood Ave. Segment 1 Euclid St. Janette Ln. Class II 0.76 Orangewood Ave. Segment 2 West St. Harbor Blvd. Class II 0.5 Orangewood Ave. Segment 3 Mountain View Ave. Dupont Dr. Class II 1.02 Pinney Dr. Greda Nohl Ranch Road Class II 0.53 Rio Vista St. Wagner Ave. La Palma Ave. Class II 1.48 Royal Oak Rd. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Nohl Ranch Road Class II 0.52 Santa Ana St. East St. Walnut St. Class II 1.63 Serrano Ave. Weir Canyon Rd. Orange City Limit Class II 2.98 South St. Peregrin St. Rio Vista St. Class II 0.65 Stage Coach Rd. Nohl Ranch Rd. Hickamore Ln. Class II 0.46 Sunkist St. La Palma Ave. Wagner Ave Class II 1.51 Sunset Ridge Rd. Canyon Creek Rd. Rossano Way Class II 0.91 Vermont Ave. Citron St. Wayside St. Class II 1.66 Wagner Ave. State College Blvd. Rio Vista St. Class II 1.02 Walnut St. Santa Ana St. Ball Rd. Class II 0.65 West St. Santa Ana St. La Palma Ave. Class II 1.37 Western Ave. Northern City Limit Southern City limit Class II 1.51 Westmont Dr. Loara St. West St. Class II 0.49 TOTAL 1 65.23 Anaheim Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Class 1 Miles Unit Cost ,_ mile) 8.56 $1,500,000 Total $12,840,000 Class 11 69.1 $280,000 $19,348,000 77.66 Total $32,188,000 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.3. Brea Located in the foothills of North Orange County, Brea is a thriving city of over 40,000 residents. Destination shopping and restaurants abound. An award winning school district and a diverse business mix makes Brea the place to live, work and play. Population 40,081 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 300 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.2% 599 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 394 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters 11340 Future number of new bicycle commuters 231 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 530 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11060 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 774 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 31561 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Future Air Quality Benefits 943,643 Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 3 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 19 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 1 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 100,373 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 45 Map 3.3 Brea Land Use 70" fl 15 Ce r, ■ a) ur) 46 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan fl 15 Ce r, 1-4 log rl. 1.6 r. -.4r. 45 Pe 46 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 68 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 13.6 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.35 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.08 Notes: Schools 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Location .- Brea Mall Bicycle racks The city's Circulation Plan requires the provision of secure bicycle parking as part of all future non - single family residential development. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Rideshare Brea Park - and -Ride Bicycle racks(7) 1000 E Lambert Ave The Brea General Plan outlines a need to encourage daily bicycle use, specifically in providing bicycle -to- transit links. Four main components are identified for bicycle- transit integration: allowing bicycles on transit; offering bicycle parking at transit locations; improving bikeways to transit; and encouraging use of bicycle and transit programs. Implementation of the city's Circulation Plan requires identifying bicycle and pedestrian projects within the Capital Improvement Projects and through development fees that help to complete or enhance connections to bus stops. Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted 6 # Of Times a Year Conducted All year long Administered by Police Department Location Schools Program, Curriculum, and Activities S.A. F. E. Program (Skills and Assets for Excellence) with specific bicycle safety and education lesson and workbook; bicycle rodeos; safety fairs Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Bicycle registration and free bicycle helmets, special events Total # of Children Reached Approximately 4,000 per year Age of Children Reached Grades K -8 Other Program Notes Police Department has bike patrols OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 47 Expenditures City -wide I Maintenance I 1 1 $19,407 Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle planning is discussed in the City of Brea's General Plan. Bikeways Brea Existing Bikeways Street/Path From I To J_ Class Imileage Mileage 0.15 Carbon Creek Bike way Carbon Canyon Rd. Rose Dr. Class 1 1.3 E. La Habra Blvd. Vallejo St. N. Palm St. Class II .2 W. Central Ave. N. Palm St. N. Brea Blvd. Class II 1.7 State College Blvd. N. Brea Blvd. Lark Ellen Dr. Class II 2.4 E. Birch St. S. State College Blvd Valencia Ave. Class II 2.1 Rose Dr. Valencia Ave. Vesuvius Dr. Class II .6 Associated Rd. E. Birch St. E. Imperial Hwy Class II .5 Elm St. Arovista Park S. State College Blvd Class III 1.0 Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- UP RR Palm St. Valencia Ave. Class 1 4.50 Birch St. Mercury Ln. State College Blvd Class II 1.18 Brea Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Tonner Canyon Rd. Valencia Path Valencia Ave. Tonner Canyon Rd. Class 1 Mileage 0.15 Wildcat Way to Valencia Ave. Path Wildcat Way Valencia Ave. Class 1 1.42 Carbon Canyon Rd. Valencia Ave. Los Angeles County Limit Class 1 4.35 Imperial Hwy. Saturn St. Placentia City Limit Class 1 0.75 Path 1 Imperial Hwy Path 2 Class 1 3.24 Path 2 Segment 1 Rose Dr. County /City Border Class 1 0.15 Path 2 Segment 2 County /City Border Carbon Canyon Rd Class 1 1.31 Path 3 Puente St City Limit Class 1 2.43 Puente St. Path 3 Northwood Ave. Class 1 2.47 Valencia Ave. Imperial Hwy County /City Border Class 1 0.80 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Street/Path From To Class Mileage Valencia Ave. Tonner Canyon Rd. Carbon Canyon Rd. Class 1 1.38 Brea Creek Flood Control Channel UP RR Arovista Park Parking Lot Class 1 1.50 Associated Rd - Wildcat Way Birch St. Wildcat Way to Valencia Ave. Path Class II 1.20 Berry St. Northwood Ave. Imperial Hwy Class II 1.75 Kraemer Blvd. Placentia City Wildcat Way- Valencia Ave. Path Class II 1.67 Limit Lambert Rd. La Habra City Limit County /City Border Class II 3.79 Northwood Ave. Puente St. Berry St. Class II 0.57 Palm St. Fullerton City La Habra City Limit Class II 0.24 Limit Rose Dr. Venus Dr. Blake Rd. Class II 0.09 Saturn St. Path 1 Imperial Hwy. Class II 0.24 Soquel Canyon Rd. Southern County /City Border Eastern County /City Border Class II 0.93 Brea Blvd. Fullerton City City /County Border Class III 2.24 Limit Whittier Ave. La Habra City Limit Puente St. Class III 0.25 TOTAL 32.92 miles Brea Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Class 1 - 24.45 .- - $1,500,000 Total $36,675,000 Class II 11.66 $280,000 $3,264,800 Class 111 2.45 $21,000 $511450 Total $39,991,250 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.4. Buena Park The City of Buena Park is also a well- established community within Orange County. Buena Park is host to many tourist destinations, including Knott's Berry Farm and Medieval Times. The City contains a developed network of older, grid arterial streets that typically do not provide enough space to accommodate bicycle lanes. Some of the arterials that serve many of the City's destinations include Beach Boulevard and La Palma and Orangethorpe Avenues. A regional shopping center is located at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. Population 82,452 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 11033 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 2.1 Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 21066 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11390 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 51105 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 241 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 11274 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 21547 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11859 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 81553 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 21266,542 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 6 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 46 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 3 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 241,088 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light 50 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Map 3.4 Buena Park Land Use OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 51 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 164 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 32.8 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.40 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.25 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs The City of Buena Park does not currently provide bicycle- related safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan The City of Buena Park does not have a Bicycle Transportation Plan. Bikeways No bikeways or bike lanes or trails have been approved by City Council or installed or posted in the City at this time. The Council's decision is based on the negative and unacceptable impacts to parking and the need for unimpeded traffic flow. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Buena Park Metrolink Station 8400 Parking, Bicycle racks Metrolink/ Rideshare/ Bus Lakeknoll Dr Bicycle racks on trains and buses Safety and Education Programs The City of Buena Park does not currently provide bicycle- related safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan The City of Buena Park does not have a Bicycle Transportation Plan. Bikeways No bikeways or bike lanes or trails have been approved by City Council or installed or posted in the City at this time. The Council's decision is based on the negative and unacceptable impacts to parking and the need for unimpeded traffic flow. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.5. Costa Mesa The City of Costa Mesa is one of Orange County's leading cultural and business centers. Located 37 miles southeast of Los Angeles, 88 miles north of San Diego and 475 miles south of San Francisco, Costa Mesa encompasses a total of 16 square miles with its southernmost border only 1 mile from the Pacific Ocean. The current population of approximately 113,440 has grown from 16,840 at the time of incorporation in 1953. Since that time, it has evolved from a semi -rural farming community to a city with its local economy primarily based upon retail commercial business and action sports industries such as surfing, skateboarding, and snowboarding. A general law city, Costa Mesa has a council- manager form of government and staff of approximately 580 full -time employees. Population 113,440 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 11971 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 2.6% 31943 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 21754 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 11,313 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 173 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 2044 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 41289 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 31131 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 141401 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 31816,353 23 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 77 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 5 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 405,938 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-013 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 53 Costa Mesa oil 11 y 111111111 . .......... . 0 000 2000 3000 4000 Fee 0 05 1 IS NOTE, DUE TO THE SCALE OF THE 01 NCRAL PLAN MAP, PL 9 V1 RIFY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS WITH THE CITY OF COSTA, RIE5A PLANNING 0 IVI 0 ION. 1714) 764,5245 Map 3.5 Costa Mesa Land Use City Of Costa Mesa GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE MAP 0 hy of, Costa me &;.k AdbpW January 22. 2002 %*n1ution;Y 9. -8 C-P-Di-04 Januai y 22, 2002 1� solutpon N K-9 GP-01-05 Janwry 2?. 2002 Fknolutiin 9 92- 10 GP -d$ -01 June 03, 2012 F-1-5olution N K-3 7 GP-D4-01 Wry I-e. 2004 Pfsn1utiomw (14-06 GF-M-02 %jj!j 0 2. 2904 Pc-solution * 94-52 July 2004 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 389 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 77.8 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.70 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 2.16 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Rideshare South Coast Plaza Sunflower Ave/ Bear St Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted # Of Times a Year Conducted Administered by Police Department Location Program, Curriculum, and Activities Distributes Cycle Safety Bike Rider's Guide Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Bicycle Rodeos and Bicycle Licensing Program Total # of Children Reached Age of Children Reached Other Program Notes Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle planning can be found in Costa Mesa's General Plan. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Bikeways Costa Mesa Existing Bikeways Street/Path -..- Anton Ave. of the Arts Sunflower 1 0.65 CM Golf Et Country Club Placentia Merrimac 1 1.45 Fair Arlington Fairview 1 1.00 Fairiew Park Santa Ana River Fairview Park 1 1.80 Fairview State Hospital Golf Course Harbor 1 0.45 Gisler /SA River Path Santa Ana River Gisler 1 0.30 Mesa Verde Adams Golf Course 1 0.21 Sakioka Anton Sunflower 1 0.25 Santa Ana River Path South City Limit MacArthur 1 6.29 Sunflower /SA River Path Santa Ana River Sunflower 1 0.23 Upper Newport Bay Path Del Mar Irvine 1 1.19 Victoria Placentia Canyon 1 0.53 Adams Santa Ana River Harbor II 1.49 Arlington Fairview Newport SB II 0.88 Baker Mesa Verde Royal Palm II 0.40 Baker Coolidge Bristol II 1.04 Bear 1 -405 Sunflower II 0.44 California Santa Ana River Gisler II 0.68 Fair Harbor Newport SB II 1.23 Fairview Sunflower Newport SB II 2.94 Gisler Washington Harbor II 0.84 Hamilton Placentia Harbor II 0.75 Hyland MacArthur South Coast II 0.69 Irvine 16th 20th 11 1.00 MacArthur* Santa Ana River Harbor II 0.52 Mendoza Baker El Camino II 0.30 Merrimac Harbor Fairview II 0.68 Mesa Verde Adams Adams II 1.40 Paularino Bristol Red Hill II 0.73 Paularino Bear Platte II 0.13 Placentia Adams South City Limit II 3.02 Red Hill SR -73 1 -405 II 1.62 Santa Ana Broadway 23rd II 1.13 South Coast Hyland Bear II 1.98 Sunflower Cadillac Fairview II 1.35 Sunflower Park Center East City Limit II 0.91 Susan Sunflower South Coast II 0.28 Victoria Santa Ana River Canyon II 0.47 Victoria Placentia Newport SB II 1.35 Wilson Placentia Harbor II 0.75 Total 43.34 * South side only. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street /Path From To Class Mileage Santa Ana Ave. 1111ij Z!, Costa Mesa Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Miles 1.11 .- mile) $1,500,000 $1,665,000 Class II -..- Canyon Victoria Nancy Lane 1 0.44 Path1 Canyon Path2 1 0.09 Path2 Placentia Pacific 1 0.58 18th Monrovia Orange 11 1.18 22nd Newport Santa Ana II 0.50 Adams Harbor Fairview II 0.72 American Victoria Wilson II 0.30 Baker Royal Palm Harbor II 0.15 Baker Harbor Fairview II 0.69 Baker Bristol Red Hill II 0.61 Bear Baker Paularino II 0.25 Del Mar Newport Santa Ana II 0.57 Broadway Tustin Irvine II 0.26 Gisler Harbor End of Street II 0.52 19th West City Limits Monrovia II 0.31 Monrovia 18th 19th II 0.25 Newport Industrial Harbor II 0.82 Orange Rochester Broadway II 0.22 Path3 19th Southern City Limits II 0.42 Sunflower Fairview Park Center II 1.45 Wilson Harbor Fairview II 0.66 College Gisler Village III 0.65 Village College Pi necreek III 0.13 Pincecreek Village Adams III 0.18 El Camino Fairview Mendoza III 0.40 Mendoza Baker El Camino III 0.30 Total 12.65 Costa Mesa Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 1.11 .- mile) $1,500,000 $1,665,000 Class II 10.88 $280,000 $3,0467400 Class III 1.66 $21,000 $34,860 Total $41746,260 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 57 3.6. Cypress Located in the northwest of Orange County, Cypress is host to the Los Alamitos Racetrack, Cypress College, and many other local destinations. The major arterials through the City along which many of these destinations are located include Valley View, Katella, and Lincoln Avenues, Moody Street, and Ball Road. The City of Cypress has an established grid network of arterial streets, and a developed network of bikeways. Population 46,229 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 387 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips 1.2% Total Daily Bicycle Trips 775 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 499 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 11577 213 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 600 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11201 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 877 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 41032 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 11068,591 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 6 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 22 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 1 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 113,664 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Map 3.6 Cypress Land Use OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 59 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 92 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 18.4 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.38 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.18 Notes: -,.- 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities OCTA Buses I City -wide I Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs The City of Cypress does not currently provide bicycle- related safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle planning can be found in the City of Cypress General Plan. Bikeways Cypress Existing Bikeways 60 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Street/Path Crescent Ave. Acacia Dr. Denni St. -,.- Crescent Ave. Denni St. Summer Crescent Ave. Summer Pl. Moody St. Bloomfield Lincoln Ave. Cerritos Denni St. Lincoln Ave. Ball Rd. Denni St. Ball Rd. Marion Denni St. Marion Ave. Cerritos Moody St. Crescent Ball Rd. Moody St. Ball Rd. Marion Moody St. Marion Ave. Cerritos Walker St. Lincoln Ave. Cerritos Walker St. R. R. Katella Valley View Orange Ave. Cerritos Valley View Cerritos Border Holder St. Lincoln Ave. Ball Rd. Knott St. Cerritos Railroad 60 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Orange Ave. Bloomfield Walker St. Class 111 0.50 Orange Ave. Valley View Holder St. Class II -..- 0.98 Ball Rd. Bloomfield Holder St. Class II 1.65 Cerritos Ave. Bloomfield Walker St. Class II 0.97 Cerritos Ave. Walker St. Camden Class II 1.05 Cerritos Ave. Camden Dr. Valley Class II 1.84 Cerritos Ave. Valley View Knott St. Class II 1.00 Katella Ave. Walker St. Valley Class II 0.18 Orangewood Valley View Knott St. Class II 0.50 Bikeway class and mileage unspecified Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -..- Katella Ave. I Walker St. I Stanton City Limit I Class II 1.49 Cypress Proposed Bikeways Cypress Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class II Mi - 9.66 .- - Total $280,000 $21704,800 Class 111 0.50 Street/Path Bloomfield St. Lincoln Ave. Los Alamitos City Limit Class II -..- 0.98 Cerritos Ave. Lexington Dr. Walker St. Class II 1.65 Denni St. Lincoln Ave. Orange Ave. Class II 0.97 Holder St. Cerritos Ave. Stanton City Limit Class II 1.05 Lincoln Ave. Bloomfield St. Buena Park City Limit Class II 1.84 Orangewood Ave. Valley View St. Knott Ave. Class II 1.00 Holder St. Orangewood Ave. Jaluit St. Class II 0.18 Valley View St. Lincoln Ave. Orange Ave. Class II 0.50 Walker St. Crescent Ave. Lincoln Ave. Class III 0.50 TOTAL 8.67mi les Cypress Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class II Mi - 9.66 .- - Total $280,000 $21704,800 Class 111 0.50 $217000 $10,500 Total $21715,300 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 61 3 Dana Point Dana Point is characterized by nearly seven miles of prominent coastal bluffs and rolling hills along the Pacific Ocean. Most noteworthy of these bluffs is a unique promontory known as the "Headlands" which overlooks Dana Point Harbor, one of the most significant manmade alterations of the Orange County coastline. Dana Point Harbor provides slips and mooring for over 2,500 boats along with over 50 specialty shops and restaurants. The Harbor attracts thousands of visitors annually for shopping, sport fishing, walking, bicycling, parasailing and a host of recreational activities. The Dana Point Harbor is also considered the gateway to Doheny State Park, one of California's most popular beach facilities. The 62 -acre State Park offers camping, picnicking, swimming, surfing, bicycling, tide pool exploration and more. Population 35,945 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 268 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips 1.2% Total Daily Bicycle Trips 536 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 358 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters 11288 Future number of new bicycle commuters 188 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 456 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 913 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 666 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 31065 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 8121295 5 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 16 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 1 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 86,402 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Map 3.7 Dana Point Land Use OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 63 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 38 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 7.6 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.21 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.65 Notes: Schools 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index lower than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Dana Point currently does not have any bicycle parking facilities that have been identified. However, Section 9.35.080 in the City's code allows development projects with a minimum parking requirement of fifty or more parking stalls to install up to eight percent of the required stalls with bicycle stalls in a properly secured and located rack. Also, Section 9.13.040 requires mixed -use projects with residential units to provide each residential unit a minimum of 45 cubic feet of exterior storage space and a bicycle locker capable of securing two bicycles. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode . OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted # Of Times a Year Conducted Administered by Police Department Location Schools Program, Curriculum, and Activities Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Total # of Children Reached Age of Children Reached Other Program Notes Bike safety education available upon school request only; Police Department and volunteer program have bike patrol Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is not available. 64 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Bicycle Transportation Plan Dana Point has a Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Master Plan. Bikeways Dana Point Existing Bikeways Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Pacific Coast Hwy. Monarch Bay Dr. Street of the Blue Lantern Class II 1.97 Pacific Coast Hwy. Street of the Copper Lantern Coast Hwy. Class II 0.53 Stonehill Dr. San Juan Capistrano City Limit Niguel Rd. Class II 2.13 Dana Point Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Coast Hwy. Palisades Dr. Camino Capistrano Class -,.- Street of Blue Lantern La Cresta Dr. Pacific Coast Hwy. Class II 0.81 Del Obispo St. City Limit Stonehill Dr. Class II ` Doheny Park Rd. Quail Run Pacific Coast Highway Class I Niguel Rd. Camino Del Avion Pacific Coast Highway Class II Pacific Coast Hwy. Street of Copper Lantern Northerly City Limit Class II Selva Rd. Pacific Coast Hwy Southerly City Limit Class II Selva Rd. Pacific Coast Hwy. Stonehill Dr. Class II Dana Point Harbor Dr. Pacific Coast Hwy. Street of Golden Lantern Class II Del Prado Ave. Street of Blue Lantern Street of Golden Lantern Class II Street of Golden Dana Point Harbor Dr. Stonehill Dr. Class II Acapulco Dr. Street of Golden Lantern Elisa Dr. Class II Camino Capistrano Via Verde Easterly City Limit Class II Del Obispo St. Stonehill Dr. Quail Run Class II Elisa Dr. Acapulco Dr. Santiago Dr. Class Elisa Dr. Santiago Dr. Acapulco Dr. Class Street of Golden Stonehill Dr. Camino Del Avion Class La Cresta Dr. Chula Vista /Copper Calle La Primavera /Copper Class Old Golden Lantern Del Prado El Camino Capistrano Class Palisades Dr. Pacific Coast Hwy. Camino Capistrano Class Santiago Dr. Elisa Dr. Taxco Dr. Class Coast Highway Doheny Park Rd. Palisades Dr. N/A Crown Valley Pkwy. Pacific Coast Hwy. Camino Del Avion N/A Del Prado Ave. Street of Golden Lantern Street of Copper Lantern N/A Pacific Coast Hwy. San Juan Creek Bridge Street of Copper Lantern N/A Stonehill Dr. Niguel Rd. Easterly City Limit N/A Mileage unspecified Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Pacific Coast Hwy. Monarch Bay Dr. Street of the Blue Lantern Class II 1.97 Pacific Coast Hwy. Street of the Copper Lantern Coast Hwy. Class II 0.53 Stonehill Dr. San Juan Capistrano City Limit Niguel Rd. Class II 2.13 Dana Point Proposed Bikeways OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 65 Street/Path Margarita / Dana Strand Rd. Scenic Rd. Selva Rd. Class 1 -,.- 0.34 OCTA Metrolink Path PCH- Stonehill Connector Palisades Dr. Class 1 0.81 PCH / Stone Connector San Juan Capistrano City Limit Coast Hwy. Class 1 1.04 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 65 Street/Path From To Class Mileage $280,000 $1,873,200 Class 111 7.55 $21,000 $158,550 PCH Path Pacific Coast Hwy. South of Via Class 1 0.48 Subida PCH Path SPUR PCH Path Stonehill Dr. Class 1 0.21 Camino Capistrano San Juan Capistrano Via Verde Class II 0.56 Camino De Estrella Camino Capistrano San Clemente Class II 0.13 City Limit Coast Hwy. Pacific Coast Hwy. Street of the Class II 0.08 Park Lantern Del Prado Av. Street of the Golden Lantern Pacific Coast Class II 0.24 Hwy. Niguel Rd. Pacific Coast Hwy. Laguna Niguel Class II 1.05 City Limits Avenidas Las Palmas Camino Capistrano Camino De Estrella Class III 0.71 Blue Lantern La Cresta Dr. Stonehill Dr. Class III 0.58 Calle Velez Via California San Clemente Class III 0.87 City Limit Camino El Molino San Juan Capistrano City San Clemente Class III 0.87 Limit City Limit Coast Hwy. Street of the Park Lantern Palisades Dr. Class III 1.09 Pacific Coast Hwy. Cabrillo Wy Monarch Bay Dr. Class III 0.42 Copper Lantern Selva Rd. Pacific Coast Class III 0.42 Hwy. Dana Point Harbor Dr. Cove Rd. End of Road Class III 0.09 Doheny Park Rd. Coast Hwy. Camino Class III 0.61 Capistrano La Cresta Dr. Selva Rd. End of Road Class III 0.22 Scenic Dr / Cove Rd. Marguerita Dr. Dana Point Class III 0.26 Harbor Dr. Via California Camino Capistrano Camino El Molino Class III 0.60 Victoria Blvd. Doheny Park Rd. Pacific Coast Class III 0.31 Hwy. Violet Lantern Selva Rd. Del Prado Ave. Class III 0.50 TOTAL 12.49 miles Dana Point Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Mi - 2.88 .- mile) $1,500,000 $4,320,000 Class 11 6.69 $280,000 $1,873,200 Class 111 7.55 $21,000 $158,550 Total $6,351,750 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.8. Fountain Valley Located in the central portion of the County, Fountain Valley is a primarily a city of residential neighborhoods. Fountain Valley is home to Coastline College, Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, and Mile Square Regional Park. The City's destinations are located along the grid of arterial streets, including Brookhurst and Euclid Streets, and Edinger, Warner, and Talbert Avenues. Population 54,978 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 510 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.4% 11020 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 680 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 21426 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 270 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 779 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11559 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11138 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 51235 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 11387,254 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 8 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 28 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 147,559 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 67 Map 3.8 Fountain Valley Land Use 68 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 103 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 20.6 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.36 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.13 Notes: Rideshare 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs The City of Fountain Valley does not have any bicycle safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle planning can be found in Fountain Valley's General Plan. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 69 ..- OCTA Buses Location City -wide Facility Type Bicycle racks on buses Rideshare King of Glory Lutheran Church - 10280 Slater Ave Rideshare Mile Square Park - Euclid /Heil Ave Safety and Education Programs The City of Fountain Valley does not have any bicycle safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle planning can be found in Fountain Valley's General Plan. