Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout9B Adoption of Bicycle Master PlanAGENDA ITEM 9.B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: March 15, 2011 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Jose E. Pulido, City Manage By: Steve Masura, Community Development Director SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 11-4737 APPROVING THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is requested to adopt Resolution No. 11-4737 approving the Bicycle Master Plan. BACKGROUND: 1. On February 7, 2011, Alta Planning was commission under Gruen and Associates to prepare a citywide Bicycle Master Plan to assist the City with the planning and programming efforts to complete a bicycle network. 2. On February 15, 2011, an online bicycle survey was uploaded to the City's website and a press release was issued notifying of the City's efforts to prepare the master plan in an effort to gain participation. Additional noticing, outreach and promotion was done through agenda and newspaper notices, flyers, emails, direct contact with interested bicycle groups and stakeholders, and notices to schools. 3. On March 1, 2011, the City Council approved submission of a grant application to the State Bicycle Transportation Account. Grants are due March 18, 2011. The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual program that provides State funds for city and county projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. To be eligible for BTA funds, the City must prepare and adopt a Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) that complies with Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2. The BTP must be approved by the local agency's Regional Transportation Planning Agency, which is Los Angeles County Metro. 4. On March 3, 2011, the Bicycle Master Plan was completed by Alta Planning. 5. On March 9, 2011, the Bicycle Master Plan and the results of the survey were presented at the joint Planning Commission and Public Safety Commission meeting. A public meeting was also hosted. At the writing of this staff report, the March 9th meeting was not conducted, therefore supplemental report information City Council March 15, 2011 Page 2 will be provided at the City Council's March 15 meeting. The results of the public meeting input and any recommended changes to the draft plan will be provided as a supplemental attachment under a separate cover for City Council's consideration. As part of the March 9th meeting, resolutions by each commission will be considered for recommendation to the City Council. ANALYSIS: The City has commissioned the services of Alta Planning to conduct a citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan. The plan has been completed and is being presented to the City Council for adoption. In summary, this Bicycle Master Plan provides a broad vision, strategies and actions to improve conditions for bicycling in Temple City. The Plan recommends improvements and policies to increase the number of people who bike, increase the frequency and distance of bicycle trips, improve safety for bicyclists, and increase public awareness and support for bicycling. The Plan provides direction for expanding the existing bikeway network, connecting gaps, and ensuring greater local and regional connectivity. In addition to providing recommendations and design guidelines for bikeways and support facilities, the Plan offers recommendations for education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs. Furthermore, the plan has identified six (6) goals. Each goal is followed by a policy and a plan of action. The identified goals will guide the City in the creation and implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan: • Goal 1 Bikeway System; Expanded, improved, and interconnected system of City and regional bikeways and bikeway support facilities. • Goal 2 Safety; Increased safety of roadways for all users; • Goal 3 Education; Develop education programs that promote safe bicycling; • Goal 4 Encouragement Programs; Create program that encourage residents to walk or ride a bike for transportation and recreation; • Goal 5 Community Support; Create several mediums to obtain community support of a bicycle network in the City; and • Goal 6 Funding; Identify and securing funding for implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan. The Bicycle Master Plan also includes a bicycle improvement project list, cost estimates of the improvements, and a list of potential funding sources. It is intended that the Bicycle Master Plan will be incorporated into any comprehensive General Plan update. The Bicycle Master Plan includes a proposed citywide network totaling 29 miles of bikeways. The implementation of the plan is also intended to improve and increase bicycling as an important mode of transportation. The plan includes an analysis of increased bicycle commuting ridership (trips to work, school, and errands) that in turn reduces pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The plan projects that by the year 2030, bicycle commuting could increase by over 1,200 riders (2,000 current estimated City Council March 15, 2011 Page 3 riders growing to 3,200 riders) which therefore results in an equivalent reduction of over 1.5 million pounds per year of carbon dioxide green house gas emissions in addition to other significant pollution reduction as shown in Table 3-5 (Page 35) of the plan. Upon adoption by the Council the plan will be submitted to Metro for approval. Metro's approval is required to ensure compliance with the regional transportation plan (RTP). By April 30, 2011, the City is required to submit the approval letter from Metro to the BTA coordinator for compliance with the grant requirements. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. Further implementation of the proposed Bicycle Master Plan and bikeway network may require project -specific environmental review and analysis under CEQA at the time the actual projects are considered. The bikeways proposed in the Plan are all within existing public rights -of -ways, therefore it is determined that they are Categorically Exempt under CEQA guidelines Section 15304(h). Staff and the bicycle plan consultants, Alta Planning, will be prepared to provide a brief presentation at the Council meeting to give an overview of the plan and to provide an update on the results of the joint Planning Commission and Public Safety Commission community workshop meeting held on March 9`h• CONCLUSION: The City Council is requested to adopt Resolution No. 11-4737 approving the Bicycle Master Plan, FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact at this time. The implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan will likely be done in phases as funds are available through grants and other sources as listed in the plan. The City Council has authorized staff to submit two separate initial grant funding applications through the state BTA (Bicycle Transportation Account) for the Rosemead Boulevard bike lanes and an initial phase of the Bicycle Master Plan. ATTACHMENT(S): A. City Council Authorizing Resolution No. 11-4737 B. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 11-2324 C. Draft Public Safety Commission Resolution 11-0004 D. Draft Bicycle Master Plan dated 3-4-2011 (Final Bicycle Master Plan to be submitted under separate cover if any changes due to March 9th Meeting) Resolution No. 11-4737 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPROVING THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan is consistent with the State streets and Highways Code criteria and complies with the California Bicycle Transportation Act, Section 890-894.2; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to guide implementation of bikeway improvements and programs; WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan includes bikeway maps identifying new bikeway facilities; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan includes a bicycle improvement project list, cost estimates of the improvements, and a list of potential funding sources; WHEREAS, the City intends to update the General Plan to include the Bicycle Master Plan for future planning and programming of additional bicycle boulevards, traffic calming measures and other amenities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the Public Safety Commission have reviewed the Bicycle Master Plan and considered public input on March 9, 2011 and recommend approval of the plan in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution 11-2324 and Public Safety Commission Resolution 11-0004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Temple City hereby: Section 1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project should not have significant adverse environmental impact. Further implementation of the proposed Bicycle Master Plan and bikeway network may require project - specific environmental review and analysis under CEQA at the time the actual projects are considered. The bikeways proposed in the Bicycle Master Plan are all within existing public rights -of -ways, therefore it is determined that they are Categorically Exempt under CEQA guideline Section 15304(h) and it is therefore recommended that the City Council concur with the findings of the attached Notice of Exemption (Attachment 1). Section 2. Adopts the Bicycle Master Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the governing body of the City of Temple City on this 15th day of March, 2011. Mayor ATTEST: CITY CLERK I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, Resolution No. 11-4737, was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember- NOES: Councilmember- ABSENT: Councilmember- ABSTAIN: Councilmember- CITY CLERK Attachments: Notice of Exemption NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: County of Los Angeles Registrar -Recorder 12400 E. Imperial Highway Second Floor, Room 2001 Norwalk, CA 90650 1. Project Title: Bicycle Improvements inTemple City FROM: Community Development Department City of Temple City 9701 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, CA 91780 2. Project Location - Specific: Rosemead Blvd. and other streets/right-of-ways within Temple City per the citywide Bicycle Master Plan 3. (a) Project Location - City: Temple City (b) Project Location - County: Los Angeles 4. Description of nature, purpose, and beneficiaries of Project: Construct Class 1, 11, and ill bikeways by restripinq and repaving on existing right of ways -- providing connections to residential neighborhoods, schools,employment centers, and adjacent local and regional bikeways. The city of Temple City is proposing new bicycle lanes on Rosemead Boulevard as part of a comprehensive upgrade for safety enhancement and beautification. The bicycle lanes will be provided within the existing public right of way primarily through re -striping of the road and minor changes as needed to medians, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. A Bicycle Master Plan is expected to be adopted by the City Councilprior to March 31, 2011 to comply with the state Bicycle Transportation Account requirements. This notice of exemption shall also apply to any proposed bicycle improvements in the Bicycle Master Plan that will meet the CEQA criteria for bicycle lanes within existing public right of ways. 5. Name of Public Agency approving project: City of Temple City 6. Name of Person or Agency carrying out project: City of Temple City 7. Exempt status: (Check one) (a) Ministerial project. (b) Not a project. (c) Emergency Project. (d) ✓ Categorical Exemption. State type and class number: 15304 (h) Creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights -of -way (e) Declared Emergency. {f) Statutory Exemption. State Code section number: (g) Other. Explanation: 8. Reason why project was exempt: The proposed project involves the creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way,_which is categorically exempt under Section 15304 (h) of CEQA Guidelines. 9. Contact Person: Telephone: Steven M. Masura (626) 285-2171 Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Signature (Lead Agency Representative) Title Community Development Director Resolution No. 11-2324 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan is consistent with the State Streets and Highways Code criteria and complies with the California Bicycle Transportation Act, Section 890-894.2; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to guide implementation of bikeway improvements and programs; WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan includes bikeway maps identifying new bikeway facilities; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan includes a bicycle improvement project list, cost estimates of the improvements, and a list of potential funding sources; and WHEREAS, the City intends to update the General Plan to include the Bicycle Master Plan for future planning and programming of additional bicycle boulevards, traffic calming measures and other amenities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City hereby: Section 1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project should not have a significant adverse environmental impact. Further implementation of the proposed Bicycle Master Plan and bikeway network may require project - specific environmental review and analysis under CEQA at the time the actual projects are considered. The bikeways proposed in the Bicycle Master Plan are all within existing public rights -of -ways, therefore it is determined that they are Categorically Exempt under CEQA guidelines Section 15304(h) and it is therefore recommended that the City Council concur with the findings of the attached Notice of Exemption. Section 2. Recommends that the City Council Adopt the Draft Bicycle Master Plan as may be modified through the public and Commission input. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City on this 9th day of March, 2011. Chairman ATTEST: Secretary I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, Resolution No. 11-2324, was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City at a special meeting held on the gin day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Attachment: Commissioner- Commissioner- Commissioner- Commissioner - 1. Notice of Exemption Resolution No. 11-0004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan is consistent with the State streets and Highways Code criteria and complies with the California Bicycle Transportation Act, Section 890-894.2; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to guide implementation of bikeway improvements and programs; WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan includes bikeway maps identifying new bikeway facilities; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle Master Plan includes a bicycle improvement project list, cost estimates of the improvements, and a list of potential funding sources; and WHEREAS, the City intends to update the General Plan to include the Bicycle Master Plan for future planning and programming of additional bicycle boulevards, traffic calming measures and other amenities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City hereby: Section 1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project should not have a significant adverse environmental impact. Further implementation of the proposed Bicycle Master Plan and bikeway network may require project - specific environmental review and analysis under CEQA at the time the actual projects are considered. The bikeways proposed in the Bicycle Master Plan are all within existing public rights -of -ways, therefore it is determined that they are Categorically Exempt under CEQA guidelines Section 15304(h) and it is therefore recommended that the City Council concur with the findings of the attached Notice of Exemption. Section 2. Recommends that the City Council Adopt the Draft Bicycle Master Plan as may be modified through the public and Commission input. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Public Safety Commission of the City of Temple City on this 9" day of March, 2011. Chairman ATTEST: Public Safety Officer I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, Resolution No. 11-0004, was adopted by the Public Safety Commission of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 91h day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Attachment: Commissioner- Commissioner- Commissioner- Commissioner - 1. Notice of Exemption PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED W } Ike City cif Temple City Temple City Bicycle Master Plan Temple City Acknowledgments Further Acknowledgments City Council Alta Planning + Design Carl Blum Sam Corbett, Senior Associate Tom Chavez Andrew Lee, Senior Planner Cynthia Sternquist FernandoVizcarra Gruen Associates Vincent Yu Jill Wagner, Principal Associate Planning Commission Vanir Construction Management Edward Chen Sha Jarrahi, Project Director Patrick J. Horton Kristi Twilley, Project Manager Thomas O'Leary Jerry Seibert Manuel A. Valenzuela 111 Public Safety Commission Brian Baudendistel Jim Clift Ousama Nimri Patricia Shen Nicholas Stratis City Staff Steve Masura, Community Development Director Cathy Burroughs, Director of Parks and Recreation Joseph Lambert, Community Development Manager Brian Ariizumi, Public Safety Officer Adam Gulick, Associate Planner Hesty Liu, Associate Planner alta PLANNING + QEGJGN Temple City Bicycle Master Plan Prepared for: City of Temple City 9701 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, CA 91780 (626) 285-2171 Prepared by: Alta Planning + Design 453 5 Spring St Suite 804 Los Angeles, CA 90013 (213) 489-7443 alts PLANNING + DESIGN City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Setting 1 1.2 Plan Purpose 1 1.3 Plan Goals 3 1.4 Temple City General Plan Summary 9 1.5 Relationship to Existing Plans and Policies 15 1.6 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance 19 2 Existing Conditions 20 2.1 Existing Land Use 20 2.2 Roadway and Public Transit Network 20 2.3 Bikeways 22 2.4 Bicycle End -of -Trip and Intermodal Facilities 24 3 Needs Analysis 25 3.1 Bicyclist Types 25 3.2 Public Outreach 27 3.3 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts 31 3.4 Bicycle Collisions 36 4 Recommended Network 38 4.1 Bikeways 38 4.2 Bicycle End -of -Trip and Intermodal Facilities 49 4.3 Project Cost Estimates 51 4.4 Project Priority 51 5 Recommended Programs 55 5.1 Enforcement 55 5.2 Education 57 5.3 Encouragement 59 6 Funding 63 6.1 Past Expenditures 63 6.2 Future Financial Needs 63 6.3 Funding Sources 64 Alta Planning + Design 1 i List of Figures Figure 1-1 Temple City Regional Setting 2 Figure 1-2 West San Gabriel Valley Planning Area Existing Bicycle Facilities 17 Figure 2-1 Temple City Existing Land Use 21 Figure 2-2 Caltrans Bikeway Classifications 23 Figure 3-1 Bicyclist Classifications 26 Figure 3-2 User Survey, Bicycle Riding Frequency 27 Figure 3-3 User Survey, Reasons for Bicycling 28 Figure 3-4 User Survey, Typical Bicycle Trip Distance 28 Figure 3-5 User Survey Future Facility Keywords 29 Figure 3-6 Temple City Bicycle Collisions (2000-2008) 37 Figure 4-1 Proposed Temple City Bicycle Network 40 Figure 4-2 West San Gabriel Valley Planning Area Proposed Bicycle Facilities 41 Figure 4-3 Rosemead Boulevard Concept 43 Figure 4-4 Baldwin Avenue Example Cross -Section Treatment 44 Figure 4-5 Las Tunas Avenue Example Cross -Section Treatment 45 Figure 4-6 Lower Azusa Boulevard Example Cross -Section Treatment 46 Figure 4-7 CaMUTCD Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking 47 Figure 4-8 Sample Bike Route Signage 48 Figure 4-9 Proposed Bike Parking Locations 50 List of Tables Table 1-1 General Plan Land Use 10 Table 1-2 General Plan Population Projections 10 Table 1-3 BTA Requirement Checklist 19 Table 3-1 Means of Transportation to Work Data 31 Table 3-2 Adjusted Existing (2010) Bicycling Demand 32 Table 3-3 Adjusted Existing (2010) Bicycling Air Quality Impact 33 Table 3-4 Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand 34 Table 3-5 Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact 35 Table 3-6 Temple City Collision Summary (2000 — 2008) 36 Table 4-1 Proposed Bikeway Summary 38 Table 4-2 Proposed Class I Bike Paths 39 Table 4-3 Proposed Class II Bike Lanes 42 Table 4-4 Proposed Class III Bike Routes 47 Table 4-5 Proposed Bike Boulevards 49 Table 4-6 General and Project -Specific Bicycle Network Cost Estimates 51 Table 4-7 Project Criteria Weight and Scoring 53 Table 4-8 Project Prioritization 54 Table 6-1 Bikeway Project Priority and Cost 64 Table 6-2 Bikeway Improvements Funding Summary 65 Table 6-3 Metro Call For Projects Funding Summary 75 ii I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan This page intentionally left blank. Alta Planning + Design 1 iii City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan 1 Introduction The following section presents background information incorporated into the Temple City Bicycle Master Plan (BMP), including the plan setting, plan purpose and goal, relationship to other regional plans, compliance with Bicycle Transportation Account requirements, and plan public outreach. 1.1 Setting Temple City lies within Los Angeles County in the \Vest San Gabriel Valley. Its neighboring cities are Arcadia to the north, El Monte to the southeast, and Rosemead to the southwest. Temple City borders unincorporated county lands on its west and east borders. The City boundaries encompass approximately four square miles. According to the 2007-2009 American Community Survey Three -Year Estimates, Temple City has an estimated population of 37,800. Its largest ethnic groups are Asian (52 percent), non -Hispanic White (28 percent) and Hispanic / Latino (17 percent). The City's median household income is 565,500 (2009 adjusted dollars). Figure 1-1 presents Temple City's geographical location within the West San Gabriel Valley region. 1.2 Plan Purpose This Bicycle Master Plan provides a broad vision, strategics and actions to improve conditions for bicycling in Temple City. The Plan recommends improvements and policies to increase the number of people who bike, increase the frequency and distance of bicycle trips, improve safety for bicyclists, and increase public awareness and support for bicycling. The Plan provides direction for expanding the existing bikeway network, connecting gaps, and ensuring greater local and regional connectivity. In addition to providing recommendations and design guidelines for bikeways and support facilities, the Plan offers recommendations for education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs. The bicycle is a low-cost and effective means of transportation that is quiet, non-polluting, energy efficient, healthy, and fun. Bicycling is becoming more popular as a means of transportation, as many communities work to create more balanced transportation systems. This includes providing bicyclists with improved facilities on the roadway network. Recent national studies find that more people arc willing to cycle more frequently when provided safe and comfortable bicycle facilitiest 2. The benefits of bicycling include improved air quality, better public health, and enhanced quality of life. Replacing automobile trips with bicycling can help reduce vehicle miles traveled, congestion, and emissions associated with automobiles. Physical inactivity is now widely understood to play a significant role in the most common chronic diseases in the US, including heart disease, stroke, obesity and diabetes. Creating bicycle-friendIy communities is one of several effective ways to encourage active lifestyles. In addition, bicycle facilities are typically less costly than other transportation improvements and contribute to a strong sense of place. Regular bicycle commuters save money by spending "less time at the pump." 'Dill, Jennifer, Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of lnfrastructure, journal of Public Health Policy, Volume 30, Supplement 1, 2009. ` League of American Bicyclists, Darren Flusche, The Economic Benefits of Bicycle Infrastructure Investments. June 2009. Alta Planning + Design 1 1 Chapter 1 I Introd uction TEMPLE CITY REGIONAL SETTING City of Temple City Bic ycle Master Plan Imps Sarin o NI a Gag * Earth M ap Sarini Got Amam i MA 1O, 21)10g Altai Pluming+CROW Cali) Ma p p Be ; fatemary 161411 Figure 1-1 Temple City Regional Setting 2 I Alta Planning + Design ) - 2 Nies Si City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan 1.3 Plan Goals The following goals will guide the City in the creation and implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan (13MP). Overaching Goal "Increased bicycling throughout Temple City through the development and implementation of bicycle - friendly policies, programs, and infrastructure." Goal 1 - Bikeway System Expanded, improved, and interconnected system of City and regional bikeways and bikeway support facilities. Policy 1.1 Construct the bikeways proposed in 2011 Temple City Bicycle Master Plan over the next 10 years. Lead Department: Temple City Community Development Department (CDD) Timeframe: Phase 1: 2011 to 2013; Phase 2: 2013 to 2015; Phase 3: 2015 to 2020 IA 1.1.1 Propose bikeways that connect to transit stations, commercial centers, schools, libraries, cultural centers, parks and other important activity centers and promote bicycling to these destinations. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 1.1.2 Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to implement bicycle facilities that promote connectivity. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing Santa Anita Avenue, Proposed Class II Bike Lane Facility Alta Planning + Design 1 3 Policy 1.4 Policy 1.2 Policy 1.3 Chapter 1 I Introduction IA 1.1.3 Implement bikeways proposed in this Plan when reconstructing or widening existing streets. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 1.1.4 Implement bikeways proposed in this Plan when completing road rehabilitation and street preservation projects, if the proposed bikeway can be added within the existing roadway width without a reduction in vehicular lanes or removal of parking. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing Enact changes in the City Codes and Land Uses that encourage additional bikeways and bicycle support facilities. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: by 2015 Coordinate with developers to provide bicycle facilities that encourage biking and link to key destinations. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: On -going IA 1.3.1 Require the implementation of bike lanes and bicycle support facilities along key corridors. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: On -going IA 1.3.2 Require bicycle parking at key locations, such as employment centers, parks, transit, schools, and shopping centers. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: On -going Support the development of bicycle facilities that encourage new riders. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 1.4.1 Support efforts to develop a Complete Streets policy that accounts for the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, disabled persons, and public transit users. Lead Departments: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 1.4.2 Provide landscaping along bikeways where appropriate. Lead Department: CDD and the City Parks and Recreation Department (PRD) Timeframe: Ongoing IA 1.4.3 Encourage end of trip facilities at key destinations. Lead Department: CDD, PRD Timeframe: Ongoing 4 I Alta Planning + Design Policy 1.6 City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan Policy 1.5 Complete regular updates of the Bicycle Master Plan to be current with policies and requirements for grant funding and to improve the network. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Every five years as per Caltrans BTA requirements (next update in 20J6) IA 1.5.1 Measure the effectiveness of the Bikeway Plan implementation. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Every two years Develop a bicycle parking policy. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Establish by 2012 or concurrent with code or General Plan Update. IA 1.6.1 Identify where bicycle parking facilities are needed and identify the appropriate type (e.g„ inverted U style racks at grocery stores, bike lockers near transit stations). Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Establish by 2012 or within Phase 2 of BMP implementation IA 1.6.2 Establish bicycle parking design standards and requirements for all bicycle parking on City property and for private development. Lead Department: CDD, PRD Timeframe: Establish program by 2012 or within Phase 2 of BMP implementation Goal 2 - Safety Increased safety of roadways for all users. Policy 2.1 Implement projects that improve the safety of bicyclists at key locations. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: on going IA 2.1.1 Review bicyclist -related automobile crashes to identify potential problem areas. Lead Department: CDD, in coordination with Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LACSD) Timeframe: yearly Policy 2.2 Encourage alternative street standards that improve safety such as lane reconfigurations and traffic calming. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 2.2.1 Identify opportunities to remove travel lanes from roads where there is excess capacity in order to provide bicycle facilities. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 2.2.2 Implement the bicycle boulevards proposed by this Plan. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Within Phase 1 or 2 of the BMP Implementation or as funding allows Alta Planning + Design 1 5 Chapter 1 I Introduction Policy 2.3 Support traffic enforcement activities that increase bicyclists' safety. Lead Department: CDD, in coordination with LACSD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 2.3.1 Encourage enforcement of traffic laws including citing bicyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicle operators consistently for violations to enhance bicyclist and pedestrian safety. Lead Department: CDD and LACSD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 2.3.2 Encourage targeted enforcement activities in areas with high bicycle and pedestrian volumes. Lead Department: CDD and LACSD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 2.3.3 Encourage enforcement agencies to conduct traffic enforcement on Class I Bike Trails Lead Department: CDD, LACSD, and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) Timeframc: Ongoing Policy 2.4 Evaluate impacts on bicyclists when designing new or reconfiguring streets. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 2.4.1 Encourage the development of traffic study criteria that account for bicyclists and pedestrians. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 2.4.2 Explore the feasibility of conducting biennial counts of bicyclists on key bikeways to gauge the effectiveness of the City's bicycle facilities in increasing bicycle activity. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Every other year IA 2.4.3 Use alternative Level of Service (LOS) standards that account for bicycles and pedestrians when adopted by Caltrans. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing Policy 2.5 Continue to support the City's Safe Routes to School efforts. Lead Department: CDD, PRD, and Management Services Department (MSD) Timeframe: Ongoing IA 2.5.1 Implement improvements that encourage safe bicycle travel to and from school. Lead Department: CDD, LACSD, PRD, and local school districts Timeframe: Ongoing 6 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan Goal 3 - Education Developed education programs that promote safe bicycling. Policy 3.1 Provide Bicycle Education. Lead Department: CDD, LACSD, and local school districts Timeframe: Ongoing IA 3.1.1 Offer bicycle skills, bicycle safety classes, and bicycle repair workshops. Lead Department: LACSD and local school districts Timeframe: Ongoing IA 3.1.2 Develop communication materials aimed to improve safety for bicyclists and motorists. Lead Department: CDD and LASCD Timcframe: Ongoing Policy 3.2 Consider safety education campaigns aimed at bicyclists and motorists (e.g. public service announcements, brochures, etc). Lead Department: CDD, MSD, and LASCD Timeframe: Ongoing Policy 3.3 Train City staff working on street design, construction, and maintenance projects to consider the safety of bicyclists in their work. IA 3.3.1 Educate designers on the need of bicyclists. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 3.3.2 Educate maintenance personnel on the importance of bicycling related maintenance. Lead Department: CDD and PRD Timeframe: Ongoing Policy 3.4 Support training for the LACSD. IA 3.4.1 Work with the LACSD to provide training regarding bicyclists' rights and responsibilities pursuant to the California Vehicle Code and the County Code. Lead Department: CDD and LACSD Timcframe: Ongoing Goal 4 - Encouragement Programs City residents are encouraged to walk or ride a bike for transportation and recreation. Policy 4.1 Support organized rides or cycling events, including those that may include periodic street closures in the City. Lead Department: CDD and PRD Timeframe: Ongoing Alta Planning + Design 17 Chapter 1 Introduction Policy 4.2 Encourage non -automobile commuting. IA 4.2.1 Promote Bike to Work Day/Bike to Work Month among City employees. Lead Department: MSD Timeframe: Annually (May) IA 4.2.2 Investigate options for incentivizing City employees to use bicycles and other non - auto modes of transportation to commute to work. Lead Department: MSD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 4.2.3 Expand the City fleet to include alternate modes of transportation, e.g. bicycles. Policy 4.3 Develop maps and wayfinding signage and striping to assist navigating the regional bikeways. Lead Department: MSD, CDD, and PRD Timeframe: Ongoing Goal 5 — Community Support Community supported bicycle network. Policy 5.1 Support Community Involvement. IA 5.1.1 Establish a community stakeholder group to assist with the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 5.1.2 Encourage citizen participation and stakeholder input in the planning and implementation of bikeways and other bicycle related improvements by holding public meetings and workshops to solicit community input. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing Policy 5.2 Create an online presence to improve visibility of bicycling issues in the City. Lead Department: CDD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 5.2.1 Provide updates to the community about planned projects. Lead Department: CDD and MSD Timeframe: Ongoing IA 5.2.2 Provide closure updates to the community about City and regional bikeways. Lead Department: CDD and MSD Timeframe: Ongoing Policy: 5.3 Maintain efforts to gauge community interest and needs on bicycle -related issues. Lead Department: CDD and MSD Timeframe: Ongoing 8 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan IA 5.3.1 Conduct periodic online surveys to gauge interest in bicycling and related issues throughout the City. Lead Department: CDD Timeframc: Approximately every two years Goal 6 - Funding Funded Bikeway Plan. Policy 6.1 Identify and secure funding to implement this Bicycle Master Plan. IA 6.1.1 Support innovative funding mechanisms to implement this Bicycle Master Plan. Lead Department: CDD, MSD, and PRD Timeframc: On going IA 6.1.2 Support new funding opportunities for bicycle facilities that are proposed at the Federal, State, and Local level that impact the City. Lead Department: CDD, PRD, and MSD Timcframe: Ongoing IA 6.1.3 Identify and apply for grant funding that support the development of bicycle facilities. Lead Department: CDD and MSD Timcframe: Ongoing IA 6.1.4 Consider using bikeways as mitigation for project -related vehicle trips. Lead Department: CDD Timcframe: Ongoing 1.4 Temple City General Plan Summary Adopted April 21, 19B7;, and in accordance with state law, the General Plan serves as the blueprint for the physical development of Temple City as per the goals, policies and implementation measures established in the plan, as well as the seven elements discussed in more detail below. The following section summarizes the key elements from the General Plan, which address key issues, including demographics, land use, traffic, public facilities, public safety and economic development. The General Plan identified opportunities, issues, and trends for goal setting and policy development for the General Plan. 1.4.1 Land Use Element The Land Use Element serves as the core of the General Plan and addresses the physical development of Temple City. The Element designates future land use patterns, density, development, design framework and implementation strategies. Specific objectives include: mixed use projects, public and private investment, and to reducing the risk of flood damage. i There have not been any confirmed amendments since the 1987 adoption. The plan affirms that within the seven elements addressed, several have not been updated since the 1971 plan. Alta Planning + Design 1 9 Chapter 1 [ Introduction 1.4.1.1 Requirements, Issues and Opportunities Temple Ciry is largely developed from a pre-existing land use distribution; therefore, the majority of changes anticipated is for existing uses and re -use. Temple Ciry land use attributes include the following: • 67 percent residential land use • 86 percent of housing is single-family, with only 9 percent with 5 or more units. • Land use conflicts with density increases in single-family housing zones • Only 4 percent commercial land use (Rosemead and Las Tunas Boulevards) • industrial land uses abutting residential (Lower Azusa Road and Encinita Avenue) • Greater -than -average percentage of land for residential, less -than -average for industrial uses • City established Redevelopment agency involvement with the revitalization of commercial areas • Designated commercial revitalization area established 1.4.1.2 Land Use Plan Table 1-1 and Table 1-2 present the City's land use plan and population from 1985 through the forecasted build -out of the City. Table 1-1 General Plan Land Use Land Use Area Percent (acres) Residential Low Density Medium Density High Density Subtotal Commercial Institutional Industrial Parks 1346 67 253 13 110 5 1709 85 18 1 117 6 52 2 121 6 Total 2018 100 Source: City of Temple City General Plan (1987) Table L-1: Planned Land Use Distribution in Acres Table 1-2 General Plan Po iulation Pro e,sic Year Population' 1985' 1990 1995 2000 2005 30,735 31,257 31,788 32,328 32,877 2010 33,436 Plan Build -out (date undetermined) 'Source: Regional Statlsical Area, R5A25. 2Source: State Department of Finance 10 I Alta Planning + Design 37,818 City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan 1.4.1.3 Land Use Policy The following summarizes the key land use policy issues from the General Plan: • The 13 percent medium and high density housing and 117 acres designated for commercial along Rosemead and Las Tunas Boulevards will serve as buffers for single-family housing to high traffic streets. • The industrial land use is located at the southwestern location of the city, along Encinita Avenue and Gidley Street • 18 acres of open space including Live Oak Park and Temple City Park 1.4.1.4 Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures The following summarizes the key land use goals, policies and implementation measures from the General Plan: 1. Stabilize and enhance the existing single-family areas in the city 2. Encourage the development of a variety of commercial and industrial activities in the city 3. Encourage the Revitalization of the downtown business district along Lis Tunas Drive 4. In the event of annexation of any county lands adjacent to the city, provide for the transfer of these lands to the city 1.4.2 Public Safety Element The Public Safety Element examines natural and man-made hazards, such as seismic activity, mudslides/landslides, and fires, and identifies opportunities to reduce these risks to residents of Temple City. 1.4.2.1 Requirements, Issues and Opportunities The following issues are potential hazards within Temple City: • 50 percent probability of an 8.3 or larger earthquake within the next 20 to 30 years near San Andreas Fault • There are no FEMA flood plains, however there is potential flooding should the San Anita Dam fail • Hazardous building materials pose a threat to public safety • Minimal risk of natural fires 1.4.2.2 Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures The following summarizes the key public safety goals, policies and implementation measures from the General Plan: 1. Prevention of serious injury and loss of life resulting from natural and man-made hazards of those who live and work in Temple City. 2. Support the efforts of the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the prevention and suppression of fires. 