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 69 Bikeways Fountain Valley Existing Bikeways Fountain Valley Proposed Bikeways .- - Total $280,000 $820,400 Class 111 0.02 $21,000 $420 Street/Path Mile Square Park Interior Path Brookhurst St. Mile Square Park Interior Class -..- Mile Square Park Perimeter Ward St. Brookhurst Las Flores St. Class II 0.72 Newland St. Garfield Ave. Warner Ave. Class II 0.32 Magnolia St. Garfield Ave. Slater Ave. Class II 0.35 Bushard St. Garfield Ave. Northern City Limit Class II 0.49 Ward St. Garfield Ave. Warner Ave. Class II 0.02 Ward St. Mile Square Park Northern City Limit Class II 2.95 miles Newhope St. Slater Ave. Northern City Limit Class II Edinger Ave. Magnolia St. Brookhurst St. Class II Heil Ave. Magnolia St. Brookhurst St. Class II Heil Ave. Euclid St. Newhope St. Class II Slater Ave. Newland St. Santa Ana River Path Class II Talbert Ave. Newland St. Bushard St. Class II Ellis Ave. Newland St. Ward St. Class II Garfield Ave. Newland St. Santa Ana River Path Class II Mileage unspecified Fountain Valley Proposed Bikeways Fountain Valley Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates - Class II 2.93 .- - Total $280,000 $820,400 Class 111 0.02 $21,000 $420 Street/Path Edinger Ave. Brookhurst St. Santa Ana City Limit Class II -..- 1.05 Edinger Ave. Santa Ana City Limit City Limit Class II 0.72 Harbor Blvd. Verbena Ct. Edinger Ave. Class II 0.32 Harbor Blvd. Sylvan River City Limit Class II 0.35 Magnolia St. Slater Ave. Warner Ave. Class II 0.49 Ward St. Garden Grove City Limit Margarita Ave. Class III 0.02 TOTAL 2.95 miles Fountain Valley Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates - Class II 2.93 .- - Total $280,000 $820,400 Class 111 0.02 $21,000 $420 Total $820,820 70 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.9. Fullerton Located 22 miles southeast of metropolitan Los Angeles and in the center of North Orange County, Fullerton is a full- service city renowned for its unique mix of residential, commercial, industrial, educational, and cultural amenities. The result is a high quality of life for both residents and businesses alike. Fullerton is a community with a strong sense of tradition, one that treasures its historic past as it prepares to meet the challenges of its future. The bikeway map reflects locally- adopted plans and programs that are currently in place and as a part of the current General Plan. The City of Fullerton is in the process of updating its General Plan and developing a Bicycle Element, which may create a more comprehensive strategy for local bikeway system by taking into consideration the regional connectivity with adjoining jurisdictions. In the near future when the new General Plan is available, there may be new policies and programs within the Bicycle Element that will influence future amendments to the maps and information contain in this Section. Population 137,4371 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 11721 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 2.0% 31443 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 21358 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters 9,156 Future number of new bicycle commuters 589 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 21310 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 41620 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 31372 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 15,513 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 40101925 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 25 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 83 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 6 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 4371271 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light 1 CA Department of Finance, January, 2008 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 71 Map 3.9 Fullerton Land Use W Z3rZ Z7 A- QL I=c L7 :-,Lz ,.,-T- 72 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using City of Fullerton Engineering Department - Traffic Division collision data and population figures provided by the CA Deparment of Finance, 2008. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities The City of Fullerton Engineering Department is researching the possibility on adding bike racks to various locations within the City at commercial centers, in front of businesses, and in front of restaurants where ever feasible and permissible. Also, California State University at Fullerton (CSUF), as of 2007, has bike racks at 30 locations with a capacity of approximately 650 bikes. In addition, there is a directive message from the president of Cal State Fullerton's to promote on- campus use of personal forms of transportation. The directive encourages and supports the University use of alternative forms of transportation such as bicycles by its faculty, staff, and students where ever feasible. Per the Fullerton Municipal Code (FMC) Section 15.30.100, end of trip facilities are required for private developments of100,000 gross square feet. Bicycle racks and lockers are provided at the City of Fullerton's City Hall and bike racks are provided at Richman Park. Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs Safety and education programs are being developed as part of the Bicycle Element, which is a part of the new General Plan that will be available in the near future. Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is unavailable. Bicycle Transportation Plan Currently, the City of Fullerton's Bicycle Master Plan is part of the Circulation Element of its General Plan. The City is in the process of updating its General Plan, which will be completed in the near future. Under the new General Plan, the Bicycle Element offers Fullerton residents a plan designed to meet commuter and recreational user needs and provide safe connectivity to activity centers such as schools, open space /parks, residential neighborhoods, and commercial areas within the City and adjoining jurisdictions. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 73 ..- OCTA Buses Location City -wide Facility Type Bicycle racks on buses Bus /Rideshare Fullerton Park - and -Ride W Orangethorpe /Magnolia Ave Bicycle racks on buses Bicycle racks (8) Metrolink / Amtrak/ Bus/ Rideshare Fullerton Station Bicycle racks (34) /lockers (24) Bicycle racks on trains /buses Safety and Education Programs Safety and education programs are being developed as part of the Bicycle Element, which is a part of the new General Plan that will be available in the near future. Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is unavailable. Bicycle Transportation Plan Currently, the City of Fullerton's Bicycle Master Plan is part of the Circulation Element of its General Plan. The City is in the process of updating its General Plan, which will be completed in the near future. Under the new General Plan, the Bicycle Element offers Fullerton residents a plan designed to meet commuter and recreational user needs and provide safe connectivity to activity centers such as schools, open space /parks, residential neighborhoods, and commercial areas within the City and adjoining jurisdictions. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 73 74 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Fullerton Existing Bikeways ,� c I� A ., Qr ",Y �( „�� ,�( � ,� w' ! °w �';;w' �'{� � ,11� w���, � � Qw � t � ;11A t E w � I4 Street/Path -,.- River Bike Path N. State College Blvd. Dorothy Ln. Class I ` Craig Regional Park bike way Rolling Hills Dr. Associated Rd. Class I ` N. Parks Rd. Castlewood Dr. Rosecrans Ave. Class I ` N. W. Campus Dr. Yorba Linda Blvd. N. State College Blvd. Class I ` S. W. Campus Dr. N. State College Blvd. Nutwood Ave. Class I ` W. Bastanchury Rd. Hughes Dr. W. Malvern Ave. Class I ` W. Malvern Ave. N. Gilbert St. W. Bastanchury Rd. Class I ` Associated Rd. E. Imperial Hwy. Yorba Linda Blvd. Class II ` Acacia Ave. Chapman Ave. Spring St. Class II ` Brea Blvd. Panorama Rd. E. Bastanchury Rd. Class II ` Castlewood Dr. N. Gilbert St. N. Parks Rd. Class II ` Commonwealth Ave. Nutwood Ave Chapman Ave Class II ` Dorothy Ln. Raymond Ave. Acacia Ave Cass II ` E. Bastanchury Rd. Associated Rd. Cambridge Ave. Cass II ` N. Berkeley Ave. W. Valley View Dr. E. Chapman Ave. Class II ` N. Harbor Blvd. W. Valencia Mesa Dr. W. Valley View Dr. Class II ` N. Harbor Blvd. Las Palmas Dr. Bastanchury Rd. Class II ` N. Parks Rd. Peacock Ln. W. Bastanchury Rd. Class II ` Rotting Hills Dr. Puente St. Hickory Pt. Class II ` Rotting Hills Dr. Associated Rd. Tri -City Park Class II ` Rosecrans Ave. Sunny Ridge Dr. N. Gilbert St. Class II ` Rosecrans Ave. W City Limit N. Gilbert St. Cass II ` S. Highland Ave. W. Orangethorpe Ave. W. Hill Ave. Class II ` S. Highland Ave. W. Wilshire Ave. W. Rosstynn Ave. Cass II ` W. Orangethorpe Ave. Jefferson Ave. Ray Ave. Class II ` W. Pioneer Ave. N. Gilbert St. N. Parks Rd. Class II ` Parks Rd N. Gitbertt St Bastanchury Rd Cass II ` Valencia Dr Brookhurst Rd Highland Ave Class II ` W. Walnut Ave. S. Richman Ave. S. Highland Ave. Class II ` E. Orangethorpe Ave. Raymond Ave. S. Acacia Ave. Class II ` Orangethorpe Ave. Magnolia Ave. Basque Ave. Cass II ` Orangethorpe Ave. Brookhurst Rd Highland Ave. Class II ` Brea Blvd. N. Harbor Blvd. Panorama Rd. Class III ` Brea Blvd. Evergreen Ave. E. Bastanchury Rd. Class III ` Brea Blvd. Rotting Hills Dr. Fir St. Class III ` Brookhurst Rd. W. Valencia Dr. W. Orangethorpe Ave. Class III ` Dorothy Ln. Hornet Wy. N. State College Blvd. Class III ` Chapman Ave Basque Ave. Woods Ave. Class III ` E. Commonwealth Ave. N. Acacia Ave. N. State College Blvd. Class III ` N Gilbert Valencia Dr Orangethorpe Ave Class III ` Hornet Wy. Dorothy Ln. N. Berkeley Ave. Class III ` Madison Ave. N. Placentia Ave. City Limit Class III ` Nutwood Ave Orange Fwy. N. Placentia Ave. Class III ` Rosecrans Ave. N. Gilbert St. N. Parks Rd. Class III ` S. Richman Ave. Valencia Dr. Houston Ave. Class III ` Sunny Ridge Dr. Rosecrans Ave. W. Malvern Ave. Class III ` Valencia Dr. Meade Ave. S. Richman Ave. Class III ` ,� c I� A ., Qr ",Y �( „�� ,�( � ,� w' ! °w �';;w' �'{� � ,11� w���, � � Qw � t � ;11A t E w � I4 Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- BNSF RR Commonwealth Ave. Metrotink RR Class 1 2.32 UP RR BNSF RR La Habra City Limit Class 1 4.83 Rosecrans / Euclid Path Euclid St. Rosecrans Ave. Cass II 2.31 Fullerton Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Street/Path Valencia Mesa Dr. From Sunny Crest Dr. To Youth Way Class Class III Mileage ` W. Chapman Ave. N. Basque Ave. N. Woods Ave. Class III ` W. Malvern Ave. W. Bastanchury Rd. Carhart Ave. Class III ` Walnut Ave. S. Highland Ave. S. Lemon St. Class III ` W. Valencia Mesa Dr. W. Bastanchury Rd. Harbor Blvd Class III ` W. Valley View Dr. N. Berkeley Ave. N. Harbor Blvd. Class III ` Wilshire Ave. N. Woods Ave. Harbor Blvd Class III ` ` mileage unspecified Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- BNSF RR Commonwealth Ave. Metrotink RR Class 1 2.32 UP RR BNSF RR La Habra City Limit Class 1 4.83 Rosecrans / Euclid Path Euclid St. Rosecrans Ave. Cass II 2.31 Fullerton Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Madison Ave. Placentia City Limit Placentia Ave. Class I 0.13 Bastancury Parkview Path Bastanchury Dr. Park View Dr. Class 1 1.20 Drainage Path Raymond Ave. State College Blvd. Class 1 0.97 Madison Continuation Path End of Madison Ave. CSUFu«erton Class 1 0.41 Malvern Ave. Gilbert St. Buena Park City Limit Class I 1.02 OCTA Metrotink RR BNSF RR Anaheim City Limit Class I 0.43 Bastanchury /Valencia Mesa Bastanchury Dr. Valencia Mesa Dr. Class 1 0.71 Puente St. Rosarita Dr. Brea City Limit Class 1 0.06 Rotting Hills Bastanchury Path Puente St. Bastanchury Rd. Class 1 0.62 Rotting Hills Dr. Hickory Pt. Associated Rd. Class 1 0.29 Yorba Ranchito Path. Rotting Hills Dr. Craig Regional Park Class 1 0.28 Roberta Ave. / Page Ave. Gilbert St. Basque Ave. Class II 1.09 Artesia Ave. Date Pt. Gilbert St. Class II 0.99 Basque Ave. Malvern Ave. Houston Ave. Class II 1.44 Bastanchury Rd Segment 1 Harbor Blvd. Associated Rd. Class II 2.74 Bastanchury Rd Segment 2 Malvern Ave. Parks Rd. Class II 0.82 Bradford Ave. Carlson Ln. Yorba Linda Blvd. Class II 0.37 Brea Blvd. Harbor Blvd. Panorama Rd. Class II 0.85 Brea Blvd. Bastanchury Dr. Brea City Limit Class II 0.59 Brookhurst Rd. Commonwealth Ave. Riverside Fwy. Class II 1.10 Campus Dr. Campus Dr. E. Campus Dr. Cass II 0.19 Campus Path Associated Rd. E. Campus Dr. Class II 0.26 Chapman Ave. Basque Ave. Woods Ave. Cass II 0.77 Chapman Ave. Drake Ave. Placentia Ave. Class II 3.24 Commonwealth Ave. Date St. State College Blvd. Cass II 5.50 CSUF Path E. Campus Dr. Campus Dr. Class II 0.45 Dorothy Ln. Long View Dr. State College Blvd. Cass II 1.32 E Campus Dr. Campus Dr. Campus Path Class II 0.38 Euclid St. Riverside Fwy. Country Hills Dr. Cass II 4.08 Gilbert St. Castlewood Dr. Commonwealth Ave. Cass 11 2.94 Street/Path From To Class Mileage Harbor Blvd. Bastanchury Dr. Valencia Mesa Dr. Class II 0.15 Highland Ave. Segment 1 Malvern Ave. Wilshire Ave. Class II 0.22 Highland Ave. Segment 2 Rosslynn Ave. Hill Ave. Class II 0.19 Highland Ave. Segment 3 Orangethorpe Ave. Baker Ave. Cass II 0.17 Magnolia Ave. Commonwealth Ave. Anaheim City Limit Class II 1.09 Malvern Ave. Sunny Ridge Dr. Basque Ave. Class II 1.08 Orangethorpe Ave. Segment 1 Buena Park City Limit Magnolia Ave. Class II 0.51 Orangethorpe Ave. Segment 2 Basque Ave. Jefferson Ave. Class II 0.63 Orangethorpe Ave. Segment 3 Ray Ave. Lemon St. Class II 0.62 Orangethorpe Ave. Segment 4 Acacia Ave. Placentia Ave. Cass II 0.84 Parks Rd. Castlewood Dr. UPRR Cass II 1.09 Parks Rd. Path Castlewood Dr. La Habra City Limit Cass II 0.47 Pioneer Ave. Sunny Ridge Dr. Sunny Ridge Dr. Cass II 0.24 Placentia Ave. Palm Dr. Ruby Dr. Class II 0.89 Richman Ave. Walnut Ave. Valencia Dr. Class II 0.13 Rosecrans Segment 1 LA County Limit Sunny Ridge Dr. Class II 0.88 Rosecrans Segment 2 Euclid St. Gilbert St. Class II 1.30 Rosstynn Ave. Pomona Ave. Lemon St. Class II 0.12 State College Blvd. Orangethorpe Ave. Rotting Hills Dr. Cass II 3.07 Sunny Ridge Dr. Pioneer Ave. Rosecrans Ave. Class II 0.55 Sunny Ridge Dr. Pioneer Ave. Malvern Ave. Class II 0.62 Valencia Dr. Highland Ave. Meade Ave. Cass II 3.09 Valencia Mesa Dr. Sunny Crest Dr. Youth Way Class II 0.24 Yorba Linda Blvd. Campus Dr. Bradford Ave. Class II 1.15 Acacia Ave. Melody Ln. Dorothy Ln. Class III 0.10 Baker Ave. Pacific Dr. Highland Ave. Class III 1.62 Barbara Blvd. Brea Blvd. Melville Dr. Class III 0.19 Berkeley Ave. Commonwealth Ave. Chapman Ave. Class III 0.25 Cherry Ave. Pine Ave. Cedar Dr. Class III 0.25 Gilbert St. Castlewood Dr. La Habra City Limit Class III 0.36 Gilbert St. Riverside Fwy. Commonwealth Ave. Class III 1.08 Harbor Blvd. Berkeley Ave. Union Ave. Class III 0.12 Hermosa Dr. Lakeview Dr. Puente St. Class III 1.26 Hill Ave. Segment 1 Lee Ave. Euclid St. Class III 0.36 Hill Ave. Segment 2 Highland Ave. Harbor Blvd. Class III 0.25 Knepp Ave. Roosevelt Ave. Highland Ave. Class III 0.71 Laguna Rd. Euclid St. Valencia Mesa Dr. Class III 1.09 Lakeview Dr. Hermosa Dr. Codo St. Class III 1.10 Las Palmas Dr. Lakeview Dr. Puente St. Class III 1.17 Lee Ave. Southgate Ave. Hill Ave. Class 111 0.06 Lemont St. Wilshire Ave. Riverside Fwy. Class III 1.24 Longview Dr. Dorothy Ln. Brea Blvd. Class III 0.82 Madison Ave. Placentia Ave. End of Madison Ave. Class III 0.14 Malden Ave. Union Ave. Malvern Ave. Class III 0.15 Malvern Ave. Malden Ave. Woods Ave. Class III 0.64 Marion Blvd. Barbara Blvd. Avalon Dr. Class III 0.20 Melody Ln. Acacia Ave. Melody Ln. Path Class III 0.12 Melville Dr. Marion Blvd. Avalon Dr. Class III 0.21 c 1f % .,ar iiYrrii��r� wii° ii �w �+{��l�w����� Qw�t ii ClAt Ewe / / / " / //' Street/Path From To Class Mileage Olive Ave. Magnolia Ave. Pine Dr. Class III 0.53 Pomona Ave. Segment 1 Walnut Ave. Rosstyn Ave. Class III 0.32 Park View Dr. Helen Dr. Marion Blvd. Class III 0.04 Pine Dr. Olive Ave. Cherry Ave. Class III 0.05 Pioneer Ave. Sunny Ridge Dr. Gilbert St. Class III 0.30 Puente St. Bastanchury Dr. Juniper St. Class III 0.60 Richman Ave. Sunny Crest Dr. Commonwealth Ave. Class III 1.29 Roosevelt Ave. Knepp Ave. Southgate Ave Class III 0.05 Santa Fe Ave. Pomona Ave. Lemon St. Class III 0.13 Southgate Ave. Cedar Ave. Lee Ave. Class III 0.93 Sunny Crest Dr. Valencia Mesa Dr. Valley View Dr. Class III 0.65 Valley View Blvd. Sunny Crest Dr. West of Brea Blvd. Class III 0.08 Union Ave. Harbor Blvd. Pomona Ave. Class III 0.27 Pomona Ave. Segment 2 Union Ave. Santa Fe Ave. Class III 0.58 Walnut Ave. Richman Ave. Highland Ave. Class III 0.25 Woods Ave. Malvern Ave. Chapman Ave. Class III 0.06 TOTAL 83.66 mites Fullerton Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 13.27 .- - $1,500,000 Total $19,905,000 Class 11 50.77 $280,000 $141215,600 Class 111 19.62 $21,000 $412,020 Total $34,532,620 7 oc r'A C U I e ��,3 i e w a V„ „rl 3. 10. Garden Grove Garden Grove is a vibrantly progressive and growing city located just south of Los Angeles in Orange County, California. Garden Grove's motto, "The City of Youth and Ambition," accurately reflects this culturally diverse community of over 170,000 people. Garden Grove is home to four annual cultural festivals that celebrate the Vietnamese, Korean, Arabic, and American heritage. Garden Grove's Strawberry Festival, nearing 50 years old, is the largest community -based Memorial Day event in the western United States. Population 166,296 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 11589 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.5% 31179 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 21077 Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Weekday 61916 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 442 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 21031 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 41063 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 21966 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Weekday 13,642 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Year 31615,097 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 22 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 73 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 5 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 384,531 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks." 2000. ,� c I� A ���,., Qr ",Y �( „�� ,�( � �,� w' ! °w �';;w' �'{� � ,11� w���, � � Qw � t � ;11A t E w `� � � �, � ;;11 „ rl � � 0 80 Map 3. 10 Garden Grove Land Use W, > Aar t 413 53 V, P PP 3010 8 v1110111I)PW OH fin—I PIL- owl , I :P fx CC CX C U > i LR CCU M x w w Ir- ME] u D E OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan • Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 332 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 66.4 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.40 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.22 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Garden Grove City Hatt - 11222 Acacia Pkwy I Bicycle racks (8) Multi modal Facilities Mode Location Facility .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Rideshare Church of the Nazarene 13411 Euclid St Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted # Of Times a Year Conducted Administered by Police Department Location Program, Curriculum, and Activities Bicycle Safety and Education workbooks, tips handouts, bicycle rodeos Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Total # of Children Reached Age of Children Reached Other Program Notes Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Garden Grove's Bicycle Master Plan is part of its General Plan. o c rA ., Ll w' ! °w e w a y s S t a t e g (: I a „ rl Bikeways Garden Grove Existing Bikeways Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Euclid St. Orangewood Ave. Westminster Ave. Cass II 6.14 Westminster Ave. Bushard St. Brock Ln. Class II 3.22 Garden Grove Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Street/Path Lampson Ave. Bolsa Chica Lewis St. Class II -,.- ` Ninth St. Orangewood Chapman Class II ` Ward St. Edinger Ave. Hazard Class II ` Brookhurst St. Kate«a Ave. Hazard Class III ` Chapman Ave. Valley View Lewis St. Class III ` Orangewood Date St. Gilbert St. Class III ` ` Location of bikeway and mileage unknown Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Euclid St. Orangewood Ave. Westminster Ave. Cass II 6.14 Westminster Ave. Bushard St. Brock Ln. Class II 3.22 Garden Grove Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Path 1 Barclay Dr. Briarwood St. Class 1 1.50 Trask/ Westminster Path Trask Ave. Westminster Ave. Class 1 0.50 UP RR Chapman Ave. Garden Grove Blvd. Class 1 1.01 9th St. Acacia Pkwy. Garden Grove Blvd. Cass II 1.00 Bowen St. Westminster Ave. Morningside Dr. Class II 0.22 Morningside Dr. Bowen St. Ward St. Cass II 0.06 17th St. Westminster Blvd. Santa Ana City Limit Class II 0.03 Brookhurst St. Segment 1 Kate«a Ave. Chapman Ave. Class II 0.99 Brookhurst St. Segment 2 Trask Ave. Hazard Ave. Class II 1.00 Chapman Ave. Segment 1 Magnolia St. Lorateen St. Cass II 0.24 Chapman Ave. Segment 2 West St. 9th St. Class II 0.50 Garden Grove Blvd. 9th St. New Hope St. Class II 0.18 Harbor Blvd. Chapman Ave. Westminster Ave. Cass II 2.17 Kate«a Ave. Date Ave. Magnolia St. Cass II 1.01 Knott Ave. Garden Grove Fwy. Stanton City Limit Cass II 1.82 Lampson Ave. Merrill St. Haster St. Class II 0.96 Magnolia St. Kate«a Ave. Westminster City Limit Cass II 3.08 Mc Fadden Ave. Ward St. End of McFadden Ave. Class II 0.12 Newland St. Garden Grove Blvd. Westminster Ave. Cass II 1.00 Orangewood Ave. Segment 1 Knott Ave. Western Ave. Cass II 0.54 Orangewood Ave. Segment 2 Stanton City Limit Mossier St. Cass II 0.09 Orangewood Ave. Segment 3 Date St. Euclid St. Cass II 2.50 Orangewood Ave. Segment 4 Jacatene Ln. Anaheim City Limit Cass II 0.63 Trask Ave. Wilson St. Brookhurst St. Class II 1.66 Valley View St. Santa Catalina Ave. Garden Grove Blvd. Class II 1.46 Western Ave. Simmons Pt. Garden Grove Blvd. Cass II 1.25 Western Ave. Simmons Pt. Garden Grove Blvd. Cass II 1.25 Bushard St. Westminster Ave. Westminster City Limit Class III 0.25 Century Blvd. Garden Grove Blvd. Taft St. Class III 0.23 oc r'A C U I e ��,3 i e w a V„ „rl Street/Path From To Class Mileage Date St. Kate«a Ave. Garden Grove Blvd. Class III 2.02 Gilbert St. Kate«a Ave. Trask Ave. Class III 2.51 Hazard Ave. Ward St. Westminster City Limit Class III 0.88 Nelson St. Chapman Ave. Garden Grove Blvd. Class III 1.00 Springdale St. Santa Catalina Ave. Westminster City Limit Class III 1.23 Stanford Ave. Segment 1 Nelson St. Main St. Class III 0.25 Stanford Ave. Segment 2 Euclid St. 9th St. Class III 0.36 Main St. Stanford Ave. Euclid St. Class III 0.13 Taft St. Century Blvd. Westminster Ave. Class III 0.85 Ward St. Hazard Ave. Margarita Ave. Class III 1.38 West St. Orangewood Ave. Garden Grove Blvd. Class III 1.50 TOTAL 48.72 mites Garden Grove Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 3.01 .- - $1,500,000 Total $4,515,000 Class II 33.12 $280,000 $9,273,600 Class 111 12.59 $21,000 $264,390 Total $14,052,990 ,� c I� A ., Qr ",Y �( „�� ,�( � ,� w' ! °w �';;w' �'{� � ,11� w���, � � Qw � t � ;11A t E w `� � � �, � ;;11 „ rl 83 3. 11. Huntington Beach The dynamic coastal City of Huntington Beach, with its sunny Mediterranean climate and idyllic setting, is home to more than 202,250 residents. Internationally known as "Surf City," Huntington Beach boasts eight miles of scenic, accessible beachfront, the largest stretch of uninterrupted beachfront on the West Coast. Tourism remains a vital part of the economy, as over 11 million visitors flock to the city during the summer, on weekends and for special events. Population 202,250 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 21079 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.6% 41159 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 21826 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters 10,725 Future number of new bicycle commuters 854 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 21933 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 51866 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 41282 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Weekday 19,699 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Year 51220,329 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 14 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 105 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 7 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 555,276 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light oc r'A C c') U e e w a V„ „rl • is Map 3.11 Huntington Beach Land Use 1'k.q N General Plan Designations ...... rr.r.r..o.r w�rvMa�+ o-r�III c�eycr.l trWtyr.r c :.VOF C�.IM1W`Lw� fY�t by pya IY� /O.wp �r..r abAlb ® Hn ��aa�vgua afN.W..r General Plan City of Huntington Beach W* S 0 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 85 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 573 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 114.6 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.58 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.80 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Bus /Rideshare Go[denwest Transportation Ctr Bicycle racks(5) 7301 Center St Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs The status of Huntington Beach's bicycle safety and education programs is unknown. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan The City of Huntington Beach does not have an adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. Bikeways Huntington Beach Existing Bikeways Street/Path Beach front Class I -,.- Edinger Ave. Cass II Suter Ave. Cuss II Garfield Ave. Cuss II Lake Ave. Cuss II Hamilton Cuss II Edwards St. Cuss II Gothard St. Cuss II Newland St. Cuss II Bushard St. Cuss II `Boundaries and mileage unknown Huntington Beach Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Pacific Coast Hwy Segment 1 County Limit 8th St. Cass II 4.61 Pacific Coast Hwy Segment 2 Huntington St. County Limit Cass II 2.63 Huntington Beach Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Miles 3.97 .- r mile) $1,500,000 Total $5,955,000 -,.- Hamilton Path Newland St. Beach Blvd. Class 1 0.50 UPRR Path Macfadden Ave. Main St. Class I 3.47 3rd St. Walnut Ave. Pacific Cost Hwy. Class II 0.08 Adams Ave. Beach Blvd. Ranger Ln. Class II 2.27 Botsa Chica St. Segment 1 Westminster City Limit Botsa Ave. Class II 0.40 Botsa Chica St. Segment 2 Warner Ave. Los Patos Ave. Class II 0.25 Edinger Ave. Segment 1 Graham St. Springdale St. Cass II 0.50 Edinger Ave. Segment 2 Gothard St. Newland St. Class II 1.14 Gotdenwest St. Warner Ave. Betty Dr. Cass II 0.27 Magnolia St. Warner Ave. San Diego Fwy. Class II 0.29 Mc Fadden Ave. UPRR Westminster City Limit Class II 0.26 Talbert Ave. Segment 1 Springdale St. Ivory Crest Ln. Class II 0.20 Talbert Ave. Segment 2 Gotdenwest St. Gothard St. Class II 0.40 Springdale St. Segment 1 Edinger Ave. Heil Ave. Class III 0.49 Springdale St. Segment 2 Talbert Ave. City Limit Class III 0.27 Varsity Dr. Talbert Ave. Edwards St. Class III 0.33 TOTAL 11.12 mites Huntington Beach Proposed Facility Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 3.97 .- r mile) $1,500,000 Total $5,955,000 Class II 13.30 $280,000 $3,724,000 Class 111 1.09 $21,000 $22,890 Total $9,701,890 ,� c I� A ., Qr ",Y �( „�� ,�( � ,� w' ! °w �';;w' �'{� � ,11� w���, � � Qw � t � ;11A t E w `� � � �, � ;;11 „ rl 3.12. Irvine Irvine is one of the nation's largest planned urban communities and encompasses more than 55 square miles. Irvine has grown into a community boasting state -of -the -art transportation programs and systems, an enterprising business environment, stellar educational institutions and a team -like lifestyle. Population 209,806 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 21317 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 2.2% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 41635 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 31216 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 12,972 638 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 21956 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 51911 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 41315 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Weekday 19,850 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Year 51260,274 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 31 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 106 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 7 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 559,525 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light o c r'A C c') U e e w a V„ „rl Map 3.12 Irvine Land Use �n r'r _ r • IL _ - r 16 16 0 IN J -6-:,:%""LJ a = :L OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 89 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Bicycle parking can be found throughout Irvine as a result of zoning ordinance Sec. 4 -3 -7, which requires many commercial, office, and community developments to provide bicycle parking. Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Metrolink /Amtrak / Rideshare/ Bus Irvine Station Bicycle racks(12) /lockers(54) Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Bicycle registration Bicycle racks on trains and buses Rideshare Jeffery Park - and -Ride Elementary and middle school students Other Program Notes I -5 /Jeffrey Rd Rideshare Light of Christ Lutheran 18182 Culver Dr Rideshare University Park - and -Ride SR -73 /University Dr The i Shuttle Buses Irvine Business Complex Bicycle racks on shuttle buses (IBC) Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted 5 # Of Times a Year Conducted All year long Administered by Police Department Location Schools Program, Curriculum, and Activities Assembly, D.A. R. E. program, bicycle rodeos Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Bicycle registration Total # of Children Reached On average, 250 students at bicycle rodeos Age of Children Reached Elementary and middle school students Other Program Notes Programs provided as requested; City website has bicycle education and safety tips 90 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Expenditures The City of Irvine estimates its annual cost for parking lot and off - street trail rehabilitation as $193,000. Information about past bicycle facilities expenditures is unknown. Bicycle Transportation Plan The City of Irvine has a Bicycle Transportation Plan. Bikeways Irvine Existing Bikeways Street -..- Barranca Trail (BT) Sand Canyon Trail / Sand SR -133 Class I Canyon Avenue Bonita Canyon Trail (BC) Campus Drive Shady Canyon Trail / Shady Class 1 1.1 Canyon Drive Culver Dr. Path Campus Dr. Sand Canyon Dr. Class 1 1.20 Freeway Trail (FT) San Diego Creek Trial / San Jeffrey Open Space Trail / Class I Diego Creek Jeffrey Road Harvard Trail (HT) San Diego Creek Trail / Walnut Trail / Railroad Class I Barranca Parkway Tracks Hicks Canyon Trail (HC) Peters Canyon Trail / SR -261 Portola Trail / Portola Parkway Class I Jeffrey Open Space Trail Trabuco Road Irvine Blvd Class I Northern Portion (JT) Jeffrey Open Space Trail Quail Hill Trail / 1 -405 Barranca Parkway Class I Southern Portion (JT) Peters Canyon Trail (PC) Walnut Trail / Railroad Tracks Portola Trail / Portola Parkway Class I Portola Trail (PT) Peters Canyon Trail / SR -261 SR -133 Class I Quail Hill Trail (QH) University Trail Shady Canyon Trail / Quail Class 1 1.0 Hill Trailhead San Diego Creek Trail (SD) Southern City Limits / SR -73 Pacifica Class I San Diego Frwy. Path S Shady Canyon Circle Existing San Diego Fwy. Path South Class I 0.95 Sand Canyon Trail (SC) Alton Parkway Portola Trail / Portola Class I 3.6 Parkway Shady Canyon Trail (SH) Bonita Canyon Trial Quail Hill Trail Class 1 3.6 Turtle Rock Trail JR) University Drive Shady Canyon Trail / Shady Class 1 2.8 Canyon Drive San Diego Creek Trail / Quail Hill Trial / Jeffrey University Trail (UT) University Drive Open Space Trail Southern Class I Portion Venta Spur Trail (VS) Peters Canyon Trail / SR -261 SR -133 Class I Walnut Trail (WT) Peters Canyon Trail / Sand Canyon Trail / Sand Class 1 3.5 Jamboree Road Canyon Avenue West Irvine Trail (WI) Western City Limits / Jamboree Road Bryan Avenue / SR -261 Class I Woodbridge Trail (WB) Michelson Drive Yale Loop Class I Jamboree Rd. Irvine Park Pl. Class II Portola Pkwy City boundary Jeffrey Rd. Class II Yale Ave. Portola Pkwy Yale Loop Class II Yale Ave. South end of Yale Loop Dead end Class II Yale Ave. Michelson Dr. University Dr. Class II OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 91 Street • To Class Mileage Culver Dr. Portola Pkwy Campus Dr. Class II Hicks Canyon Dr. Yale Ave. Park Pl. Class II Jeffrey Dr. Irvine Blvd. 405 Freeway Class II University Dr. 405 Freeway City boundary Class II Bryan Ave. City boundary Jeffrey Rd. Class II Northwood N/A N/A Class 11 Southwood N/A N/A Class 11 Eastwood N/A N/A Class I I Westwood N/A N/A Class 11 Park Pl. Hicks Canyon Dr. Yale Ave. Class II Irvine Blvd. West city boundary East city boundary Class II El Camino Real Dead end Class II El Camino Real N. Bryan Ave. El Camino Real Class II Trabuco Rd. Culver Dr. Jeffrey Rd. Class II Monroe Trabuco Rd. Roosevelt Class II Roosevelt Monroe Rd. Jeff rey Rd. Class 11 Walnut Ave. City boundary Dead end Class II Deerfield Ave. Harvard Ave. Yale Ave. Class II Irvine Center Dr. West city boundary East city boundary Class II Harvard Ave. Walnut Ave. Culver Dr. Class II Paseo Westpark Harvard Ave. Dead end Class II Jamboree Rd. Barranca Pkwy Main St. Class II Von Karman Ave. Barranca Pkwy Michelson Dr. Class II Red Hill Ave. North city boundary South city boundary Class II Barranca Pkwy West city boundary Alton Pkwy Class II Alton Pkwy West city boundary Muirlands Blvd. Class II Main St. West city boundary Jamboree Rd. Class II Main St. Creek Culver Dr. Class II Warner Ave. W. Yale Loop Class II Hearthstone Deerfield Ave. Paseo Westpark Class II Lake Rd. Barranca Pkwy Alton Pkwy Class II Creek Rd. Barranca Pkwy Alton Pkwy Class II Michelson Dr. Dupont Dr. Jeffrey Rd. Class II Carlson Ave. Michelson Dr. Campus Dr. Class II Campus Dr. Jamboree Rd. Turtle Rock Dr. Class II Mesa Rd. University Dr. Dead end Class II Peltason Dr. Mesa Rd. Campus Dr. Class II Peltason Dr. Campus Dr. Pereira Dr. Class II Berkeley Harvard Ave. Campus Dr. Class II Bridge Rd. Harvard Ave. Campus Dr. Class II Bison Ave. Peltason Dr. South city boundary Class II Academy Way Peltason Dr. Dead end Class II Los Trancos Dr. Peltason Dr. California Ave. Class II California Ave. Los Trancos Dr. Campus Dr. Class II Anteater Dr. Peltason Dr. Bonita Canyon Dr. Class II Bonita Canyon Dr. Shady Canyon Dr. South city boundary Class II Newport Coast Dr. Bonita Canyon Dr. East city boundary Class II Gabrielino Dr. Peltason Dr. California Ave. Class II OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Street • To Class Mileage Vista Bonita Gabrielino Dr. Los Trancos Dr. Class II Turtle Ridge Bonita Canyon Dr. Newport Coast Dr. Class II Summit Park Dr. Turtle Ridge End of medians Class II Arroyo Dr. California Ave. Dead end Class II Shady Canyon Dr. Sunnyhill Bonita Canyon Dr. Class II Turtle Rock Dr. N/A N/A Class 11 Starcrest Turtle Rock Dr. Hillcrest Class II Ridgeline Dr. University Dr. Hillcrest Class II Bake Pkwy North city boundary Irvine Center Dr. Class II Lake Forest Dr. Lake Center Dr. Santa Vittoria Dr. Class II Research Dr. Irvine Center Dr. Lake Forest Dr. Class II Scientific Way Research Dr. Lake Forest Dr. Class II Rockfield Blvd. Dead end Lake Forest Dr. Class II Muirlands Blvd. Alton Pkwy East city boundary Class II Jeronimo Rd. Alton Pkwy East city boundary Class II Toledo Way Alton Pkwy East city boundary Class II Technology Dr. Dead end Alton Pkwy Class II Ada Barranca Pkwy Alton Pkwy Class II Valley Oak Dr. Irvine Center Dr. Alton Pkwy Class II Sand Canyon Ave. Laguna Canyon Rd. Alton Pkwy Class II Sand Canyon Ave. 405 Fwy Quail Hill Pkwy Class II Quail Hill Pkwy Sand Canyon Ave. Laguna Canyon Rd. Class II ` Knollcrest Quail Hill Pkwy Quail Hill Pkwy Class II Laguna Canyon Rd. Sand Canyon Ave. Laguna Fwy Class II Waterworks Wy Sand Canyon Ave. Discovery Class II Discovery Irvine Center Dr. Barranca Pkwy Class II Jenner Alton Pkwy Dead end Class II Pasteur Laguna Canyon Rd. Dead end Class II Banting Barranca Pkwy Alton Pkwy Class II Pacifica Barranca Pkwy Alton Pkwy Class II Gateway Blvd. Pacifica Irvine Center Dr. Class II Meridian Gateway Blvd. Alton Pkwy Class II I California Ave. Culver Dr. Class Around Aldrich Park $ N/A N/A Class E. Pereira Dr. $ Class Mesa Rd. $ W. Peltason Dr. Aldrich Park Class Palo Verde Rd. $ California Ave. Aldrich Park Class Physical Science Road $ Aldrich Park E. Peltason Dr. Class Laguna Canyon Rd. North of Lake Forest Dr. Southern City Limit Class III 1.23 ` Information not provided $ Maintained by The University of California, Irvine OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 93 Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Jeffrey Rd. Path Trabuco Rd. North of Alton Pkwy. Class 1 2.23 OCTA Metrolink Path$ Sand Canyon Ave. Great Park Southeastern Path Class 1 1.96 Irvine Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Eastern Mountain Path$ Eastern City Limit Hicks Canyon Haul Rd. Class 1 -,.- 2.51 Great Park Northern Path$ Irvine Blvd. OCTA Metrolink Path Class I 2.21 Jeffrey Rd. Path segment 1 Portola Pkwy Irvine Blvd. Class I 0.91 Modjeska / Portola Springs Irvine Blvd. Portola Pkwy. Class 1 0.90 Great Park Southern Path$ OCTA Metrolink Path Trabuco Rd. Class 1 1.88 Portola Hwy. Hwy 241 Eastern Transportation Corridor Class 1 5.57 San Diego Frwy. Path N Alton Pkwy. Existing San Diego Fwy. Path North Class 1 0.96 Trabuco Rd. $ Sand Canyon Ave. Great Park Loop Class I 0.93 Un -named Trail Jeffery Trail/ 1 -5 NB Off -Ramp D Street Class I Bonita Canyon Trail Shady Canyon Trail Shady Canyon Dr. Western City Limit Class University Trail San Diego Creek Trail / Campus Dr. Ridgeline Dr. Class I Peters Canyon Trail San Diego Creek Trail / Barranca Parkway Walnut Trail / Railroad Tracks Class I C St. $ Irvine Blvd. Marine Wy. Class II 1.81 Campus Dr. Macarthur Blvd. Jamboree Rd. Class II 0.69 Great Park Southern Access Road$ Perimeter Rd. Great Park Loop Class II 0.32 Great Park Loop$ N/A N/A Class 11 3.79 Jeffrey Rd. Hicks Canyon Haul Rd. Portola Pkwy. Class II 0.05 L St. $ Perimeter Blvd. Great Park Loop Class II 0.18 M St. $ Great Park Loop Irvine Blvd. Class II 0.49 Main St. Jamboree Rd. South of Union St. Class II 0.25 Marine Way$ Sand Canyon Ave. Bake Pkwy Class II 3.71 Sand Canyon Ave. Segment 1 San Diego Fwy. Alton Pkwy. Class II 0.23 Sand Canyon Ave. Segment 2 1 -5 NB On -Ramp Trabuco Rd. Class II 2.88 U St. $ Great Park Loop Irvine Blvd. Class II 0.35 Von Karman Ave. Campus Dr. Michelson Dr. Class II 0.57 Information not provided $ Proposed bikeways related to the Great Park Irvine Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 20.60 .- - Total $1,500,000 $30,900,000 Class II 15.32 $280,000 $4,2891600 Total $35,189,600 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3 La Habra Located at Orange County's northernmost corner, La Habra is 7.3 square miles with a population of 61,789 and approximately 21,000 households. A quiet residential community, it is conveniently located within an hour's drive of many beaches, mountain, and desert recreation areas. La Habra also offers a distinctive and well- rounded program of civic, recreational, social and cultural services to its residents, including 20 parks, a Children's Museum, Community Theater, Tennis Center, and diverse Community Center. Community services include senior citizen programs, recreation classes, youth and adult sports programs, facility rentals, and an active volunteer program. Population 61,789 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 549 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 1.5% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11098 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 712 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 21301 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 246 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 795 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11589 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11160 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 51337 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 11414,363 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 8 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 29 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 150,443 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 95 C) N C) C� O 12 1=0 co co 0 R © 0 C31 sopa Co r 063 L.M ■ cw �Q 1� cmu O �.7e m d2 Q do -0 MEN' r A GG CO MI-M '"JIM IM 13 M riR 4* 1310 mmuln n an M HER Jr G0 93 -13W Oc an Ib r P Em � winnnh KI FFIMI n M I ■k1QAAnIn m© o Fumn= D=qA-!L-P - Igin a 0 1 no no DOGEOW03 j-21L 0 OM nunn-10 100001 no MOMOOETIM3 WIT01311D laillovi nnnnrp fmew loop INNIONIOR, Iffim n NO I �4 i IM, inn P IRA, e 0 E, GC r.10 t 1 cc UR La mm WIN ® ° a~ LINIDDE AA cGa Map 3.13 La Habra Land Use wilyug ga -_ - , F: - - MILIMIF ". IN aldl2n DEEM. mardn10,01 F, Ez L_ E WO rol L-L E E[ ninnts in] EEEhe 2MMI'l I rl C 0333331197 -IbM, RUEE3111 '103 3j3 i rFf R( DO E annn as 103 3j3 Pon MHE WrAlk. kid MUM 7111 to r. na E A V§2? R. lqw NP nup 2 rr P EV Xqoo 0 6. 7i Z 0 J= 2 E < U— Z 0 < LLJ ID 0 C 0 d) 7L 0 OL 0 F— d) LLJ 0 E E M 0 M .2 ro 0 M L) U) W w n LL LL Q) a) z C) LL LL 0) CS LU C11 E7 2 Ol E C i W w co -a3 n L6 E G 2 U) L M 0 =5 0 w g [if 4 :01 CT 1 —1 > LU z 0 0 T_ 0- _j a- 0 0 z M LL OL OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Developments are subject to Facility Standards outlined in city ordinance §18.82.050, which require one of two options for end -of -trip facilities. Option A requires bicycle parking and locker facilities in a secure location for employee or tenant bicycle commuters, plus a minimum of two shower facilities. Option B requires secure, adequate and convenient storage for bicycles, and a shower and locker room facility for employees of each sex per building of 100,000 or more gross square feet. Multi modal Facilities OCTA Buses I City -wide I Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs The City of La Habra does not have bicycle safety and education programs. Expenditures City -wide I Maintenance I 1 1 $5,000 Bicycle Transportation Plan The City of La Habra does not have a Bicycle Transportation Plan. Bikeways La Habra Existing Bikeways Street Mileage UPRR S. Idaho St. S. Walnut St. Class I Lambert St S. Beach Blvd w/b - Olive St. e/b - Euclid St Class II E. Whittier Ave. N. Harbor Blvd. Palm St. Class II E. La Habra Blvd. Palm St. City Limit (City of Brea) Class II S. Idaho St. W. Sandalwood Ave. City Limit Class II S. Harbor Blvd. E. Las Riendas Dr. City Limit Class II W. Russell St. N. Valley Home Ave. N. Macy St. Class III E. Whittier Ave Palm St. City Limit (City of Brea) Class III N. Macy St. City Limit (City of Whittier) W. Wallace Ave. Class III W. Randall Ave. N. Koopmans Wy. N. Macy St. Class III OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 97 N. Koopmans Wy. W. Whittier Blvd. N. Rigsby St. Gregory LN. N. Dexford Dr. Berkley Ave. Lime St. Morris Ave. Worth Ave. N. Palm St. N. Beach Blvd. El Portal Dr. Granada Dr. Lambert Rd. W. Lambert Rd. W / B Lambert Rd E/B Lambert Rd. Idaho St. W. Sandelwood Ave. S. Patwood Dr. Gwynwood Ave. E. Montwood Ave. S. Lakeview Ave. S. Euclid St. W. Parkwood Ave. Schoolwood Dr. Las Lomas Dr. Encinitas St. Keene Dr. Loretta Ave. Highlander Ave. Greenwood Ave. N. Orange St. N. Lois St. Florence Ave. Lemon St. E. Erna Ave. N. McPherson St. E. Stearns Ave. Palm St. E. Lambert Rd Fi rst Ave. N. Fonda St. E. Whittier Ave. W. Loma Verde Ave. * Mileage not provided W. Randall Ave. N. Koopmans Wy. W. Whittier Blvd. N. Rigsby St. W. Gregory LN. N. Dexford Dr Worth Ave. N. Dexford Dr. N. Dexford Dr. E. Whittier Ave. Gregory LN. N. Beach Blvd. Granada Ct. W City Limit City Limit (Whittier) Olive St. Cypress St. W. Whittier Blvd. S. Idaho St. Gwynwood Ave. S. Patwood Dr. S. Euclid St. E. Montwood Ave. W. Parkwood Ave. S. Schoolwood Dr. W. Parkwood Ave. S. Idaho St. Las Lomas Dr. Encinitas St. Colleen St. N. Idaho St. N. Hazel St. E. Greenwood Ave. W. Greenwood Ave. N. Lois St. E. Florence Ave. Lemon St. E. Stearns Ave. N. McPherson St. E. Stearns Ave. S. Cypress St. Hillcrest St. E. Whittier Ave. N. Verona St. S. Walnut St. W. Whittier Blvd. I Class III N. Rigsby St. Class III W. Gregory LN. Class III N. Beach Blvd. Class III W. La Habra Blvd. Class III Lime St. Class III Berkley Ave. Class III Lime St. Class III Lime St. Class III E. La Habra Blvd. Class III W. El Portal Dr. Class III W. La Habra Blvd. Class III El Portal Dr. Class III S. Beach Blvd. Class III S. Beach Blvd. Class III Cypress St. Class III Euclid St. Class III W. Sandelwood Ave. Class III S. Patwood Dr. Class III W. Sandelwood Ave. Class III E. Montwood Ave. Class III S. Lakeview Ave. Class III City Limit Class III E. Montwood Ave. Class III S. Euclid St. Class III W. Sandelwood Ave. Class III Encinitas St. Class III Keene Dr. Class III S. Euclid St. Class III S. Idaho St. Class III N. Walnut St. Class III N. Orange St. Class III E. Erna Ave. Class III W. Florence Ave. Class III Lemon St. Class III E. Erna Ave. Class III N. McPherson St. Class III E. La Habra Blvd Class III N. Palm St. Class III E. Lambert Rd Class III S. Palm St. Class III S. McPherson St. Class III E. Stearns Ave. Class III City Limit (City of Brea) Class III Portola Ave. Class III OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Mileage UPRR Bikeway Western City Limit Palm St. Class 1 3.00 La Habra Blvd. Valley Home Ave. Vallejo St. Class II 2.77 La Habra Proposed Bikeways La Habra Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 5.73 .- - Total $1,500,000 $8,595,000 Class II 10.85 Street/Path Coyote Creek Bikeway Imperial Hwy. Western City Limit Class 1 -..- 0.71 Imperial Hwy. Path Beach Blvd. Harbor Blvd. Class 1 2.02 Beach Blvd. Gregory Ln. Imperial Hwy Class II 1.33 Idaho St. Whittier Blvd. Imperial Hwy. Class II 1.53 Lambert Rd. Cypress St. Palm st. Class II 1.00 Palm St. Whittier Blvd. Lambert Rd. Class II 1.00 Whittier Blvd. Palm St. Eastern City Limit Class II 0.22 TOTAL 7.81 La Habra Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 5.73 .- - Total $1,500,000 $8,595,000 Class II 10.85 $280,000 $3,038,000 Total $11,633,000 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 99 3 La Palma La Palma is a well balanced city which prides itself on a responsive municipal government and a strong sense of community. The City's small town character allows residents to live in quiet and friendly neighborhoods. With one of the lowest crime rates in Orange County, La Palma is a place where residents can rest easy and enjoy hometown living Population 15,776 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 132 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips 1.3% Total Daily Bicycle Trips 264 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 175 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 620 51 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 183 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 367 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 268 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 11231 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 326,280 2 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 7 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 0 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 341706 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light 100 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Map 3.14 La Palma Land Use W In U M 1 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 101 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 29 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 5.8 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.36 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.12 Notes: 1.70 miles 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities As part of La Palma's Transportation Demand Management requirements, some development projects may be required to provide bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities. Multi modal Facilities OCTA Buses I City -wide I Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs The City of La Palma does not have bicycle safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle planning can be found in La Palma's General Plan. Bikeways La Palma Existing Bikeways Street/Path Coyote Creek Channel Moody St. Walker St. Class 1 -,.- 0.70 miles La Palma Ave. Coyote Creek Valley View St. Class II 1.70 miles Crescent Ave. West of Moody St. East of Walker St. Class 11 0.80 miles Moody St. Orangethorpe Ave Crescent Ave. Class II 1.28 miles Walker St. Bransford Dr. Crescent Ave. Class II 1.20 miles Valley View St. Thelma Ave. South of La Palma Ave. Class II 0.50 miles i i i TOTAL j 5.93 miles 102 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan La Palma Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -..- Orangethorpe Ave. Western City Limit Valley View St. Class II 0.76 TOTAL 0.76miles La Palma Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 103 3.15. Laguna Beach The City of Laguna Beach is well known as a unique beach community and artist's colony with seven miles of City beaches running along its nine square miles. The resident population enjoys the ambiance provided by the sandy beaches, canyons and coastal hills. During the summer, several million visitors are drawn to the resort environment for its picturesque beaches, art festivals and the Pageant of the Masters. Laguna's village scale shopping district, bluff top walkways and tram system create a pedestrian environment and scale which is unique in Southern California. Population 24,161 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 203 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.3% 405 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 278 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 11086 142 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 345 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 689 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 503 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 21315 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 613,548 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 4 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 12 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 1 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 65,262 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light 104 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Map 3.15 Laguna Beach Land Use OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 105 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 51 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 10.2 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.42 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.30 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs The status of Laguna Beach's bicycle safety and education programs is unknown. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Whether or not Laguna Beach has a Bicycle Transportation Plan is unknown. Bikeways Laguna Beach Existing Bikeways Street From • Class Mileage El Toro Rd Class II Laguna Canyon Rd. Class III Coast Highway Class III Information not provided Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Pacific Coast Hwy. I City Limit ( S El Moro Rdg.) I Broadway 11 4.83 106 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Laguna Beach Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Mi - 0.96 .- - Total $1,500,000 $1Y440,000 Class II Mileage Aliso Canyon Rd. Coast Line SE City Limit 1 0.95 Broadway / Laguna Canyon Rd. City Limit ( E Laguna Canyon Rd.) Coast Hwy 11 5.10 S SR -73 Exit 7 City Limit E Laguna Canyon Rd. 1 0.01 TOTAL 6.06 miles Laguna Beach Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Mi - 0.96 .- - Total $1,500,000 $1Y440,000 Class II 9.93 $280,000 $21780,400 Total $41220,400 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 107 3 Laguna Hills Laguna Hills is primarily composed of residential neighborhoods. The City's main destination is the Laguna Hills regional shopping center. Many portions of the City are suitable for equestrian uses, and these activities have been long established. Laguna Hills has several smaller shopping centers located along some of the arterial streets, including Moulton and Alicia Parkways, El Toro and La Paz Roads, Paseo de Valencia, and Lake Forest Drive. Population 32,156 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 247 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.2% 494 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 319 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 11012 120 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 367 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 734 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 536 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 21464 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 652,905 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 4 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 13 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 1 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 69,448 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light 108 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Map 3.16 Laguna Hills Land Use � LEGEND A( KE-1i 1 1) 1 IN, CINa mw pmnYi Pwrwwo WQ N KIN11104d +041d W111W1 M; "L I. rvg L4 *a iww) go =FEN M go 4+'A -I. Rhn T KESIDENMAL I :U 2 =0&tEM &M A 14 ak-M 4 L t 4 � A e= d1111111I 41 AL I- J..q. IN WNIA%ft kffih r Pm diiiii• I111F11 44C I%: r d 1 is IwiIL&Zi@dL I �J- 11be 1pl.M I .171WIIII111111 PVTO— k'* 1 '�4 jr-n s twt nVebuj - • IL,, 1 1W LHIW"n kFi&I R70m Fmh f4mt, r. L L+ NNLY� W ........ . riwil " — ,.,Lqmw w'J" �'qkraiwiv sr ww.�IMII 1-� 141idNA�Il, dd % IL AAN im 14 IN- lftft'aq tiIIIi,k ffl "E 110:511111.{h, 017.1 P12111115IMIk! IN, r,'.Lld �u.j prAw*&W kftn b�mnkm 10-1 1, W LK 0.4 Fd-W-: QFP�111�M. 161 ft L ON r-OLr x44 ; A r-& W;,•ak r}x z i -a m iGi Am b liiimiiI K 09-114T AJL 10M 7.1kil Alk IN Wk vr lm.tu 1" 7 L P—M mbmk An ad NkNo EMPEL WEPM6L IIIa rM.L 'q. K0 "ftfw." O.W*Ffho- .,vxmkwp a �-r *-b - RWREAT30N IL 11101 11116 IF spw W-fift bb 4171 411 r " 1 hi 1I wd 4,t6% bd =bwdi INN MIMI bw pi"W. 04, "A IN milli III SIP �Ind w � I- CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP w"D Prof PJw4 =I a)* 4A I'M OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 109 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 40 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 8 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.25 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.76 Notes: Rideshare 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs The City of Laguna Hills does not have bicycle safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan The City of Laguna Hills does not have an adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. 110 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Rideshare Laguna Hills Mall 24155 Laguna Hills Mall Bicycle racks Rideshare /Bus Laguna Hills Transportation Ctr Bicycle racks (8) Calle de Los Caballeros Safety and Education Programs The City of Laguna Hills does not have bicycle safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan The City of Laguna Hills does not have an adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. 110 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Bikeways Laguna Hills Existing Bikeways Street -,.- Alicia Pkwy (w /b) Paseo De Valencia Moulton Pkwy 1 0.76 Paseo De Valencia (sb) Laguna Hills Dr Alicia Pkwy 1 0.28 San Diego Fwy Path s/s Alicia Pkwy. North of Georgia Sue Dr. 1 0.33 J01 Bike trail (County of Orange 1 -5 fwy w/o Moulton Pkwy 1 1.8 Alicia Pkwy Moulton Pkwy Paseo De Valencia II 0.76 Paseo De Valencia (nb) Alicia Pkwy El Toro Rd II 1.50 Paseo De Valencia (sb) El Toro Road Alicia Pkwy II 1.50 Paseo De Valencia Alicia Pkwy La Paz Rd. II 0.91 Alicia Pkwy Paseo de Valencia Hon Ave II 0.83 Laguna Hills Dr w/b Paseo De Valencia Moulton Pkwy II 0.70 Laguna Hills Dr e/b Moulton Pkwy Paseo De Valencia II 0.70 Oso Pkwy (e /b) Moulton Pkwy Cabot Rd II 1.71 Oso Pkwy (w /b) Cabot Rd Moulton Pkwy II 1.71 Moulton Pkwy (n /b) City bdry near Glenwood Dr. La Paz Rd II 1.72 Moulton Pkwy (s /b) City bdry near Glenwood Dr. City bdry near Nellie Gail Rd II 2.18 Moulton Pkwy Lake Forest Dr. Ridge Route Dr. II 0.56 Los Alisos Blvd (e /b) Paseo De Valencia San Diego Fwy (City bdry) II 0.43 Los Alisos Blvd (w /b) San Diego Fwy (City bdry) Paseo De Valencia II 0.43 Lake Forest Dr (e /b) Del Lago Dr Santa Vittoria II 0.76 Lake Forest Dr (w /b) Santa Vittoria Dr Del Lago Dr. II 0.76 La Paz Rd e/b Cabot Rd 1 -73 11 2.37 La Paz Rd w/b 1 -73 Cabot Rd II 2.37 Cabot Rd. La Paz Rd. s/o Oso Pkwy III 1.18 TOTAL 26.3 Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Cabot Rd La Paz Rd. I Oso Pkwy. I Class II 1.19 Laguna Hills Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Ridge Route Dr. Mill Creek Santa Vittoria Class II 0.46 Ridge Route Dr Mill Creek East of Sea Isle Rd. Class II 0.68 Aliso Hills Dr Alicia Pkwy La Paz Rd Class II 0.9 Alicia Pkwy Moulton Pkwy. Ramona St. Class II 0.22 Moulton Pkwy Ridge Route Dr. Santa Maria Ave. Class II 0.25 Moulton Pkwy (n / b) Nellie Gail Rd La Paz Rd Class 11 0.56 Paseo De Valencia La Paz Rd. Cabot Rd. Class II 0.59 Avenida de La Carlota Ridge Route Dr. Los Alisos Blvd Class III 1.44 Avenida de la Carlota Ridge Route Dr. Lake Forest Dr. Class III 0.73 El Toro Rd (w /b) City bdry near Ave Carlota Paseo De Valencia Class III 0.34 El Toro Rd (e /b) Paseo De Valencia City bdry near Ave Carlota Class III 0.34 Santa Vittoria Dr Santa Maria Ave Lake Forest Dr Class III 1.27 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 111 Street/Path From To Class Mileage Lake Forest Dr (e /b) Del Lago Dr. City Bdry near 1 -5 fwy Class III 0.37 Lake Forest Dr (w /b) City Bdry near 1 -5 fwy Del Lago Dr. Class III 0.37 El Toro Road Avenida de la Carlota City Bdry near 1 -5 fwy Class III 0.06 Alicia Pkwy Hon Ave. City Bdry near 1 -5 fwy Class III 0.18 La Paz Rd. Cabot Rd. City Bdry near 1 -5 fwy Class III 0.08 Oso Pkwy Cabot Rd. City Bdry near 1 -5 fwy Class III 0.05 TOTAL 8.89 Laguna Hills Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 11 Miles 6.49 .