3. Ensure the safety of all city residents and workers from hazardous waste and the hazards associated with the transport of such waste. Alta Planning + Design 177 Chapter 1 I Introduction 1.4.3 Open Space and Conservation Element The Open Space and Conservation Element serves to protect and maintain Temple City's natural resources. This section identifies existing and future private and public open space to encourage economic, social and physical health, safety and overall welfare. Temple City's open space and conservation policies allow for a variety of activities, including active and passive recreation. 1.4.3.1 Requirements, Issues and Opportunities The four primary areas of concern are: • Water quality • Air Quality • The population per recreational/open acreage ratio is well below the recommended ratio. The General Plan identifies the following mitigation measures for this issue: o Temple City is in proximity to recreational resource in the San Gabriel Valley o There are 4 school sites available as recreational resources • Lack of cultural resources such as historical landmarks. 1.4.3.2 Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures The following summarizes the key open space and conservation goals, policies and implementation measures from the General Plan: 1. Conserve and protect natural resources in the city 2. Maintain existing park, recreation and open space areas and facilities so they can provide the best facilities possible for those who live and work in Temple City 3. Continue to acquire and develop additional parks, recreation and open space facilities. a) Policy 3a: Consider improvements to the open land abutting Eaton and Arcadia flood control channels so they can provide additional open space for recreation. b) Policy 3b: Consider adopting a policy of acquiring vacant lots in residential and commercial areas for mini -parks. c) Policy 3d: The Planning Department should consider expanded landscaping and maintenance requirements as part of the zoning code 4. Provide Active and Passive recreation opportunities for all age groups throughout the city a) Implementation Measure 4a: the Parks and Recreation Department will conduct a needs assessment to determine what types of parks and recreation facilities and activities residents would like 5. Establish a long range development program for Park area and facilities to better meet future requirements 6. Establish sufficient funding and resources to provide optimal recreational use of all parks and facilities 12 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan 1.4.4 Circulation Element The Circulation Element guides transportation policy and future development in Temple City. The circulation clement does not identify any bicycle related improvements. 1.4.4.1 Requirements, issues and Opportunities According to the Circulation Element, the existing circulation system has the following issues: • Abundant on -street parking, not including some intersections (Rosemead Boulevard) or overnight parking • There is a need to upgrade timing signals • Pedestrian improvements to Las Tunas Boulevard • Traffic volume capacities arc peaking, influenced by development and population increases 1.4.4.2 Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures The following summarizes the key circulation goals, policies and implementation measures from the General Plan: 1. Provide a plan for a coordinated street circulation systems for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods 2. Separate traffic associated with commercial and industrial uses from residential areas 1.4.5 Noise Element This Noise Element's policies aim to protect residents from noise that could affect health and welfare as they relate to regional infrastructure, arterial roads, freight, commercial transportation and industrial. 1.4.5.1 Requirements, Issues and Opportunities Within Temple City, traffic along arterial roads is the primary source of noise. The El Monte Airport also adds to the noise level in Temple City. 1.4.5.2 Goals Policies and Implementation Measures The following summarizes the key noise goals, policies and implementation measures from the General Plan: I. Provide a suitable environment free of excessive sounds and noise 2. Reduce noise level from all sources in the community and prevent noise intrusions into presently quiet areas 3. Establish compatible land use adjacent to major transportation routes 4. Make recommendations to the county, state and other governmental agencies relative to the reduction or containment of the level of noise in the city Alta Planning + Design 113 Chapter 1 I Introduction 1.4.6 Housing Elements This section of the plan establishes future efforts to meet the states housing goals, regional housing needs and incorporating affordable housing to ensure opportunities for all income groups. 1.4.6.1 Requirements, Issues, and Opportunities The changing demographics of Temple City stress the need for higher density and infill development to meet predicted population growth. Target population groups that will require additional high density housing are single parent, elderly and low income households. 1.4.6.2 Constraints to Housing Production The Housing Element identifies the following constraints that inhibit the construction of additional housing in Temple City: 1. Limited Land Inventory 2. Physical constraints related to water and seismic activity 3. Traffic noise 4. Market constraints with financing larger, high density projects 5. Governmental constraints with regards to affordable housing and energy requirements 1.4.6.3 Goals Policies and Implementation Measures The following summarizes the key housing goals, policies and implementation measures from the General Plan: 1. Preserve and enhance the quality of existing residential neighborhoods and community 2. Encourage the use of new development techniques and innovative sire design in new housing projects 3. Encourage the development of a range of housing types and price ranges to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community 4. Improve and expand community facilities and infrastructure where necessary to spur new residential construction 5. Provide for the special needs of the elderly and the handicapped in new residential construction 6. Encourage the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard housing units 7. Revitalize the local economy through community redevelopment projects which create jobs and/or improve the public improvements 8. Promote fair housing practices throughout the community 9. Provide for the housing needs of low and moderate income households in the community 10. Streamline the development review process for new housing projects 11. Promote the use of energy conservation techniques in new and existing housing 14 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan 1.5 Relationship to Existing Plans and Policies This section reviews relevant existing policies, documents, and ordinances to the BMP outside the General Plan. These documents provide an additional framework for bicycle improvements and policies in Temple City. 1.5.1 City Municipal Code The Temple City Municipal Code provides the following regulations governing bicycle use: • Bicycle parking regulations o 43351-3353 - restrictions on bicycle parking and fines for unlawful bicycle parking o 43555 -- restrictions on bicycle parking in a place other than a bicycle rack when available o 43556 - restrictions against leaving a bicycle in a place that obstructs pedestrians • Riding on sidewalks prohibited - 43354 • Riding on streets o 53552 - bicycle riding restricted to roads and bicycle paths o 53553 - bicycle riding restricted to the right side of the road, in a single file, in accordance to the reasonable regard to the safety of others. • Nighttime operation requirement for a headlight and taillight between 30 minutes after sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise - 43357 • Non-residential development requirements o 49191.B.1 - Non-residential development of 25,000 square feet or more shall provide the following to the satisfaction of the city: a. A bulletin board, display case or kiosk displaying transportation information located where the greatest number of employees are likely to see it. Information in the area shall include, but is not limited to, the following: 4) Bicycle route and facility information, including regional/local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information 5) A listing of facilities available for carpoolcrs, bicyclists, transit riders and pedestrians at the site. o 49191.B.2 - Nonresidential development of fifty thousand (50,000) square feet or more shall comply with subsection Bl of this section and shall provide all of the following measures to the satisfaction of the city: c. Bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking shall be provided to accommodate four (4) bicycles per the first fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of nonresidential development and one bicycle per each additional fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of nonresidential development... A bicycle parking facility may also be a fully enclosed space or locker accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which protects the bike from inclement weather. o 49191.B.3 -Nonresidential development of one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet or more shall comply with subsections BI and B2 of this section, and shall provide all of the following measures to the satisfaction of the city: d. Safe and convenient access from the external circulation system to bicycle parking facilities on site. (1%0 Code) Alta Planning + Design 1 15 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.5.2 County of Los Angeles 1.5.2.1 Metro Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is the primary local funding source for transportation projects, including bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan (BTSP) developed by Metro provides an inventory of existing and planned facilities within Los Angeles County. This inventory assisted in identifying routes that may eventually provide trans -jurisdictional continuity for cyclists. Secondly, the BTSP outlines a strategy for prioritizing regional bikeway projects. The BTSP outlines a regional strategy to fund projects that improve bicycle access to transit or close gaps in the regional bikeway network. 1.5.2.2 County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) The County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan guides the development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle network and programs within the unincorporated communities of the County of Los Angeles. The implementation of the Los Angeles County BMP will start in year 2012 after California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Temple City lies within the County BMP West San Gabriel Valley Planning Area. The unincorporated parts of this planning area currently contain 25.9 miles of existing bikeways, including 23 miles of Class 1 bicycle paths. Figure 1-2 displays the existing bicycle network in the West San Gabriel Valley Planning Area. 16 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Mast er Plan WEST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY EXISTING BIKEWAYS DRAFT City of Temple City Bicy cle Master Plan Imo it Soma O 201.3 Gmilt EN id MQSa. a ImAiq.ktMR OWN M O. PM. w+.+ Deirn QM1I rlgom Maw" 1ty 11 e ° Figure 1-2 West San Gabriel Valley Planning Area Existing Bicycle Facilities 2 MIirx 0;alto Alta Planning + Design 1 17 Chapter 1 1 Introduction 1.5.3 State of California 1.5.3.1 California Government Code §65302 (Complete Streets) California Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, also known as the Complete Streets Bill, amended the California Government Code §65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or county's Circulation Element include provisions for the accommodation of all roadway users including bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb extensions. The Government Code §65302 reads: (2)(A)Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of alI users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. (B)For purposes of this paragraph, "users of streets, roads, and highways- means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors. 1.5.3.2 Deputy Directive 64 & Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06 Of note and related to AB 1358, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adopted two policies in recent years relevant to bicycle planning initiatives such as this Bicycle lvlaster Plan. Similar to AB 1358, Deputy Directive 64 (DD -64-R1) sets forth that Caltrans addresses the "safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, regardless of funding." In a more specific application of complete streets goals, Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06 presents bicycle detection requirements. For example, 09-06 requires that new and modified signal detectors provide bicyclist detection if they are to remain in operation. Further, the Policy Directive states that new and modified bicycle path approaches to signalized intersections must provide bicycle detection or a bicyclist pushbutton if detection is required. 1.5.3.3 California SB 375 — Sustainable Communities (2008) Senate Bill (SB) 375 serves to complement Assembly Bill (AB) 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and encourages local governments to reduce emissions through improved planning. Under SB 375, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) must establish targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State's 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Each of California's MPOs must prepare a "Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)" that demonstrates how the region will meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning. One way to help meet the greenhouse gas emissions targets is to increase the bicycle mode share by substituting bicycle trips for automobile trips. Temple City's efforts to encourage bicycling and other alternative modes of transportation will contribute to the regional attainment of these targets. 18 j Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan 1.6 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is the most common source of bicycle facility funding in the State of California. BTA funds can fund City projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. In order for Temple City to qualify for BTA funds, its Master Plan must contain specific elements. Table 1-3 displays the requisite BTA components and their location within this plan. The table includes "Approved" and "Notes/Comments" columns for the convenience of the Caltrans official responsible for reviewing compliance. Table 1-3 BTA Re. uirernerrt Checklist Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments a) Existing and future bicycle commuters 30,31,33 b) Land -use map/population density 21 c) Existing and proposed bikeways 17, 39, 40 d) Existing and proposed bicycle parking 24, 49 facilities e) Existing and proposed multi -modal 24, 48, 49 connections f) Existing and proposed facilities for changing and storage 24, 48, 49 g) Bicycle safety and education programs 54-61 h) Citizen and community involvement 26-29 i) Consistency with transportation, air 9-18 quality, and energy plans j) Project descriptions/ priority listings k) Past expenditures and future financial needs 37-47, 50-53 62 Alta Planning + Design 1 19 Chapter 2 1 Existing Conditions 2 Existing Conditions This section contains a summary of Temple City's existing land use, roadway and public transit network, and bicycle facilities. 2.1 Existing Land Use The existing land use within the City corresponds to one of five categories presented in the General Plan: low, medium, and high -density residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and parks. Table 1-1 summarizes Temple City's existing land use; Figure 2-1 presents the Temple City land use map. 2.2 Roadway and Public Transit Network The existing roadway network in Temple City generally follows a grid pattern of local streets and arterials. The City does not have direct access to State or Interstate Highways, but can access Interstate 10 via Rosemead Boulevard, Temple City Boulevard, Baldwin Avenue, and Santa Anita Avenue. The City receives access to interstate 210 via Rosemead Boulevard, Michillinda Avenue (via Sunset Boulevard/Temple City Boulevard), Baldwin Avenue, and Santa Anita Avenue. Rosemead Boulevard, Temple City Boulevard, Baldwin Avenue, El Monte Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue serve as the City's major north -south arterials. Lower Azusa Road, Live Oak Avenue, Las Tunas Drive, and Longden Avenue serve as the City's major east -west arterials. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) provides bus service within Temple City along Las Tunas Drive (Route 78/378), Rosemead Boulevard (Route 266/489), Temple City Boulevard (Route 267), Baldwin Avenue (Route 268), and Santa Anita Avenue (Route 487). Foothill Transit provides additional bus service along Santa Anita Avenue (Route 492). 20 I Alta Planning + Design Figure 2-t Temple City Existing Land Use City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan Temple City Zoning Map R-1 MI C-2 R-2 NM C-3 - aS R-3 M-1 111 DSP RPD M-2 Alta Planning + Design j 21 Chapter 2 I Existing Conditions 2.3 Bikeways The BMP refers to bikeways using California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standard designations. The section below defines the three types of bikeways identified by the Streets and Highways Code and by Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual (HDM) Figure 2-2 illustrates the three types of bikeways. • Class I Bikeway: Typically called a "bike path," a Class [ Bikeway provides bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from any street or highway. • Class I[ Bikeway: Often referred to as a "bike lane," a Class 11 Bikeway provides a striped, signed, and stenciled lane for one-way travel on a street or highway. • Class III Bikeway: Generally referred to as a "bike route," a Class [I1 Bikeway provides for shared use with bicycle or motor vehicle traffic and uses only signage identification. Bicycle Boulevards — In addition to the three bikeway types defined by Caltrans, some jurisdictions are constructing "Bicycle Boulevards", which are local roads or residential streets enhanced with signage, traffic calming and other treatments to prioritize bicycle travel. Bicycle boulevards arc typically found on low -traffic / low -volume streets that can accommodate bicyclists and motorists in the same travel lanes, without specific bicycle lane delineation. Bicycle Boulevards are not defined as a specific bikeway type by Caltrans; however, the basic design features of bicycle boulevards comply with Caltrans standards. Temple City does not currently provide bikeways within its jurisdiction. The adjacent Cities of Arcadia and El Monte contain the nearest bikeways, as shown on Figure 1-2. 22 1 Alta Planning + Design Sample Bike Boulevard Treatment City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan Class 61 f PATII NO mpg VEKICLES BR MOTORIZED $&CYCLES NO MOTOR VEHICLES Provides completely separated right-of-way for exclusive use by bicycles and pedestrians with cross -flow minimized Class 11 BIKE LANE Provides striped lane for one way bike travel on a street or highway Class 111 5' Provides for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles, typically on lower volume roadways B'minlmum with 2'graded shoulders required Parking 4'Stripe NT CA) Bike Lane Sign 6'Strlpe Travel lane Travel lane Puking Travel Lane Itawei Lane Shoulder D11.1 Bake Route 5:gn Figure 2-2 Caltrans Bikeway Classifications S' ruin iwith curb& gutter) 4'min (no curb &gutter) Alta Planning + Design 1 23 Chapter 2 1 Existing Conditions 2.4 Bicycle End -of -Trip and [ntermodal Facilities The BTA requires that this plan inventory publicly -assessable end -of -trip facilities for the members of the cycling public to change and store clothes and equipment. These facilities include, but are not limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities. Temple City does not currently provide any publicly -accessible end -of -trip facilities within its jurisdiction. This plan presents proposed facilities in Chapter 4. The BTA also requires that this plan inventory existing bicycle transport and parking facilities for connecting to public transit services. These facilities include, but are not limited to, bicycle parking at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, and park and ride lots; and provisions for transporting bicycles on public transit vehicles. Temple City does not currently provide any intermodal facilities within its jurisdiction. This plan presents proposed facilities in Chapter 4. 24 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan 3 Needs Analysis This chapter describes the needs of bicyclists in Temple City using several methods. First, this chapter characterizes the needs and abilities of various bicyclist types based on industry -standard manuals and bicycle -related research. The following section summarizes the results from the City -administered bicyclist survey, and summarizes feedback collected from the public workshop. To provide insight on a more generalized scale, this chapter examines work and school commute data from the US Census. Lastly, this chapter analyzes bicycle collisions recorded from 2000 to 2008. 3.1 Bicyclist Types Often the most outspoken bicyclists during the planning process are the most experienced. It is important to consider bicyclists of all skill levels in creating a bicycle plan. The skill level of the bicyclist greatly influences expected speeds and behavior. There are several systems of classification currently in use within the bicycle planning and engineering professions. These classifications can be helpful in understanding the characteristics and infrastructure preferences of different bicyclists. However, these classifications may change in type or proportion over time as infrastructure and culture evolve. Often times an instructional course can rapidly change a less confident bicyclist to one that comfortably and safely shares the roadway with vehicular traffic. Bicycle infrastructure should have plans and designs that accommodate as many user types as possible, with decisions for separate or parallel facilities based on providing a comfortable experience for the greatest number of bicyclists. The following user types come from an excerpt from the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities: "Although their physical dimensions may he relatively consistent, the skills, confidence and preferences of bicyclists vary dramatically. Some riders are confident riding anywhere they are legally allowed w operate and can negotiate busy and high speed roads that have few, if any, special accommodations for bicyclists. Most adult riders are less confident and prefer to use roadways with a more comfortable amount of operating space, perhaps with designated space for bicyclists, or shared -use paths that arc away from motor vehicle traffic. Children may be confident riders and have excellent bicycle handling skills, but have yet to develop the traffic sense and experience of an everyday adult rider. All categories of rider require smooth riding surfaces with bicycle -compatible highway appurtenances, such as bicycle -safe drainage inlet grates. A I994 report by the Federal Highway Administration used the following general categories of bicycle user - types (A, B and C) to assist highway designers in determining the impact of different facility types and roadway conditions on bicyclists: Advanced or experienced riders are generally using their bicycles as they would a motor vehicle. They arc riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with a minimum of detour or delay. They are typically comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic; however, they need sufficient operating space on the traveled way or shoulder to eliminate the need for either themselves or a passing motor vehicle to shift position. Alta Planning + Design 1 25 Chapter 3 1 Needs Analysis Basic or less confident adult riders may also be using their bicycles for transportation purposes, e.g., to get to the store or to visit friends, 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. Thus, basic riders are comfortable riding on neighborhood streets and shared -use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bicycle lanes or wide shoulder lanes on busier streets. Children, riding on their own or with their parents, may not travel as fast as their adult counterparts but still require access to key destinations in their community, such as schools, convenience stores and recreational facilities. 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 can accommodate children without encouraging them to ride in the travel lane of major arterials." The AASHTO classifications above were the standard for at least 15 years, and can be helpful when assessing existing bicyclists. However, these classifications do not accurately describe all existing types of bicyclists, nor can they account for the population as a whole. For instance, they do not include potential bicyclists who are interested in riding, but feel that existing facilities are unsafe. Supported by data collected nationally since 2006, planners developed alternative categories to address the Americans' 'varying attitudes towards bicycling. According to this recent data, less than two percent of Americans comprise a group of bicyclists who arc 'Strong and Fearless'. These bicyclists typically ride anywhere on any roadway regardless of roadway conditions or weather. These bicyclists can ride faster than other user types, prefer direct routes and will typically choose roadway connections -- even if shared with vehicles — over separate bicycle facilities such as bicycle paths. Approximately 13 percent fall under the category of 'Enthused & Confident' bicyclists who are confident and mostly comfortable riding on all types of bicycle facilities but will usually prefer low traffic streets or multi -use pathways when available. These bicyclists may deviate from a more direct route in favor of a preferred facility type. This group includes all kinds of bicyclists including commuters, recreationalists, racers, and utilitarian bicyclists. Strong and Fearless Enthused & Confident Figure 3-1 Bicyclist Classifications 26 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City a Bicycle Master Plan The remainder of the American population does not currently ride a bicycle regularly. Approximately 60 percent of the population can be categorized as `Interested but Concerned' and represents bicyclists who typically only ride a bicycle on low traffic streets or bicycle paths under favorable conditions and weather. These infrequent or potential bicyclists perceive traffic and safety as significant barriers towards increased use of bicycling. These bicyclists may ride more regularly with encouragement, education and experience. Approximately 25 percent of Americans are not bicyclists, and perceive severe safety issues with riding in traffic. Some people in this group may eventually consider bicycling and may progress to one of the user types above. A significant portion of these people will never ride a bicycle under any circumstances. 3.2 Public Outreach This section presents Temple City residents' vision for the Bicycle Master Plan, which the City collected via an online survey that closed on February 28, 2011 and a public workshop on March 9, 2011. 3.2.1 Survey Responses The online survey hosted on the City's website (TempleCity.us) received more than 300 responses. City staff solicited public participation for the survey and community meeting through City news releases that resulted in significant local newspaper coverage, outreach to local businesses, cycling groups, school, and other community groups, and the annual Camellia Festival (February 26, 2011). 3.2.1.1 Existing Behavior The survey asked respondents how often they ride a bicycle. The data presented on Figure 3-2 show us that survey respondents tend to ride fairly regularly, with nearly 50 percent of respondents riding their bicycle at least once a week. Less than one day per month, 19%% 1-3 tills per maid 23%, Figure 3-2 User Survey, Bicycle Riding Frequency Alta Planning + Design 127 Chapter 3 [ Needs Analysis The survey asked respondents to list the reasons they bicycle. The responses presented in Figure 3-3 show that most residents bicycle for recreation. The survey also shows high levels of utilitarian bicycling (c.g. shopping and commuting). 1 For exercise/recreation To shop, run errands, or eat out 1 To get to work or school To visit friends/family To get to/from transit Other (please specify) 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Figure 3-3 User Survey, Reasons for Bicycling The survey asked people to categorize their typical bicycle trip distance. Figure 3-4 shows that more than half of the survey respondents typically travel less than five miles. These data are helpful when considering bicycle facilities aimed at various types of bicycle trips. For instance, bike lanes help facilitate mid -to -long distance, intercity or regional rides, while bike routes and bike boulevards help facilitate short distance, local rides. Figure 3-4 User Survey, Typical Bicycle Trip Distance 28 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan Among the factors that influence whether residents decide to bicycle, the three most important factors cited by survey respondents were • Motorists' behavior • Traffic volumes / speeds • Condition of bikeway ! roadway (e.g. pavement quality) The two least important factors cited by survey respondents were • Ability to combine bicycle trips with public transit • Travel time The survey responses indicate that current and potential cyclists have concerns about the existing roadway conditions and how cyclists interact with vehicular traffic. Improving cyclists' comfort on future bikeways is a priority for the BMP. Potential solutions include separating bicycle traffic from auto traffic with Class I bike paths, reinforcing bicycle right-of-way with bike lanes and bike boulevards, and educating drivers on how to interact with cyclists on the road. The least important factors cited by survey respondents reflect that most survey respondents bicycle for recreational purposes rather than to commute. 3.2.1.2 User Preferences Survey respondents showed a clear preference for on -street bicycle facilities. Bike lanes, bike routes, and bike boulevards ranked highest among respondents indicating they were either "Very Interested" or "Interested" in such facilities. Figure 3-5 displays the most popular responses among survey users for future bikeway facilities. The size of the font reflects the number of times respondents mentioned each roadway facility. The most popular roadways for future on -street bikeways were • Temple City Boulevard • Las Tunas Drive • Rosemead Boulevard • Baldwin Avenue • Longden Avenue Figure 3-5 User Survey Future Facility Keywords Alta Planning + Design 1 29 Chapter 3 Needs Analysis Among the most popular responses for bicycle programs, survey respondents rated the following five programs as either "Very Important" or "Important": 1. Safe Routes to School programs for children 2. Public awareness campaigns 3. Maps and guides 4. Bicycle information websites 5. Riding skills and safety courses for children The survey responses show that current and potential users would like the BMP to emphasize children's bicycling education and general outreach for bikeways and bicycling awareness. 3.2.2 Public Workshop Feedback The City presented the BMP at a public meeting on March 9, 2011 to solicit public input to the plan. Public input collected from the meeting is included as an appendix. 30 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan 3.3 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts United States Census "Commuting to Work" data provides an indication of current bicycling behavior. A major objective of bicycle facility enhancements and encouragement programs are to increase the bicycle "mode split" or percentage of people who choose to bike rather than drive alone. Table 3-1 presents commute to work data estimates reported by the 2007-2009 US Census American Community Survey for Temple City and, for comparative purposes, the United States, California, and Los Angeles County. Table 3-1 Means of Tt nsportation to Work Data Mode United States California Los Angleles County Temple City Bicycle Drove Alone — car, truck or van Carpool - car, truck or van Transit Walked Other Means Worked at Home Total 0.5% 75.8% 10.4% 5.0% 2.9% 1.2% 4.1% 100% 1.0% 72,9% 11.8% 5.2% 2.8% 1.4% 4.9% 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2009 American CommunitySurvey 0.7% 72.1% 11.2% 7.2% 2.9% 13% 4.5% 100% 0.996 76.8% 13.5% 2.1% 0.7% 1.2% 4.8% 100% According to the estimates shown in Table 3-1, less than one percent of Temple City residents commute predominately by bicycle. This estimated bicycle mode share is slightly higher than the county estimate, slightly lower than the state estimate and slightly higher than the national estimate. However, this figure likely underestimates the true amount of bicycling that occurs in Temple City for several reasons. First, data reflects respondents' dominant commute mode and therefore does not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips that would supplant vehicular trips. Also, US Census data collection methods only enable a respondent to select one mode of travel, thus excluding bicycle trips if they constitute part of a longer multimodal trip. Table 3-2 presents an adjusted estimate of current bicycling within Temple City using US Census data along with several adjustments for likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as discussed above. Table 3-3 presents the associated air quality benefits from bicycling. Alta Planning + Design 131 Chapter 3 1 Needs Analysis Existing study area population Table 3-2 Ad usted Existing (2010) 8i ding Demand 37,832 2006-2009 American Community Survey (ACS), B00001 3 -Year Estimates Existing employed population 17,902 2006-2009 ACS, 80801 3 -Year Estimates Existing bike -to -work mode share 0.87% 2006-2009 ACS, 80801 3 -Year Estimates Existing number of bike -to -work commuters 156 Employed persons multiplied by bike -to -work mode share Existing work -at-home mode share 4.8% 2006-2009 ACS, 50801 3 -Year Estimates Existing number of work -at -horse bike commuters 430 Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle trip Existing transit -to -work mode share 2.1% 2006-2009 ACS, 50801 3 -Year Estimates Existing transit bicycle commuters 94 Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 2596 of transit riders access transit by bicycle Existing school children, ages 6-14 (grades K-8) 4,479 2006-2009 ACS, 50801 3 -Year Estimates Existing school children bicycling mode share 2.096 National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003. Existing school children bike commuters 90 School children population multiplied by school children bike mode share Existing number of college students in study area 2,326 2006-2009 ACS, 814001 3 -Year Estimates Existing estimated college bicycling mode share 10.096 Review of bicycle commute share in seven unversity communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1,1995). Existing college bike commuters 233 College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share Existing total number of bike commuters 1,002 Total bike -to -work, school, college and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation. Total daily bicycling trips 2,003 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips) 32 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City [ Bicycle Master Plan Table 3-3 Adlussed Ex Current Estimated VMT Reductions ing (2010) Bicycling Air Quality Impart Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 842 Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for school children Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 219,632 Reduced weekday vehicle trips x 261 (weekdays / year) Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 3,915 Assurnes average round trip travel length of 5 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile for schoolchildren Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Current Air Quality Benefits Estimates Reduced Hydrocarbons (Ibs/wkday) Reduced PM10 (Ibs/wkday) 1,021,859 Reduced weekday vehicle miles x 261 (weekdays / year) 12 Daily mileage reduction x 1.36 grarns / mi 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced' PM2.5 (Ibs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (Ibs/wkday) 8 Daily mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (Ibs/wkday) 107 Daily mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi Reduced CO2 (Ibs/wkday) 3,185 Daily mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi Reduced Hydrocarbons (Ibs/yr) 3,064 Yearly mileage reduction X 1.36 grams/ mi Reduced PM10 (Ibs/yr) 12 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (Ibs/yr) 11 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams/ mi Reduced NOX (Ibs/yr) 2,140 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (Ibs/yr) 27,935 Yearly mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi Reduced CO2 (Ibs/yr) Source: Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline -Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005. 831,288 Yearly mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi Alta Planning + Design 1 33 Chapter 3 1 Needs Analysis Table 3-4 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity within Temple City using California Department of Finance population and school enrollment projections. Figure 3-5 presents the associated year 2030 air quality benefit forecasts. Table 3-4 Projected Year 2030 Slcycding Demand Variable Figure Source Future study area population Future employed population Future bike -to -work mode share 47,059 Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050. 22,268 Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population Projections for California and Its Counties2000-2050, 1.7% Double the rate from 2006-2009 American Community Survey, B0801 3 -Year Estimates Future number of bike -to -work commuters 387 Employed persons multiplied by bike -to -work mode share Future work -at-home mode share 4.8% Equal to existing condition rate from 2006-2009 American Community Survey, 50801 3 -Year Estimates Future number of work -at-home bike commuters 534 Assumes 5096 of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle trip Future transit -to -work mode share 4.296 Double the rate from 2006-2009 American Community Survey, S0801 3 -Year Estimates Future transit bicycle commuters 234 Employed persons multiplied by transit Mode share. Assumes 2596 of transit riders access transit by bicycle Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades K-8) 3,986 Calculated from CA Dept. of Finance, California Public K-12 Graded Enrollment and High School Graduate Projections by County, 2010 Series. Future school children bicycling mode share 4.096 Double the rate of national school commute trends. National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003. Future school children bike commuters Future number of college students in study area Future estimated college bicycling mode share 159 School children population multiplied by school children bicycling mode share 2,893 Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population Projections for California and its Counties 2000- 2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007. 