- - Total $280,000 $1,817,200 Class 111 2.12 $21,000 $44,520 Total $1,861,720 112 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.17. Laguna Niguel Over one -third of Laguna Niguel is designated as open space. This significant amount of open space is one of the key features defining the character and urban form of the City. The City has two community parks, 23 neighborhood parks, three mini- parks, one dog park, two county regional parks, two small county parks and the new Laguna Niguel Skate & Soccer Park. Population 64,177 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 440 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.1 880 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 558 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 11649 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 243 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 683 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11366 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 997 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 41588 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 11215,743 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 7 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 25 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 129,316 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 113 Map 3.17 Laguna Niguel Land Use Geii&ral Plan Amendments G/A M41 Jk,! WA M-52A Cro WL01d -WA W-M CA. N-LIM 3PA 9_0 GrA 97_31 27A WM_.' Rw COMMwJNIT)' Cam MERCu"L; PROFESSIONAL OFFICE J COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL; A .5 ='^:DF ESS IUNIAL OFFICE; BLI C:1 N S TITUTIONAL PU 8 L, C! INSTITUTIONAL; PROFESSIONAL OFFICE FIR i'-FE S S ION AL OFFICE- I'414,STRIA.U2USINIESS PARK OPEN S=. -: E J, WATER Ile, rr A ZI 4j,.. p 13 ;7- r Alp Je- k -A4 _—Al .1 A 7 q li el Nr .0# Lill IV Id AW Ale 44, 1 F,, X If? k, 41 N The City of Ab4s _ * - L JI._.UNANIGUEL A G '1000 0 '10010 Feet General Plan December 2002 114 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan =E 9 1 __-E NTIAL IDETACHED, =,E S I __-E NTIAL ATTACHED NE IG -iE -:: R +D_-D COM MERC IAL A 'A -it, I -r =_ RCIAL -jF E&S K:NAL -:: F 71 '-'E BLI v:I WS -ITUT 0 14AL -ARKS AND RECREATION NDU-6_11RA_iBIJSINESS PARK; PROFESSIONAL OFFICE; COMMUNITY COMMERCLAL Map 3.17 Laguna Niguel Land Use Geii&ral Plan Amendments G/A M41 Jk,! WA M-52A Cro WL01d -WA W-M CA. N-LIM 3PA 9_0 GrA 97_31 27A WM_.' Rw COMMwJNIT)' Cam MERCu"L; PROFESSIONAL OFFICE J COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL; A .5 ='^:DF ESS IUNIAL OFFICE; BLI C:1 N S TITUTIONAL PU 8 L, C! INSTITUTIONAL; PROFESSIONAL OFFICE FIR i'-FE S S ION AL OFFICE- I'414,STRIA.U2USINIESS PARK OPEN S=. -: E J, WATER Ile, rr A ZI 4j,.. p 13 ;7- r Alp Je- k -A4 _—Al .1 A 7 q li el Nr .0# Lill IV Id AW Ale 44, 1 F,, X If? k, 41 N The City of Ab4s _ * - L JI._.UNANIGUEL A G '1000 0 '10010 Feet General Plan December 2002 114 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Schools and large parking lots Laguna Niguel /Mission Viejo Bicycle lockers (20) Metrolink /Amtrak /Rideshare /Bus Metrolink Station Bicycle racks on trains 300 Age of Children Reached and buses Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted 4 # Of Times a Year Conducted 5 Administered by Police Department Location Schools and large parking lots Program, Curriculum, and Activities Presentation /assemblies, bicycle rodeos, Bicycle Handbook Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Bicycle registration, free bicycle helmets, special events Total # of Children Reached 300 Age of Children Reached Grades K -6 Other Program Notes Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle facilities are addressed in the General Plan Circulation Element. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 115 Bikeways Laguna Niguel Existing Bikeways Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -..- Forbes Path I Mission Viejo City Limit I San Juan Capistrano City Limit I Class 1 2.03 Laguna Niguel Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Miles 3.01 .- mile) $1,500,000 $4,515,000 -..- Street Sulfur Creek Salt Creek Bikeway Chapparosa Park Rd. Class -..- Laguna Niguel Regional Park Mission Viejo City Limit San Juan Capistrano City Limit Class 2.03 Crown Valley Pkwy Crown Valley Pkwy S/0 Marina Hills Tunnel Class .65 Salt Creek Corridor Regional Park Crown Valley Pkwy North of Crown Valley Pkwy Class .18 Street of the Golden Lantern Crown Valley Pkwy. Barkentine Blvd. Class II .35 Crown Valley Pkwy Cabot Rd. Mission Viejo City Limit (15) Class II .32 Moulton Pkwy Crown Valley Pkwy. Los Arboles Dr. Class II .55 Alicia Pkwy Mission Viejo City Limit San Juan Capistrano City Limit Class II 1.88 La Paz Rd. Class II 6.29 miles Niguel Rd. Class II Highlands Ave. Class II Pacific Island Dr. Class II Marina Hills Dr. Class II Camino del Avion Class II Niguel Rd Class III Camino del Avion Class III Information not provided. Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -..- Forbes Path I Mission Viejo City Limit I San Juan Capistrano City Limit I Class 1 2.03 Laguna Niguel Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Miles 3.01 .- mile) $1,500,000 $4,515,000 -..- Chapparosa Park Salt Creek Bikeway Chapparosa Park Rd. Class 1 .33 Forbes Path Mission Viejo City Limit San Juan Capistrano City Limit Class 1 2.03 Niguel Rd. Crown Valley Pkwy S/0 Marina Hills Tunnel Class 1 .65 Cabot Rd. Crown Valley Pkwy North of Crown Valley Pkwy Class II .18 Camino Del Avion Crown Valley Pkwy. Barkentine Blvd. Class II .35 Crown Valley Pkwy Cabot Rd. Mission Viejo City Limit (15) Class II .32 Niguel Rd. Crown Valley Pkwy. Los Arboles Dr. Class II .55 Camino Capistrano Mission Viejo City Limit San Juan Capistrano City Limit Class III 1.88 TOTAL 6.29 miles Laguna Niguel Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 3.01 .- mile) $1,500,000 $4,515,000 Class II 1.40 $280,000 $392,000 Class 111 1.88 $21,000 $39,480 Total $4,946,480 116 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.18. Laguna Woods The City of Laguna Woods is located in the Saddleback Valley area of South Orange County, ten miles from the Pacific Ocean. Laguna Woods is both one of California's newest and oldest cities. Incorporated in 1999 as Orange County's 32nd city, the average age of Laguna Woods residents is 78. Ninety percent of the City's four square miles is contained within the senior citizen gated community of Leisure World. The balance of the City contains three additional senior residential communities and several thriving commercial centers. Population 18,210 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 26 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 1.2% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 53 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 38 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 175 27 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 53 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 106 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 78 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 357 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 941476 1 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 0 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 10,049 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 117 7-1 Map 3.18 Laguna Woods Land Use U ad W6 Pi 118 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 77z ws Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 4 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 0.8 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.04 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.14 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs The status of Laguna Woods' bicycle safety and education programs is unknown. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle facilities are addressed in the General Plan Circulation Element. Bikeways Laguna Woods Existing Bikeways Street El Toro Rd. Class -,.- Laguna Hills Dr. Class Paseo de Valencia Class Ridge Route Dr. Class II El Toro Rd. Class II Moulton Pkwy Class II Paseo de Valencia Class II * Information not provided. Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- El Toro Rd. Moulton Pkwy. I Laguna Hills City Limit I Class II 0.74 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 119 Laguna Woods Proposed Bikeways Street/Path - 0.73 .- mile) $1,500,000 $1,095,000 Class II -..- Valencia - Jasmine Creek Laguna Hills City Limit Laguna Hills City Limit (W Valencia) Class 1 0.73 Canyon Wren Ln. El Toro Rd. Aliso Viejo City Limit Class II 0.02 El Toro Rd. Moulton Pkwy. Laguna Hills City Limit Class II 0.74 Moulton Pkwy. Laguna Hills City Limit El Toro Rd. Class II 0.67 Santa Maria Ave. City Limit Avenida Sosiega Class III 0.28 i i j TOTAL 2.4 miles Laguna Woods Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Class 1 - 0.73 .- mile) $1,500,000 $1,095,000 Class II 1.43 $280,000 $400,400 Class III 0.28 $21,000 $5,880 Total $1,501,280 120 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3 Lake Forest Lake Forest is primarily a city of residential neighborhoods. Adjacent to one of Irvine's large employment centers, Lake Forest is also developing an employment center of its own near the SR- 241 Foothill Toll Road. Foothill Ranch Towne Center is located there in the northern part of the city, and other smaller shopping centers are located along some of the City's arterial roadways, including Lake Forest Drive, Bake and Portola Parkways, El Toro and Trabuco Roads, and Muirlands Boulevard. Currently, Lake Forest has a developed network of bikeways Population 76,323 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 621 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 1.5% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11242 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 826 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 21918 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 270 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 891 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11783 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11301 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 51986 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Future Air Quality Benefits 11586,368 Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 9 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 32 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 168,739 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 121 Lake Forest Land Use Map, Legend Y �YI�ROdtti �iffi�fi� Flee'ai �Gis��{fiic�l. 4 now# r ftvm,* . Qf�i:F �.'dd9i. V ti I III 3 Map 3.19 Lake Forest Land Use 6400 22% 11,QQ4 171,700 23.QQQ 13 IGITAL W MAP 122 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 94 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 18.8 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.24 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.75 Notes: Schools, neighborhood watch groups 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on Schools, neighborhood watch groups Program, Curriculum, and Activities buses Rideshare Saddleback Valley Community Church Total # of Children Reached Saddleback Pkwy /Portola Pkwy Grades K -8 Rideshare Grace Community Church - 26052 Trabuco Rd Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted 2 # Of Times a Year Conducted All year long Administered by Police Department Location Schools, neighborhood watch groups Program, Curriculum, and Activities Assembly; DARE; bike rodeos; neighborhood watch meetings Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Total # of Children Reached Age of Children Reached Grades K -8 Other Program Notes Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is not available. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 123 Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle facilities are discussed in the Lake Forest General Plan. Bikeways Lake Forest Existing Bikeways Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Mileage OCTA Metrolink RR Irvine City Limit El Toro Rd. Class 1 1.93 Lake Forest Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -..- Street Aliso Creek Towne Center Dr. Borrego Dr. Class Mileage Borrego Canyon Wash City Limit City Limit Class 0.87 Bake Pkwy Portola Commercenter Dr. Class II 1.61 Rockfield Blvd. Portola Hwy. Carillon Pl. Class II 0.71 Muirlands Blvd. Ridge Route Dr. El Toro Rd. Class II 0.46 Lake Forest Dr. Rancho Pkwy. Portola Pkwy. Class II 0.33 Ridge Route Dr. Portola Pkwy. El Toro Rd Class II 1.63 Jeronimo Rd. Bake Pkwy s/o Lake Forest Dr. Class II 0.71 Trabuco Rd. Centre Dr. Ridge Route Dr. Class II 0.57 Toledo Way Cavanaugh Rd. Silverbay Dr. Class II 1.63 Portola Pkwy Muirland Blvd. San Diego Frwy. Class III 0.75 Lake Forest Dr. El Toro Rd. City Limit Class III 0.02 Information not provided. Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Mileage OCTA Metrolink RR Irvine City Limit El Toro Rd. Class 1 1.93 Lake Forest Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -..- Borrego Tr. Continuation Path Towne Center Dr. Borrego Dr. Class 1 0.46 Santiago Canyon Rd. City Limit City Limit Class 1 0.87 Alton Pkwy. Portola Commercenter Dr. Class II 1.61 Bake Pkwy. Portola Hwy. Carillon Pl. Class II 0.71 Toledo Wy. Ridge Route Dr. El Toro Rd. Class II 0.46 Rancho Pkwy. Continuation Path Rancho Pkwy. Portola Pkwy. Class II 0.33 Glen Ranch Road Portola Pkwy. El Toro Rd Class II 1.63 Rancho Pkwy Bake Pkwy s/o Lake Forest Dr. Class II 0.71 Rockfield Blvd. Centre Dr. Ridge Route Dr. Class III 0.57 Rockfield Blvd. Cavanaugh Rd. Silverbay Dr. Class III 1.63 Lake Forest Dr. Muirland Blvd. San Diego Frwy. Class III 0.75 Live Oak Canyon Rd. El Toro Rd. City Limit Class III 0.02 El Toro Rd. 1 -5 N EXIT 91 San Diego Frwy. Class III 0.26 TOTAL 10.01 miles 124 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Lake Forest Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 3.26 .- - Total $1,500,000 $47890,000 Class 11 5.45 $280,000 $1,526,000 Class III 3.23 $21,000 $67,830 Total $5,699,600 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 125 3 Los Alamitos Los Alamitos is a small city with a population of 12,150. The Armed Forces Reserve Air Station occupies a large portion of the City but has advanced both as a residential and business community. It is debt -free, with excellent recreational and park facilities, a top -notch police force and an enthusiastic Chamber of Commerce. Population 12,150 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 121 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.5% 242 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 162 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 590 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 79 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 200 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 401 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 293 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 11346 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 356,587 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 7 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 0 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 37,929 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-013 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light 126 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Map 3.20 Los Alamitos Land Use OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 127 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 36 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 7.2 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.61 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.89 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Rideshare Federal Regional Lab 4655 Lampson Ave Safety and Education Programs The status of Los Alamitos' bicycle safety and education programs is unknown. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan The City of Los Alamitos does not have an adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. Bikeways Los Alamitos Existing Bikeways Street/Path -..- Catalina St. Class Coyote Creek /San Gabriel River Class I Bloomfield Ave. Class II Lampson Ave. Class II Cerritos Ave. Class III Walnut Street Class III *Information not provided. 128 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Los Alamitos Proposed Bikeways Street/Path - 0.51 .- - Total $1,500,000 $765,000 Class 11 -..- Path 1 Los Alamitos Blvd. Bloomfield St. Class 1 0.51 Ball Rd. City Limit ( W Kaylor Ave.) Cypress City Limit ( Bloomfield St.) Class II 0.24 Catalina St. Oak St. Los Alamitos Blvd. Class II 0.23 Cerritos Ave. Spring St. Lexington Dr. Class II 1.26 Los Alamitos Blvd. City Limit ( N Path 1) Seal Beach City Limit ( S Bradbury Rd.) Class II 1.93 TOTAL 1 4.17 miles Los Alamitos Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Class 1 - 0.51 .- - Total $1,500,000 $765,000 Class 11 3.66 $280,000 $1,024,800 Total $11789,800 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 129 3.21. Mission Viejo One of the largest South County cities, Mission Viejo is home to Saddleback College, Mission Viejo Regional Medical Center, and the Shops at Mission Viejo regional shopping center. Significant recreational amenities include Lake Mission Viejo and the adjacent O'Neill Regional Park, which is just outside the city limits to the east. Primarily a city comprised of residential neighborhoods, Mission Viejo's activity centers and key destinations are located along the City's well developed arterial network Population 98,572 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 655 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 1.0% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11310 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 829 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters 21424 Future number of new bicycle commuters 382 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 11037 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 21075 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11515 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 61967 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Future Air Quality Benefits 11846,176 Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 11 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 37 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 196,374 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light 130 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Map 3.21 City of Mission Viejo Land Use Policy Map Cityj of Mission Viejo LAND USE POLICY' MAP LEGEND BOUNDARIES — Lrra[Uzchmjlk" d .1 i. h. C wwro,,L"l lr&nsaot HtVti ChwiWZont 4wLftPLnr.%udyAMA LAND USE RESIDENTIAL P" w 00M I il mo� I % a &Y *.W.*.1 39 (*Itp-M , P o C-0114ME R CIAL C4R%ft I dW 111 bo *a i h cu d Camm rata 14 wwaly C W--q wu I N *00w OFFICE CH im Pi M M i.�nd INDUSTRIAL b*1nw. r.fi, MEKED USE C "I N d4timmootwimmWir Fir-1WAqwjftnh# Ida E23rn,;t Pak OTH ER R sti c AkmODP Ln Spam r- wrrw r&y F VpV TM4i rdin -wi A 6o n C im aft COMM IR CIAL RITE HSIVE OV.ERLXY'AREA DOft P1c*zw3n.HCL KA r, -xr—u Ky F 415 4 kr (C' I a 04 C --* - -- 111 V—WT w— Fr-1-1c r-4 I ( UQA) C'N Mimi H orma 'C 1Lh;J COW-41i"I R wo.$ CuICA) Dif s NLaKd Ujii PirAey Mqljiw Fu 0�r �f gim�m Vigic Gzw7d MkPird 67 F400hak"Ab 07- 40 dy 1JW (v qeK,4job YWID cj.� OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 131 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 55 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 11 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.36 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.125 Notes: Schools, City Hall 1. Rate is calculated using City collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Schools, City Hall Laguna Niguel /Mission Viejo Parking lockers (20) Metrolink /Amtrak / Rideshare/ Bus Metrolink Station Bicycle racks on trains Approximately 500 per year Age of Children Reached and buses Rideshare Alicia Park - and -Ride 23682 Via Linda Rideshare Mission Viejo Church of Christ 26558 Marguerite Pkwy Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted 6 # Of Times a Year Conducted 3 Administered by Orange County Sheriff's Department Location Schools, City Hall Program, Curriculum, and Activities Bike rodeos, bike safety seminars, bicycle handbook and safety exam Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Total # of Children Reached Approximately 500 per year Age of Children Reached 6 to 12 years old Other Program Notes Childhood Watch /Traffic Smarts component are active parts of the program 132 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Expenditures Information on past bikeway facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan The City of Mission Viejo is currently updating its Bikeway Plan to be incorporated into the city's General Plan. Bikeways Mission Viejo Existing Bikeways Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -..- Camino Capistrano Oso Pkwy. Laguna Niguel City Limit Class 1 0.82 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 133 Street Aliso Creek 1 -5 Fwy. Los Alisos Blvd. Class 1 Mileage 0.58 Los Alisos Blvd. Vista Del Lago Mustang Run Class 1 1.05 Entidad Entidad Mustang Run Class 1 0.55 Jeronimo Open Space / Oso Viejo Community Park Marguerite Pkwy. Olympiad Rd. Class 1 2.38 Cordova Park Felipe Rd. Crown Valley Pkwy. Class 1 0.70 Santa Margarita Pkwy. West city limit Melinda Rd. Class II 1.80 Crown Valley Pkwy. West city limit East city limit Class II 1.23 Marguerite Pkwy. El Toro Rd. Via Escolar Class II 9.00 Felipe Rd. / Olympiad Rd. Marguerite Pkwy. south Marguerite Pkwy. north Class II 5.61 Trabuco Rd. North city limit Marguerite Pkwy. Class II 2.10 La Paz Rd. West city limit Olympiad Rd. Class II 2.71 Los Alisos Blvd. North of Rockfield Blvd. East city limit Class II 5.12 TOTAL 32.83 Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -..- Camino Capistrano Oso Pkwy. Laguna Niguel City Limit Class 1 0.82 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 133 Mission Viejo Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Miles 2.19 .- mile) $1,500,000 $3,285,000 -,.- 2.40 $280,000 $672,000 Class 111 0.03 Path 1 Laguna Hills City Limit Laguna Niguel City Limit Class 1 0.65 Path 2 City Limit ( N Trabuco Canyon Rd.) San Juan Capistrano City Limit Class 1 0.72 Alicia Pkwy. N 1 -5 N EXIT 90 Laguna Hills City Limit Class II 0.16 ( San Diego Frwy) Avery Pkwy. Laguna Niguel City Limit (1 -5 S EXIT Mar g uerite Prw y . Class II 0.16 85) Crown Valley Pkwy. Medical Center Rd. Laguna Niguel City Limit Class II 0.46 ( E Camino Capistrano) La Paz Rd. Muirlands Blvd. Laguna Hills City Limit Class II 0.11 ( San Diego Frwy.) Los Alisos Blvd. OCTA Metrolink RR Rockfield Blvd. Class II 0.75 Olympiad Rd. Marguerite Pkwy. Melinda Rd. Class II 0.40 Trabuco Rd. Nuez Los Alisos Blvd. Class II 0.36 Crown Valley Pkwy. Jardines City Limit Class III 0.03 TOTAL 3.8 miles Mission Viejo Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Class 1 Miles 2.19 .- mile) $1,500,000 $3,285,000 Class II 2.40 $280,000 $672,000 Class 111 0.03 $21,000 $630 Total $3,957,630 134 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.22. Newport Beach The City of Newport Beach is a popular upscale beach community. While popular for its miles of beaches and two fishing piers, the City is also home to a large bay and the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The City has two large employment centers, the Fashion Island regional shopping center, and several small shopping districts, such as Balboa Island. Because of its geography, the City does not have an extensive arterial street network. The major arterials include Coast Highway, Newport and MacArthur Boulevards, and Jamboree Road. Population 84,218 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 689 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 1.5% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11377 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 949 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters 31751 Future number of new bicycle commuters 378 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 11067 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 21133 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11557 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 71163 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Future Air Quality Benefits 11898,146 Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 11 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 38 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 3 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 201,902 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 135 U < < CL < < LLJ > LLJ LLJ LU z z LLI LLJ (D LLJ > 0 0 Map 3.22 Newport Beach Land Use C-7 12 U 0 0 L) C U 21 BI) 0 0 "ZO, < 5 -0 Q Q -0 C -02 a CL JE J- ? 9 LI Q) Q Q E: T; 'r- 1) E 12 � —, LT E li 0 (D c1M E z L) CD E 0 lk 0 ± E H 136 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan The City's Transportation Demand Management ordinance requires projects to reduce the number of peak - period vehicle trips by promoting and encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes, such as bicycling, by providing facilities that support alternate modes. Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 439 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 87.8 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 1.09 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 3.35 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Schools Balboa Island Ferry Bikes permitted on Ferry Agate Ave /Bayfront ferries Edgewater Ave /Palm St Rideshare /Bus Newport Transportation Ctr Bicycle racks (6) 1550 Avocado Ave Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted # Of Times a Year Conducted 4 Administered by Police Department Location Schools Program, Curriculum, and Activities Bicycle Rodeos Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Bicycle Registration Total # of Children Reached Age of Children Reached Other Program Notes Bike safety education available upon school request only OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 137 Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle planning can be found in Newport Beach's General Plan. Bikeways Newport Beach Existing Bikeways 138 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Street/Path Balboa Beach Bike Path Section 1 36th St. 24th St. Class - Balboa Beach Bike Path Section 2 20th St. F St. Class Via Lido Bridgeway Lafayette Ave. Via Lido Soud Class Newport Blvd Short St. Pacific Coast Hwy. Class Central Ave - Pacific Coast Hwy Via Lido Riverside Ave Class Superior Ave. 15th St. Industrial Wy. Class Lower Back Bay Cliff Paths Dover Dr. Castaways Park Class I Bayside Dr. Pacific Coast Hwy. Marine Ave Class Newport Dunes Bike Route Bayside Dr. Back Bay Dr. Class Avocado Ave. Second Ave. Kewamee Dr. Class Bayside Dr. Carnation Ave. Marguerite Ave. Class Fifth Ave. Iris Ave. Marguerite Ave. Class Newport Center Dr. Pacific Coast Hwy. Newport Center Dr. E -W Class Jamboree Rd. Pacific Coast Hwy. University Dr. Bike Path Class Upper Back Bay Path Santiago Dr. Jamboree Rd. Class I West of 73 bike Path Jamboree Rd. Bison Ave. Class MacArthur Blvd. University Dr. Bonita Canyon Rd. Class I ` Bison Ave. MacArthur Blvd. Camelback St. Class Buffalo Hills Park Path San Miguel Dr. Ford Rd. Class I Spyglass Hill Rd. San Miguel Dr. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Class I San Joaquin Hills Rd. Jamboree Rd. Spyglass Hill Rd. Class I Santa Barbara Dr. Jamboree Rd. Newport Center Dr. W Class Santa Cruz Dr. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Newport Center Dr. E -W Class Santa Rosa Dr. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Newport Center Dr. E Class Bristol St. North Campus Dr. Jamboree Rd. Class MacArthur Blvd. Campus Dr. Jamboree Rd. Class Jamboree Rd. Bristol St. Campus Dr. Class Von Karman Ave. Macarthur Blvd. Campus Dr. Class Campus Dr. Von Karman Ave. Jamboree Rd. Class Seashore Dr. Orange St. 32nd St. Class II Pacific Coast Hwy. (north side) Highland St. Superior Ave. Class II Balboa Blvd. 45th St. 26th St. Class II Newport Blvd. NB Pacific Coast Hwy Newport Blvd. Class II Newport Blvd. SB Ramps Pacific Coast Hwy Newport Blvd. Class II Superior Ave. Pacific Coast Hwy. Placentia Ave. Class II 138 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Street/Path • To Class Miles Placentia Ave. Superior Ave. 16th St. Class II Riverside Ave. Pacific Coast Hwy. Cliff Dr. Class II Cliff Dr. Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. Class II Dover Dr. Pacific Coast Hwy. Irvine Ave. Class II 16th St. Irvine Ave. Dover Dr. Class II ` Irvine Ave. Cliff Dr. Bristol St. Class II Campus Dr. Bristol St. Jamboree Rd. Class II Back Bay Dr. Jamboree Rd. Eastbluff Dr. Class II Eastbluff Dr. Ford Rd. University Dr. Class II Vista Del Sol Eastbluff Dr. Vista Del Oro Class II Mesa Dr. Irvine Ave. Birch St. C[assII University Dr. Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. Class II La Vida St. University Dr. La Salud Class II La Salud Marsala Dr. Milano DR. Class II La Felicidad Camelback St. La Salud Class II Camelback St. Bison Ave. La Felicidad Class II Bison Ave. MacArthur Blvd. 73 Freeway Class II MacArthur Ave. Bison Ave. Bonita Canyon Dr. Class II San Miguel Dr. Ford Rd. SpyGlass Hill Rd. Class II San Miguel Dr. Newport Center Dr. E Pacific View Dr. Class II Avocado Ave. Pacific Coast Hwy. Salt Air Dr. Class II Pacific Coast Hwy. Newport Center Dr. Avocado Ave. Class II Newport Center Dr. East Newport Center Dr. Newport Center Dr. W Class II Newport Center Dr. West Newport Center Dr. Newport Center Dr. Class II Pacific View Dr. San Miguel Dr. West of Marguerite Ave. Class II Marguerite Ave. Fifth Ave. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Class II Fifth Ave. Marguerite Ave. Poppy Ave. Class II Bonita Canyon Dr. MacArthur Blvd. 73 Freeway Class II San Joaquin Hills Rd. Spyglass Hill Rd. Newport Coast Dr. Class II Newport Coast Dr. 73 Freeway Pacific Coast Hwy Class II Pacific Coast Hwy. Seaward Rd. Southern City Limit Class II Ocean Front Dr. 24th St. 201h St. Class III Newport Blvd Pacific Coast Hwy North of Hospital Rd. Class III Pacific Coast Hwy. Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. Class III El Paseo Dr. Bayside Dr. Malabar Dr. Class III Seadrift Dr. Malabar Dr. Evita Dr. Class III Kewamee Dr. Seadrift Dr. Avocado Ave. Class III Second Ave. Avocado Ave. Goldenrod Ave. Class III Goldenrod Ave. Second Ave. South of Harbor View Class III Ford Rd. Western End Prairie Rd. Class III Prairie Rd. Ford Rd. Bonita Canyon Dr. Class III Mesa View Dr. Ford Rd. Bonita Canyon Dr. Class III Pacific Coast Hwy. (south side) Western City Limit Superior Ave. Class I, II Pacific Coast Hwy. Superior Ave. Newport Blvd. Class I, II Pacific Coast Hwy. Dover Dr. Bayside Dr. Class I, II Pacific Coast Hwy (south side) Bayside Dr. Avocado Ave. Class I, II OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 139 Street/Path • To Class Miles MacArthur Blvd. Pacific Coast Hwy. Ford Rd. Class I, II San Miguel Dr. Pacific View Dr. SpyGlass Hill Rd. Class I, II Information not provided. Newport Beach Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Bayside Dr. Carnation Ave. Marguerite Ave. Class 1 0.47 Bison Ave. Belcourt Dr. Macarthur Blvd. Class 1 0.15 Bonita Canyon Dr. / MacArthur Blvd. Macarthur Blvd. Baonita Canyon Dr. Class I 0.05 Jamboree Rd. University Dr. Eastbluff Dr. Class 1 1.19 Jamboree Rd. Coast Hwy. Bayside Dr. Class 1 0.17 Jamboree Rd. Campus Dr. Bristol St. Class 1 0.85 Jamboree Rd. / University Dr. Jamboree Rd. University Dr. Class 1 0.40 Jamboree Rd. / San Joaquin Hills Rd. Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Class I 0.17 Kings Rd/ Dover Dr. Kings Rd. W Dover Dr. Class 1 0.69 MacArthur Blvd. Campus Dr. Jamboree Rd. Class 1 0.98 Newport Center Dr. Newport Center Dr. Coast Hwy. Class 1 0.41 22nd St. / Santiago Dr. City Limit Costa Mesa Irvine Ave. Class II 0.38 2nd Ave. Avocado Ave. Heliotrope Ave. Class II 0.40 Avocado Ave. Kewamee Dr. 2nd Ave. Class II 0.08 Balboa Blvd. Coast Hwy. Channel Pl. Class II 0.63 Bay Ave. 221 st St. Buena Vista Blvd. Class 11 1.14 Bayside Dr. Coast Hwy. E Bayside Wy. Class II 0.27 Bison Ave. Jamboree Rd. Belcourt Dr. Class II 0.32 Bonita Canyon Dr. San Joaquin Transportation Corridor E Chambord Class II 0.11 Bristol St. Irvine Ave. Jamboree Rd. Class II 0.75 Coast Hwy. Carnation Ave. Poppy Ave. Class II 1.26 El Paseo Dr. Bayside Dr. Malabar Dr. Class II 0.11 Ford Rd. Prairie Rd. Hillside Dr. Class II 0.06 Heliotrope Ave. 2nd Ave. Coast Hwy. Class II 0.05 Jamboree Rd. Bristol St. University Dr. Class II 0.64 Kewamee Dr. Seadrift Dr. Avocado Ave. Class II 0.23 Newport Blvd. Lido Mc Fadden Pl. Class II 0.68 Newport Coast Dr. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Newport Coast Dr. Class II 0.34 Newport Coast Dr. / Tesoro Newport Coast Dr. Tesoro Class II 0.07 Coast Hwy. Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. Class III 1.06 Newport Coast Dr. / Moon Shell Tesoro S Reef Point Dr. Class III 2.67 TOTAL 16.78 miles 140 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Newport Beach Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Class 1 - 5.53 .- mile) $1,500,000 $8,295,000 Class 11 7.52 $280,000 $21105,600 Class 111 3.73 $21,000 $78,330 Total $10,478,930 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 141 3.23. Orange The City of Orange is situated in Central Orange County, approximately 32 miles southeast of Los Angeles. The City's land area is 27 square miles. The City's planning area is 38 square miles, with a "Sphere of Influence" area of 55 square miles. Included in the City's Sphere of Influence is 18,500 acres of undeveloped land owned by The Irvine Company. Population 138,640 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 11563 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.9% 31126 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 21110 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 71834 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 539 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 21102 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 41204 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 31069 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 141118 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 31741,387 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 22 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 76 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 5 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 397,964 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light 142 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Map 3.23 Orange Land Use OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 143 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 300 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 60 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.44 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.37 Notes: Bicycle racks (x1) 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Location .- Eisenhower Park Bicycle racks (x1) El Camino Real Park Bicycle racks (x5) Fred Barrera Park Bicycle racks (x1) Grijalva Park Bicycle racks (x1) Hart Park Bicycle racks (x4) Killefer Park Bicycle racks (x1) McPherson Park Bicycle racks (x6) Olive Park Bicycle racks (x1) Pitcher Park Bicycle racks (x1) Santiago Hills Park Bicycle racks (x3) Serrano Park Bicycle racks (x1) Shaffer Park Bicycle racks (x1) The Depot Park Bicycle racks Veterans Memorial Bicycle racks Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs The City of Orange Traffic Department organizes a bicycle safety education program. However, the traffic department does not have the resources to regularly support the program. For City employees, through the Trip Reduction Program, there is a $35 Bi- annual bike helmet reimbursement as well as an opportunity to win a bike through the annual Bike Loan -to -Own program. 144 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Metrolink/Amtrak/ Rideshare/ Bus Orange Station Bicycle racks(6) /lockers(12) 194 N Atchison St Bicycle racks on trains and buses Rideshare Lincoln Park - and -Ride Lincoln Ave /SR -55 Safety and Education Programs The City of Orange Traffic Department organizes a bicycle safety education program. However, the traffic department does not have the resources to regularly support the program. For City employees, through the Trip Reduction Program, there is a $35 Bi- annual bike helmet reimbursement as well as an opportunity to win a bike through the annual Bike Loan -to -Own program. 144 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Expenditures City -wide I Development/ maintenance I 1 1 $750,000 Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle planning can be found in the City of Orange's General Plan. Bikeways Orange Existing Bikeways OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 145 Street/Path -,.- Santa Ana River Path Garden Grove Blvd. Tustin Ave. Class 1 6.4 Jamboree Blvd. Santiago Canyon Canyon View Ave. Class Santiago Creek Path Section 1 UPRR Tustin St. Class I Santiago Creek Path Section 2 Walnut Ave. Collins Ave. Class Rancho Santiago Blvd. Bond Ave. Hewes St. Class 1 .53 Cannon St. Park Path Cerritos Dr. Avenida Palmar Class Santiago Blvd. Wanda Rd. Collins Ave. Class Wanda Rd. Santiago Blvd. Katella Ave. Class .19 Batavia St. Nohl Ranch Rd. Taft Ave. Class Glassell St. Fletcher Ave. Santa Ana River Path Class Cambridge St. Meats Ave. Santiago Creek Path Class 3.22 Walnut Ave. Shaffer St. Handy St. Class Handy St. UPRR Walnut St. Class Meats Ave. Tustin St. Santiago Blvd Class Santiago Blvd. Nohl Ranch Rd. Villa Park Rd. Class 3.74 Taft Ave. Santiago Blvd. Nichols Ave. Class Hewes St. Villa Park Rd. Rancho Santiago Class Cannon St. Northern City Limit Villa Park Rd. Class Collins Ave. Handy St. Bond Ave. Class Prospect Ave Spring St. Collins Ave. Class .66 Cannon St. Chapman Ave Cannon St. Park Path Class Canyon View Ave. Newport Blvd. Outrider St. Class .38 Santiago Canyon Rd. Wanda Rd. Jamboree Rd. Class 1.80 Orange Park Blvd Chapman Ave. Santiago Canyon Rd. Class 1.33 Chapman Ave. /Santiago Canyon Cannon St. Eastern City Limit Class Jamboree Rd. Irvine Regional Park Southern City Limit Class 1.89 Newport Blvd. Santiago Canyon Chapman Ave. Class .38 Information not provided. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 145 Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Mileage Glassell St. Fletcher St. Katella Ave. Class II 1.39 Glassell St. La Veta Ave. Santa Ana City Limit (SR -22 E Exit 16 ) Class II 0.40 Glassell St. Woodvale Ave. Fletcher St. Class II 0.12 Glassell St. City Limit N Riverdale Ave. Class II 0.08 Walnut Ave. Hewes St. Rancho Santiago Blvd. Class III 0.25 Walnut Ave. Walnut Ave. Tustin St. Earlham St. Class III 0.77 Orange Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -..- Collins Ave. / Walnut Ave. Collins Ave. Walnuts Ave. Class 1 0.49 Glassell St. / Main St. Glassell St. W Main St. Class 1 1.87 Hewes St. City Limit (Prospect Ave.) City Limit (Julie Ave.) Class 1 1.24 Jamboree Rd. Santiago Canyon Rd. Canyon View Ave. Class 1 0.79 Main St. / Chapman Ave. Main St. Chapman Ave. Class 1 1.36 OCTA Metrolink RR / Batavia St. OCTA Metrolink RR W Batavia St. Class 1 1.49 Palmyra Ave. / Fairhaven Ave. Palmyra Ave. Fairhaven Ave. Class I 1.24 Palmyra Ave. / James St. Palmyra Ave. James St. Class 1 0.23 Path 1 City Limit (S Santiago Blvd.) City Limit ( S Villa Park Access) Class 1 2.39 Path 2 Hewes St. City Limit (W Orange Park Blvd.) Class 1 1.31 Shaffer St. / Nordig Pl. Shaffer St. N Nordgi Pl. Class 1 0.66 Tustin St. Taft Ave. Taft Ave. Class 1 0.11 UP RR / Arden Villa Dr. W Main St. Villa Park City Limit ( W Sunkist Cir.) Class 1 2.53 Walnut Ave. / Tustin St. W Walnut Ave. W Tustin St. Class 1 1.43 Batavia St. Chapman Ave. La Veta Ave. Class II 0.51 Cambridge St. Lake Dr. Santa Ana City Limit ( S Fairway Dr.) Class II 0.09 Cannon St. Santiago Canyon Rd. Patria Ct. Class II 0.47 Canyon View Ave. Chapman Ave. Out rider St. Class II 0.83 Canyon View Ave. Newport Blvd. Jamboree Rd. Class II 0.78 Chapman Ave. Hewes St. Cannon St. Class II 0.57 Collins Ave. Handy St. Wanda Rd. Class II 0.29 Crawford Canyon Rd. Chapman Ave. City Limits Class II 0.01 Escola Meats Ave. Cannon St. Class II 1.11 Esplanade St. La Veta Ave. Fairhaven Ave. Class 11 1.37 Fairhaven Ave. Costa Mesa Fwy. Yorba St. Class II 0.23 Fletcher St. Batavia St. Glassell St. Class II 0.51 Garden Grove Blvd. Lewis St. Santa Ana City Limit Class II 0.54 146 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Street/Path From To Class Mileage Hewes St. City Limit (Pearl Ave.) Fowler Ave. Class 11 0.75 Hewes St. Walnut Ave. City Limit (S Drew Wy.) Class I I 0.16 Katella Ave. Handy St. Wanda Rd. Class II 0.29 La Veta Ave. Batavia St. Parker St. Class II 0.12 La Veta Ave. City Limit Santa Ana (Santa Bedford Rd. Class II 0.51 La Veta Ave. / Rock Creek Dr. E Sedona Dr. Esplanade St. Class II 1.61 Lewis St. Anaheim City Limit (N Tiller Ave.) Garden Grove Blvd. Class II 1.24 Lincoln Av / Nohl Ranch Rd. City Limit (E Berkeley St.) Anaheim City Limit (E Wyngate Rd.) Class II 1.64 Main St. Taft Ave. Palm Ave. Class II 1.67 Meats Ave. Anaheim City Limit (W Westfield Ct.) Villa Park City Limit ( W Stone Pine Rd.) Class I I 1.04 Meats Ave. Glassell St. Villa Park City Limit ( Santiago Blvd.) Class II 1.57 Newport Blvd. Chapman Ave. City Limit (S Skylark Pl. ) Class II 0.91 Orangewood Ave. /Walnut Ave. W Orange Frwy. Shaffer St. Class II 1.81 Parker St. La Veta Ave. Santa Ana City Limit ( S Town And County Rd.) Class II 0.38 Prospect St. Spring St. City Limit ( Fairhaven Ave.) Class II 1.23 Rancho Santiago Blvd. Bond Ave. City Limit (S Sycamore Ave.) Class 11 0.45 Rancho Santiago Blvd. City Limit ( Pearl Ave.) Chapman Ave. Class 11 0.06 Santiago Blvd. Anaheim City Limit (E Costa Mesa Frwy) Lincoln Ave. Class II 0.25 Serrano Ave. Cannon St. Anaheim City Limit Anaheim (E Kendra Dr.) Class II 2.14 Spring St. Walnut Ave. City Limit (E Esplanade St.) Class II 1.00 Spring St. City Limit ( Earlham St.) City Limit ( Hewes St.) Class 11 0.12 Taft Ave. Main St. Hart St. Class II 2.64 Tustin Ave. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Lincoln Ave. Class II 0.58 Tustin Ave. Fairhaven Ave. City Limits Santa Ana Class II 0.01 Walnut Ave. Handy St. Spring St. Bikeway Class II 0.28 Almond Ave. Feldner Rd. Cambridge St. Class III 1.50 Batavia St. Palm Ave. Chapman Ave. Class III 0.25 Bedford Rd. Palmyra Ave. La Veta Ave. Class III 0.25 Feldner Rd. Almond Ave. Palmyra Ave. Class III 0.14 Glassell St. Katella Ave. Palm Ave. Class III 1.21 Glassell St. Almond Ave. La Veta Ave. Class III 0.38 Grand St. Palm Ave. Almond Ave. Class III 0.37 Lemon St. Palm Ave. Almond Ave. Class III 0.38 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 147 Street/Path From To Class Mileage Lincoln St. Walnut Ave. Palm Ave. Class III 0.25 Palm Ave. Main St. Lincoln St. Class III 1.65 Palmyra Ave. Feldner Rd. Bedford Rd. Class III 0.06 Palmyra Ave. Costa Mesa Fwy. Palmyra Ave. / Fairhaven Ave. Bikeway Class III 0.47 TOTAL 53.82 Orange Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Mi - 17.14 .- - Total $1,500,000 $25,710,000 Class 11 31.76 $280,000 $8,892,800 Class 111 7.93 $21,000 $166,530 Total $341769,330 148 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.24. Placentia Placentia is a fast - growing community with beautiful suburban homes, good schools, stately churches, and wholesome recreation. The climate and rich land attracted an ever - growing number of new residents. Population 52,450 (Source: City of Placentia, 2008) Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 512 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.6% 11024 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 684 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 21454 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 220 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 732 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11464 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11068 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 41915 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 11302,392 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 8 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 26 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 138,533 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 149 Map 3.24 Placentia Land Use PULL , IF it ' RA -71 -.7 " wq " q °i e P - "�T AOKWIGK A. ! loft* WOW F&MM IF Al "7 llW� F■ iW#W" -rW.- I---xs PW FLED LE" 1Z �rwrtrn It4 a- ii-Atasi C-a 091040*M009 Cuq, }owa+t WIC P& C MN �k # �La1Yo1�� r�rs+�c • C PLACENTIA 150 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs The City of Placentia does not have bicycle safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle facility planning is documented in the Placentia Bike Path map. Bikeways Placentia Existing Bikeways OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 151 Street/Path -..- Tri -City Park Path N/A N/A Class 1 .86 miles Golden Ave. Kraemer Blvd. Placentia City Limit Class II 1.00 miles Bastanchury Rd. Western City Limit Eastern City Limit Class II 1.80 miles Kraemer Blvd. Northern City Limit Yorba Linda Blvd. Class II 1.10 miles Valencia Ave. Northern City Limit Palm Dr Class II 1.30 miles Palm Ave. Yorba Linda Blvd. Rose Dr Class II 1.10 miles Primrose Ave. Placentia Ave. Twilight St. Class III .20 miles Angelina Dr. Palm Dr. Kraemer Blvd. Class III .40 miles Twilight St. Primrose Ave. Ruby Dr. Class III .30 miles Ruby Dr. Twilight St. Bradford Ave Class III .50 miles Bradford Ave. Ruby Dr. Madison Ave. Class III .20 miles Chapman Ave. Placentia Ave. Kraemer Blvd. Class III 1.00 miles OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 151 Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Orangethorpe Chapman Ave. Anaheim City Limits (W Lakeview Ave. Ave.) Class 11 2.92 Placentia Proposed Bikeways Street/Path - 1.09 .- - Total $1,500,000 $1,635,000 Street/Path Melrose St. From To Crowther Ave. La Jolla St. Class Mileage Class III .60 miles Class 111 0.65 TOTAL 10.66 miles Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Orangethorpe Chapman Ave. Anaheim City Limits (W Lakeview Ave. Ave.) Class 11 2.92 Placentia Proposed Bikeways Street/Path - 1.09 .- - Total $1,500,000 $1,635,000 Class II -,.- $280,000 $2,853,200 Class 111 0.65 $21,000 $13,650 Placentia Ave. / Anaheim City Limit Anaheim City Limit (Kraemer Class 1 1.09 Kraemer Blvd. (W Placentia Ave.) Blvd.) Bradford Ave. Carlson Ln. Center St. Class II 0.87 Chapman Ave. Fullerton City Limit (W Placentia Orangethorpe Ave. Class 11 1.87 Ave.) Kraemer Blvd. La Brea City Limit Golden Ave. Class II 1.43 Melrose St. Crowther Ave. Orangethorpe Ave. Class II 0.38 Richfield Rd. Orangethorpe Ave. Las Brisas Pl. Class II 0.39 Rose Dr. Yorba Linda City Limit (S Yorba Linda Palm Dr. Class II 0.44 Blvd) Rose Dr. Alta Vista Dr. Oranthorpe Ave. Class II 0.53 Rose Dr. Imperial Hwy. Yorba Linda City Limit Class II 0.07 Yorba Linda Blvd. Fullerton City Limit (Bradford Av) City Limit ( E Kilts Ave.) Class II 0.82 Yorba Linda Blvd. City Limit (W Mac Cormack Ln.) Yorba Linda City Limit (W Linda Class 11 0.27 Vista Wy. ) Yorba Linda Blvd. Yorba Linda City Limit (E Rose Dr) Yorba Linda City Limit (W Class II 0.20 Prospect Av) Buena Vista Ave. Petry Dr. Jefferson St. Class III 0.11 Jefferson St. Yorba Linda City Limit (N Zion Av) Yorba Linda City Limit (N Class III 0.19 Carlsbad Av) Madison Ave. Bradford Ave. Kraemer Blvd. Class III 0.26 Richfield Rd. Yorba Linda City Limit (S Mariposa Orchard Dr. Class III 0.09 Av) TOTAL 9.01 miles Placentia Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Class 1 - 1.09 .- - Total $1,500,000 $1,635,000 Class II 10.19 $280,000 $2,853,200 Class 111 0.65 $21,000 $13,650 Total $4,501,850 152 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.25. Rancho Santa Margarita Rancho Santa Margarita has one employment center and many newer housing developments. Rancho Santa Margarita has experienced rapid development over the past fifteen years, primarily in the residential market. The City contains portions of O'Neill Regional Park, which runs along Trabuco Canyon through the City. Population 50,618 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 356 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.0% 712 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 438 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 11124 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 179 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 535 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11069 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 781 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 31591 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 951,555 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 3 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 19 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 1 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 1011215 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 153 City of Lake Forest V-S city of Mission Viej / (I O'Neill Regional Park map .5. I_:) Kancno -.)an-La margarna Lang use O' N011 Park faX Sourceg: Oran g.c� County Land Base, 2001, CL)ttoii..-'Bridges/A,ssociates, 2006. 0 2,400 4,800 Fcct Trabuto Oaks love Can, !oHrIlry (7 Legend Low Density Residential (0-7.0 U nits;' Net Acre, Average f.3 T-Tv imNct AC re) Low-Medium Density Residential (7-0 -1 1 -0 UnitsfNc L A orc, Average I0 Un its,'Net Acre) odium Density Residential (I 1.4-A.0 Units/Net Acre, A+,t:rage 143 UnitslNet Acre) High Density 11codcrilial (18.0 -2.5.0 Units Net Acre, Averagc 200 Uni is. Njet Aerc.) Conunercial General Neighborhood Commercial Business Park Community Facility Park Open Space Community Facilities Open Space Golf City Hall/Contmunity tenter Regional Open Space C. Fire Station "Alater (D Library Future planned Cormunity G) School City Boundary Religious/R.cligious School Sphere of Influencc Water District Figure L U-I Land Use Policy Map 154 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 19 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 3.8 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.08 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.23 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities OCTA Buses I City -wide I Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs The City of Rancho Santa Margarita does not have bicycle safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle facilities are addressed in the General Plan Circulation Element. Bikeways Rancho Santa Margarita Existing Bikeways Street -,.- Santa Margarita Pkwy Class Trabuco Canyon Class I Santa Margarita Pkwy Class II Alicia Pkwy Class II Antonio Pkwy Class II Oso Pkwy Class II Avenida Empresa Class II Information not provided. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 155 Rancho Santa Margarita Proposed Bikeways Street/Path - 1.80 .- - Total $1,500,000 $21700,000 Class 11 -..- $21,000 $14,070 Total $5,459,070 Trabuco Canyon Bike Trail Extension (North) Antonio Pkwy. Robinson Ridge Class 1 1.00 Trabuco Canyon / Santa N/o Santa Margarita S/o Santa Margarita Pkwy Class 1 .10 Margarita Pkwy Bridge Pkwy Trabuco Canyon Bike Trail Extension (South) Tijeras Canyon Rd. Oso Pkwy. Class 1 .70 Antonio Pkwy. / Rose Canyon Rd. City Limit ( S Trabuco Canyon Rd.) Santa Margarita Pkwy. Class II .67 TOTAL 2.47 miles Rancho Santa Margarita Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Class 1 - 1.80 .- - Total $1,500,000 $21700,000 Class 11 0.67 $21,000 $14,070 Total $5,459,070 156 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.26. San Clemente San Clemente is the southernmost city in Orange County. The City is home to miles of beaches, which are popular in the summer months. Many of the City's coastal neighborhoods are older, and many of the inland areas are newer, with recent new housing construction and construction planned in the future. Some of San Clemente's destinations are located along the arterial streets, including El Camino Real, Avenida Pico, and Camino de Los Mares. Population 61,050 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 377 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 1.2% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 755 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 487 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 11552 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 307 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 684 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11368 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 999 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 41595 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 11217,680 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 7 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 25 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 129,522 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 157 Map 3.26 San Clemente Land Use 158 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 63 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 12.6 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.20 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.63 Notes: Bicycle racks 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Location .- # Of Years Conducted ..- Ole Hanson Beach Club Bicycle racks OCTA Buses Showers Bicycle racks on buses Bicycle racks La Pata /Vista Hermosa Park Showers Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Lockers Municipal Parks Bicycle racks Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Metrolink /Rideshare /Bus San Clemente Station Bicycle racks on trains Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs 1850 Avenida Estacion and buses Metrolink /Amtrak San Clemente Pier Station Bicycle racks on trains Other Program Notes 615 Avenida Victoria Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted # Of Times a Year Conducted Varies based on funding and time. Administered by Sheriff's Department Location Schools Program, Curriculum, and Activities Assemblies; bicycle rodeos; free helmets; Curriculum: proper hand signals, equipment, lane and traffic sign obedience, proper bike condition, information packets Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Total # of Children Reached Varies from year to year Age of Children Reached Elementary school students Other Program Notes OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 159 Expenditures Information on past bikeway expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle planning can be found in San Clemente's General Plan. Bikeways San Clemente Existing Bikeways Street -,.- Camino de Los Mares Portico del Norte Calle Nuevo Class 0.15 Camino del Rio Camino de Los Mares Avenida La Pata Class I 0.14 Avenida Talega City border Avenida Vista Hermosa Class 0.71 Avenida Vista Hermosa Camino Vera Cruz* Avenida Pico Class 0.12 Avenida La Pata City border Avenida Pico Class I 0.27 Avenida Pico Calle del Cerro City border Class 2.70 Camino de los Mares Camino del Rio Avenida Vaquero Class II Avenida Pico Avenida La Pata Calle del Cerro Class II Avenida Vaquero Camino de Los Mares Camino Capistrano Class II Avenida Vista Hermosa Class II Pacific Coast Highway /El Camino Real Northwest of Camino Capistrano Avenida Pico Class II Avenida del Presidente Avenida Valencia Avenida de Las Palmeras Class II Avenida La Pata Avenida Pico Calle Extremo Class II Camino Vera Cruz Camino de Los Mares Avenida Vista Hermosa Class II Avenida Pico Calle de Los Molinos El Camino Real Class III Calle Puente /Ola Vista Class III Information not provided. Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Avenida Vista Hermosa Avenida La Pata Avenida Pico Class 1 1.01 San Clemente Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Avenida La Pata Camino Del Rio Calle Saluda Class 1 0.15 Avenida Pico E Camino La pedriza W Foothill Transportation Corr Class 1 0.14 Avenida La Pata / Camino Del Rio Avenida La Pata Camino Del Rio Class 1 0.71 Avenida Capistrano Avenida Vaquero Coast Hwy. Class II 0.12 Camino Del Rio E Camino Forestal Avenida La Pata Class II 0.27 El Camino Real Avenida Pico Avenida del Presidente Class II 2.70 160 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Street/Path From To Class Mileage Camino de Estrella / Camino de los Mares Avenida Vista Hermosa Avenida Vaquero Class II 1.22 Avenida del Mar / Avenida Victoria / Avenida Madrid Calle Seville S Ola Vista Class II 0.71 Camino de los Mares / Las Ramblas Las Ramblas Camino de los Mares Class II 0.36 Ola Vista Avenida Madrid Avenida Gaviota Class II 0.45 Avenida Palizada Avenida Miramar Calle Seville Class II 0.13 Path 1 City Limit S Talega Rd Class II 0.14 Path 2 City Limit Talega Rd Class II 0.27 Avenida Pico Avenida Navarro El Camino Real Class II 0.62 Calle Puente Avenida Pelayo Avenida Palizada Class II 0.48 Calle Sarmentoso Camino Del Rio Camino Vera Cruz Class II 0.84 Calle Seville Avenida Palizada Avenida del Mar Class II 0.10 Talega Rd. N Calle Portofino Avenida Vista Hermosa Class II 0.34 Avenida Valencia El Camino Real Avenida del Presidente Class II 0.06 Camino Vera Cruz Calle Aquamarina Avenida Pico Class II 0.58 Camino Vera Cruz / Vista Carretera Vista Hermosa Class II 0.65 Avenida Acapulco Avenida San Pablo Avenida Adobe Class III 0.10 Avenida Adobe Avenida Acapulco Calle Bahia Class III 0.22 Calle Amanecer Avenida Pico Calle Cordillera Class III 0.38 Calle Bahia Avenida Adobe Avenida Santa Margarita Class III 0.36 Calle Cordillera Calle Amanecer N Calle Sol Class III 0.41 Camino El Molino San Juan Capistrano Citv Limit Dana Point City Limit Class III 0.01 Camino El Molino Dana Point City Limit N Camino de Estrella Class III 0.02 Calle Frontera Corte Calamar Avenida Pico Class III 1.03 Ola Vista Avenida Magdalena Avenida Calafia Class III 0.32 Avenida Pico Avenida Presidio Avenida Navarro Class III 0.53 Avenida San Pablo Avenida Acapulco El Camino Real Class III 1.11 Avenida Santa Margarita Calle Bahia Avenida San Luis Rey Class III 0.42 Avenida Vista Hermosa Calle Frontera Camino Verra Cruz / Avenida Vista Hermosa Bikewav Class III 0.21 Avenida Vista Hermosa 1 -5 S Exit 77 Avenida Pico Class III 0.67 Avenida Vista Hermosa / El Camino Real Avenida Vista Hermosa El Camino Real Class III 0.90 TOTAL 17.73 miles San Clemente Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 2.01 .- - Total $1,500,000 $3,015,000 Class II 10.04 $280,000 $2,811,200 Class III 6.69 $21,000 $140,490 Total $5,966,690 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 161 3.27. San Juan Capistrano San Juan Capistrano is an older established community in South County. The City is most famous for its Mission located in the downtown area of the City. The downtown area is popular with residents and visitors alike featuring a quaint restaurant and shopping district. Development in San Juan Capistrano has occurred less rapidly over the past two decades as in the rest of the South County region. Most of its development has been residential with some commercial located in the downtown area. Population 34,839 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 288 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 1.4% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 577 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 372 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 11178 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 158 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 446 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 892 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 651 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 21995 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 793,682 5 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 16 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 1 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 841422 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light 162 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Map 3.27 San Juan Capistrano Land Use SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP This is to cerfifv lbat this i-,4 rhl'.' -of the city or F%qn Juan Capistrann- Diane Satbgato, Mayor A-ttent City Clerk 1 WE D[T4 Commuter Bikeways Strategic Nan 163 MKhAW:DVAK'W ------- D[T4 Commuter Bikeways Strategic Nan 163 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 39 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 7.8 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.22 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.69 Notes: Rideshare 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index tower than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Location .