10.096 Equal to existing condition assumption from "Review of bicycle commute share in seven university communities" (Source: National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995). Future college bike commuters 289 College student population x college student bicycling mode share Future total number of bike commuters 1,605 Total bike -to -work, school, college and utilitarian biking trips. Does not include recreation. Total daily bicycling trips 3,209 Total bike commuters x2 (for round trips) 34 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan Table 3-5 Projected Year 2030 8lcycling Air Quality Impact Variable FI. ure: Forecasted VMT Reductions Source Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 969 Assumes 7396 of biking trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53%forschool children Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 252,835 Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips x 261 (weekdays / year) Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 7058 Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults /college students and 1 mile for schoolchildren Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year Forecasted Air Quality Benefits 1,868,283 Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles x 261 (weekdays / year) Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 21 Daily mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (Ibs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (Ibs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction by 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (Ibs/wkday) 15 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 196 Daily mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams /mi Reduced CO2 (Ibs/wkday) 5,823 Daily mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi Reduced Hydrocarbons (Ibs/yr) 5,602 Yearly mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 21 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (Ibs/yr) 20 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (Ibs/yr) 3,913 Yearly mileage reduction x by0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (Ibs/yr) 51,074 Yearly mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi Reduced CO2 (Ibs/yr) 1,519,859 Yearly mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi Source: Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline -Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005. This model uses the latest state projections for population growth and reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. The benefits model predicts that the total number of bicycle commute trips could increase from the current daily estimate of 2,000 to 3,200, resulting in a substantial reduction of both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and associated emissions. This includes a yearly emissions reduction by 2030 of approximately 3,900 pounds of smog forming NOX and approximately 1.5 million pounds of CO,, the principal gas associated with global climate change. Alta Planning + Design 1 35 Chapter 3 1 Needs Analysis 3.4 Bicycle Collisions Table 3-6 presents a summary of collisions involving bicyclists in Temple City from 2000 through 200B. The California Highway Patrol's SWITRS website provided this collision information. Table 3-6Tem.le Cit Collision Summary (2000 — 2008) All Collisions Bicycle Collisions Pedestrian Collisions Year Incidents Fatal Inju Incidents Fatal Injury Incidents Fatal Injury 2000 6 2 4 2 0 2 1 1 0 2001 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 8 2 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 2004 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2005 4 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 2006 7 2 5 1 0 1 2 1 1 2007 6 z 4 0 0 0 3 0 3 2008 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 Total 41 11 30 6 1 5 10 2 8 Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential bicyclists. Identifying bicycle collision sires can assist in developing improvements or determining appropriate bicycle routes. Figure 3-6 presents the bicycle collision locations in Temple City from 2000 to 2008. Of the four bicycle collisions, four occurred within a quarter mile of the Temple City Boulevard / Las Tunas Drive intersection 36 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City !Bicycle Master Plan OigerE rt0 EAsT t- i `lt — TT I Et F 1 i SAN GA8R!Ei. I e .0 T E Mk P L 440 LFK101'JS I ARCA11 --:-:�- r14'11'0 l ! - r 1 • LI I fT MORi C• IrlFI ISLANDS LEGEND 0 Cyclist -Involved Collision TEMPLE CITY BICYCLE COLLISIONS (2000 - 2008) City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan I atiw Sr n¢O 2010 6a9kla lan k Mlp3wrm laArwle MR 09* 2017kAka W ra Wp+ 04/1/.1¢7111 M odem Fakrur y 162011 Figure 3-6 Temple City Bicycle Co llisions (2000-2008) 0 1000 2000F eet Alta Planning + Design 1 37 Chapter 4 1 Recommended Network 4 Recommended Network This chapter presents recommendations for future Temple City bikeway and bicycle support facilities. 4.1 Bikeways The bikeways recommended in this plan correspond to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standard designations, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. This plan proposes the Bike Boulevard facility in addition to these classifications. Subsequent sections will explain the design features of each facility type. Table 4-1 presents a summary of the proposed bikeway facilities for Temple City. Table 4-1 Prop +yed 8 keway Summary Facility Type Length (Miles) Class I Bike Paths Class II Bike Lanes Class III Bike Routes Bike Boulevards 2.6 10.0 14.2 2.7 TOTAL 28.8 The facility recommendations accounted for the following factors: • Varying user group needs — The proposed facilities offer a range of facility types, from bike lanes running along regionally -significant arterial roads to low -traffic, neighborhood bike routes. The varying facility types address the varying needs of different cyclist types (Section 3.1). • Existing bicycling patterns — This plan proposed facilities along routes used by existing cyclists, as identified by City staff and the community at large, via public workshops and online surveys. • Connectivity — The proposed facilities connect to both existing and proposed bikeway systems in adjacent municipalities and in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Creating a well- connected regional bikeway system improves cyclists access to major destinations inside and outside the region. • Traffic volumes and travel speeds — This plan gave preference to low -speed and low -volume roadways for on -street facilities to maximize cyclist safety and alleviate safety concerns for beginner cyclists. • Existing roadway width and right-of-way — This plan recommended facility types based on whether the existing right-of-way could accommodate the proposed facility with minimal changes to the existing facility. Reducing the need for significant changes to the roadway maximizes project feasibility and minimizes project expense. 38 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan • Public input — This plan accounts for information collected from community members' via public workshops and online surveys, including typical trip origins and destinations, desired facilities, and existing bicycling behavior. Figure 4-1 shows the proposed bicycle network along with existing and proposed bikeways in adjacent jurisdictions. Figure 4-2 shows how the Temple City network fits within the region's proposed bikeways. 4.1.1 Class I Bike Paths A bicycle path provides for bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from streets or highways. This plan identifies the 2.6 miles of the proposed Eaton Nash Bike Path that pass through Temple City. The Eaton Wash Bike Path project is in the Los Angeles County Bicycle Master Plan. The County owns and controls the facility. The entire 7.7 mile Eaton Wash Bike Path spans the Cities of Pasadena, Temple City, San Gabriel, Rosemead, and El Monte. Ultimately, the Eaton Wash Bike Path will connect to the existing Rio Hondo Bike Path. Table 4-2 summarizes the extents of Temple City's portion of the Eaton Wash Bike Path. Table 4-2 Proposed Class I Bike Paths Path Limit 1 limit 2 Length (Miles) Eaton Wash Longden Ave Temple City Blvd 2.6 Rio Hondo Bike Path Alta Planning + Design 1 39 Chapter 4 1 Recommended Network f,n L Jmiwen .. "rx iIrd, '4 Ih •i lld 1 s �> I7 011, i 'e.,. +nri1 men f Prepaid 131 cyda F.clItlir awl l• NoPith --- Chesil - Blke Lens — -_^ C{asaIl-BIkeR ate Bkyde Mewed Co mmul bFsilile ( Te mple CaY Ciy lletl ' ▪ Pita Lamy c. R&M. • CI B4Deraecam maree 1`+ Eke PeNlW:estPo d TEM PLE CITY PROPOSED BIKEWAYS DRAFT City of Temple City Bicycle Ma ster Plan irrup t Scum o201aGan&WO M ap5aaa: Lee enede'MR (2006 201%01 Ptw. .g+ Deign Q011I Met DI= Fd xury73Al1 Figure 4-1 Pro po sed Temple City Bicycle Netwo rk 40 I Alta Planning + Design 4 WC* 2000 Feet Pp alter City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan LOS MOCELES Co kaocLA WEST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY PROPOSED BIKEWAYS DRAFT it 0ANt ` -f`i. t I. g13G�M,E 4G F.l..00l1 - 3� lilmlMret ' iJ.ndal pHFpIY S+ sultAINK- 'fi{Y11 rr a!AWE City of Temple City Bicycle Maste r Plan Ir.w Swnz D]' 110 Goo* Emoth Vow Soul= ton Angela MR RO%,811q;A1n Maslow + Noon mu) Na pCeee F8u ry252011 Wang Repaid Blues Fawn - Class 1- Elio Path --- Clan 11-BkaLars - gam II -804111 tlA - Bito Barlow:1 CaamtairyFm100k. Pads P acioakiShgpplpCadw Mania Sialon 0 LA Morro Gold L maStatgn IROVR CACT 0 0 1 Figure 4-2 West San Gabriel Valley Planning Are a Proposed Bicycle Facilities 2Miler ,;fir; Alta Planning + Design 141 Chapter 4 I Recommended Network 4.1.2 Class II Bike Lanes Bike lanes provide a signed, striped, and stenciled lane for one-way travel on both sides of a street or highway. Class II bikeways enhance safety by delineating roadway right-of-way between motorized and non -motorized users. The BIM proposes 10.0 miles of bike lanes; five north -south facilities and two east -west facilities. Table 4-3 summarizes the proposed Temple City Class Il bike lane extents and length. Table 4-3 Proposed Class II Bike Lanes Street Lima 1 Limit 2 Length Miles) Baldwin Ave El Monte Ave Las Tunas Dr Lower Azusa Rd Rosemead Blvd Santa Anita Ave Temple City Blvd Lower Azusa Rd Live Oak Ave 0.95 Lower Azusa Rd Live Oak Ave 0.92 Baldwin Ave Muscatel Ave 1.5 El Monte Ave Southern Pacific RR 1.5 Southern Pacific RR Callita St 1.9 Grand Ave Live Oak Ave 0.72 Southern Pacific RR El Camino Real Ave 2.5 TOTAL 10.0 The proposed Rosemead Boulevard Class II bikeway will be a critical part of an overall corridor -long streetscapc project, which «sill include improvements to pedestrian facilities, landscaping, and other amenities. Figure 4-3 is an artist's vision of the final Rosemead Boulevard streetscape. To accommodate new bike lanes, several of the Class II bikeway projects will require changing the existing right-of-way, including narrowing some travel lanes and turn lanes, and removing on -street parking in some locations. Figure 4-4, Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 illustrate example treatments from the existing roadway cross-section without bike lanes to new cross -sections with bike lanes. 42 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan • ...41 ; C 7 �. 64,& r .. Source: Gruen Associates Figure 4-3 Rosemead Boulevard Concept Alta Planning + Design 1 43 Chapter 4 1 Recommended Network Before Side- Planting' Parking walk Strip , Median/ Turn Lane 1T 17' 121 Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane MTuedian/ Lane JPEMEk 76' After 1T Travel Lane Travel Lane 7-8' 5' 101 10' 11'-11' Side- Planting; parking w alk Strip I BALDWIN AVENUE EXAM PLE CROSS-SECTION TREATMENT 1 CY 1cr 5 7-8' Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Parking !Planting Side - Lane Strip walk Parking 'Planting Side- ' Strip walk City of Temple City Bicyde Master Plan FE{IMATAI1 Figure 4.4 Baldwin Avenue Example Cro ss -Section Treatment 44 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycl e Mast er Plan Side- Planting! Parking walk Strip i Parking !Planting Side - Strip walk 124 12" Travel Lane Travel Lane Side- Plantingu,, Parking Bike walk Strip Lane 8' 1a Travel Lane Travel Lane 12' Median/ Turn Lane 76' After 9-10' Median / Turn Lane 1Z 12, Travel Lane Travel Lane 117 10' 5 W Travel Lane Travel Lane LAS TUNAS DRIVE EXAM PLE CRO SS-SECTION TREATM ENT Bike Parking I Planting Side - Lane Strip walk City of Temple City Bicycle Master Plan rERIANt2mi Figure 4-5 Las Tunas Avenue Ex ample Cro ss -Section Tre atment Alta Planning + Design 1 45 Travel Lane+ Parking (varies) Chapter 4 1 Recomm ended Network Before 10' 10' 17''18' Travel Lane Medlar/ Travel Lane Turn Lane Travel Lane + l Side - Parking walk (varies) l 64' 13101 After 5': 5, . 5' 5' 12' 14' 10' 10 1Z Bike Travel Lane Travel Lane Median/ Travel Lane Travel lane Blke 151de- Lane Turn Lane lane' walk LOWER AZUSA BOULEVARD EXAMPLE CROSS-SECTION TREATMENT City or Temple City Bicyde Master Plan FEBRUARY 2011 Figure 4-6 Lower Azusa Boulevard Example Cro ss -Sectio n Treatment 46 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan 4.1.3 Class 111 Bike Routes Class III bike route facilities use signage and painted markings to inform motorized and non -motorized users that the roadway is a part of the official bicycle network. Bike routes are appropriate where there is insufficient right-of-way to install a dedicated lane or widen the shoulder. All proposed Class III segments should display bicycle route signs consistent with the California MUTCD. The bike route may also use shared -lane markings when the street provides on -street parallel parking. Table 4-4 summarizes the proposed Temple City Class III bike lane extents and length. Table 4-4 Proposed Class III Bike Routes Street Limit 1 Limit 2 Length Miles} Arden Dr/ Gracewood Dr Daines Dr Encinita Ave Lower Azusa Rd Olive St Santa Anita Ave Southern Pacific RR Freer St Live Oak Ave Baldwin Ave Lemon Ave 0.83 1.2 1.9 Garibaldi Ave Burton Ave Baldwin Ave 1.6 Golden West Ave Lower Azusa Rd Lemon Ave Encinita Ave Live Oak Ave Encinita Ave Longden Ave Burton Ave Figure 4-7 CaMUTCD Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking Lemon Ave 3.9 City Limit e/o Golden 0,7 West Ave El Monte Ave 3.3 100' e/o Agnes Ave 1.5 TOTAL 11.6 On bike route segments where on -street parking is present and the speed limits are appropriate, this Plan recommends using the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CaMUTCD) "Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking" (commonly referred to as a "Sharrow" or "Shared Lane Marking"). Alta Planning + Design 147 Chapter 4 0 Recommended Network This Plan recommends designating roadways as bicycle routes with signage where (1) bike lanes are not feasible in the near term, and (2) on -street parking is not present or the speed limit is not appropriate for shared Roadway Bicycle Markings. In addition to the standard CaMUTCD "BIKE ROUTE" (D-11) signage, this Plan recommends using Bicycle Warning signs (\V- 11) and Share the Road signs W-11 + W-16-1). 4.1.4 Bike Boulevards Bike boulevards are similar to Class III hike routes in their use of signage and painted markings to designate the roadway as a part of the official bicycle network. However, bike boulevards also receive additional treatment to emphasize bicycle traffic and discourage cut -through auto traffic. Such treatments include auto traffic diverters, speed bumps, and bicycle -specific intersection traffic control. Table 4-5 summarizes the proposed Temple City bike boulevard, which spans the southern portion of the City from east to west. 48 I Alta Planning + Design SHARE THE ROAD Figure 4-8 Sample Bike Route Signage Sample Bike Boulevard Pavement Treatment, Morro Street, San Luis Obispo City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan Table 4-5 Prapos* d Bike Boulevards Street Limit 1 Limkt 2 Length (Miles) Arden Dr Freer St Olive St 0.11 Freer St Arden Dr Santa Anita Ave 0.84 Olive St Rosemead Blvd Arden Dr 1.7 TOTAL 2.7 4.2 Bicycle End -of -Trip and Intermodal Facilities Support facilities and connections to other modes of transportation are essential components of a bicycle system because they enhance safety and convenience for cyclists at the end of every trip. With nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips, bicyclists need secure and well -located bicycle parking. A comprehensive bicycle parking strategy is one of the most important things that a jurisdiction can apply to immediately enhance the bicycling environment. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with connections to public transit will further the geographical range of residents traveling without using an automobile. The City should ensure there is adequate bicycle parking at all major trip attractors, including commercial and civic activity centers and transit hubs. The City Municipal Code currently provides bicycle parking standards for commercial development. The City should prioritize the installation of bicycle parking throughout the city, with particular attention directed at the following locations: • Parks • Schools • Commercial/office areas • Civic/government buildings • Public transit stations High -activity locations such as transit stations and major commercial districts should provide more secure bicycle parking options, such as bicycle lockers. Temple City currently receives service from several regional transit providers, but does not have an intermodal transit hub. Any future intermodal facilities should study and provide secure bicycle parking as part of the facility's design. Figure 4.9 recommends the general locations for bike racks and bike lockers in Temple City. Long Term Bike Parking Facility Metrolink BikeStation, Covina CA Alta Planning + Design 149 Chapter 4 1 Recommended Network EAST PASA DENA - E SI° SAN AA8Ria y w ti<t ®I 4 1 i Ci p THE II, P L E F ' .: S.JfISF h q'1...', 11., -'.- M'',..1 i V at' 3V'+ '..LLsf eri w �- - lcr • r It "�6 - rill 14'Y'ad ICI tAsitaru- ". .-.11-11- 1.1,1), flCmI n F 11.1. 11. I, 0,..3 �PF I'm! 1., inipPro AReADIA Proposed Btcyde Parking © Re REM 12 Malodors Lockers Calamity Facial Q Tanaka/ City MI ▪ Ris k U4rwy • Paid Ms • Chamber erCemrrrerce BOPith Accra Pat ovE cJO.l‘Sr G a 1000 2000 Feet TEMPLE CITY PROPOSED BIKE PARK/NG DRAFT City of Temple Clty Bicycle Master Plan rm.w Soho[ 7n0Yoople E & Map Sees Les Mpdn M0. R0e47o10tMuWxnin a*NAM MOH /hp a.te MUCH 7611 Figure 4-9 Propo sed Bike Parking Locatio ns 50 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan 4.3 Project Cost Estimates Table 4-6 presents planning -level cost estimates for the proposed bikeway facility types and corresponding cost estimate for facilities falling within each bikeway category. The cost estimates include costs for survey and design, construction, administration, and contingencies. These costs do not include programmatic or project level environmental review or detailed traffic studies for implementing neighborhood traffic management programs as part of on -road bikeways. The total cost for the proposed network is $6.9 million. On -street facilities comprise S1.46 million of the total cost. Table 4-6 General and Project -Specific Bicycle Network Cost Estimates Facility Type Unit Cost per mile Proposed Facility length imi) Cost Estimate Eaton Wash Bike Path, Class I - Bike Path' $2,100,000 2.6 $ 5,460,000 Rosemead Boulevard, Class 11 c- Bike Lane' $403,000 1.9 $766,000 Class 11 - Bike Lane $40,000 8.1 $ 323,600 Class 111-, Bike Route with sharrows $25,000 11,6 $290,000 Bicycle Boulevard $30,000 2.7 $79,500 Totals 26.6 $6„920,600 'Los Angeles County Bike Master Plan, Table 5-2. KOA Corporation, August 2010 =Source: Gruen Associates 4.4 Project Priority This section provides the methodology for prioritizing the proposed bicycle projects. Each criterion contains valuable information about a facility and its ability to address an existing or future need in Temple City. The resulting project ranking determines each project's relative importance in funding and scheduled construction. 4.4.1 Prioritization Criteria The BMP used the following measures to evaluate the ability for each proposed bikeway facility to fulfill Temple City cyclist needs. Connectivity to Existing Facilities Existing facilities promote and support walking and bicycling, but their failure to connect to larger systems leaves gaps in the network. These gaps discourage walking/biking because they limit route continuity and prevent direct connections to desirable destinations. Projects that extend or connect to the Rio Hondo Bike Path and El Monte Avenue bike lanes (Arcadia) qualify for this prioritization criterion. Alta Planning + Design 1 51 Chapter 4 [ Recommended Network Connectivity to Proposed Regional Facilities Over the life of this Plan, there will be efforts to construct bikeway facilities in adjacent cities and unincorporated areas. Proposed facilities that anticipate future regional connections will eliminate network gaps and provide direct connections to desirable destinations outside the City. The Eaton Wash Bike Path and projects that connect to the Eaton Wash Bike Path qualify for this prioritization criterion. Connections to Activity Centers Activity centers are the major trip -driving destinations within the City. Increasing bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to major activity centers can reduce traffic congestion and support residents and visitors who choose to bicycle or walk. Projects that connect to the Downtown Temple City corridor on Las Tunas Avenue, the commercial corridor on Rosemead Boulevard, and Live Oak Park qualify for this prioritization criterion. Proximity to Schools School children typically have higher rates of bicycling and walking than adults for transportation. To encourage more students to bike and walk to school, proposed facilities within 0.25 mile of K-12 schools (public and private) qualify for this prioritization criterion. Collisions New facilities can reduce the frequency of bicycle/pedestrian collisions with motor vehicles. Projects that serve areas with concentrated amounts of bicycle/pedestrian collisions qualify for this prioritization criterion. Public Input The City solicited public input using a website survey and public workshops. Feasible projects with demonstrated public endorsement qualify for this prioritization criterion. The project team assigned importance -based multipliers to each facility criterion based on their relative importance to the City's overall circulation, connectivity, access, and funding. The extent to which proposed projects address these criteria determines the project's prioritization in construction and funding. The ranking exercise resulted in the following prioritization: 1. Connectivity to Existing Facilities 2. Connectivity to Proposed Regional Facilities 3. Connections to Activity Centers 4. Proximity to Schools 5. Public Input 6. Collisions 52 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City I Bicycle Master Plan 4.4.2 Project Ranking Table 4-7 shows how the ranking exercise described in the previous section translated into weights for project prioritization. Weights arc based on direct, secondary, or no service at all. Direct service means that a facility intersects with a destination, whereas secondary access occurs when the primary facility connects to another proposed facility that meets the criteria. Table 4-71'roject Criteria Weight and Scoring Total Multi- Possible Criteria Score Filler Score Description Connectivity, Existing 2 1 0 Connectivity, 2 Proposed 1 Regional 0 2 Activity 1 Centers 0 2 Schools 1 0 2 Public Input 1 0 2 Collisions 1 0 Total Possible Score 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1� 1 1 6 3 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 4 2 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 24 Direct access to an existing bicycle facility. Secondary access to an existing bicycle facility. No direct access to an existing bicycle facility. Proposed facility is a regional bicycle facility. Direct access to a proposed regional bicycle facility. No direct access to a proposed regional bicycle facility. Direct connection to a major trip -driving destination in Temple City. Secondary connection to a major trip -driving destination in Temple City. No connection to a major trip -driving destination in Temple City. Direct access to a Temple City school (within a 1/4 mile). Secondary access to a Temple City school (within 1/2 mile) 'No direct access to a Temple City school. Identified by the public as desirable for a future facility multiple times. Identified by the public as desirable for a future facility once. Not identified by the public as desirable for a future facility Roadway that experienced three or more collisions in the last ten years. Roadway that experienced one to two collisions in the last ten years. Roadway that did not experience a collision in the last five years. The following tables present the proposed bicycle projects in the City ranked according to the weighted criteria. The City should implement these projects in the rough order of their prioritization, provided there is available funding. These rankings arc not the final implementation order, but a guide to direct the City as funding and opportunities arise. Alta Planning + Design 1 53 Chapt er 4 I Recommend ed N etw ork Table 4-8 Project Pri oritization Path Street Limit 1 Limit 2 Length (Mil es) Clas s C on n Co hn (Pr . Activity Public (Existing) Region) Centers Scho ols Input Collisions Multiplier 3 3 2 2 1 1 Total' Arden Dr/ Gracewoo d Dr Eaton Wash Lower Azusa Rd Rosemead Blvd Temple City Blvd Las Tunas Dr Lower Azusa Rd Olive St Longden Ave El Mo nte Ave Southern Pacific RR Southern Pacific RR Baldwin Ave Freer St Li ve Oak Ave Temple City Blvd Southern Pacific RR Calllta St El Camin o Real Ave Muscatel Ave 0 .83 3 2.6 1 1.5 2 1 .9 2 2.5 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 2 12 1.5 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 11 Lemon Ave Encinita Ave 650' e/o Golden West Ave 0.68 3 0 2 0 2 1 0 11 Live Oak Ave Encinita A ve El Monte Ave 1 .7 3 2 0 0 1 2 11 Oak Ave El Monte Ave Encinita Ave Lemon Ave Lo wer Azusa Rd So uthern Pacific RR Grand Ave Duarte Rd Live Oak Ave Lemon Ave 0.25 0.92 1.9 3 2 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 11 1,0 10 Santa Anita Ave Live Oak Ave 0.72 2 2 0 0 2 0 10 Arden Dr Freer St Olive St 0.11 4 0 1 0 2 2 O 9 Freer St Arden Dr Santa Anita Ave 0.84 4 1 0 1 2 0 O 9 Longden Ave Burton Ave 100' e/o Agnes Ave 1.5 3 0 1 0 2 2 0 9 Olive 5t Rosemead Blvd Arden Dr 1.7 4 0 1 0 2 2 0 9 Daines Dr Santa Anita Ave Baldwin Ave 1. 2 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 8 Garibaldi Ave Burton Ave Baldwin Ave 1.6 3 0 1 0 1 2 O 7 Baldwin Ave Lo wer Azusa Rd Live Oak Ave 0.95 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 5 Golden West Ave Lo wer Azusa Rd Lemon Ave 2.0 B 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 54 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan 5 Recommended Programs Creating a city that supports and encourages its residents to bicycle involves more than just infrastructure improvements. This chapter describes programs that will educate people about bicyclists' rights and responsibilities, and safe bicycle operation; connects current and future bicyclists to existing resources; and encourages residents to bicycle more frequently. 5.1 Enforcement Motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists alike are sometimes unaware of each other's rights as they travel city streets. Enforcement programs target unsafe bicyclist and motorist behaviors and enforce laws that reduce bicycle/motor vehicle collisions and conflicts. Enforcement fosters mutual respect between roadway users and improves safety. These programs generally require coordination between law enforcement, transportation agencies, and bicycling organizations. Educating the public through enforcement policies will supplement the physical improvements made in Temple City. Temple City contracts wirh the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement. The California Vehicle Code (CVC), as enforced by the County Sheriff's Department, protects bicyclists in the public right- of-way. 5.1.1 Targeted enforcement Target Audience: Cyclists and motorists Traffic enforcement agencies, e.g. the Sheriff's Department, enforce laws pertaining to bicycles as part of the responsible normal operations. Targeted enforcement is one way to publicize bicycle laws in a highly visible and public manner. Targeted enforcement may take the form of intersection stings, handing out informational sheets to motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; and enforcing speed limits and right-of-way. 5.1.2 Speed Radar Trailer / Permanent Speed Signs Target Audience: Motorists Speed radar trailers can help reduce traffic speeds and enforce speed limits in areas with speeding problems. Police set up an unmanned trailer that displays the speed of approaching motorists along with a speed limit sign. Speed trailers may be effective on busier arterial roads without bikeway facilities or near schools with reported speeding. The speed trailer's roadway placement should not obstruct bicycle traffic. Speed trailers work as both an educational and enforcement tool. By itself, the unmanned trailer educates motorists about their current speed in relation to the speed limit. Speed Radar Trailer Alta Planning + Design 155 Portland, OR Bicycle Patrol Officer Chapter 5 I Recommended Programs Speed trailers can transport easily to streets where local residents complain about speeding problems. The Sheriff's Department may station an officer near the trailer to issue speeding citations when speeding continues to occur. City staff may provide the management role for this program, working with the public and determine which locations are in most need. This program can administer randomly, cyclically, or as demand necessitates because of the speed trailers' portability. 5.1.3 Bicycle Patrol Units Target Audience: Cyclists and motorists On -bike officers are an excellent tool for community and neighborhood policing because they are more accessible to the public and able to mobilize in areas where patrol cars cannot (e.g., ovcrcrossings and paths). Bike officers undergo special training in bicycle safety and bicycle -related traffic laws and arc therefore especially equipped to enforce laws pertaining to bicycling. Bicycle officers help educate cyclists and motorists through enforcement and also serve as excellent outreach personnel to the public at parades, street fairs, and other gatherings. 5.1.4 Bicycle Light Enforcement Target Audience: Cyclists California Vehicle Code (CVC) 421201 requires bicycles to mount a front white light and red rear reflectors. Bicycling without lights reduces bicyclists' visibility and visibility to motor vehicles, and therefore increases bicyclists' risks of being involved in bicycle -car crashes. For these reasons, increasing bicycle light use should be a top priority for improving bicycle safety in Temple City. Bicycle light enforcement can effectively impact behavior particularly if bicyclists can avoid penalty by obtaining a bike light. One option is for officers to give offenders warnings, explain the law, and install a free hike light at the time of citation. Alternatively, officers can write "fix it tickets" and waive the fine if bicyclists can prove that they have purchased a bike light within a specified timeframe. When citing bicyclists, officers can also provide coupons for free or discounted lights at a local bike shops, if available. Bicycle light enforcement can work in tandem with outreach efforts. The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) administers a program called "City Lights" that features free bicycle lights in conjunction with educational materials. Temple City can tailor this program to fit its unique needs. Bike light outreach campaigns can include the following components: • Placing advertisements on transit benches, transit vehicles, and local newspapers reminding bicyclists about the importance of bike lights. 56 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan • Distributing media releases with statistics about the importance of using bike lights and relevant legal statutes. • Partnering with local cycling groups to publicize bicycle light use, especially at schools. Groups should receive campaign materials to distribute to constituents along with coupons for free or discounted bike lights. • Stationing volunteers at key intersections and paths to thank bicyclists for bike lights, rewarding cyclists with a small gift. • Organizing a community bike light parade with prizes. • Providing discounts on bike lights and reflective gear at local bike shops. 5.2 Education Education programs enable bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists to understand how to travel safely in the roadway environment according to the law. Education programs are available in an array of mediums, from long-term courses with detailed instruction to single sessions focusing on a specific topic. Curriculums should be appropriate to the target audience and to the format of instruction. 5.2.1 Bicycle Skills Courses Target Audience: General public Most bicyclists do not receive comprehensive instruction on safe and effective bicycling techniques, laws, or bicycle maintenance. Bike skill training courses are an excellent way to improve both cyclist confidence and safety. The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) developed a comprehensive bicycle skills curriculum considered the national standard for adults seeking to improve their on -bike skills. The classes available include bicycle safety checks and basic maintenance, basic and advanced on -road skills, commuting, and driver education.4 LACBC currently offers adult LAB courses taught by League Certified Instructors. Temple City can partner with the LACBC and other non-profit organizations to expand course offerings, incorporating them into recreation center programs or other city programs. 5.2.2 Youth Bicycle Safety Education Target Audience: Youth Youth bicycle safety programs educate students about the rules of the road, proper use of bicycle equipment, biking skills, street crossing skills, and the benefits of bicycling. Such education programs are frequently part of Safe Routes to School programs. Bicycle safety education can integrate into classroom time, physical education periods, or after school. Classroom lessons administered by a volunteer, trained professional, law enforcement officer, or teacher can teach children about bicycling and traffic safety. Individual lessons should focus on one or two key issues and include activities that are fun and engaging. Bicycle safety lessons are most appropriate for fourth through Additional program information is available online at wwtiv.bikeleague.org/progrrams/education/courses.php. Alta Planning + Design 157 Chapter 5 1 Recommended Programs eighth grade students'. The National Center for Safe Routes to School (SR2S) online guide summarizes key messages to include in pedestrian and bicycle safety curriculums.s In addition to classroom -based activities, periodic "safety assemblies" can also provide bicycle safety education. Safety assemblies convey a safety message through the use of engaging and visually stimulating presentations, videos, skits, guest speakers, or artistic displays. Assemblies should be relatively brief and focus on one or two topics. Classes receiving on- going instruction on related topics can participate by presenting their lessons to the rest of the school. Schools can reinforce safety assembly lessons by reiterating the message in school announcements, school newsletters, posters, or other means. In addition to providing safety instruction, safety assemblies generate enthusiasm about biking. Temple City's Public Safety Department offered bicycle safety classes to youths cited for operating a bicycle in violation of the California Vehicle Code or City Municipal Code. The class taught the rules of Temple City Youth Bicycle Safety Materials the road and applicable vehicle codes, demonstrated proper bicycle operation, and showed proper equipment. The City last offered the class in 2005. AN iiaUtallaFNAt Ac -FRITHS. S. 1 City of Temple City Funding for this program nea provided by a loam The Catiforrda Oltce o Salley through the B eulilae and Honing Agency 5.2.3 Bicycle Rodeos Target Audience: Children Bicycle Rodeos are individual events that help students develop basic bicycling techniques and safety skills through the use of a bicycle safety course. Rodeos use playgrounds or parking lots set-up with stop signs, traffic cones, and other props to simulate the roadway environment. Students receive instruction on how to maneuver, observe stop signs, and look for on -coming traffic before proceeding through intersections. Bicycle Rodeos also provide an opportunity for instructors to ensure children's helmets and bicycles are appropriately sized. Events can include free or low-cost helmet distribution and bike safety checks. Trained adult volunteers, local police, and the fire department can administer Rodeos. Bicycle Rodeos can be stand-alone events or can incorporate into health fairs, back -to -school events, and Walk and Bike to School days. The City Public Safety Department implemented Bicycle Rodeo programs as part of a bicycle safety education program. s Safe Aoutcs to School National Partnership, http://www.saferoutespartnership.org; http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/education/key_messagesfor children.cfm 58 I Alta Planning + Design Sample Bicycle Signage, Berkeley, CA City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan 5.2.4 Share the Path Campaign Target Audience: Bike path users Conflicts between path users can occur on popular, well -used path systems. "Share the Path" campaigns promote safe and courteous behavior among all users. These campaigns typically involve distribution of bicycle bells and other bicycle paraphernalia, and brochures with safety tips, and maps at bicycle rides and other public events. Effective Share the Path campaigns generally involve the following: • Developing a simple, clear Share the Path brochure for distribution through local bike shops and wherever bike maps are distributed. • Hosting a bicycle bell giveaway event on a popular shared -use path. Volunteers and agency staff can distribute bells to cyclists and "Share the Path" brochures to other path users, and answer users' questions. Other volunteers may walk along the path and thank bicyclists who use their bells when passing. • Conducting media outreach before a bell giveaways event. The event organizers should publicize positive stories about bicycling and use the event as an opportunity for marketing the path system. Media outreach can include public senzce announcements promoting courtesy and respect among all path users, and encouraging users to share the path safely. 5.3 Encouragement Encouragement programs focus on encouraging people to bicycle more frequently by providing incentives, recognition, or services that make bicycling a more convenient transportation mode. 5.3.1 Bicycle Signage Program A signagc program can support individuals choosing to make non -motorized trips by advertising routes and popular destinations. The City may develop a uniform signage concept and plan for bikeways, including uniform sign designs, placement guidelines (e.g. sign location and frequency), a map of proposed bikeways and corridors to receive signage, and guides on avoiding placing excessive signage. Signage posted along bikeways should be consistent with other City signagc standards. Alta Planning + Design 1 59 Chapter 5 I Recommended Programs 5.3.2 Share the Road Education Campaign A Share the Road campaign educates motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians about their legal rights and responsibilities on the road, and the need for increased courtesy and cooperation among all users. Share the Road campaigns often hold periodic traffic checkpoints along roadways with concentrated bicycle and pedestrian activity. Motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians stop at these checkpoints to receive a Share the Road flyer and can give feedback to officers regarding the campaign. Checkpoints can also occur along local bikeways and paths. Public service announcements on radio and television can help promote the Share the Road campaign. The Marin County Bicycle Coalition offers an example of a successful Share the Road campaign.