- San Juan Capistrano Community Center and Sports Park Not provided by City Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Rideshare Junipero Serra North Lot Bicycle rodeos Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Junipero Serra Rd /1 -5 Total # of Children Reached Rideshare Junipero Serra South Lot Other Program Notes Junipero Serra Rd /1 -5 Metrolink /Amtrak / Rideshare/ Bus San Juan Capistrano Station Bicycle racks on trains 26701 Verdugo St and buses Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted # Of Times a Year Conducted Administered by Police Department Location Schools Program, Curriculum, and Activities Bicycle rodeos Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Free bicycle helmets Total # of Children Reached Age of Children Reached Other Program Notes Not a regular program 164 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan San Juan Capistrano has bicycle plans that are not part of a Master or General Plan. Bikeways San Juan Capistrano Existing Bikeways Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Las Ramblas / PCH San Clemente City Limit San Diego Frwy. Class II 2.00 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 165 Street Rancho Viejo Rd. Class I -,.- San Juan Creek Rd. Class Camino del Avion Class Camino Capistrano Class San Juan Creek Class Trabuco Creek Class San Juan Creek Rd. Class II Del Obispo St. Class II Alipaz St. Class II Camino Capistrano Class II La Zanja St. Class III Avenida de La Vista Class III Information not provided. Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Las Ramblas / PCH San Clemente City Limit San Diego Frwy. Class II 2.00 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 165 San Juan Capistrano Proposed Bikeways San Juan Capistrano Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 7.74 .- mile) $1,500,000 $11,610,000 Class 11 11.28 Street/Path Forster Canyon Rd. / Via California San Juan Creek Rd. Camino Las Ramblas Class 1 -..- 2.58 La Novia Rd. Forster Canyon Rd. La Novia Ave. Class 1 0.13 Path 1 N San Juan Creek Rd. City Limit ( S Ortega Hwy) Class 1 0.29 Path 2 Mission Viejo City Limit Path 4 Class 1 1.46 Path 3 Laguna Niguel City Limit Path 4 Class 1 1.74 Path 4 N Oso Rd. N Ramos St. Class 1 1.22 Vivente de Marlita / Camino Capistrano Vivente de Marlita Camino Capistrano Class 1 0.32 Camino del Avion Parkside Wy. E Alipaz St. Class II 0.65 Camino Capistrano Calle Lorenzo San juan Creek Rd. Class II 1.57 Del Obispo St. Ortega Hwy. Ramos St. Class II 0.53 La Pata Ave. / Mares La Pata Ave. Mares Class II 1.48 Ortega Hwy. Capistrano City Limit ( W Horno Rd.) Class 11 2.16 Rancho Viejo Rd. S Path 2 Calle Arroyo Class II 2.07 San Juan Creek Rd. La Novia Ave. Paseo Christina Class II 0.72 Stonehill Dr. Dana Point City Limit OCTA Metro Link RR Class II 0.10 Camino Capistrano Dana Point City Limit Via Serra Class III 0.10 Mares San Clemente City Limit San Clemente City Limit ( N Portico Del Norte) Class III 0.60 TOTAL 17.72 San Juan Capistrano Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 7.74 .- mile) $1,500,000 $11,610,000 Class 11 11.28 $280,000 $3,158,400 Class III 0.70 $21,000 $141700 Total $141783,100 166 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.28. Santa Ana Santa Ana is the seat of County government and the largest city in Orange County. County government offices are located in the City's Civic Center downtown. The City is also home to Santa Ana College, the Santa Ana Zoo, and the Main Place and Bristol Marketplace shopping centers. The City is one of the oldest and established cities in Orange County. Most of the City's destinations and services are located along the arterial street network Population 337,977 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 41317 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 2.2% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 81634 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 51734 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters 20,204 Future number of new bicycle commuters 641 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 41958 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 91917 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 71239 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 33,300 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Future Air Quality Benefits 81824,570 Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 53 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 178 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 12 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 938,652 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 167 Map 3.28 Santa Ana Land Use Lil 168 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 646 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 129.2 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.38 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.16 Notes: Schools 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Location .- Civic Center Bicycle racks The Downtown Public Urban Design Guidelines suggest that Bicycle racks be provided at key activity locations, attractions, and other points of interest. Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Schools Program, Curriculum, and Activities Bicycle Metrolink /Amtrak /Rideshare /Bus Santa Ana Station racks(18) /lockers(5) Approximately 34,000 per year 1000 E Santa Ana Blvd Bicycle racks on trains Other Program Notes Not a regular program and buses Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted # Of Times a Year Conducted All year long Administered by Police Department Location Schools Program, Curriculum, and Activities Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Automobile Safety Program Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Total # of Children Reached Approximately 34,000 per year Age of Children Reached Other Program Notes Not a regular program OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 169 Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Santa Ana has a Bicycle Master Plan as part of the Circulation Element in its General Plan. Bikeways Santa Ana Existing Bikeways Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Mileage Street/Path Santa Ana River Pathway Edinger Ave. Northern City Limit Class 1 -,.- 3.58 Santiago Creek Path Memory Ln. Northern City Limit Class 1 1 Alton -Maple Pathway Susan St. Chestnut Ave. Class 1 5.01 Flower St. Warner Ave. N/0 Alton St. Class 1 0.67 Mac Arthur Blvd (WB) Santa Ana River Path Susan St. Class 1 1.00 Greenville St. Warner Ave. Pomona St. Class II 0.85 Santa Ana River Pathway Edinger Ave. Mac Arthur Blvd. Class I 1.97 Susan Street Mac Arthur Blvd. Alton St. Class II 0.16 Bear St. Mac Arthur Blvd. Segerstrom Ave Class II 0.54 Raitt St. Occidental St. Edinger Ave. Class 1 0.22 Total 15.0 Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Mileage Raitt St. Mc Fadden Ave. Sunflower Ave. Class 1 2.72 Birstol St. / La Veta Ave. Orange City Limit (Santa Sunflower Ave. Class II 5.88 Ana Fwy. ) Grand Ave. Orange City Limit Dyer Rd. Class II 4.64 (S 22E exit 16) Westminster Ave. Garden Grove City Limit (W Garden Grove City Limit (W Class II 1.36 Newhope St) Clinton St) 170 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Santa Ana Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Mi - 9.15 .- mile) $1,500,000 $13,725,000 Class 11 -..- Channel W/O Fairview Edinger Sunflower Ave. Class 1 2.72 Flower St Alton Ave. Sunflower Ave. Class 1 0.77 OCTA Metrolink RR 6th St. S 4th St. Class 1 0.37 Raitt St. Mc Fadden Ave. Edinger Ave. Class 1 0.50 Union Pacific RR Westminster Ave. Raitt St. Class 1 1.69 UP RR S 4th St. Chestnut Ave. Class 1 0.38 17th St. Garden Grove City Limit City Limit (Deodar St.) Class II 3.93 1 st St. Newhope St. E Quiet Village St. Class II 1.08 4th St. OCTA Metrolink RR Grand Ave. Class II 0.21 Central Ave. Orange Ave. Maple St. Class II 0.05 Chestnut Ave. Maple St. Elk Ln. Class II 1.14 Civic Center Dr. Fairview St. Santiago St. Class 11 2.77 Dyer Rd. Grand Ave. Red Hill Ave. Class II 0.59 Flower St. Santa Ana Blvd. Warner Ave. Class II 2.20 MacArthur Blvd. (EB) Costa Mesa City Limit Susan St. Class 11 0.38 Main St. Macarthur Blvd. Costa Mesa Fwy. Class II 0.49 Mc Fadden Ave. Garden Grove City Limit (W Maple St. Class II 4.75 Memory Ln. Orange City Limit Bristol St. Class II 0.20 Newhope St. Westminster Ave. Edinger Ave Class II 1.48 Orange Ave. Central Ave. UP RR Class II 0.12 Penn Wy. 17th St. Washington Ave. Class II 0.37 Raitt St. Santa Ana Blvd. McFadden Ave Class II 1.44 Santa Ana Blvd. Raitt St. Grand Ave. Class II 2.48 Santiago St. Washington Ave. 6th St. Class II 0.52 Sunflower Ave Harbor St Susan St Class II 0.34 Sunflower Ave. Costa Mesa City Limit Costa Mesa City Limit Class II 0.49 Tustin Ave. Orange City Limit N/0 1 st St. Class II 1.70 Warner Ave. Flower St. Maple St. Class II 1.93 Warner Ave. Anne St. Forest Ave Class II 1.13 Edinger Ave. SA River 55 FWY Class III 4.65 Total 40.77 miles Santa Ana Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Mi - 9.15 .- mile) $1,500,000 $13,725,000 Class 11 41.67 $280,000 $11,667,600 Class 111 4.65 $21,000 $97,650 Total $25,490,250 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 171 3.29. Seal Beach The City of Seal Beach is a Charter City located in Orange County, California. Seal Beach sits on the coast as the gateway to Orange County between the cities of Long Beach and Huntington Beach. Seal Beach has retained its quaint, small-town atmosphere. The 5,256 -acre Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, and the 920 -acre Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, comprises 2/3 of the land within the 13.23 square -mile City. Population 24,098 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 207 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.7% 415 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 286 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 11134 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 71 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 279 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 557 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 407 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 11871 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 495,907 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 3 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 10 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 1 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 521749 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light 172 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan I Map 3.29 Seat Beach Land Use W-17 % % .. ........... .. ..... CL ..... .... .. ...... ... �.. • EL UO) 0 .Ij LU go 62 U- X U- CD QA LU Lb ;E MOM U5 LU LU LU A .2 < 0 YJ LU yj J M LU wd 66 LL -W -W , 3M p JE 22 L6 X ML 2 2 2 �e Z NJ W 6M Iii iii e6 0- =1 LU LU LU 9 Lr- .j In Of LI OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 173 Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 47 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 9.4 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.38 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.17 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs The status of Seal Beach's bicycle safety and education programs is unknown. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan The City of Seal Beach does not currently have an adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. 174 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Bikeways Seal Beach Existing Bikeways Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Westminster Ave. Seat Beach Blvd. City Limit Class II 1.98 Seal Beach Proposed Bikeways Street/Path .- - $1,500,000 Total $2,550,000 Class 11 3.89 -,.- Street/Path San Gabriel River Path Seat Beach Coastline Pacific Coast Hwy. Class I -,.- 0.80 San Gabriel River Path Co«ege Park Dr. North City Limit Class 1 0.73 Beverly Manor -SR22 Path San Gabriel River Path Foxburg Rd. Class 1 0.48 Seat Beach Btvd. Ocean Ave. Pacific Coast Hwy Class 1 0.22 Marina Dr. Western City Limit 7t" St. Class II 0.53 Electric Ave. Marina Dr. Seat Beach Btvd. Cass II 0.68 Seat Beach Btvd Pacific Coast Hwy. St. Cloud Dr. Cass II 3.23 Botsa Ave. Pacific Coast Hwy. Sea[ Beach Btvd. Cass II 0.58 Westminster Btvd. Western City Limit Eastern City Limit Cass II 0.83 Beverly Manor Dr. Foxburg Rd. Seat Beach Btvd. Cass II 0.68 Lampson Ave. Basswood St. Eastern City Limit Cass II 1.35 Edinger Ave. Sunset Aquatic Park Botsa Chica St. Class II 1.76 Botsa Chica St. Edinger Ave. Botsa Ave. Cass II 1.00 Pacific Coast Hwy. Western City Limit Seat Beach Btvd Class III 1.00 Westminster Btvd. Seat Beach Btvd. Easter City Limit Class III 1.98 ` Information not provided. Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Westminster Ave. Seat Beach Blvd. City Limit Class II 1.98 Seal Beach Proposed Bikeways Street/Path .- - $1,500,000 Total $2,550,000 Class 11 3.89 -,.- Path 1 LA County Limit Orange County Limit Class 1 1.04 Seat Beach Btvd. Bradbury Rd. Lampson Ave. Class I 0.66 1 st St. Marina Dr. Ocean Ave. Cass 11 0.17 Lampson Ave. Seat Beach Btvd. Basswood St. Cass II 0.64 Pacific Coast Hwy. City Limit Seat Beach Btvd. Cass II 1.00 Sunset Wy. E Park Circle Dr. Huntington Beach City Limit Cass II 0.10 TOTAL 3.62 mites Seal Beach Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Miles Facility Class 1 1.70 .- - $1,500,000 Total $2,550,000 Class 11 3.89 $280,000 $1,089,200 Total $3,639,200 ,� c I� A ., Qr ",Y �( „�� ,�( � ,� w' ! °w �';;w' �'{� � ,11� w���, � � Qw � t � ;11A t E w `� � � �, � ;;11 „ rl � � I4 3.30. Stanton The City of Stanton is located in northwestern Orange County. Stanton is 3.1 square miles and residents enjoy a small town community feeling. The City's motto - Community Pride and Forward Vision identifies Stanton as a place where innovation and pride in the community are an important aspect of life in Stanton. Community excitement comes from revitalization of commercial and residential areas, and the attraction of major new developments created through an active redevelopment program. Stanton residents enjoy major retail opportunities, active civic volunteers and business - friendly City organizations. Residents benefit from a vide variety of programs provided by the City which include great parks, a family resource center, annual holiday events and programs which support taking pride in ownership. Population 39,276 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 598 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Total Daily Bicycle Trips 2.7% 11196 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 817 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters 31151 Future number of new bicycle commuters 76 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 674 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11349 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 985 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Weekday 41529 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Year 11200,242 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 7 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 24 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 127,667 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light oc r'A C c') U e e w a V„ „rl Map 3.30 Stanton Land Use Rond =Grangewood �111111 1. A Chapman Ave. =n','Lampson ..... . ... ...... ...... ........... Ave . .... -, City Of Stanton, California e—i konsoli&ted General Plan Land Use Map .... . .... ...... II All J t" ......... . 1,1) Low Density Residoitial MD Medium Density Residontial [it) High Density Re.sadeymal GC General Cornnwrcial I Industrial P11 Put bfic/histi tutional Os Opel l SI'lacc./Recreational A Meditim, Dejasd y Rtsiderftial Industrial Park I lonw IndLIMI-Y D MixQd Use E Transit Oriemed F Civic (.`,entcr (,:'F Theine Mixed Use If c,01nillercial Intellsil", ication ................. TJ CE PLANNING CENTER ............. ..................... "m, 1� ,a uldA , 1,RYAA JAY, CA Y26,26 .......... , lijq-M&U21, ......... .................. .................................. Ec? 6-10 I a 177 oc r'A C c) in IFr � U Ll e e w a y s S ��L�, l,"'E' (C'%; i Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicyc[e Co«isions for 5 Years Rate 84 Average # of Bicyc[e Co«isions Per Year 16.8 Average Bicyc[e Co«ision Rate per 1000 /year 0.44 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.36 Notes: Community Services Center 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities The city ordinance for new development requires that bicycle parking and locker facilities be provided for employees or tenants who commute to the site by bicycle as part of the Transportation Demand Management Facility Standards. At least five bicycle parking locations are required for every one hundred employees, or fraction thereof, and a minimum of two shover facilities is required, one each for men and women. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicyc[e racks on buses Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted 1 # Of Times a Year Conducted 1 Administered by Police Department Location Community Services Center Program, Curriculum, and Activities Bicyc[e rodeo Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Free bicycle helmets Total # of Children Reached Approximately 200 per year Age of Children Reached Other Program Notes Not a regular program Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Bicycle facilities are addressed in Stanton's General Plan. Bikeways Stanton Existing Bikeways Street/Path Miles 2.85 .- - Total $1,500,000 $41275,000 Class II -,.- Knott Ave Cerritos Ave Jonathon Ave Cass II ` Western Ave. Seaboard Cir. Cerritos Ave. Cass II ` Chapman Ave. UPRR Santa Rosatia Cass II ` Lampson Ave. Beach Blvd. Monroe Ave. Cass II ` * Information not provided by City. Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Magnolia Ave. Anaheim City Limit UP RR Class 1 0.62 Kate«a Ave. Cypress City Limit Magnolia St. Cass II 1.94 Stanton Proposed Bikeways Stanton Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 2.85 .- - Total $1,500,000 $41275,000 Class II 7.38 Street/Path OCTA RR Anaheim City Limit Date St. Class 1 Mileage 1.31 UP RR / Chapman Av UP RR Chapman Ave. Class 1 0.92 Cerritos Ave. Knott Ave. Anaheim City Limit Class II 2.08 Date Ave. Lola Ave. Kate«a Ave. Class II 0.91 Knott Ave. Anaheim City Limit Garden Grove City Limit Class II 0.80 Lampson Ave. UP RR San Marcos Dr. Class II 0.49 Magnolia Ave. Cerritos Ave. Syracuse Ave. Class II 0.42 Orangewood Ave. Western Ave. Jane Wy. Class II 0.74 Date Ave. Chapman Ave. Garden Grove City Limit Class III 0.06 TOTAL 7.73 mites Stanton Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 2.85 .- - Total $1,500,000 $41275,000 Class II 7.38 $280,000 $2,066,400 Class 111 0.06 $21,000 $11260 Total $6,342,660 ., 1f % ., ar ii Yr r ii �� r w ii° ii w +{� l w Qw ii l w i% li ii, r 17 3.31. Tustin Tustin is primarily an urban area. Historic old buildings, some dating back to the 1880s, are maintained in "Old Town" on Main Street and El Camino Real. The downtown area of the City is well established, but the eastern Tustin Ranch area has been developed primarily over the past decade. Tustin Marketplace in Tustin Ranch is a major regional shopping and entertainment destination in the County. The former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station was closed in 1999. In 2003, the City adopted the Specific Plan establishing the zoning designation, development standards, and entitlement framework for future development of the facility, now named Tustin Legacy. The site is currently being developed and will ultimately include 4,600 homes, over 10 million square feet of non - residential space including major office, retail, entertainment, business park, educational, and support facilities. Over 275 acres are dedicated to park land and recreational open space and will feature a two -mile linear park with walking spaces, playgrounds, natural areas, and sports facilities. Population 74,218 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 667 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 1.4% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11335 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 884 FReduced Vehicle Mmes per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 31077 285 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 952 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11904 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11390 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Weekday 61393 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Year Future Air Quality Benefits 11694,273 Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 10 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 34 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 180,216 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light o c r'A C c') U e e w a V„ „rl W u� M N° MIS t h v v Imill Imill Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 103 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 20.6 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.30 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.91 Notes: Schools 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted ..- Location Facility Type OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Schools Program, Curriculum, and Activities Parking: rack (11 Metrotink/ Rideshare/ Bus Tustin Metrolink Station bicycles) lockers (20 Approximately 1,750 per year 2975 Edinger Ave bicycles). Bicycle racks Other Program Notes The Police Department also funds adult crossing guards at a cost of over $400,000 per year on trains and buses Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted 25 # Of Times a Year Conducted 1 Administered by Police Department Location Schools Program, Curriculum, and Activities Presentation /assembly at schools, bicycle safety coloring book Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Bicycle registration and bicycle helmet replacements Total # of Children Reached Approximately 1,750 per year Age of Children Reached 4t" grade classes in all schools Other Program Notes The Police Department also funds adult crossing guards at a cost of over $400,000 per year Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. 182, 1 Bicycle Transportation Plan Tustin has a Master Bikeway Plan as part of the Circulation Element of its General Plan. Bikeways Tustin Existing Bikeways Street/Path -.• Barranca Pkwy. Tustin Ranch Rd. Jamboree Rd. Class 1 0.49 Como Channel Bikeway Peters Canyon Channel Harvard Ave. Class 1 0.22 Et Camino Rea[ Tustin Ranch Rd. Myford Ave. Class 1 0.32 Irvine Btvd.- Browning Ave. East of Ranchwood Rd. Class 1 0.13 Myford Rd. Et Camino Rea[ Bryan Ave. Class 1 0.15 Newport Ave. Et Camino Rea[ Irvine Btvd. Class 1 0.90 Orange County Regional Jamboree Rd. (s /o Champion Peters Canyon Regional Park Class 1 1.93 Park Ave. Tustin Ranch Rd. Warner Ave. Class 1 0.63 Armstrong Ave. Valencia Ave. Warner Ave. Cass II 0.58 Barranca Pkwy.3 Red Hi« Ave. Jamboree Rd. Cass II 0.75 Browning Ave. Bryan Ave. Red Mitt Ci r. Cass 11 0.07 Browning Ave.Z Red Mi« Cir. Irvine Btvd. Cass II 0.43 Bryan Ave. Red Hi« Ave. Jamboree Rd. Cass II 1.50 Del Arno Ave. Newport Ave. Edinger Ave. Cass II 0.27 Edinger Ave. Newport Ave. Harvard Ave. Class II 2.50 Harvard Ave.3 OCTA /SCRRA Railway North of Columbus Grove Dr. Cass II 0.76 Irvine Btvd. East of Ranchwood Rd. Jamboree Rd. Class II 0.77 Jamboree Rd. Et Camino Rea[ Northern City Limit Class II 4.13 Kensington Park Dr. Valencia Ave. Edinger Ave. Class II 0.28 Moffett Ave. Peters Canyon Channel Harvard Ave. Cass II 0.27 Newport Ave. Irvine Btvd. Wass Street Cass II 0.22 Newport Ave. Valencia Ave. Edinger Ave. Cass II 0.45 Newport Ave.Z Wass Street South of La Cotina Drive Cass II 0.34 Parkcenter Ln. Bryan Ave. Tustin Ranch Rd. Class II 0.31 Patriot Way Pioneer Rd. Jamboree Rd. Cass II 0.15 Pioneer Rd. Pioneer Way Jamboree Rd. Cass II 1.55 Pioneer Way Tustin Ranch Rd. Pioneer Rd. Cass II 0.13 Portota Pkwy. Tustin Ranch Rd. Jamboree Rd. Cass II 0.29 Red Hi« Ave. Nisson Rd. Et Camino Rea[ Class II 0.14 Red Hi« Ave. 4 Parkway Loop Edinger Ave. Cass II 0.15 Robinson Dr. Irvine Btvd. Jamboree Rd. Class II 0.56 Tustin Ranch Rd. Walnut Ave. Jamboree Rd. Class II 3.36 Tustin Ranch Rd. Barranca Pkwy. Warner Ave. Cass II 0.71 Valencia Ave. Red Hi« Ave. Kensington Park Dr. Class II 0.88 Walnut Ave. Browning Ave. Myford Ave. Cass II 0.95 Warner Ave. Tustin Ranch Rd. Park Ave. Cass II 0.11 TOTAL 27.38 1 Northside of Barranca Pkwy. Z Shared Jurisdiction - City of Tustin Et County of Orange 3 Shared Jurisdiction - City of Tustin Et City of Irvine 4 Eastside of Red Hi« Ave only ,� c I� A ., Qr ",Y �( „�� „�( � ,� w' ! °w �';;w' �'{� � ,11� w���, � � Qw � t � ;11A t E w `� � � �, � ;;11 „ rl � � � ,,,,, Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path Miles 2.25 .- r mile) Total $1,500,000 $3,735,200 Class II -,.- Red Hill Ave.2 Barranca Pkwy. Warner Ave. Class II 0.51 Red Hill Ave. Warner Ave. Parkway Loop Class II 0.78 Red Hill Ave.4 Edinger Ave. Nisson Rd. Class II 1.00 Red Hill Ave. El Camino Real First St. Cass II 0.57 Red Hill Ave.4 First St. Melvin Way Class 11 0.78 Red Hill Ave.11 4 Melvin Way North of Irvine Blvd. Class II 0.18 Tustin Proposed Bikeways Shared Jurisdiction - City of Tustin Et County of Orange Z Shared Jurisdiction - City of Tustin Et City of Santa Ana 3 North side of Barranca Pkwy. only 4 Potential Route Tustin Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 2.25 .- r mile) Total $1,500,000 $3,735,200 Class II 13.34 Street/Path South Loop Rd.4 Armstrong Ave. Tustin Ranch Rd. Class I -,.- 0.48 Armstrong Ave. Warner Ave. Barranca Pkwy. Class II 0.53 17th St. Prospect Ave. N. Prospect Ave. Class II 0.11 Prospect Ave. 17th St. North of Arbotada Way Class II 0.11 Prospect Ave.' North of Arbotada Way Sherbrook Dr. Class I I 0.40 Prospect Ave. Sherbrook Dr. Fi rst St. Class 11 0.45 First St. Prospect Ave. Red Hill Ave. Class II 0.95 Barranca Pkwy.3 Red Hill Ave. Tustin Ranch Rd. Class 1 0.75 Valencia Ave. Newport Ave. Red Hill Ave. Class II 0.33 Newport Ave.4 Edinger Ave. Et Camino Real Class II 1.09 Walnut Ave.4 Red Hill Ave. Browning Ave. Cass II 0.50 Tustin Ranch Rd. Warner Ave. Walnut Ave. Class II 1.41 Heritage Way Tustin Ranch Rd. Bryan Ave. Class II 0.67 Parkcenter Ln. Et Camino Real Bryan Ave. Class II 0.38 Warner Ave. Red Hill Ave. Armstrong Ave. Cass 11 0.35 Warner Ave.4 Armstrong Ave. Tustin Ranch Rd. Cass II 0.55 East Connector North Loop Rd. Edinger Ave. Class II 0.27 Moffett Ave.4 North Loop Rd. Peters Canyon Channel Class II 0.37 North Loop Rd.4 Tustin Ranch Rd. Warner Ave. Class II 0.89 Valencia Ave. Kensington Park Dr. Tustin Ranch Rd. Cass II 0.16 Orange County Regional Trail OCTA /SCRRA Railway Warner Ave. Class 1 1.02 TOTA I 11 77 Shared Jurisdiction - City of Tustin Et County of Orange Z Shared Jurisdiction - City of Tustin Et City of Santa Ana 3 North side of Barranca Pkwy. only 4 Potential Route Tustin Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 2.25 .- r mile) Total $1,500,000 $3,735,200 Class II 13.34 $280,000 $3,735,200 Total $71470,400 oc r'A C U I e ��,3 i e w a V„ „rl 3.32. Villa Park The City of Villa Park is in the center of Orange County. It has an area of 2.1 square miles, approximately 1,900 homes, and is almost 99% built out. With the exception of one shopping center, the City is zoned for single- family residences, most of which are on half -acre lots. The shopping center includes a grocery store, banks, a pharmacy with a postal substation, a variety of specialty shops and offices, the City Hall and community room, and a branch of the Orange County Public Library. Population 6,500 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 53 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 1.3% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 106 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 68 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 217 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 21 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 74 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 148 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 108 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Weekday 497 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Year Future Air Quality Benefits 1311716 Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 1 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 3 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 0 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 14,010 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light ,� c I� A ���,., Qr ",Y �( „�� ,�( � �,� w' ! °w �';;w' �'{� � ,11� w���, � � Q � t � ;11A t E w `� � � �, � ;;11 „ rl � � � I4 Map 3.32 Villa Park Land Use 186 1 oc r'A C U "t", e e w a y s S t�, ��� at e g i c: I a uj LL CL 72 IV) cu E IL LO CF LL :15 u 77 CL 5 IL uj 'E 00 CD CD . . . . ...... 186 1 oc r'A C U "t", e e w a y s S t�, ��� at e g i c: I a Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicyc[e Co«isions for 5 Years Rate 8 Average # of Bicyc[e Co«isions Per Year 1.6 Average Bicyc[e Co«ision Rate per 1000 /year 0.26 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.81 Notes: Vi«a Park Elementary School 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicyc[e racks on buses Safety and Education Programs Active Yes # Of Years Conducted # Of Times a Year Conducted Administered by Orange County Sheriff's Department Location Vi«a Park Elementary School Program, Curriculum, and Activities Bicyc[e Rodeo Other Bicycle Safety Support Programs Total # of Children Reached Age of Children Reached Other Program Notes Not a regular program Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan The City does have a Bikeway Master Plan which is currently being updated within the City's comprehensive General Plan Update. ., 1f % ���.., ar ii Yr.r ii �� ..r w ii° ii � w �+{� � l� w��� � � S t ii � l� t � w g i% (c I � I � li� ii, r 18 / //' Bikeways Villa Park Existing Bikeways Street/Path Villa Park Rd. Miles 0.63 Cass II -,.- ` Taft Ave. Street/Path Arden Villa Dr. Class II ` Lemon St. -,.