` 5.3.3 Bicycling Maps One of the most effective ways of encouraging people to bicycle is to distribute maps and guides to show that bicycle infrastructure exists. A map can also demonstrate the ease in accessing different parts of the community by bike, and highlight unique areas, shopping districts, or recreational areas. Maps can be countywide, community -specific, or neighborhood maps, and can be available on paper and/or online. Schools may create specialized biking and walking maps to direct students to walk and bicycle along the safest routes to school. These specialized maps may include arrows to indicate the routes and show stop signs, signals, crosswalks, sidewalks, trails, overcrossings, and crossing guard locations surrounding the school. The maps should focus on the attendance boundary of a particular school. Routes should take advantage of low volume residential streets and off-street facilities such as bike paths, sidewalks, and pedestrian bridges. The City will work with Los Angeles County to include Temple City's proposed bikeways in regional existing and proposed bikeway network maps. The Metro website provides bike maps for the region!' 5.3.4 Multi -Modal Access Guide A multi -modal access guide provides information on accessing specific destinations using bicycling, walking and public transit. An access guide can be as simple as a map printed on the back of a business card, or as complicated as multi -page packets. Items commonly included in access guides include: • An area map depicting bus stops, recommended routes, landmarks, facilities such as restrooms and drinking fountains, bicycle parking, and major roads • Information on transit service frequency, fares, accepted payment, schedules, and transit service provider contact information • Information on walk or bike travel time from a transit center to a destination • Accessibility information for people with disabilities An effective guide should provide graphics, specific step-by-step travel directions, parking location and pricing information, and information about the benefits of walking and bicycling. High quality access guides should be concise and accurate, and should incorporate input from key stakeholders including public r www.marinbike.org/Campaigns/ShareTheRoad/lndex.shtml. http://«wvw.metro.net/around/hikes/bikes-metro/ 60 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan transportation operators, public officials, public and private employees, guide distributors, and those with disabilities. The Metro website provides additional resources on bicycle -public transit connections.0 5.3.5 Event Bicycle Parking Providing safe and secure bicycle parking helps encourage individuals to bicycle. San Francisco passed a city ordinance that requires all major city events to provide bike parking and pioneered an innovative tool for stacking hundreds of bicycles without racks.h' Temple City may consider temporary bicycle parking for events with expected large attendance and at regularly occurring events like a Farmer's Market. 5.3.6 Ciclovias/ "Sunday Streets" First implemented in Bogota, Colombia, the Ciclovia is a community event based around a street closure. Ciclovias provide local recreational and business opportunities for the community and are increasingly popular citywide events. Ciclovias can combine with other popular community events to promote walking and bicycling as a form of viable transportation. Ideally, Ciclovias should provide access to civic, cultural, or commercial destinations. Las Tunas Drive may be an ideal candidate for a Ciclovia 1' Inaugural CicLAvia, Los Angeles, CA October 10, 2010 5.3.7 Community Bikeway/Walkway Adoption Community Bikcway/Walkway Adoption programs resemble the widely instituted Adopt -a -Highway programs throughout the country. These programs identify local individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in "adopting" a bikeway, walkway, or shared -use path. "Adopting" a facility means that a person or group is responsible for the facility's maintenance, either through direct action or funding the City's maintenance of that facility. For example, members of a local recreation group may volunteer every other weekend to sweep a bikeway and identify larger maintenance needs. Alternatively, a local bike shop may adopt a bikeway by providing funding for the maintenance costs. Some adopted bikeways post sponsors' names on bikeway signs to display their commitment to bicycling. http://www.metro.net/around/bikes/bikes-metro/ '0w%vw.sf bike.org/?valet " More information is available at www.hcalthystrcets.org/pages/sunday_parkways.htm and http://www.ciclavia.org Alta Planning + Design 1 61 Chapter 5 1 Recommended Programs 5.3.8 Community Walks/Bike Tours Community walks and tours are healthy ways to promote historical and cultural aspects of the City. Groups that can organize community tours include Temple City staff, neighborhood organizations, schools, and other groups that want the public to interact with the physical environment. Community walks and bike tours are effective tools for examining potential improvements to the physical environment and educating participants on resources/amenities available within the City. 5.3.9 Bicycling Campaigns Bike to Work and School events are high profile, encouragement programs that introduce people to bicycle commuting. These events also serve to change the general public's perceptions and attitudes toward bicycle commuting. Common elements of Bike to Work events include commuting workshops, guided commutes, and group rides to increase comfort and familiarity with bicycling routes. Organizers can supplement these events with stations or bicycle pit stops to reward bicycle commuters with treats and other incentives, team bicycling challenges, and celebrity events (e.g., Mayor bikes to work). The Metro websitc provides additional resources for Bike to Work events.' Bike to School event 12 http://www.metro.net/around/bikesibikes-metro/bike-to-work/ 62 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City [ Bicycle Master Plan 6 Funding The following section summarizes Temple City's past bicycle project expenditures, its projected financial need based on the proposed project cost estimates (Section 4.3), and potential federal, state, local, and other funding sources. 6.1 Past Expenditures The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Document (BTA Document, 2006) contains an inventory of existing bikeway facilities, past expenditures, proposed bikeways, and proposed costs for cities within Metro jurisdiction. Table 3 of the BTA Document (pp. 17-21) does not indicate any Temple City bike project expenditures over the last several years. The City's records indicate expenditures on education and outreach efforts. 6.2 Future Financial Needs The cost of the proposed network totals to S6.9 million, with the on -street facilities comprising $1.46 million of the total cost. Table 6-1 shows the priority level and cost for each segment. Note that the project priority does not indicate a project order, but rather serves to guide the City's BMP implementation as funding and other opportunities arise. Alta Planning + Design 163 Chapter 5 1 Recommended Programs Table 6-1 Bfke.• s Project Priority and Cost Path I Tier Street Limit 1 Limit 2 Length (Miles) Class Cost Est. 1 Arden Dr/ Gracewood Dr Lower Azusa Rd Olive St Freer St Live Oak Ave 0.83 3 $20,750 1 Eaton Wash' Longden Ave Ternple City Blvd 2.6 1 $5,460,000 1 Lower Azusa Rd" El Monte Ave Southern Pacific RR 1.5 2 $60,000 1 Rosemead Blvd's Southern Pacific RR Callita St 1.9 2 $766,000 1 Temple City Blvd Southern Pacific RR El Camino Real Ave 2.5 2 $100,000 2 Las Tunas Dr Baldwin Ave Muscatel Ave 1.5 2 $60,000 2 Lemon Ave Encinita Ave 650' e/o Golden West Ave 0.68 3 $17,000 2 Live Oak Ave Encinita Ave El Monte Ave 1.7 3 $42,500 2 Oak Ave Lemon Ave Duarte Rd 0.25 3 $6,250 2 El Monte Ave Lower Azusa Rd Live Oak Ave 0.92 2 $36,800 2 Encinita Ave Southern Pacific RR Lemon Ave 1.9 3 $47,500 2 Santa Anita Ave1° Grand Ave Live Oak Ave 0.72 2 $28,800 3 Arden Dr Freer St Olive St 0.11 BB $3,300 3 Freer St Arden Dr Santa Anita Ave 0.84 BB $25,200 3 Longden Ave Burton Ave 100' e/o Agnes Ave 1.5 3 $37,500 3 Olive St Rosemead Blvd Arden Dr 1.7 BB $51,000 3 Daines Dr Santa Anita Ave Baldwin Ave 1.2 3 $30,000 3 Garibaldi Ave Burton Ave Baldwin Ave 1.6 3 $40,000 3 Baldwin Ave Lower Azusa Rd Live Oak Ave 0.95 2 $38,000 3 Golden West Ave Lower Azusa Rd Lemon Ave 2.0 3 $50,000 Total $6,920,600 6.3 Funding Sources All levels of government contain programs that can potentially fund bicycle projects, programs, and plans. This section covers federal, state, regional and some non-traditional funding sources of bicycle funding. Many funding sources are highly competitive. Therefore, it is not possible to determine exactly which projects will receive funding from specific funding sources. The following information serves as a general guide to funding sources. Staff should refer to current guidelines provided by the granting agency when pursuing any funding opportunity. Table 6.2 is a summary of the funding sources discussed in the subsequent sections. li Project will require a joint effort in funding and implementation between the City and Los Angeles County. 14 Segments of Lower Azusa Rd lie within the City of El Monte. Project will require coordination and possible funding and implementation between the Ciry of Temple City and the City of El Monte. 15 The Ciry is currently implementing this project. `6 Project will require a joint effort in funding and implementation between the City and Los Angeles County. 64 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan Table 6-2 Bikeway irnpr overrt erits Fu nding urnrn•dry Granting Agency Du e Date Fund Annual S ource(s) Funding (a . • r ox) MatchingEJigibra Bik eway Projects Comm - R ec- Safety/ Comments Requirement ut e r eation Educ Federal Land & Water May Conservatio n Fund (LWCF) Pe tro leum Vio lation Escrow Account (PVEA) Safe Routes to School - Federal Transpo rtation and Co mmunity and System Preserv ation Program (TCSP) Recreational Trails Program (RTP) State AB 2766 Subvention Funds Bicycle Tran spo rtation Accoun t Environmental Enhancement and Mitigatio n Program (EEMP) State DPR $7 .7 m 5096, including statewide in -kind On -going Caltrans $0.5m Early 2011 Caltrans Pe nding FHWA October TEA February AQM D N/A $46 m N/A nationwide $204 m 20% nationwide $1.3 m $1.6 m December Caltrans $5 m November State $10 m Resources statewide Agency, Caltrans 1296 match NA X Federally -funded . Projects that acquire and develop outdoor recreation areas and facilities . — X X Bicycle and trail facilities have been funded with this program. X X X infrastructure improver nents must be withi n 2 miles of elementary or middl e sch ool. X X — Projects that improve system efficiency, reduce environmental impacts of transportation, etc. X min . 1056 local X match on co nstruction not required but favored. X For recreational trails to benefit bicyclists, pedestrians, and other users. Subvention Funds can be used f or bicycl e - related protects that reduce mobile source emissions . X State -funded. Projects that improve safety and convenience of bicycle comm uters. X X X Projects that enhance or mitigate future transportation pr ojects; can Include acquisiti on or development of roadside recreational facilities. Alta Planning + Design 1 65 Chapt er 5 1 Recomm ended Programs Granting Agency Due Date FundAnnual S ource(s)Fu nding (a• rox? Matching Requirement Eligibl e Bik ew ay Projects Cornrn- Rec- Safety/ Comments !Lite reation Educ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Office of Traffi c Safety Gran ts (OTS) Safe Routes to Scho ol — State December Caltrans $50m 10% January Office of $56 m N/A Traffic Safety X X Refer to lat est CaII for Proj ects Application Package for eligibility requirem ents . X Bicycle and pedestrian projects have been funded thr ough this program. Ju ne or Caltrans $24 m 1096 mi n. X X X Primarily construction program to enhance Ju ly safety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Transportation Develo pment Act (TDA) Article 3 (2% of to tal TDA) January Metro Per capita N/A X X X Purchase and installation of bicycle facilities including bikeway support facilities and secure bicycle parking. Retrofit of existing facilities to comply with ADA. Region al Metro CALL: Bikeway Improvements Odd- M etro numbe red years: late winter / early spring $17. 5 rn 2096 local match X Refer to latest Call for Projects Application Package f or eligibility requirements. M etro CALL: Regional Surface Transportation Improvements (RSTI) O dd - numbered years: late winter / early spring 66 I Alta Planning + Design Metro $110m 35% local match X Refer to latest Call for Projects Application Package for eligibility requirements . City of Temple City I Bicycle Master Plan Granti ng Agency Du e D at e Fu nd Annual Fundi ng S ources) (a• .roxi Matching R equir em ent Eligible l3ikeway Projects Comm- Rec- Safety/ Comments ute reatio n Educ Metro CALL:. Transpo rtation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Odd- Metro $6.5 m numbered years: Late winter/ early spring 20% local match X X Refer to latest Call for Projects Application Package for eligibility requirements . Metro CALL: Transporta tion Demand M anagement (TOM) Local Mello -Ro os Community Facilities Act Odd - numbe red years: late winter/ e arly spring Ongoing CMAQ $3.5 m 20% local match X Tax Revenue N/A appro ved by 2/3 vote N/A Refer to latest CaII for Projects Application Packag e for eligibility req uirements. X X X Funds have been used for bicycle lanes/paths New Development Impact Fee Ongoing Cities or N/A Coun ty N/A X X X Assessed on non-residential developments that exceed a certai n threshold for increased square fo otage through new construction or change of use . Vehicle Trip Fee Ongoing Cities or N/A Co unty N/A X X X Assessed on developments that generate new trips. Private Funding Sources Ongoing Private N/A Donors N/A X X X Community and corporate spons orships for new facilities CMAQ = Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, RTPA = Regional Transportation Planning Agency, RSTP = Regional Surface Transportation Program, SLPP = State Local Partnership Pro gram, TEA = Transportation Equity Act Alta Planning + Design 1 67 Chapter b 1 Funding 6.3.1 Federal The primary federal source of surface transportation funding, including bicycle facilities, is SAFETEA-LU, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. SAFETEA-LU is the third iteration of the transportation vision established by Congress in 1991 with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Ef ficienc'' Act (ISTEA) and renewed in 1998 and 2003 through the Transportation Equity Act for the 2lst Century (TEA -21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA). Also known as the Federal Transportation Bill, the $193.1 billion SAFETEA-LU bill passed in 2005 and authorizes federal surface transportation programs for the five-year period between 2005 and 2009. SAFETEA-LU has expired, although the bill's programs arc continuing at a 30 percent funding reduction by Congress through a series of continuing resolutions. It is anticipated that the 112`h Congress will reauthorize a surface transportation bill as it is one of the highest priorities of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Administration of SAFETEA-LU funding occurs through the State (Caltrans and the State Resources Agency) and through regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these funding programs focus on utilitarian transportation versus recreation, with an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing intermodal connections. Most SAFETEA-LU programs require a local match of 10 percent. Specific funding programs under SAFETEA-LU include, but are not limited to: • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • Recreational Trails Program • Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) • Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program (TCSP) The following sections describe these and other federal funding sources. 6.3.1.1 Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) The LWCF program provides matching grants to State and local governments for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The program aims to create and maintain a nationwide legacy of high quality recreation areas and facilities, and to stimulate non-federal investments in the protection and maintenance of recreation resources. The LWCF could fund Eaton Wash -adjacent bicycle facilities. 6.3.1.2 Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) PVEA funds come from fines paid by oil companies in the 1970's for violating oil price caps set by the federal government. The Department of Energy's State Energy and Weatherization Assistance Program distributes the money at the state level through grants. PVEA funds projects with an emphasis on energy saving, including public transportation and bridge construction or maintenance. 6.3.1.3 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program Safe Routes To School (SRTS) began under Section 1404 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SRTS aims to encourage children in grades 68 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan Kindergarten through Eighth (K-8) to walk and bike to school. Consistent with other federal -aid programs, individual State Departments of Transportation (DOT) are responsible for the development and implementation of grant funds. The Federal SRTS program is separate from the Stare funded Safe Routes to School Program, described later in the document. Some expected outcomes of the program include: • Improved bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety around schools • Increased numbers of children walking and bicycling to and from schools • Decreased traffic congestion around schools • Reduced childhood obesity • Improved air quality, community safety and security, and community involvement • Improved partnerships among schools, local agencies, parents, community groups, and nonprofit organizations A minimum of 70 percent of each year's apportionment is available for infrastructure projects, with up to 30 percent for non -infrastructure projects. Infrastructure Projects Infrastructure projects are engineering projects or capital improvements that improve safety and the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school. They typically involve the planning, design, and construction of facilities within a two-mile radius of a grade school or middle school. The maximum funding cap for an infrastructure project is Si million. California Department of Transportation (Cakrans) does not set minimum caps. The project cost estimate may include eligible direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include the cost of construction and materials. Indirect costs may include salaried employees or staff time allotted to the project. infrastructure projects should directly support increased safety and convenience for K-8 children to walk and bicycle to school, including children with disabilities. Eligible projects include: • Bicycle projects such as new bicycle trails and paths, bicycle racks, bicycle lane striping and widening, new sidewalks, widened sidewalks, sidewalk gap closures, curbs, gutters, and curb ramps • Pedestrian projects such as new pedestrian trails, paths, and pedestrian over and under crossings, roundabouts, bulb -ours, speed humps, raised intersections, median refuges, narrowed traffic lanes, lane reductions, full or half -street closures, and other speed reduction techniques • Traffic control devices such as new or upgraded traffic signals, crosswalks, pavement markings, traffic signs, traffic stripes, in -roadway crosswalk lights, flashing beacons, bicycle -sensitive signal actuation devices, pedestrian countdown signals, vehicle speed feedback signs, and pedestrian activated upgrades Alta Planning + Design 1 69 Chapter 6 Funding Non -Infrastructure Projects Non -infrastructure projects are education/encouragement/enforcement activities intended to change community behavior, attitudes, and social norms to make it safer for children in grades K-8 to walk and bicycle to school. Non -infrastructure projects should increase the likelihood of programs becoming institutionalized once in place. The application for a non -infrastructure project must be clearly state the deliverables and the final invoice or Progress Report must attach tangible samples, e.g., sample training materials and promotional brochures. The funding cap for a non -infrastructure project is $500,000. Multi -year funding allows the applicant to staff up and deliver their project over the course of four (4) years, thereby reducing overhead and increasing project sustainability. Non -infrastructure projects must fall into one or more of the following categories: • Education — Teaching children about the broad range of transportation choices, instructing them in important lifelong bicycling and walking safety skills, and launching driver safety campaigns near schools • Enforcement -- Partnering with local law enforcement to ensure traffic laws compliance nears schools (this includes enforcement of speeds, yielding to pedestrians in crossings, and proper walking and bicycling behaviors), and initiating community enforcement such as crossing guard programs or pedestrian right-of-way sting programs • Encouragement -- Using events and activities to promote walking and bicycling • Evaluation — Monitoring and documenting outcomes and trends by collecting data before and after the intervention(s) • Engineering — Creating improvements near schools to reduce speeds, alleviate conflicts with motor vehicle traffic, establish safer and fully accessible crossings, and provide walkways, trails and bikeways Note: While typical non -infrastructure projects fall under one or more of the top four Es listed above, some non -infrastructure activities may involve design. For that reason, Engineering is included as the fifth E above. Eligible projects may target a single local school or school district, or an entire State. The most effective non - infrastructure activities occur within the framework of a community coalition. Thus, the Plan strongly supports establishing a SRTS community coalition. A community coalition begins by convening community stakeholders at a walkable/bikeable Community Workshop. The coalition works to pursue concrete steps to make the community more walkable and bikeable. The workshop serves as the impetus to bring together key partners, including schools, elected officials, local government, parks and recreation, law enforcement, emergency services, public health, business owners, residents, advocacy groups and other organizations. Participants in the community coalition design and implement a Plan that incorporates the five Es. 6.3.1.4 Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program (TSCP) Implementation grants under the TCSP Program provide financial resources to Stares, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments and tribal governments to enact activities that address transportation efficiency, while meeting community preservation and environmental goals. Policy and program examples include spending policies that direct funds to high -growth regions; urban growth boundaries to guide 70 I Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City i Bicycle Master Plan metropolitan expansion; and "green corridor" programs that provide access to highway corridors in areas targeted for efficient and compact development. 6.3.1.5 Recreational Trails Program (RTP) The Recreational Trails Program provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail - related facilities for both non -motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in -line skating, equestrian use, and other non -motorized as well as motorized uses. Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for: • Maintenance and restoration of existing trails • Development and rehabilitation of traiiside and trailhead facilities and trail linkages • Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment • Construction of new trails (with restrictions for new trails on federal lands) • Acquisition of easements or property for trails • State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a State's funds) • Operation of educational programs ro promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a State's funds) 6.3.2 State of California 6.3.2.1 AB 2766 Subvention Funds Funds from the registration of every motor vehicle registered or renewed each year in California are distributed directly to the cities in an Air Quality Management District's (AQMD) jurisdiction for mobile source emission reduction programs. Subvention Funds can be used for bicycle -related projects that reduce mobile source emissions. 6.3.2.2 Bicycle Transportation Account -State The State of California Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide discretionary program that funds bicycle projects through the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the program emphasizes projects char benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. As of 2009, the BTA makes 57.2 million available each year. The local march is a minimum of 100/0 of the total project cost. BTA projects intend to improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters and can include: • New bikeways serving major transportation corridors • New bikeways removing travel barriers to potential bicycle commuters • Secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park -and -ride lots, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings • Bicycle -carrying facilities on public transit vehicles • Installation of traffic control devices ro improve the safety and efficiency of bicycle travel • Elimination of hazardous conditions on existing bikeways Alta Planning + Design 171 Chapter 6 I Funding • Planning • Improvement and maintenance of bikeways Eligible project activities include: • Project planning • Preliminary engineering • Final design • Right-of-way acquisition • Construction and/or rehabilitation 6.3.2.3 Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP) Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program Funds support projects that offset environmental impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities. These projects can include highway landscaping and urban forestry projects, roadside recreation projects, and projects to acquire or enhance resource lands. EEMP grant funding supports only mitigating transportation projects beyond mitigation originally required of the project. State gasoline tax monies fund the $10 million EEMP. 6.3.2.4 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a state safety program that funds safety improvements on all public roads and highways. These funds attempt to reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents at improved locations. Local agencies compete for HSIP funds each year by submitting candidate safety projects to Caltrans for review and analysis. Caltrans prioritizes these projects statewide and releases an annual HSIP Program Plan that identifies the approved projects. The State disperses funding annually following the federal fiscal year. Approximately $27 million dollars were available in the 2007 funding cycle. The HSIP considers funding two project types: Safety Index and Work Type. Safety Index Projects qualify for funding based on a State -calculated safety index. These projects receive a statewide priority with this index. A project that fails to receive funding under the Safety Index category automatically moves into the Work Type category and competes for funding with other projects in this category. Work Type projects receive approximately 25 percent of the available HSIP Funds, while Benefit/Cost projects receive about 75 percent. Projects in the Safety Index category include installing raised median islands, protected left -turn phasing, and widened roadways. Work Type Projects include curb ramps, crosswalks, installation of right turn lanes and construction of new bus stop aprons. 6.3.2.5 Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Office of Traffic Safety Grants (OTS) fund safety programs and equipment. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety is a specifically identified priority. This category of grants includes enforcement and education programs, which can encompass a wide range of activities, including bicycle helmet distribution, design and printing of billboards and bus posters, other public information materials, development of safety components as part of physical education curriculum, or police safety demonstrations through school visitations. 72 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan The grant cycle typically begins with a request for proposals in October due the following January. In 2006, OTS awarded $103 million to 290 agencies. 6.3.2.6 Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program The State -legislated Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program began in 1999. Since then, seven funding cycles have been completed. The State typically announces the list of awarded projects in the fall. Although both the federal and state programs have similar goals and objectives, they have different funding sources, local funding match requirements, and other program requirements (see previous section). The SR2S program aims to reduce injuries and fatalities to schoolchildren and to encourage increased walking and bicycling among students. The program achieves these goals by constructing facilities that enhance safety for students in grades K-12 who walk or bicycle to school. Enhancing the safety of the pathways, trails, sidewalks, and crossings also attracts and encourages other students to walk and bicycle. The SR2S program is primarily a construction program. Construction improvements must occur on public property. Improvements can occur on public school grounds providing the cost is incidental to the overall project cost. Statewide, the program typically provides approximately $25 million annually. The maximum reimbursement percentage for any SR2S project is ninety percent. The maximum amount that SR2S funds to any single project is $900,000. Eligible project elements include bicycle facilities, traffic control devices and traffic calming measures. Up to ten percent of project funding can go toward outreach, education, encouragement, and/or enforcement activities. The 2009 cycle provided $485 million in funding. 6.3.2.7 TDA Article III (SB 821) The State of California distributes Transportation Development Act Article 3 funds for application at the county level. Locally, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) administers this program and establishes its policies. Cities can use the funds for planning and constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities Fund allocation to cities and the County of Los Angeles occurs on an annual cycle based on population. Local agencies may either draw down these funds or place them on reserve. Agencies must submit a claim form to Metro by the end of the allocated fiscal year. Failure to do so may result in losing the allocated funds. TDA Article 3 funds may go towards the following activities related to the planning and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities: • Engineering expenses leading to construction • Right-of-way acquisition • Construction and reconstruction • Retrofitting existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including installation of signage, to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) • Route improvements such as signal controls for bicyclists, bicycle loop detectors, rubberized rail crossings and bicycle -friendly drainage grates Alta Planning + Design 1 73 Chapter 6 I Funding • Purchase and installation of bicycle facilities, such as secure bicycle parking, benches, drinking fountains, changing rooms, rest rooms and showers which are adjacent to bicycle trails, employment centers, park -and -ride lots, and/or transit terminals (must be accessible to the general public). 6.3.3 Regional 6.3.3.1 Metro Call for Projects (CFP) Metro is responsible for allocating discretionary federal, state and local transportation funds to improve all modes of surface transportation. Metro also prepares the Los Angeles County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). A key component of TIP is the Call for Projects program, a competitive process that distributes the discretionary capital transportation funds to regionally significant projects. Every other year (pending funding availability), Metro accepts Call for Projects (CFP) applications in several modal categories. The Metro Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) determines funding levels based on mode share. As of the writing of this Plan, the Call is currently on an odd -year funding cycle with applications typically due early in the odd years (next anticipated call is in 2011). Local jurisdictions, transit operators, and other eligible public agencies may submit applications proposing projects for funding. Metro staff ranks eligible projects and presents preliminary scores to Metro's Technical Advisory Committee, comprised of members of public agencies, and the Metro Board of Directors for approval. Upon approval, SCAG updates and formally transmits the TIP to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC). The TIP becomes part of the five-year program of projects scheduled for implementation in Los Angeles County. The modal categories relevant to the implementation of bicycle projects and programs are Bikeway Improvements, Regional Surface Transportation Improvements (RSTI), Transportation Enhancements Activation (TEA), and Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Typically, funding provided for bicycle improvements include the deferral transportation fund, currently SAFETEA-LU, TDA and CMAQ categories. Some intersection improvements or grade -separated crossing projects in the BMP may provide an equal or greater benefit to pedestrians. In these cases, Temple City should consider applying for funding within the Pedestrian Improvements modal category. Metro's 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan identifies funding totaling $287 million over the next 30 years in the pedestrian mode through the Call for Projects program. Eligible projects under the Pedestrian Improvements category include pedestrian improvements that promote walking for utilitarian travel, pedestrian safety, and linkages to the overall transportation system. Wherever possible, BMP projects should incorporate with large arterial improvement projects and submit under the RSTI category. Table 6-3 provides information on each of the relevant modal categories within the Metro Call for Projects as of 2009. 74 1 Alta Planning + Design City of Temple City 1 Bicycle Master Plan Table 6-3 Metro Call For Projects Funding Summary Modal Category Share of Ell Funding* ble Projects"* Bikeway Improvements B% Regionally significant projects that provide access and mobility through bike -to - transit Improvements, gap closures in the inter jurisdictional bikeway network, bicycle parking, and first-time implementation of bicycle racks on buses. Regional Surface Transportation Improvements (RSTI) On -street bicycle lanes maybe eligible if included as part of a larger capacity - 40% enhancing arterial improvement project. Bikeway grade -separation projects may be eligible as part of larger arterial grade -separation projects. Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Bicycle -related safety and education programs. Bikeway projects implemented 2% as part of a scenic or historic highway, and landscaping or scenic beautification along existing bikeways may also be eligible. Transportation Demand' Management (TDM) Technology and/or innovation -based bicycle transportation projects such as 7% Bicycle Commuter Centers and modern bicycle sharing infrastructure. •Larger TDM strategies with bicycle transportation components would also be eligible. Pedestrian 8% Pedestrian improvements that promote walking for utilitarian travel, pedestrian Improvements safety, and linkages to the overall transportation system. Funding estimate is bi-annual (every other year) based on the approved funding from the 2009 CaII. **The discussion of eligible projects is based on 2009 CFP requirements and assumes all eligibility requirements are met and the questions in the Call application are adequately addressed. These requirements are subject to change in future cycles. City staff should refer to the latest Call Application Package for detailed eligibility requirements. 6.3.4 Local The following .section lists fees that Temple City could collect through its discretionary permit process or other local processes: 6.3.4.1 Vehicle Trip Impact Fees One potential local funding source is developer vehicle trip impact fees, typically tied to trip generation rates and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. A developer may reduce or mitigate the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- and off -site bikeway improvements that encourage residents to bicycle rather than drive. Establishing a clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the project's impacts is critical. 6.3.4.2 Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act The California State Legislature enacted the Community Facilities District Act (more commonly known as Mello -Roos) in 1982. The Act enables local government agencies to establish Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) as a means of obtaining community funding. A CFD is an area where an additional tax on property is imposed on those real property owners within the CFD. This local assessment can fund bicycle paths and bicycle lanes. Defining the boundaries of the benefit district may be difficult unless the facility is part of a larger parks and recreation or public infrastructure program with broad community benefits and support. Alta Planning + Design 175 Chapter 6 Funding Establishing CFDs requires detailed analysis and outreach, and CFDs may have limited application in Temple City. 6.3.4.3 New Development Impact Fee The New Development Impact Fee assesses a fee on non-residential developments that exceed a certain threshold for increased square footage through new construction or change of use. This fee will go towards funding capital improvements. 6.3.5 Private & Non Profit The following are funding sources capable of supporting bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs from private and non-profit sources. 6.3.5.1 Bikes Belong Coalition, Ltd. The American Bicycle Industry sponsors the Bikes Belong Coalition, which encourages people to ride bicycles throughout the United States. The coalition administers grants of up to $10,000 to develop bicycle facilities through the Federal Transportation Act. 6.3.5.2 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) The RWJF funds aim to improve health and health care in the United States. RWJF funds approximately 12 percent of unsolicited projects with grant funds ranging from $2,000 to $14 million. Bicycle and pedestrian projects applying for RWJF funds qualify under the program's goal to "promote healthy communities and lifestyles." 76 I Alta Planning + Design