- 0.30 Cass II ` `Information not provided. Villa Park Proposed Bikeways Villa Park Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 0.63 .- - Total $1,500,000 $945,000 Class II 0.65 Street/Path Arden Villa Dr. Orange City Limit Santiago Blvd. Class 1 -,.- 0.30 Santiago Creek Path Segment 1 City Limit (N Villa Park Rd.) City Limit Class 1 0.26 Santiago Creek Path City Limit City Limit Cass I 0.07 Kate«a Ave. Orange City Limit Wanda Rd. Cass II 0.00 Meats Ave. Stone Pine Rd. Santiago Blvd. Cass II 0.34 Taft Ave. Sycamore St. Cannon St. Cass II 0.31 TOTAL 1.28mi tes Villa Park Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Miles 0.63 .- - Total $1,500,000 $945,000 Class II 0.65 $280,000 $182,000 Total $11127,000 c r' U I e I II e ��, � f w�p �° S,, � j � w � � a �' II �� �� IIF�� �� IV� r� 3.33. Westminster The early years of 2000 found continued growth and improvement in Westminster. Design and completion of two 8 million gallon state of the art water tanks at Hoover and Hazard Avenues assures an adequate water supply. In the Civic Center area, Sid Goldstein Memorial Park was dedicated. An important part of the park is the Vietnam War Memorial which is a tribute to all who served in that arena. Population 89,520 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Number Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 925 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 1.7% Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11850 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11239 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Future Potential - Commuters 41481 Future number of new bicycle commuters 243 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 11168 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 21337 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11706 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Weekday 71848 Future Reduced Vehicle Mmes per Year Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 21079,591 12 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 42 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 3 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 2211202 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light ,� c �� A ���,. , ar II",Y Pf II "Y� „Pf � �,� w II'' II '� „w' �+{� � ,lip w���, � � Qw � t II' � iA t '� w `� II � � �, � ;;li II„ rfi �I � � �; Map 3.33 Westminster Land Use 190 oc r'A C U I.,"I'l e iii ii ww a y s S , 1 ' i a Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 240 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 48 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.53 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 1.65 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities Information on existing and proposed end -of -trip facilities is not available. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses City -wide Bicycle racks on buses Rideshare United Methodist Church 8152 McFadden Safety and Education Programs The City of Westminster does not have a bicycle safety and education program. Expenditures Hoover Path Implemented $5,000- $10,000 Bicycle Transportation Plan Westminster only has a map of existing bikeways. Bikeways Westminster Existing Bikeways Street/Path -..- Rancho Rd. Bolsa Chica St. Westminster Ave. Class I Hoover Ave. Wyoming St. Bolsa Ave. Class I Edwards St. Homer St. Bolsa Ave. Class II Hoover Ave. Garden Grove Blvd. Wyoming St. Class II Bushard St. Westminster Ave. Edinger Ave. Class II McFadden Ave. Goldenwest St. Vermont St. Class II McFadden Ave. Dalewood St. Ward St. Class II OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 191 Street/Path From To Class Mileage Eddinger Ave. Newland St. Bushard St. Class II $1,380,000 ` Information not provided. Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path .- mile) $1,500,000 $1,380,000 Class II 15.98 Mileage Bolsa Chica Rd. / Valley View St. Garden Grove City Limit Westminster Ave. Class II 1.09 Mc Fadden Ave. Van Buren St. Dalewood Ln. Class II 1.83 Westminster Ave. Seal Beach City Limit Atlantis Wy. Class II 4.59 Westminster Proposed Bikeways Street/Path .- mile) $1,500,000 $1,380,000 Class II 15.98 -,.- Hoover St. Garden Grove Blvd. Wyoming St. Class 1 0.88 Magnolia St. San Diego Frwy. Huntington Beach City Limit Class 1 0.04 UP RR Garden Grove City Limit Garden Grove Blvd. Class 1 0.00 Bolsa Chica Rd. Rancho Rd. Huntington Beach City Limit Class II 0.01 Edinger Ave. City Limit Huntington Newland St. Class II 0.00 Edwards St. Garden Grove Blvd. Homer St. Class II 1.24 Hazar Ave. Goldenwest St. Garden Grove City Limit Class II 2.62 Heil Ave. Galaxy Dr. Magnolia St. Class II 0.37 Newland St. Westminster Blvd. Hazard Ave. Class II 1.85 Path 1 Bolsa Ave. Huntington Beach City Limit Class II 0.50 Path 2 Venus Dr. Galaxy Dr. Class II 0.01 Springdale St. Garden Grove City Limit Garden Grove Blvd. Class II 0.01 Trask Ave. Edward St. Wilson St. Class II 1.85 Ward St. Halifax Ave. Torrington Cir. Class II 0.01 Western Ave. Garden Grove City Limit Garden Grove Blvd. Class II 0.004 Bushard St. Garden Grove City Limit Jennrich Ave. Class III 0.03 Ward St. Bolsa Ave. Halifax Ave. Class III 0.10 Ward St. Torrington Cir. Garden Grove City Limit Class III 0.04 TOTAL 9.52 miles Westminster Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Miles Class 1 0.92 .- mile) $1,500,000 $1,380,000 Class II 15.98 $280,000 $41475,520 Class III 0.17 $21,000 $3,570 Total $5,859,090 192 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.34. Yorba Linda The City of Yorba Linda has many newer neighborhoods and streets, especially in the eastern portion of the City. The downtown area is older and includes the Richard Nixon Presidential Library on Yorba Linda Boulevard. Some of the major arterial streets include Imperial Highway, Yorba Linda Boulevard, Esperanza Road, and Lakeview Avenue. Population 58,918 Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters Estimated : - Commuters Estimated Total Number of Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders Number 490 Estimated Adjusted Mode Share Estimated Current Bicycle Trips Total Daily Bicycle Trips 1.2% 979 Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 622 Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 11860 Future Potential - Commuters Future number of new bicycle commuters 245 Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 735 Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 11470 Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 11073 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 41936 Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 11308,084 Future Air Quality Benefits Reduced HC (metric tons /year) 8 Reduced CO (metric tons /year) 26 Reduced NOX (metric tons /year) 2 Reduced CO2 (metric tons /year) 139,138 Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-01 3 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Trucks." 2000. Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 193 Map 3.34 Yorba Linda Land Use 194 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Collisions Involving Bicyclists Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 52 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 10.4 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.16 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.49 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is higher than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities The Bikeway Trails Component identifies provision of comprehensive bicycle parking at destinations and inter -modal locations as a key security recommendation. Multi modal Facilities OCTA Buses I City -wide I Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs The City of Yorba Linda does not have bicycle safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. Bicycle Transportation Plan Yorba Linda has a Riding, Hiking, and Bikeway Trails component that is part of its General Plan. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 195 Bikeways Yorba Linda Existing Bikeways Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Bastanchury Rd. Placentia City Limit Village Center Dr. Class II 4.02 196 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Bastanchury-Kellog Path Section 1 Bastanchury Rd Imperial Hwy Class I Bastanchury- Kellog Path Section 2 Valley View Ave East of Casa Loma Ave. Class Bastanchury - Kellog Path Section 3 Imperial Hwy Eureka Ave Class Bastanchury- Kellog Path Section 4 Eureka Ave Yorba Linda Blvd Class Bastanchury - Kellog Path Section 5 Yorba Linda Blvd Lakeview Ave Class Bastanchury- Kellog Path Section 6 Lakeview Ave Kellog Dr Class Arroyo Cajon - Glenknoll Path Arroyo Cajon Dr Glenknoll Elementary Class I Kingsbriar Park - Imperial Hwy Path Kingsbriar Park Arroyo Cajon - Glenknoll Class Fairmount Blvd -OC Bicycle Path Esperanza Rd OC Bicycle Path Class I Prado -Yorba Linda Blvd Path Paseo Del Prado Yorba Linda Blvd Class Montana - Village Center Path Vista Montana Village Center Dr Class Kingsbriar Path Fairmount Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd Class Village Center -San Antonio Path Village Center Dr San Antonio Rd Class Fairmount Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd Esperanza Dr Class Yorba Linda Blvd Fairmount Blvd Esperanza Dr Class Esperanza Dr Fairmount Blvd Yorba Linda Blvd Class ` * Mileage unknown Regional Priority Proposed Bikeways Street/Path -,.- Bastanchury Rd. Placentia City Limit Village Center Dr. Class II 4.02 196 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Yorba Linda Proposed Bikeways Yorba Linda Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Mi - 2.3 .- - Total $1,500,000 $37450,000 Class 11 18.22 Street/Path Fairmont Blvd. / Fairmont Blvd. Brookmont Dr. Class 1 -,.- 0.66 PATH 1 (Esperanza Rd. to La Palma Ave. Esperanza Rd. La Palma Ave. Class I 0.07 PATH 2 Still Pond Wy. City Limit Class 1 0.82 PATH 3 City Limit N Fairmont Blvd. Class 1 0.17 Avenida Rio Del Oro Bastanchury Rd. Yorba Linda Blvd. Class 1 0.58 Buena Vista Ave. Jefferson St. Van Buren St. Class II 0.33 Gypsum Canyon Rd. 91 Ramp Anaheim City Limit Class II 0.09 Hidden Hills Rd. Star Light Dr. Path 1 Class II 0.52 Kellogg Dr. City Limit Imperial Hwy. Class II 0.72 La Palma Ave. Anaheim City Limit Camino De Bryant Class II 2.61 Lakeview Ave. Valley View Ave. Anaheim City Limit Class II 3.43 Paseo de [as Palomas Yorba Linda Blvd. Fairmont Blvd Class II 1.44 Rose Dr. N Placentia City Limit S Placentia City Limit Class II 1.04 Village Center Dr. Fairmont Blvd. Fairmont Blvd Class II 2.62 Yorba Linda Blvd. Placentia City Limit Jefferson St Class II 0.21 Yorba Ranch Rd. Yorba Linda Blvd. Esperanza Rd Class II 1.19 Casa Loma Ave. Bastanchury Rd. S Imperial Hwy Class III 0.27 Fairmont Blvd. / San Antonio Rd. Trentino Ln. Yorba Linda Blvd Class III 3.16 Jefferson St. Placentia City Limit Buena Vista Ave Class III 0.39 Via Lomas De Yorba La Palma Ave. La Palma Ave Class III 1.75 Mariposa Ave. E Richfield Dr. Candlelight Ln Class III 0.45 Mountain View Ave. W Kellogg Dr. City Limit Class III 0.01 Paseo Del Prado N Calle Bella Esperanza Rd. Class III 0.09 Sunmist Dr. Mountain View Ave. Arroyo Cajon Dr. Class III 0.55 Paseo de Toronto Avenida Del Tren Camino De Bryant Class III 0.99 Valley View Ci r. N/A N/A Class 111 1.41 Valley View / Richfield Valley View Cir. City Limit placentia S Class III 2.57 TOTAL 28.14 miles Yorba Linda Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Facility Class 1 Mi - 2.3 .- - Total $1,500,000 $37450,000 Class 11 18.22 $280,000 $5,101,600 Class 111 11.64 $21,000 $2441440 Total $87796,040 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 197 3.35. Unincorporated County Population Not available. Estimated Number of Bicycle Commuters In 1988, The County of Orange published results to a survey of bicyclists on the Santa Ana River Bikeway. The survey indicated that about 500,000 bicyclists and pedestrians annually use the Santa Ana River Bikeway (a regional, Class I bikeway that traverses central Orange County). Along with the growing population of Orange County, this number has likely significantly increased. Also, the number of bicycle commuters has increased in County unincorporated areas, as new communities such as Las Flores and Ladera Ranch have been developed. Bicycle Accidents Parameter Total # of Bicycle Collisions for 5 Years Rate 104 Average # of Bicycle Collisions Per Year 20.8 Average Bicycle Collision Rate per 1000 /year 0.18 Index (relative to statewide average of 0.32 /1000)2 0.54 Notes: 1. Rate is calculated using SWITRS collision data and population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. The Index is based on a ratio of the local collision rate and the statewide collision rate. An index less than one (1.0) indicates that the local accident rate is lower than the statewide average. End -of -Trip Facilities In its development reviews, the County typically conditions developers to provide bicycling amenities and end -of -trip facilities, as appropriate. Also, the County's regional and wilderness parks typically provide bicycle parking. Multi modal Facilities Location Mode .- OCTA Buses County -wide Bicycle racks on buses Safety and Education Programs The County of Orange does not conduct bicycle- related safety and education programs. Expenditures Information on past bicycle facility expenditures is not available. 198 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Bikeways Unincorporated Orange County Existing Bikeways Street/Path -..- Wintersburg Slater Ave Coastal Bikeway Class Coastal Sunset Beach Seapoint Ave. Class Bolsa Chica Ellis Ave. Coastal Bikeway Class Mile Square Perimeter of Mile Square Regional Park Class I Santa Ana Along the entire Orange County Segment of River Class Santiago SR -22 Black Star Canyon Rd. Class Peters Irvine Regional Park Peters Canyon Regional Class I San Diego Santa Ana Ave /University Dr. San Diego Creek Class Upper San Diego Creek Bikeway Irvine Avenue Class I University Harvard Ave Ridgeline Dr. Class San Joaquin Newport Beach City Limit Laguna Canyon Rd. Class I Aliso Creek Moulton Pkwy. Aliso Canyon Wilderness Class Laguna Alicia Parkway South end of Park Class I Trabuco Cleveland National Forest Mission Viejo City Limit Class San Juan San Juan Capistrano City Limits Lucas Canyon Rd. Class I Quail Hill Jeffrey Sand Canyon Bike bridge over the Sand Canyon Ave. Class PCH Along PCH, through Sunset Beach Community Class II Warner Pacific Coast Hwy Brightwater Ave. Class II Valencia North of Lambert Road Birch St. /Rose Dr. Class II Carbon Valencia Ave. Carbon Canyon Regional Class II Portola Irvine City Limit Lake Forest City Limit Class II North Newport Blvd. Browning Ave. Class II Santiago Orange City Limit Live Oak Canyon Rd. Class II Live Oak Santiago Canyon Bikeway Trabuco Canyon Rd. Class II Oso Pkwy. Mission Viejo City Limit Coto De Caza Dr. Class II Antonio Rancho Santa Margarita City Limit Ortega Hwy. Class II ` Information not provided. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 199 Unincorporated Orange County Proposed Bikeways 200 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Street/Path Aliso Woods Canyon Path Laguna Beach City Limit Laguna Niguel City Limit Class 1 Mileage 3.59 Black Star Canyon End of Black Star Canyon Rd. Silverado Canyon Rd. Class 1 3.12 BNSF RR Yorba Linda City Limit Riverside County Limit Class 1 0.56 Brea Blvd. and Brea Canyon Rd. Brea City Limit Los Angeles County Limit Class 1 1.52 Eastern Transportation Corridor Path 2 Santiago Canyon Rd. Peters Canyon Rd. Class I 4.49 Eastern Transportation Corridor Path 1 Irvine Park Rd. Hwy. 241 Class 1 3.27 Esplanade Ave. Fairhaven Ave. Tustin City Limit Class 1 1.57 Foothill Corridor Path Ortega Hwy. Nieblas Rd. Class 1 5.63 Northwood Ave. Berry St. Path Canyon Country Rd. Class 1 1.14 Ortega / La Pata Spur San Juan Capistrano Ortega Ave. Class 1 0.85 Path 2 Brea City Limit Brea City Limit Class 1 0.23 Portola Pkwy. Hwy 241 Lake Forest city Limit Class 1 1.22 San Joaquin Corridor Path Irvine City Limit Laguna Beach City Limit Class 1 2.44 San Joaquin Hills Path Irvine City Limit Laguna Beach City Limit Class 1 1.20 Santiago Canyon Rd. Orange City Limit Live Oak Canyon Rd. Class 1 10.73 Santiago Creek Path (segments between Orange and Villa Park) Orange City Limit Villa Park City Limit Class 1 0.93 Silverado Canyon Rd. Santiago Canyon Rd. Black Star Canyon Class 1 0.18 Tonner Canyon Rd. Brea Blvd. Los Angeles County Limit Class 1 2.58 Tonner Canyon Rd. Spur Tonner Canyon Rd. Brea City Limit Class 1 0.92 Trabuco Canyon Rd. Path Rancho Santa Margarita City Limit Main Divide Rd. Class 1 8.91 Trabuco Canyon Rd. Path 2 Mission Viejo City Limit Rancho Santa Margarita City Limit Class 1 4.19 UP RR Brookhurst St. Gilbert St. Class 1 0.50 Valencia Ave. Lambert Rd. Brea City Limit Class 1 0.24 Windy Ridge Path Orange City Limit East of Windy Ridge Rd. Class 1 1.59 Coast Hwy. El Moro Canyon Laguna Beach City Limit Class II 0.74 Crawford Rd. Chapman Ave. Newport Ave. Class II 1.12 Cristianitos Rd. Ortega Hwy. Wilson Camp Rd. Class II 1.13 Edinger Ave. Fountain Valley City Limit Santa Ana City Limit Class II 0.07 Esperanza Rd. Richard Nixon Pkwy. Yorba Linda City Limit Class II 0.52 Fairhaven Ave. Yorba St. Hewes St. Class II 1.25 Fairlynn Blvd. Oakvale Dr. Esperanza Rd. Class II 0.25 Foothill Corridor Road San Clemente City Limit Cristianitos Rd. Class II 0.62 Glassell St. Anaheim City Limit Orange City Limit Class II 0.11 Hewes Segment 1 Bond Ave. El Carmen Ave. Class II 0.13 Hewes Segment 2 Spring St. Pearl Ave. Class II 0.19 Kellogg Dr. Yorba Linda City Limit Shadowhill Dr. Class II 0.35 Avenida La Pata Ortega Hwy. San Ceeemente City Limit Class II 3.19 Laguna Canyon Path 1 Irvine City Limit Laguna Beach City Limit Class II 1.32 Lambert Rd. Brea City Limit Valencia Ave. Class II 0.44 200 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Unincorporated Orange County Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates Class 1 Street/Path Live Oak Canyon From El Toro Rd. To Trabuco Canyon Rd. Class Class II Mileage 3.25 Newport Blvd. Marcy Dr. Orange City Limit Class II 1.55 Oda Nursery Ortega Hwy. Foothill Corridor Path Class II 0.23 Ortega Hwy. San Clemente City Limit Riverside County Limit Class II 14.54 Pacific Coast Hwy. Warner Ave. Huntington Beach City Limit Class II 0.31 Prospect Ave. Fairhaven Ave. El Camino Ln. Class II 0.93 Rancho Santiago Blvd. Avenida Palmar Pearl Ave. Class II 0.25 Red Hill Ave. Melvin Way Irvine Blvd. Class II 0.16 Richard M Nixon Pkwy. Esperanza Rd. Yorba Linda City Limit Class II 0.25 Santa Ana Ave. Mesa Dr. Costa Mesa City Limit Class II 0.39 Soquel Canyon Rd. Segment 1 Brea City Limit Brea City Limit Class II 1.04 Soquel Canyon Rd. Segment 2 Brea City Limit Riverside County Limit Class II 0.98 Spring St. Orange City Limit Earlham St. Class II 0.00 Trabuco Canyon Rd. Live Oak Canyon Rd. Antonio Pkwy. Class II 1.41 Tustin Ave. Santa Ana City Limit Santa Ana City Limit Class II 0.12 University Dr. Santa Ana Ave. Irvine Ave. Class II 0.24 Wilson Camp Rd. San Clemente City Limit Cristianitos Rd. Class II 1.30 Yorba Linda Blvd. Kilt Ave. Placentia City Limit Class II 0.18 Crown Valley Pkwy. Mission Viejo City Limit Antonio Pkwy. Class III 1.49 Dodge Ave. Esplanade Ave. Hewes St. Class III 0.32 La Colina Dr. Newport Ave. Ranchwood Rd. Class III 1.13 Laguna Canyon Path 2 Laguna Canyon Path 1 Laguna Woods City Limit Class III 0.45 Mountain View Ave. Kello Dr. Sunmist Dr. Class III 0.15 Newport Inlet Path Coast Hwy. Newport Beach City Limit Class III 0.78 Santa Clara Ave. Prospect Ave. Esplanade Ave. Class III 0.52 TOTAL 105 miles Unincorporated Orange County Proposed Bikeway Cost Estimates OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 201 Class 1 Miles 61.6 .- mile) $1,500,000 $921400,000 Class 11 38.56 $280,000 $10,796,800 Class 111 4.84 $21,000 $101,640 Total $103,298,440 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 201 Map 3.35 Unincorporated County Land Use 202 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 3.36. Caltrans Caltrans has completed draft plans for the following state routes: 1, 39, 72, 74, 90, and 142. State Route (SR) 1, locally known as Pacific Coast Highway, is an official state bicycle route with Class II and Class III bicycle facilities and is well used' by cyclists for commuter and recreational trips. State Routes 39, 72, 74, and 142 have no designated bicycle facilities but are sometimes used by cyclists on weekends. These routes are opportune areas for bicycle facilities because they are located in close proximity to other bicycle facilities, recreational areas, neighborhoods, and job centers. State Route 90 has a Class I bike path adjacent to it that exists between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Orangethorpe Avenue. Existing bikeways on the state routes are reported in this section as well as in the existing conditions sections of jurisdictions that contain the state routes. State Existing Bicycle Routes (Caltrans) OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 203 Street SR 90 (adjacent to) Orangethorpe Ave. Yorba Linda Blvd. Class 1 -,.- 2.31 SR 1 Copper Lantern Blue Lantern Class II 0.90 SR 1 Reef Point Dr. Seward Rd. Class II 0.18 SR 1 Avocado Ave. Dover Dr. Class II 2.02 SR 1 SR -55 Off Ramp 61 st St. Class II 1.12 SR 1 Mid -block between Huntington St. and 1 st St. 7th Street Class II 0.50 SR 1 Superior Ave. Orange St. Class II 0.90 SR 1 Anderson St. Seal Beach Blvd. Class II 1.63 SR 1 Main St. LA /OC boundary Class II 0.53 SR 1 Nordina St. Beach Blvd. Class III 2.19 SR 1 Orange St. Newland St. Class III 2.00 TOTAL 14.28 Miles Mileage not provided by Caltrans OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 203 Appendices A -1 Surveys A -2 Survey Results A -3 User Estimation Method A -4 Orange County Existing & Proposed Bikeways A -5 Destination Demand Maps A -6 Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 A -7 USDOT: Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel A -8: OCTA Congestion Management Program A -9: Local Fair Share Program for Street Maintenance and Improvements 204 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan A-1:Survey OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 205 Orange County Transportation Authority Bicycle Survey 1. Why do you bike? (check all that apply) ❑ For exercise/ health reasons ❑ For pleasure ❑ For shopping/ errands ❑ To get to work ❑ To get to school ❑ To get to transit ❑ I don't bike ❑ Other please specify) * Please mail surveys to 453 S Spring St, Suite 804 Los Angeles CA 9003 Contact Jennifer Allen or Greg Nord at: jenniferallenCaltaplanning.com gnordC octa. net 2. How many days per week do you ride? ❑ 0 ❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 3. What is your zip code? 4. What is the average distance of your rides (one -way)? ❑ Under 2 miles ❑ 3 -5 miles ❑ 6 -10 miles ❑ 11 -24 miles ❑ 25 miles and above 5. Where are your favorite places or routes to bike? Please be specific. 6. What prevents you from biking more often? (Check all that apply) ❑ Destinations are too far away ❑ Too many cars / cars drive too fast ❑ Drivers don't share the road ❑ I travel with small children ❑ No bike paths, lanes or bike routes ❑ I have to carry things ❑ Not enough time ❑ Insufficient lighting ❑ Bikeways /roads in poor condition ❑ Weather ❑ Other (please specify) 206 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 7. Where are the most difficult places for you to bike and why? Where would you ride if you could and what prevents you from riding there? 8. Please rank your preference for bicycle facilities, on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 being most preferred and 4 being least preferred) 1 Most 2 3 4 Least preferred Preferred Off - street paved bike paths ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9....... ................................................................. ............................... ..............................' i On- street bike lanes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ .................................................................................................................................................. ............................... ......... Bike routes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ................... ................................................. ............................... ......... ......................... ......... ................ ... ....................... ------------------------------- Unpaved trails or dirt paths ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Would the following improvements influence you to bike more often? (Please rate each improvement by likelihood of influencing you to bike more often) Very I Likely I Somewhat I Not Unlike I No Not Sure Likel I Likely Very ly y Likely .................................................................................................................................. ............................. ............ ............................................................................. ... . .... . ....................... . ...... More Bike Lanes (Separate Lanes for bikes) on Major Streets ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ More Bike Routes ..................................................................................... ............................... More Paved (off - street) Bi Paths .......................................................... ............................... Increased Maintenance (sweeping/ repairs to bike routes, paths, and landscal trimming, etc.) ..................................................................................... ............................... Widen Outside /Curb Lang Major Streets (easier to sh; with cars) ................................................................................. ............................... More On -Road Bike SignG ..................................................................................... ............................... More Bicycle Parking Education or Promotional Programs for Drivers ....................................................................... ............................... Education or Promotional Programs for Cyclists Other (please specify) OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 207 A-2,-, Survey Results 208 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Table A -1: Survey Question 1 Wl by do you bile? (check all that czpply) Answer Options For exercise/ health reasons Response Percent 92% Response Count 1007 For pleasure 84% 918 For shopping/ errands 38% 421 To get to work 54% 587 To get to school 11% 115 To get to transit 15% 165 1 don't bike 1% 9 Other (please specify) 6% answered question skipped question 66 1094 Table A -2: Survey Question 2 How many days per week do you ride? Answer Options 0 days per week Response Percent 1 % Response Count 14 1 day per week 8% 88 2 days per week 14% 153 3 days per week 24% 261 4 days per week 20% 214 5 days per week 18% 196 6 days per week 7% 74 7 days per week 8% answered question skipped question 88 1088 • OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 209 Table A -3: Survey Question 4 What is the average distance of your rides? (one -way) Table A -4: Survey Question 6 What prevents you from biking more often? (check all that apply) Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Destinations are too far away 20% 216 Too many cars / cars drive too fast 53% 577 Drivers don't share the road 53% 571 1 travel with small children 5% 58 No bike paths, lanes or bike routes 58% 623 1 have to carry things 16% 170 Not enough time 26% 283 Insufficient lighting 11% 115 Bikeways /roads in poor condition 30% 320 Weather 10% 109 Other (please specify) 20% answered question skipped question 221 I: 210 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Table A -5: Survey Question 8 Please rank your preference for bicycle facilities, on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 being most preferred and 4 being least preferred) Off- street paved bike 69% 20% 8% paths 3% 1077 On- street bike lanes 32% 41% 16% 10% 1074 Bike routes 20% 27% 33% 20% 1066 Unpaved trails or dirt 21% 19% 17% 43% 1058 paths OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 211 Table A -6: Survey Question 9 Would the following improvements influence you to bike more often? (Please rate each improvement by likelihood of influencing you to bike more often) 212 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan More Bike Lanes (Separate Lanes for 67% 19% 8% 3% 1% 2% 0% 1071 bikes) on Major Streets More Bike Routes 46% 22% 18% 8% 3% 3% 1% 1058 More Paved (off- street) Bike Paths 70% 13% 10% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1062 Increased Maintenance (sweeping/ repairs to bike lanes, 41% 25% 22% 8/ 2/ 2/ 1% ° 1055 routes, paths, and landscape trimming, etc.) Widen Outside /Curb Lanes on Major Streets (easier to share lanes with 51% 25% 16% 4% 2% 2% 0% 1056 cars) More On -Road Bike Signage 29% 18% 23% 17% 8% 4% 1% 1040 More Bicycle Parking 28% 17% 22% 17% 9% 6% 2% 1023 Education or Promotional Programs for 36% 18% 18% 13% 8% 5% 2% 1044 Drivers Education or Promotional Programs for 27% 19% 19% 18% 10% 6% 2% 1035 Cyclists 191 • skipped question 212 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan A-3,-, User Estimation Method OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 213 This section explains the method for estimating the current and potential number of bicycle commuters in Orange County municipalities. Census data, in combination with national commuting statistics from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and EPA estimates of standard emissions rates for cars, give a rough projection of future bicycle ridership within Orange County, along with trip reduction and air quality benefits. Calculations for each city in Orange County are included in this Plan to meet Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account requirements (a) to provide "the estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the Plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the Plan." According to the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), the average work commute time has remained close to 20 minutes since 1983. In 2001, averaging all modes, the commute time was 23 minutes. Assuming an average speed of 10 miles per hour, a cyclist traveling for 23 minutes covers approximately four miles, which would be equivalent to a 9- minute motor vehicle trip (traveling at about 30 mph) . Using this data as a baseline allows assumptions to be made about prospective and current bicycle ridership in Orange County. Estimates are provided in each municipality's respective section in chapter 3 of this document. 214 ®CTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan A-4,-, Orange County Existing Sr Proposed Bikeway Maps The proposed bikeways map reflects current, locally- adopted plans and programs and does not consider concurrent and future planning efforts. The City of Fullerton is currently in the process of updating General Plans and other policy programs that will influence future amendments in this Section. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 215 O ®•V cu O M c O .4-J V V) FA Q Q 3 V a� b4 i Q S (� U011:)as 01) IS o 0 0 ° o J LL z ° Q u z °< a D z a o cc O W ° 1S IO1S1'*d9 0 o �d Al/D 3F-� ° v,► w P ® o ° -L o ° �- o u �l 1S 111b21 4 1S IW39 0° ° o 0 ° U.. ° . • 1 - - -r.- ° Q ° ° p ° °° ° ° LU „ ° o a t LU ° 'd M3In"d IVJ a O� LU 0 ,.,.,J � r o cn N d r - r - - - �Q z a �� O i — nv-� LU i ”' dnl9 b O"dVH �_ O z 1S 1S3M W ° u HYLAND ° u a o o Q > > Q of W r r r ° ■ Q 4 W O Q 1S 3dOHM3N ° ° N 1S H16 z0 = o W C7 Q ° V) Q ° J ° W O �-r----r-- ®-° 00 O �-- �------ ® - - --®rte- p a - ' 1S abb'M 1S OdVM i : ° � j1 op. O 1S isdnH)100 `d9 ------- - - - - -- 00 Q 1S ab`dHSf19 �tLS121391ID O �>e ft- - -- w no LU LU LU 0 z w Q a a ®® z 7 Q 1S VIIONE)VW J z ® W H V) z 0 0 w J a J ®,� Q W 0 Z Q Q - - - - -:� ----- - - - - -- ZSaNVIM3N W W w a = j 1S 31`dd W W o o ° W a > a > W o U° o ° Q o ° ��6�v C7 p 1S 3 dVM`d134 (° -r----r----r-^r---i--�--- �� -rrlL °® p ° QT Q 1S b3A H L'�- CK a 0 a 1S (]"dVH10`D o ° `i 1S 3)lVl P ��S/ O O 0 <P L ° 1S 1S3MN34IOD ° /�P O� P o ° ui ° ° p ° zr ° W QP z 1S S0dVMa3 W semi Q o > ° �i -.-r--- Q `�!O lQH °° w N ° `x j b'aD J 1S 31NI?JdS o ° ° .; ° QP w ° C) 0 ° o° O z 1S WVHVdE) O W °° O Q 0 ° 1S VDIHD `dS109 Q oa o ° v V ° ° 0 1S NinbNODIV � o NI )1002i9J.b'S Q°° ° O t SO11W`dly Sol 'S'Ob, O Aw o Q o o ° a � a �, Cu � L a z ; W °c a O o 4-1 _0 � 0 L L. aci oC o a� _ _ CL 0 CL W U U U U U U H a H a a° Q 1 1 I 1 I I .o .O V Poll. V) O Ila ♦ a 4w as < <� Or O ° Z ° Q a, U ° o ' Q ° ♦` , o `i ) on o, O' ° � ♦. N o e s 4W 10 10 Q O a r ♦ to IM �,.. HILLS RD + O AN o f 31N33 30 l^ m Ml Ml w �! FAIRMONT BLVD t 1 . Q y _ w ♦ . . . Z �* • 00 p Vi r. Z Q w a J U f . LUJ �d �• m bd 3 2yZ pI 1 � J > 3 O Q • • > N • -0 O 7Z Oe o e e P5 coo .Sp . . OcDd • C ° ® Q 1 g _ ° - - - - - -- J 421 b'aN`dM Lu 421 d1313HJ121 ° o. t , O O 1 Q • ° ° ; Q V - m > e �> — ' -IN - - - Z a u o t! 1SiNIlSfll Q L ® w e , - Z a bql ` D , W ' e J - r.... ' r, i w Q� O E ' S\ e Ov Q e �• ■ v° a 1! LU O w v� a ; 0 3AVVIDN31VA w 1S ll3SSb'l`J e Q = 0 m e m.,, e ' w a �•` i Q i ♦♦ i....rti- ,o y ♦ L . iii ♦. (to section I ) v cod ' O' •u N O J O � O d O � O L � O � Z cd °° cC N `^ O EA O O L n Ln O O L O W a ° � �° c 0 L. 7 p O O L CL C U O -b a , W — — o +� o JV) V) V) V) V) V) V) EA R L U U U U U V H L H L E a C° Q 1 1 1 I I I I I Ila ♦ a 4w as < <� Or O ° Z ° Q a, U ° o ' Q ° ♦` , o `i ) on o, O' ° � ♦. N o e s 4W 10 10 Q O a r ♦ to IM �,.. HILLS RD + O AN o f 31N33 30 l^ m Ml Ml w �! FAIRMONT BLVD t 1 . Q y _ w ♦ . . . Z �* • 00 p Vi r. Z Q w a J U f . LUJ �d �• m bd 3 2yZ pI 1 � J > 3 O Q • • > N • -0 O 7Z Oe o e e P5 coo .Sp . . OcDd • C ° ® Q 1 g _ ° - - - - - -- J 421 b'aN`dM Lu 421 d1313HJ121 ° o. t , O O 1 Q • ° ° ; Q V - m > e �> — ' -IN - - - Z a u o t! 1SiNIlSfll Q L ® w e , - Z a bql ` D , W ' e J - r.... ' r, i w Q� O E ' S\ e Ov Q e �• ■ v° a 1! LU O w v� a ; 0 3AVVIDN31VA w 1S ll3SSb'l`J e Q = 0 m e m.,, e ' w a �•` i Q i ♦♦ i....rti- ,o y ♦ L . iii ♦. (to section I ) v cod ' O' •u N O (z uoil:)as 01) �° o N \y It 0 ♦ Q 3nbblDN31bn Q w 1 ■ C3 dnl9 213W3VID] ! 1 of I ■ 1 U o Sl ■ ♦e n � ®, �� ■ l a w r � 1 ♦ ° o a 1 3 ® � 1.1 ■ ■ 0 ■ ; N o j u o� o /1by/1J T a �d U �� e a ° It m ♦ -•� • -tip 1 CD 1 o i 3nbVIDbDb ■ w ,, yr ` ■ • Q e ,, 4b O� i�� b' u ■ 1S Jl2R138 ; �g ° 3nb GNOW"d a A w V# w ■ u 1 ;, U ! a ire..... 1 • a Z w ® 1S 31N3f1d + i ' • i p p ♦ y♦ ■ r o 9. ° O ♦ ,. rF Mr.. o ° VON 1S Wlbd r ' _ �° a .R > o u ■ i< so 0 ■ G O G > , ...rJ .� ♦ .� 1 e Z IA m a`� •r•t� baNb1HDIH; ;rte m, 1S 1f1NlbM ; ° � ia� �, W �♦ �f ■■ ■ , .....s... ..r r 1 O ■ s O 1 ■ i °+■ 1S H_ ka LU e m Oe . > w ■ p Q E ■ ■ � ° ■ J i 1 ♦ f., z Z 1S dll�fl3' w � a e 1 m 1 O ■ o . � O 1 ° • d` S F'�� ° Q O i af co LU = 1 L UC O e i • O 1S OHbal e ■ W ... r Z ■ 1 ■ Z J uj Z ■ 1 1 ■ ® ♦ O 1 s aQC o a u Q o o j ■ 1 nl HDb39 0 % 1 � - r 1 -- 6 ' '.r.! ■ 44, `. > I 1S 2f3911� °° ■ 1S 1b39119 1 �eLS 12�: ■ 1S 113SSVID Ills . w ■ > ■ '► f' 0 of 6 ° * * © *A Z O 1S b1SIn01"d ' u :° u 1 0 > �, a 1S 1SDINf1S w Z ° r - `7' anl8 3D3110a�1b1S VC1 ■ ; 7 a a e C ■ a Od EPST S 1S tIM31 e m • woo •' c logo NE�M BLvO 1S Nd31SVH p,NP r Im N rd Z 0 0 W a- 0 W O = CL V) V) J LA U V w� a� J d 0 a 0 O V) V) fd V V O bo 0 O o o ° ca O o ; > p[ 1 ° ° 1S 3lba ' i LU Q E - - - -- - Ul a 1 , o u ■ C7 m w o ° 1 Q Q O `tea 00 i 4 � O i O 3nb NO1Nb1S ; 4419 HDb30 p w i 1 > JPIQ > U ♦ ■ m ° r.p...rf „ --r,=p `� fnl Q N 3/�b IJ31S3M '�✓ U + p 1 U �'�J Q a 1 0 O �� i Q � Q Q a u , � e 1 1 00 �,.■ o w Q� Q w 3nb11�N�1 UI ® z 1 r J 1 Oi Z_ o ■ 1S (IIFH J w � > 1 ■ Q ir 1S M31AJ 3 bn O 1 ■ wl O 1S IdDIIVAA � o w 1 a Q 1St000W Z w a U ■ Q e a LU 1 U l NO JNIX31 o a 1 ■ I 3/��' a13 WOOIB 1 ■ an19 S011k 0 06 M O 0000, .4-J V cu N 0 V) 0 L V) V V 0 O 0 4-1 c L. N _ U _ 0 d L/) (L) c o V �' 15 fd u C CL � Q 1 ■ I 3/��' a13 WOOIB 1 ■ an19 S011k 0 06 M O 0000, .4-J V cu N 0 0 ' •V N V) 0 4-J •• s- V 4� Q H Q 3 a� ._ 00 0 V a) v L OC �F 0 Ln C O ® •V Cu V) O 00 O V P010. O V W Q H Q 3 a� m 0 V a� b4 Q L OC �F v (to section 6) v cz M O •U V) O �O O LVO V Q Q 3 Q L�J EOF v Q uoil:)as off.) ® : At p � w 421 )13TdD OSIIV 3^ySaN 40V U ® Q N pFZ b7HO/H Of No o AMNd No -linow �O��,b 'da SITH VNn!Dvi �OOV GP p KA A w A J O ® dno Q 0 on A i ♦ 1 � � o *4 Lo o � i ♦ t, A (S) PwoN RD ®` db NnE)yl NO,�NVJ b a O Q ■ o ° o0 0 ■ A o e o, O o 1 A ■ 00 t � o t 0 o Od t a O p � ■ O ■ tj no 4s 1 ■ ■ ■ D! ■ C; 1 �,�Oi ° o ■ Q G`��G w b Q Q a ° OD 0 a 4, A � b0 � A O Ob � A b o A O p 0 a ° o 0 O o Q o 00 O4Q- � O 0 d� A A 0 0 2° H 3AVVIlN3DVId ids �OP J 0 � a c > L eo Loi O Ln � ... p p u+ (A Z A) © p 0 O O O d 0! d A] L. N (^ N o Lu � a °� o o 4-1 -0 c A 0 c L c a o! O CL CL U J - - V) V) V) V) V) V) V) c i c 4' ed ed L c L c Q f U U U U U U a a a C7 z L 1 Z d b4 4NbISI J131Dbd N O .�p a) V) O Ln i V) J .-. Q V V) � a � H Q i Q ^ V) ^ 0Z L 0 W O Q a O O a O 4 LM LM O a ® a O W W = = .- V) It Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi V) VI Vf �_ �..� L [C U [C U fd U fd U fd U 1713 U fd H L L fd CML a CC C COL Q 1 1 1 I I I N O .�p a) V) O Ln i O V V) 'Q.. Q H Q i W j V r r r Q � o , � • I I t. ODn o o� 0 0 o O 0 0 a a 0 ,�.... - ' O IL • O o .r U 2 W® lop 2 J O .4V# �4V# �1# t i v (to section 4) v �N a V ` 2 u � • s ° a i O ° r ♦ o Q 04 �O O v J m 11 ♦ ♦� o O ♦ �� • a o a Q ♦ ♦ ,I t , O 4 ; ♦+ + Ok Ol 10 O u P0,1. V) 0 S...i A (5 uoilaas 01) O '"- e 0 0 a ^ . ^ • Z 0 0 Oa � a N � LJ.I a o o � -v c 4J � CL O L. O L C C p C N 0 LJJ _ u -° 4J o i c �. J n n n n n rn � cd N N � Q�I ' , , ♦♦ � cd u u u u u u H a a a Q 0# ` e� o L cd L • o♦ 0.- ho ; ♦eNO.`� o o e s j ,♦ ♦ j Cd ® O O . o ,�� i • ® �0 00 �/ ♦ �! o O ©. �O� O J4 ® Ll, IQ lQj O loss 0� ♦ .fff a 00Q JGO �e� �6'� UNP' GP 19? J� ems♦ U J� ° a J •� ♦ �4 v ° 02 so 0 r-4 W J of a ll�r CZ Q m t� � �bO �� ° O LU MM o � ~ 0 ��0 ° O . NO O p, Q O' �i 8 0 • b c Z1 H j 2 w �' � p • U mi Z 1S 3Qb.N`d1d3.:-- . �' a 0� ♦ b o a u �� •• 10 �e ♦e Q' ? O i N i ' 3AVilOH 7j 0 9r ♦�60 - .j o� (A 1 .01 0 1S 1D3dS021d ! * . �.. p Oo, e" a ° .� . --o LU uj O "' e 1S b821O)1 Q 4f 0 ® w 1S VU O)l C-) D > u LU Q... a � Z i o ����' ►� Q� Z ©,O ° QA� p ° b�,6, � ° a 1S 3E) R19W`�D U<- O a p o ° ♦ . AV V lJ •. - - �l3SSb'l ` p �� oOj \0 �� ,j� a LU 3/bdNb1S J.P Q U � ° ° O z z - o O a ° LU a o a � � a a� w � � u ° � ♦ � ° a ®e o j o� a � �°0 1S J�b'Mdb'0218 0 ® 1S NI`dW m � Q ° u o ° •• w j 1S oc� 0 0 °° O Q� o • 3 ° Q o ®o u z � Q a ° ° �, o Q J a o 4� o L ° 1S lolSR18 Q • o ® ° a s •loft o �11D ° � o a U bd 38-8 L11 o a ® �QJ • Ml U P 1S lllb'21 1S dl v39 ® ° ° ° ° � ° o , O u 0 ® 4 ° Q■ r 7 ° ® ��Q' o m LU 21 M31n211b3 a O I ' a ♦......b... o• W � 4 ° �� / b4 Q .. .�.. ♦ ■ �� p ■ o ° u V) �0d r 0 ■ V1 U d L7 ..�... p Z Q Q - N dn18 8bb'H N J 0 L z j 1S 1S3M LL, u a HYLAND O ° U O Q Q ° > d w w 0 Q 1S 3dOHM3N ° -j O O ° LU H 1S H16 z = o ° C7 0 E ° �n I — a (to section 3) v A -5: Destination Demand Maps 224 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan November 12, 2008 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. November 21, 2008 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. November 12, 2008 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. November 12, 2008 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. November 12, 2008 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. 0 NNNNNN AN, MIN, YORBA LINDA L - -- I 15- r 00 BUENA VISTA 1 ' ® �, . - -� D tTrn 03 ���''� ii L U NUT L ;U M- MALVER U- r N rn ALTA VISTA NIN No CHAPMAN rn EE 0 1 !COMMONWE H NOW NII NNNNNNNN INN, NNIN 100 A M V VALENCIA VALENCIA CROWTHER 0 0 < lawolf j ®' JL *00 w I 01 < U- :z 0 LU __j %�O, NO L 00 N! - 00 01 ORANGETHORPE 00 0 IN, NINE — 2 IN 00"N" 100 < 00 __j *10 ui —1— — — — — — 0000 00 OPO *40 NN.-L 00 ....... Ir.., ".,0, 'R;. ,0000 ■ ROMNE ED N0 1A < 00 IN — — — Now Noni III— —moi Now LA PALMA I FoR O'M TERA rn im %NXN—` NNE WNN NN NNN, UNNINNIN < 1 1 10 af 000 Uj C) 100 100 Lu 100 NN. Im NNIN 00 PD Im im 00 00 00 Now r 000 '.0. — a VIA ESCOLA ILINCOLN Im N, j IN, Im ® 01111, NOW SOUTH 0000 00 WON 94!jA LP 00 LEITCH `mllt� 11� -MEN " �A ORANGE I -A 00 WAGNER- .0 Z 0 00 41— 60) 400,00 SEP,01N ## '0, 1 WIN 100 ui MEATS r A, go WIN CD :-A Uj se- IN BALL NON M ROV[ IN 0 C/) Uj TAFT 00 ♦ Oft 00 C/) J. SANTIAGO CANYON CERRITOS I w CERR OS I NON, NON, NIN, NON, NINA < —j NO 5� I WIN WON INN, VILLA P K IOU D IS N E Y`,-'-,,�', A vNN HOWELL ON L NON, NON NON, LU NON ® JI Q KATELLA Uj co w we 'D COLLINS U- < 11 LU 0 CD < BOND ORANGEWOOD m N mNIN T - -— m, WALNUT I INNIN NOW im mii Lu NNN, Cn ui IN, NNI INN, SPRING J CHAPMAN 1 00 im .1NNNI CHAPMAN 0 ui I--- C/) ui a_ NW 1 NINE ui - k Main (3f LU LAMPSON Sfreet�, ** LAVETA hNNN, 40f 0. 1 IN ON N, 0*0 0. 1% 0 Area 4 A GARDIN GROVE "Eu 0 FAIRHAVEN 0, 0 M. No IN NIN 1.1 TRASK Lu SANTA CLARA < OOTHILL _'fir .0 DG DODGE af ---,C")WNrN — 0 0 WESTMINSTER 17TH N NIL" M — — — I N Nm 1 N— N m N N. N NO. ■ d- I% X HAZARD 41,* 0 ♦ MNNNN NNN, a CIVIC CENTER [if I m 0 '76 m, .1mr min ft— 40, C/) 01 IN 00 (If 1 00 4TH SANTA ANA 4TH IRVINE IN NINE Q C) BOLSA 1ST 04 D 1 — — > 0! CHESTNUT U) INN NNJ MAIN 4e IN INN NMI! [n 01 U- Niq Im Non 0 Of IA < UFADDEN < NNNN )INGER U) Blikeways; NNN JNNN, -- I ni Nam= NoNan im IN ca X Class I Proposed AN Trip Origins* ,,® 00 Class I Existing Darker colors represent N I �f En ns INN INN. co greater number of trip ofigl' WARNER > Class 11 Proposed 3: Class 11 Existing Trip Destinations 40 J) DYER > j# WIN - - - Class III Proposed I ALTON 00 ♦ 1 JNNN, < Class III Existing 4x U) Source: OCTAM 3.3 U) NNNN 0 0.5 1 L lin 60T6R!n 1ANTON Miles November 12, 2008 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. ! 00 LU I I � ql 11 —m 1 0 low 0- W., * ROSECRANSe �_ho �! ; . + 00 1 > BASTANCHURY . 1 ' —- e` —♦ ���P o o w U 1 J w LU I ® I \. ^ j%. � w w 1 >I a1 PIONEER o Q 1 1 J .� _ Q,� YORBALINDAI , 1 Lu i -- o __ - o 1 moo! ®� m m BUE 1 VISTA q 1 II w I ®1 - MALVERN i I L 1 m 0 ALTA VISTA ARTESIA 1 1 _ -1- 1 m CHAPMAN I v1 11 �1 o COMMONWEALTH 1 f WHITAKER VALENCIA r _ e. -- _ _ z CROWTHER o z ALENCIA 1 o z1 ♦ 0 Q Z o •� w U .► o w Q 0 co wI U �'i \r w LL I 1 Q Q 1 ORANGETHORPE t- 40 s o ■ ROMNEYA �' ■. ' 1 LA PALMA _ a -- - - - - • _ - - r - - - 1 F- RONTERA D�`E \ o o 1 1 z CRESCENT I Q w \ ® o o T o ¢1 1 m Lu "_ Z \ 6ROP�wP'"' 1 01 , NOHL RANCH 1 LINCOLN o o SOUTH_ _ 1 -■ 'a - v a� cP _ - • �� �i LE*tCR_E � ,f I 1 T� I -- - r _I RAN �S §4, o o♦ WAG N E R - I 1 GO o wo l \mom Lu C 1 ■-MEATS - 40# f r ' 1 \ A J z 1 BALL ` \ J z ROV 1 _ o u, ! 0i - - TAFFT \ w TAFT ■ -1� -�. — — - 1 I + I 1 CERRITOS j \\ , c i CERR OS - - I - - - - - o - -- - - - Q Anaheim _ , T r 1 ` 1 I, �, Resort o o I 1 ♦ 1 z —_ VILLA P K r - - - i -- r ` - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - . Im ee o HOWELL ♦ I � Q y area I 1 *J* z L KATELLA L o Lu ! > Q o COLLINS LU Cn i 1 C/) w U Q J E — 1 w 1 ORANGEWOOD 1_ s ° '/1 a o 1 1 BOND m l - -- �- - - -- • I o I w� v 1 1 U WALNUT 1 I i 1 0♦ m 1 1 J 1 CHAPMAN I �� - - r- 'm T �-.- - - - -I I Ij SPRING. - 1 1__ ■_ -,� I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 = CHAPMAN LU w fn J6 a 1 ! 1 I LAMPSON 1 1 I —_. w de. _ _ • - _ -• - J2 1' I 1 � _ U) I LA VETA ♦ LA VETA - z 0� 1 1 C9 �1 I 1�� 1 (GARDEN GROVE( I \ 1 1 0 i 1 _ _ - — 0/�■ FAIRHAVEN TRASK 1 1 I �' I w 1 SANTA CLARA Q Uj 1 ■ 1 I 1 j o- �fiODG N WESTMINSTER 1 eeeeJ 1 17TH ; 1 - 1 ■ _ ee� _ e _ - _ ■ ■ _ i _ _ mep er ■ ® a _ _ _ _ _s ee� _ e _ i r mm _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ eee� _ _ ■ e e . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ■ _ ■ do Lu 1 HAZARD I I 1 •` Q TZ - 1 _1 1 U, o . 1 . _ ..■ _ _� . _ - -� w - CIVIC CENTER of }} ? v I 0 1 ® 1 > 1 I ;- - - - e - -; • -' -- - ,�i I ICI �, .� e _ M 0 0 4TH SANTAANA '0 - 4TH IRVINE 1 1 a o z of �_____`___� y = Q BOLSA 1 1- - - - - - w I 1ST ! F 1 1 0 O z i I Q ■! 01 CHESTNUT J. MAIN 1 C 1 1 Q 1 0o . > -I - -- ��- -_F Bikeways 1 �' o rn " 1 - - - Class I Proposed Trip Origins* E EDINGER� 00 HEIL 1 HEIL HEIL I Class I Existing * Darker colors represent o 1 greater number of trip origins ..�. co , Class II Proposed 0 0 _ __ _ . _ Class 11 Existing Trip Destinations 0 1 SLATER , I - - - Class III Proposed m SEGERSTROM 1 - Class III Existing 0 1 I a U) Q TALBERT U) � z - - - - 1 Source: OCTAM 3.3 0 o 1 w 1 0 0.5 1 N = SUNFLOWER 1 U) ELLIS ELLIS CD _ _I Miles a P SOUTH OAST 1 November 12, 2008 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. November 24, 2008 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. e k- ar f +.Jd I -- ------------------------ j --------------- - - - - -, ------------------------------------ 70 WHITTIER _ r - •. ®, _ - _ -� r� 00 LAHABRA iCENTRALI Uj 1 LAMBERT w r 1 0 �4i Q1� +�,_��'_ -� GPI 1 a - _ _ _ _IMPERIAL LU Cn 00 .0 00 LU 1 I T' lop y Brea Mall r J' I . � ` -%W 46e# � � / 1 ~ - e • w e - -_-1 , • - - 1 - 1 - •• ♦ 1 _ _ ! - - - . I I G GOLDEN ® ® � S 1 1 _ LL,, - _ IS - a- I ROSECRANS� _ ` » ' 1 � I 0 _ _ : ¢ :E : :z I I _j Y PIONEER � - 1 - ¢ 1 1 > �-1 I p� jM I I - m ' % , , p - - - woo= - CD ® w w � � � � I B BUE VISTA cl 1 / 0' _ M 71 - ALTA VISTA = 1 _ 1 1 1 1 '1 z � �' 1 ♦ VALENCIA CROWTHER o o C C Lu w 1 = O • ♦ W • w w W = = J I 1 1 ¢ a a % % ®� 4 4 - - I IRA LONJ4 - _- O 1 - �ao � � ® , , 1 _ 1----- - - - - -- 1 - _ -_ ROMNEYA SANTABNA CANYON . 1 LA PALMA - F.R0'NTERA - 1 1 [ 1 � �1 L 1 � R \�ED� 1 rr� ���r p pPDWP® 1 01 i G�� o 1 1 LINCOLN m m 1 1 oft VIA ESCOLA N 1 � ' ' � � y m SOUTH - �r - — = = r r� • •• 1 T-A I 1 1 LEXH ��O I o O ORANGE i i - ` ® _ I j � I Cn • f � 't 1 1 1 %BALL � ROV % TAFT - Bikeways � � os 1 1 , ,_� c ca _ _ _ * I I J - J� - - T -- m _¢ 1 VILLA P K K E _ 1 � o ` 1 Class I Existing Darker colors represent _ w I 1 �I o ¢ i ` ® A -6: Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 234 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan California Departmeni qf Trans portation Deputy i Drective Number R�fer to Director's Pofl q: ffctive Date.- Supersedes: Flex your power! Be energy efficient! DD-64-RI DP-22 Context Sensitive Solutions DP-05 Multimodal Alterriati vie s DP-06 Caltrans Partnerships DP-23-RI Energy Efficiency, Conservation and Climate Change October 2008 DD-64 (03-26-01) T1 7 1 E Complete Streets - Integrating the Transportation System POLK.'Y The Calif'ornia Department of Transportation (Department) provides for the needs of travelers of all ages and abilities in all planning, programming, design, construction,'operations, and maintenance activities and products on the State highway s'ystem. The Department views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system. 'rhe Department develops integrated multimodal projects in balance with community goals, plans, and values. Addressing the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, regardless of funding, is implicit in these objectives. Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel is facilitated by creating "complete streets" be-ginning early in system planning and continuing through project delivery and maintenance and operations. Developing a network of "complete streets" requires collaboration among all Department functional units and stakeholders to establish effective partnerships. DEFINITIONLVBA (_'KGR 0 (JND 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 ftinction and context of the facility. "C"altrans improves mob ill O) across Cali Ornia " Deputy Directive Number DD-64-RI Page 2 The intent of this directive is to ensure that travelers of all ayes 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 (CVQ (Sect-Ions 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 nomnoton*zed traffic are permitted on all State facilities, unless prohibited (CV C, 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 requirement3:, 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 updated and developed. At) RE, Sf'ONRBILITIES .Chief Douty Director: • Establishes policy consistent with the Department's objectives to develop a safe and efficient multimodal transportation system for all users. • Ensures management staff is trained to provide for the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users. Deputy Directors Planning and Modal Programs and Pro' Deliver • 3 1 ect Include bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes in statewide strategies for safety and mobility, and in system performance measures. • Provide tools and establish processes to identify and address the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users early and continuously throughout planning and project development activities. • Ensure districts document decisions regarding bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes in project initiation and scoping activities. • Ensure Department manuals, guidance, standards, and procedures reflect this directive, and identify and explain the Department's objectives for multimodal travel. • Ensure an Implementation Plan for this directive is developed. "Caltrans improves n? obift 4� across all lbrn ia " Deputy Directive 'Number DD-64-R I Page 3 Deputy Director, Maintenance and Operations: • Provides tools and establishes processes that ensure regular maintenance and operations activities meet the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in construction and maintenance work zones, encroachment permit work, and system operations. • Ensures Department manuals, guidance, standards, and procedures reflee't this directive and identifies and explains the Department's objectives for multimodal travel. District Directors: • Promote partnerships with local, regional, and State agencies to plan and fund facilities for integrated multimodal travel and to meet the needs of a-ll travelers. • Identify bicycle and pedestrian coordinator(s) to serve as advisor(s) and external liaison(s) on issues that involve the district, local agencies, and stakeholders. • Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit needs are identified in district system planning products; addressed during project initiation; and that projects are designed., constructed, operated, and maintained using current standards. • Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit interests are appropriately represented on interdisciplinary planning and project delivery dcvclopment teams. Provide documentation to support decisions regarding bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes in project initiation and scopina activities. Z: .Deputy District Directors,. Planning, 2LIO., Construction.,,-Maintenance, and Operations: • Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit user needs are addressed and deficiencies identified dun'ncy t� system and corridor planning, projec=t initiation, scopin(-)F,, and programminor 1-71 Z)* Collaborate with local and regional partners to plan, develop, and maintain effective bicycle, pedestrian, and transit networks. • Consult locally adopted bicycle, pedestrian,, and transit plans to ensure that State highway system plans are compatible. • Ensure projects are planned, designed, constructed, operated, an maintained consistent with project type and funding program to provic . �e Z) for the safety and mobility needs of all users with legal access to a transportation facility. • Implement current design standards that meet the needs of bicyclists,, pedestrians, and transit users in design, construction and maintenance work zones, encroachment permit work, and in system operations. • Provide information to staff, local agencies, and stakeholders on available funding programs addressing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel needs. Z:� "Caltrans improve 5 mobility across Califbi-nia " Deputy Directive Number DD-64-RI Page 4 .Chiefs, Divisions of Aeronautics, Local Assistance Mass Transportation, Rail, Transportation Planning, Transportation System Information, Research and Innovation, and Transportation Programming. Ensure incorporation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel elements _t'n all Department transportation plans and studies. Support interdisciplinary participation within and between districts in the project development process to provide for the needs of all users. • Encourage local agencies to include bicycle, pedestrian and transit elements in regional and local planning documents, including general plans, transportation plans, and circulation elements. • Promote land uses that encourage bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel. 0 Advocate, partner.., and collaborate with stakeholders to address the needs of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travelers in all program areas. • Support the development of new technology to improve safety, mobility, I and access for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users of all ages and abilities. C Research, develop, and implement multimodal performance measures. C Provide inforn-iation to staff, local agencies, and stakeholders on available funding programs to address the needs of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travelers. Chiefs', Divisions of Traffic Operations, Maintenance, Environmental Anal Is Design, Construction, and Proiect Management: Y �_ • Provide guidance on project design, operation, and maintenance of work zones to safely accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users. • Ensure the transportation system and facilities are planned, constructed, operated, and maintained consistent with project type and fundir-Z) C, pro ram to maximize safety and mobility for all users with legal access. • Promote and incorporate, on an ongoing basis, guidance, procedures, and product reviews that maximize bicycle, pedestrian, and transit safety and mobility. • Support multidisciplinary district participation in the project development process to provide for the needs of all users. Employees: • Follow and recommend improvements to manuals, guidance, and procedures that maximize safety and mobility for all users in all transportation products and activities. Promote awareness of bicycle, pedestn'an, and transit needs to develop an integrated, multimodal transportation system. • Maximize bicycle, pedestrian, and transit safety and mobility through each project's life cycle. "Caltrans improves mobility across Cal�f6rnia" Deputy Directive Number DD-64-RI Page 5 APPLICABILITY All departmental employees. RANDELL H. TWASAKI Chief Deputy Director Date Signed "Caltrans improves mobility across Cal fornia ' ? A -7: USDOT - Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel 240 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach, Policy of the US DOT;full document at http: / /www.fhwa.dot.gov/ environment /bikeped /design.htm Excerpts: 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. 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 -de -sac with four or fewer dwellings or the street has severe topographic or natural resource constraints. 2. In rural areas, paved shoulders should be included in all new construction and reconstruction projects on roadways used by more than 1,000 vehicles per day, as in States such as Wisconsin. Paved shoulders have safety and operational advantages for all road 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 ". A -8: OCTA Congestion Management Program OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 243 OCTA Congestion Management Program: Transportation Demand Management Requirements Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies are geared toward increasing vehicle occupancy, promoting the use of alternative modes, reducing the number of automobile trips, and decreasing overall trip lengths. The adoption of a TDM ordinance was required of every local jurisdiction for Orange County's 1991 Congestion Management Program (CMP). The ordinances were based on a worksite standards approach contained in a model TDM ordinance prepared by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). TDM Ordinances The model TDM ordinance, prepared by OCTA, aims to promote carpools, vanpools, alternate work hours, park and ride facilities, telecommuting, and other traffic reduction strategies. OCTA updated the model ordinance in 2001 to reflect the adoption of Rule 2202 by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which requires employers with 250 or more employees at a worksite to develop an emission reduction program projected to meet an emission reduction target set by the SCAQMD. In 2002, OCTA reviewed jurisdictions' ordinances to ensure conformance with the Rule 2202. Principal provisions of the TDM model ordinance are as follows: • applies to non - residential public and private development proposals expected to generate more than 250 employees; • contains a methodology for determining projected employment for specified land use proposals; • includes mandatory facility -based development standards (conditions of approval) that apply to proposals that exceed the established employment threshold; • presents optional provisions for implementing operational TDM programs and strategies that target the property owner or employer, and requires annual reporting on the effectiveness of programs and strategies proposed for facilities; • contains implementation and monitoring provisions; • includes enforcement and penalties provisions. OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan A -9: Local Fair Share Program for Street Maintenance and Improvements OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 245 Streets Programs Local Fair Share Program for Street Maintenance and Improvements The Local Fair Share Program will provide flexible funding to help cities and the county of Orange pay for the escalating cost of restoring the aging street system. In addition, cities can use these funds for other local transportation needs such as residential street projects, traffic and pedestrian safety near schools, signal priority for emergency vehicles, etc. City Requirements to Receive Funds This program is intended to augment, rather than replace, existing transportation expenditures and therefore cities must meet the following requirements to receive the funds: 1. Continue to invest general fund funds (or other local discretionary funds) for transportation and annually increase this commitment to keep pace with inflation 2. Agree to use M2 funds for transportation purposes only, subject to full repayment and a loss of funding eligibility for five years for any misuse 3. Agree to separate accounting for M2 funds and annual reporting on actual expenditures 4. Develop and maintain a pavement management program to ensure timely street maintenance and submit regular public reports on the condition of streets 5. Annually submit a six -year capital improvement program and commit to spend M2 funds within three years of receipt 6. Agree to assess traffic impacts of new development and require that new development pay a fair share of any necessary transportation improvements 7. Agree to plan, build and operate major streets consistent with the countywide Master Plan of Arterial Highways to ensure efficient traffic flow across city boundaries 8. Participate in traffic forums with neighboring jurisdictions to facilitate the implementation and maintenance of traffic signal synchronization programs and projects. This requires cities to balance local traffic policies with neighboring cities for selected streets to promote more efficient traffic circulation overall 9. Agree to consider land use planning strategies that are transit - friendly, including bike and pedestrian access and reduce reliance on the automobile Distribution of Funds Based on Formula The funds under this program are distributed to cities and the County of Orange by formula once the agencies have fulfilled the above requirements. The formula will account for population, street mileage and amount of sales tax collected in each jurisdiction. Cost: The estimated cost for this thirty -year program is $2 billion. ?46 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan